Simon Carr: The Sketch

Nice man, Sir John Gieve. Shame about his Home Office record

Tuesday 13 June 2006 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

That was very disappointing. Sir John Gieve. One of those permanent secretaries who's risen through one disaster after another like an angel (now archangel). He has become deputy governor of the Bank of England. He was called back from Elysium into the secular squalor of the Palace of Westminster to give evidence of his "crimes" when he ran the Home Office.

Having been delighted with what a mealy-mouthed, platitudinous second-rater Gus O'Donnell was, I had hoped to be able to be able to present you with a maquette of this Knight Companion of the Bath, carved out of frozen faecal matter.

Unfortunately he seemed perfectly likeable. He realised that the standard Westminster apology ("I very much regret") is not an apology at all, and adds the words "I'm sorry" without having to extract them surgically from his lower throat. He told us that all large organisations have problems, and there were only 150 serious cases rather than 1,000 and that he wasn't trying to defend the indefensible. Actually, he said: "I'm not trying to defend the indefensible, but ..." before offering his complete, unremitting defence (along with his pleasing apology). He's a smooth, calm character and I dare say interest rates are safe in his care.

I didn't understand Bob Russell's question. He asked: "When these foreign prisoners were considered for deportation, who considered them?" Wasn't the point that the judges said the prisoners be deported at the end of their sentence, not that they be "considered for deportation"? The fact that it was supposed to be automatic makes the failure far more egregious.

Jeremy Brown asked how information was processed into the department and got a very full reply. A report would delivered to the relevant directorate whose director would consult, and research, and prepare a response, and expect a follow-up, and identify actionable points, and prepare an action plan which would be put into a packing case and left in a warehouse next to the Ark of the Covenant. I think that's how it works.

I had to leave for my deadline so I didn't hear whether they'd got fully into the delirium of those days when the Immigration and Nationality Directorate went from 5,000 staff to 17,000 staff and cleared the backlog of several hundred thousand applicants. Didn't they do that by redefining asylum-seekers as economic migrants? Wasn't this when they were persecuting IND whistle-blowers who tried to alert the world to how they were running immigration? Wasn't that all under Sir John Gieve KCB?

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in