The Home Affairs Committee has pre-approved the appointment of John Tuckett as chief inspector of borders and immigration but issued a warning over the required working patterns for the role.
Tuckett, who has served as the immigration services commissioner since 2019, was named by the government as its preferred candidate for the £140,000-a-year role last month.
Following the selection, Tuckett was questioned by the Home Affairs Committee in a pre-appointment hearing on 11 February.
In a report published this morning, the committee said Tuckett “demonstrated significant experience of senior leadership in the public sector” and that it agrees that he meets the criteria for the position.
However, the MPs warned that Tuckett will need to spend a significant amount of his working hours in the UK – and not at his home in Finland.
Tuckett told the committee that he lives in Finland and travels to the UK for work "whenever I need to". He said he would be willing to be in the office five days a week if necessary.
The committee said in its report: “To operate effectively we believe that the ICIBI needs to spend a significant proportion of their time in London, or conducting inspections across the UK. We are also concerned about the reputational risk this creates. If appointed, it will be for Mr Tuckett to decide on his precise working patterns, but we would expect the majority of his working time to be spent in London, or on inspections.”
At the hearing, Tuckett was asked about the fully remote model in place at the Immigration Advice Authority, which he leads in his current role as immigration services commissioner, and for his view on what the “best balance” would be for the ICIBI.
Tuckett said remote working “works for some organisations, but it is very dependent upon the nature of the work, the geographical coverage of the work, and the workforce and the individuals within it”. He said the model at the IAA, introduced after the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, has “saved a lot of money” spent on an office lease, which it has invested in frontline staff.
He said the home-working model has also given the authority "geographical coverage across the whole of the UK" for the first time, having previously been “totally focused in London”. He also said it had enabled access to a “much greater talent pool than ever before” – and is therefore a “win-win-win”.
Tuckett also pointed out that the model includes regular staff conferences and training where the whole organisation comes together, and said staff satisfaction and engagement levels have been “very high”.
But he said for ICIBI, it is “a totally different thing altogether”. Currently, half of inspecorate's staff are based at home and half in an office in London, Tuckett told the committee. He said he does not know yet what the right balance will be as he needs to “get in there and understand the working patterns of the organisation to see whether there should be any change or whether that hybrid model is working”.
Tuckett added that for the chief inspector role, he envisions a “60/40 split”.
“My judgement is that you need time when you are available for ministers, visits and all the things where you need to do face to face,” he said. “You also need time where you can think, sit back and write, because you do not write a report in 10 spare minutes in between two major appointments.
During Prime Minister's Questions last week, held a day after Tuckett's pre-appointment hearing, opposition leader Kemi Badenoch said the appointment was not "serious". Keir Starmer said the previous government – which Badenoch was part of – had Tuckett work from Finland for five years and that he would now be "working from the United Kingdom full time".
Tuckett ‘must demonstrate ability to challenge the Home Office’
As well as raising questions about Tuckett’s working patterns, the committee picked out some concerns around Tuckett’s ability to provide the necessary challenge to the Home Office.
The MPs said Tuckett “repeatedly highlighted his intention to work collaboratively with the Home Office, but was less reflective about how he would challenge ministers and senior officials when required”.
“In the previous parliament, there were difficulties in the relationship between the Home Office and ICIBI – particularly when it came to the publication of reports submitted by the ICIBI,” the committee said. “It will be essential, if Mr Tuckett is appointed as ICIBI, that he demonstrates his independence and ability to challenge the Home Office – both privately and publicly – when necessary.”
“Mr Tuckett may also wish to reflect more on the public-facing aspects of the role of the ICIBI, in improving levels of public trust,” the committee added.
The ICIBI role became vacant in February when then-home secretary James Cleverly sacked David Neal over comments he made in the press about border security.
The role has been temporarily filled by David Bolt – who was ICIBI from 2015 to 2021.
The committee also issued a warning to the government about the job.
The MPs said it is “essential” that the Home Office establishes a constructive relationship with the new inspector, to ensure able to fulfil their responsibilities confidently and effectively and the department can benefit from their advice.
“The Home Office may sometimes disagree with the findings and recommendations of the ICIBI, but if it is to retain public trust, it should not obstruct the ICIBI’s work, or unduly delay the publication of their reports,” the committee said. “Establishing and maintaining a good working relationship should be a priority for both the Home Office and the new chief inspector.”
It added: “If the Home Office fails to engage with the ICIBI in a positive manner we will take this up with ministers and senior officials.”
The committee also asked the government to keep it updated on any plans to review the remit, role and powers of the ICIBI – as recommended by Wendy Williams in her Windrush Lessons Learned Review in 2020. The previous government initially accepted Williams’ recommendations for reform of the ICIBI role but then dropped them.
The committee said it will “return to this matter if we feel reforms are necessary for the chief inspector to be able to operate effectively and secure improvements to the efficiency, effectiveness and consistency of the Home Office’s border and immigration functions”.