Overall I think it indicates they don’t want someone like me who is prepared to be a nuisance.

The feedback states:

The panel noted that you had the time to commit to the Board. The panel also noted that you were articulate and listened well to their questions. However, the panel was concerned that you had a tendency to respond rapidly and in a confrontational manner and appeared to be unaware of your reactions upon others. For example, when the Chair explained the reasons for the delay in the Board’s Annual Report being added to the IMB website, the panel considered that you had already decided on the reasons and were dismissive of the Chair’s explanation.

As I noted above it was a very confrontational interview, that approach began with the email I received before the interview from the chair of the IMB.

The panel’s chair did not give an explanation for the delay in publication. She and the interview panel argued it wasn’t important that the annual report was not made public in a timely manner. I stated that if I was a member of the IMB I would do all I could to ensure the annual report was openly published in a timely manner. (I made the 2005 Annual report available on this site six months before it was made available by the IMB secretariat.)

I think the chair and other members of the panel were wrong to claim that it wasn’t important that their report had not been published; there’s little point in the IMB doing its work if it doesn’t communicate what it is doing. I understood and accepted the point made that the report had been sent to ministers, but that did not answer my concern.

I have not received a credible explanation from anyone for the reason for the delay in publication. The chair merely blamed the secretariat and rejected my assertion that the IMB had a role in demanding a better service from the secretariat. I have no idea what the real reasons for the incredible delay were, though I now know IMB members weren’t particularly interested in correcting it.

I had access to the vast majority of the questions asked for about two years prior to the interview. I was well prepared. It ought be no surprise that I was able to give rapid answers. That is no indication of those answers being ill-considered, quite the opposite in-fact.

The panel also noted that although you understood the independent nature of the IMB, you made no mention of the important monitoring role of the IMB. The panel also considered that you understood the role to be about lobbying for the rights of detainees, rather than simply independent monitoring.

I suggested that the IMB had a role in making the public, and elected representatives, aware of what is going on inside detention centres. I think that’s very important - there’s little point “monitoring” if you’re not going to disseminate what you learn. The IMB appears to focus on things like the quality of the food, much more important is the time people are detained and the fact they are kept in an state of uncertain limbo for months and years on end. I think the public and democratic representatives could usefully be informed by the IMBs about the reasons for this. There needs to be a wider awareness too of the conditions in which people are held.

The panel was also concerned about your ability to work as a member of a team as you did not give good examples of teamwork.

I am concerned that the IMB do not work as a team, I think that members visiting the centre alone is not good practice as there is no independent corroboration of observations. One of the main outputs of the IMB is a collaborative report, I described lots of experience I have had in working collaboratively to produce technical documents . I have published my application online here so you can judge for yourself.

The panel was also very concerned that you stated you had twice taken a camera telephone with you into Oakington and that you appeared to be triumphant at what you considered to be uncovering lax security.

I did not take a camera phone into the area where detainees were living. I took it onto the site, past security, and left it in my car on one occasion, and into the board room - which is outside the secure compound on the second.

I did draw attention to the fact that security appeared to be primarily theatre. This is a point I have also made with respect to the magistrate’s court. Those fleeing persecution need to feel safe and secure, some would have legitimate concerns about being photographed and people finding out where they were. It is very important that the detention centre rules are followed. I would have thought ensuring that was the case would be a key role of the IMB. I made clear a primary reason for bringing up this, and other points, was to urge action on them even if I was not appointed.

The panel also noted your comment that you would not be bound by the Centre rules if you felt they were at odds with your principles.

I would fully support the IMB not appointing someone who said they would not be bound by the centres rules! I certainly made no such statement. The centre rules are statutory instruments which have the force of law, it would be a stupid statement to make. What I did say is that I would treat any training offered to IMB members with an appriopriate degree of cynicism. This followed the description of completely ludicrous “human rights” training which members of the IMB had described to me when I had been invited to visit the centre. I had stated: “If appointed I would attempt, despite any training, to maintain a viewpoint of an interested, educated and caring member of the public.”

As a result of these concerns, the panel did not recommend you for appointment. The Minister was minded to accept the recommendation of the panel and did not feel able to offer you an appointment.

I had asked how many vacancies there currently are at Oakington’s IMB and was told:

The Board at Oakington currently has seven members in post and there are five vacancies.

I am left feeling very concerned about the type of people who end up on the IMB, and am surprised that the board is still so woefully under manned after a number of recruitment rounds. It would be interesting to know how many others have been rejected for similar reasons to me.

I cannot understand why I could not have been told very rapidly after the interview that the panel were not recommending me for appointment. Why waste time and money security clearing people who are not being recommended? I was told that only those who were recommended would be presented to the Minister and that the Ministers wanted a choice of acceptable candidates put in front of them. A choice between someone who you’re told will not consider themselves bound by the detention centre rules and another candidate being recommended by a panel is not providing a meaningful choice at all for a minister.

The letter stated:

It is open to you to receive detailed reasons for your non-selection and I will be happy to provide this if you would like to write to me requesting that feedback.

I have requested details.

Dear Mr. Taylor,

I have been regularly chasing up outstanding applications that have been forwarded to the IMB Secretariat. The delay is caused by security clearance which is carried out outside of the Secretariat, and this has not yet been completed. There is no way I can hurry this procedure up. You will appreciate that there are many working positions that need clearance and this now does take a long time. You will be notified direct from the IMB Secretariat when your application has been considered by the Minister.

Yours faithfully,
P. Lambert

I wrote the following email:

Dear Penny Lambert and the IMB Secretariat,

I would like to congratulate you for publicly advertising the vacancies on Oakington’s IMB in the local newspapers for the first time, this is something I had been lobbying for.

Could you please let me know if my application, which I made on the 2nd of December 2007 is still under consideration, or if a new application in response to the current advertisements would be in order. I note my address, email address and phone number have remained the same during this time.

I was shocked to learn from the advert that the board’s membership is again well below its target number.

The open advertising of these positions could I believe potentially lead to the IMB becoming a group with the ability and vision required to improve the lives of those held in Oakington, this makes me even more keen to join the board.

If Penny Lambert is no longer the IMB chair at Oakington could you please pass this to the new chair.

–

Richard Taylor
Cambridge
http://www.rtaylor.co.uk

PS. I feel I must point out your use of thumbnail photographs of around 1MB in size on the IMB’s National Council, contact webpage is astounding, and makes the page difficult to access. (http://www.imb.gov.uk/members-information1.html/national-council.html/nc-contact.html/ )