This chapter explores the influence of civil servants on migration policy making. In general, such ‘street level bureaucrats’ (Lipsky, 1979) are employed in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND, since 2 April 2007 known as the Border and Immigration Agency). Successful policy requires the support of such civil servants. Indeed, their importance to successful policy implementation is likely to grow as the Civil Service shifts from policy advice to service delivery (Dorey, 2005), a trend accelerated by the decision to give IND agency status.

In spite of the fact that the UK government spends over £1.5bn on immigration services (Cabinet Office, 2006, p 8) and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate numbers 16,000 employees, officials delivering migration policy have not been the subject of much academic research. There is one striking exception: a study by Duvell and Jordan (2003). In it, they examine parts of the immigration machinery, where major differences were noted between departments or units, most notably between economic migration, Work Permits (UK), and enforcement, then called the Immigration Service Enforcement Directorate (ISED). The study drew a distinction between a businessfriendly, customer-focused unit on one hand, Work Permits (UK), and a more chaotic system in ISED, with anomalies and an inward-looking culture or ‘siege mentality’ (Duvell and Jordan, 2003, p 315).

There is even less academic research on how migration policy is implemented outside of IND, such as by education or health officials. Earlier research carried out by the author suggests such officials have concerns over enforcement action, but also that reluctance to engage with Home Office civil servants is due to a lack of understanding about how immigration policy interacts with their own policy and legal duties and responsibilities. In other words, ignorance may be veiled by a philosophical objection to immigration controls.

While there is a paucity of academic literature, there are many official government and non-governmental submissions and documents (for example, Home Affairs Select Committee, 2006b; Home Office, 2006b; National Audit Office, 2004a; Sutton, 2004). The general consensus of both official government documentation and NGO sources is that the culture of IND is closed and inward looking (Home Affairs Select Committee, 2006b).