From: Rt Hon Keith Vaz MP, Chairman
Home Affairs Committee
House of Commons, London SW l A OAA
Tel 020 7219 4104 Fax 020 7219 3922 Email: keith .vaz.mp@parliament.uk
Mark Sedwill CMG
Permanent Secretary
The Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London , SW1 P 4DF
27th July 2016 English Language Testing Thank you again for giving evidence to the Committee last Wednesday 20th July 2016.
As you will recall I informed you that the Committee was not satisfied with the answers
given by Mike Wells in his evidence on the 12th July 2016. The Committee is minded
to recall Mr Wells and I would be grateful if you could make him available on 6th
September 2016.
·
In the meantime there are a number of questions that arose out of both his and your
evidence which we would grateful if you could answer. I am using the numbering that
we have used with regards to previous letters.
Test centres Mike Wells told the Committee that the speaking tests:
"were directly recorded on to the ETS system and directly transferred electronically
via that system. Someone was speaking into the system, as it were, so they were
being recorded directly on to their online digital system. The speaker would Jog on to
that when they starled to sit the test, and they would speak into it, and that would be
communicated directly."
and
"I have explained how the recordings were taken and transmitted electronically back
to ETS, but we have also appointed an independent company called Kroll Ontrack,
who are global forensic computer experts, to report on this. Their work is ongoing, but
I have seen the draft of their reporl, and my understanding is that they have found no
evidence to suggest that tests have been inadvertently swapped."
Website www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom 82. The Committee has heard reports that at some test centres the microphones
were not connected the servers and an applicant's test was not recorded but
substituted with another. Is this possible and to what extent has this part of the
process been subject to investigation?
83. What checks have been done to determine that the time stamps of the
recordings match the time that applicants sat the test? Has any other metadata
been analysed?
84. Where were the recordings stored, where are they held now? Were they all
submitted in real-time to ETS?
85. What checks have been made of the CCTV footage at the test centres under
investigation? Where are the CCTV recordings held?
86. What has Kroll Ontrack been asked to investigate, when were they appointed
and at what cost?
87. Can the Home Office forward a copy of the Kroll Ontrack report and contact
details of the person at Kroll Ontrack leading on this work?
88. a) Have any of the individuals arrested and/or interviewed in the criminal
investigation been asked whether genuine applicants could have been caught
up in the fraud without being aware of it?
b) Who is leading the criminal investigation? c) How many people are working on it? and d) How many are former police officers? 89. Can the Home Office provide a breakdown of all trials that have taken place, are
scheduled to take place or are pending a decision from the CPS? The
information provided should include whether any of the trials are subject to
reporting restrictions and if so, a justification for this.
90.Can the Home Office provide a witness statement from ETS?
91. Have any other components of the test (reading, writing, listening) been
investigated for deception?
92. According to Q 61 in my letter addressed to James Brokenshire on 6th June, the
Home Office identified malpractice or anomalous patterns of results in 5 test
centres and their licenses were terminated. Can the Home Office name the 5
test centres that have been closed down?
93. What was the minimum number of invalid/questionable tests that were taken
into consideration before a particular Test centre was shut down?
ETS 94. a) Can the Home Office provide the names and job descriptions (including
relevant qualifications) of all those who were on the delegation that visited ETS
in the USA?
b) Did the delegation include an expert in voice recognition?
c) How many voice recordings did the delegation listen to?
95. What is the level of training and experience of the people who are responsible
for verifying the voice recordings at ETS?
96. We have learnt that, as a matter of routine, if an allegation of impropriety is made
at an ETS run test centre, ETS moves to invalidate all tests taken at that centre
for a period around the allegation and invites all those involved to re-sit the test.
Is that correct?
97. a) When signing the contract with ETS what was the Home Office stipulation
about dealing with fraud?
b) Can the Home Office provide the relevant extract from the Licence
Agreement?
98. Can the Home Office confirm ETS policy in dealing with allegations fraud and
whether ETS has invalidated test results on the basis set out above?
99. Can the Home Office confirm that each and every one of the 56,000 invalid and
questionable tests been subject to the full analysis process of voice recognition
software and two human analysts?
100. What quality assurance has the Home Office undertaken outside of the single
day's visit to ETS?
101. Professor French has concluded that the number of false positives emanating
from the ETS analysis would be very small. What allowance has Home Office
made for the very small number of false positives?
102. How many certificates in total were granted by the ETS in each of the years
that they were licenced?
103. a) How many ETS tests were declared valid in 2011?
b) How many ETS tests were declared valid in 2012?
c) How many ETS tests were declared valid in 2013?
d) How many ETS tests were declared valid in 2014?
Affected individuals 104. How many individuals whose test results were neither 'invalid' or
'questionable' have been considered illegitimate by the Home Office on the sole
ground that they had taken their test at a centre where large numbers of invalid
and questio,n able results had been diagnosed?
105. The Home Office relies on a spreadsheet to support its case against
individuals:
·
a) Who prepared the spreadsheet?
b) Who has verified the spreadsheet?
c) Can the Home Office provide the Committee with the spreadsheet?
106. How many of the 56,000 individuals have been given their voice recordings in
order for them to verify that it is their voice on the recordings?
107. What allowance has been made for twins/close relatives?
108. What evidence did the Home Office provide to sponsors when it requested
that sponsorship be withdrawn from students named on the ETS list?
109. Can the Home Office provide a breakdown of the nationalities of the 56,000
and what test category they fall under?
110. We have received evidence from individuals who have successfully appealed
against an allegation of deception but found a subsequent application for a visa
to be rejected because of that allegation . If an individual successfully appeals
an ETS allegation why is the allegation not removed from their file?
Questions arising out of your evidence
111. a) How much is the Home Office spending in legal costs for cases that are in
court relating to English language testing?
b) Has a date been set for the Appeal in the Qadir case and the Upper Tribunal
hearing in the Shehzad/Chowdhury case?
·
112. We have had company searches done to find out that this was actually a
company operating from Holland and that the tests went from individual centres
straight back to the United States. Is that your understanding?
'
113. According to your evidence before the Committee you said:
"This was an organised criminal conspiracy involving a large number ofpeople
and a large number of education institutions against the Home Office and the
immigration system."
What evidence does the Home Office have to support the criminal conspiracy
claim given that only 5 people have been convicted of a crime and 56,000
have had their tests invalidated or questioned?
114. In evidence you told the Committee:
.
Mark Sedwill: [ ...] There are essentially two categories in that: those where the tests were found to be clearly invalid, which was, I think, about 33, 000; and then 23, 000 were cases where the tests were questionable. Those 23, 000 were given the opportunity to retake the test. Chair: So you are confirming to the Committee that the 23, 000 people with questionable tests have been given permission to retake the tests. Mark Sedwi/1: That is what I have been told, yes. Chair: Right. Mark Sedwill: Yes. I checked that this morning." The Committee has previously been told that only 3,000 individuals have been
invited for interview. The Committee would like a breakdown so that it can
account for those 23,000 cases. The Committee wishes to know:
a) Do all 23,000 know they are under suspicion?
Of those who have retaken the test:
b) How many people have retaken their test c) How many passed/failed? d) Whether those retaking the test had to pay a further fee and, if so, the cost of that fee?
Of those who have not retaken the test:
e) ·How many people have not retaken their test but have instead left
the country (of which how many have left voluntarily/removed)?
f) How many people have not retaken their test and are still in the UK?
g) What are the reasons for their continued presence in the UK?
115. Before you gave evidence to us the Committee heard from two students who
have been told by the Home Office that they used deception to pass their
English-language tests. Both students vehemently protested their innocence
and provided a detailed description of their attendance at the test centre and of
the test itself. They also said their attendance could be confirmed by CCTV. I
would be grateful if you could offer an explanation for the difference between
their version of events and the view of the Home Office?
I would be grateful for a re.ply by 12 noon on Wednesday 1Qth August 2016. Hon Keith Vaz MP Committee Chair