---

Column 1070

Indian passport and makes an application for naturalisation. He sends his passport with his application, as requested by the Home Office, and the passport expires within the three years of delay. In that event, the Indian Government will not issue another passport to the applicant because they will want to be satisfied that the individual has not applied for naturalisation. If the applicant wants to travel urgently, the Minister might say, "Get in touch with my Department and a travelling document will be issued." That is all very well, but it will take a long time for that document to be issued. Indeed, the same procedures are followed in issuing a travelling document on the basis of any emergency as those that are observed if a person applies for naturalisation.

The Minister has not been honest with the House, to the extent that increasing the fees means that the Department will continue to make a profit, notwithstanding the way in which it operates. The Minister shakes his head, but the Department will make a profit as a result of the fees that are charged. If it makes a profit, it should ensure that applicants receive the best possible service that can be made available to them. It is clear that the present service does not fall into that category.

Constituents come to my surgery to question the delays. If I write to the Minister on behalf of a constituent, six weeks will pass before I receive a reply. He will explain that there are delays because of the many applications that were made in 1987. I send the Minister's reply to my constituent and there is a further delay while he or she responds. If the Minister thinks that matters can proceed quickly whan a passport is at Lunar house, he does not know how the system works. I tabled a question a short while ago to ask the Minister how many passports were held at Lunar house. Even his Department does not know how many are held there. We cannot be sure, therefore, that some of the passports are not being held there for longer than is necessary.

This morning I attended the Committee considering the Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) and supported by other members of the Select Committee, dealing with another aspect of Home Office responsibilities. The Minister said that he wanted to co-operate and be seen to be friendly to new initiatives. I welcome that co-operation and it is untrue for people to think that every time I speak in an immigration debate I automatically criticise the Minister. On some immigration matters, he has been flexible, after persuasion. I do not automatically condemn everything he does, because this morning he was helpful. In that spirit of compromise, will he consider a way in which he can be helpful to some of my elderly constituents who have applied for citizenship?

When people apply for citizenship they have to satisfy a criterion that they are able to speak English. Many of those who have applied in my constituency are elderly Asians who have only ever spoken Gujarati. In other parts of the country they may have spoken only Punjabi or Urdu. At their age, they cannot be expected to learn English simply to satisfy a requirement of the British citizenship rules. Will the Minister look carefully at that? There are elderly Asian men and women in my constituency who communicate with their families in Gujarati, are able to go to shops in Leicester in which the shopkeepers speak their language and go about their daily lives, watch videos and so on. They are able to do all that

---

Column 1071

with their language and there is no reason why, at their advanced age, they should have to learn a new language in order to satisfy those requirements.

I know that it remains in the Minister's discretion to grant them citizenship. Will he please look at the possibility of amending the regulations to ensure that they are not made to satisfy that criterion? If I were to introduce a Bill--if I can--in the same way as the hon. Member for Westminster, North, whose Bill was debated this morning with the full support of the Government, I hope that the Minister will show it equal support.

In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), the Minister said that he hoped that this matter would be resolved and that the delays would be ended. Will he let us know what he regards as an acceptable time for people to wait before being given citizenship? Three years is too long. In fact, one or two years is too long. The Minister should aim to apply the same targets as the Government are using in other areas of policy to his Department so as to end the misery and hardship suffered by so many people because of the way in which his Department operates.

11.17 pm

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : The Minister was good enough to write to me on 22 March in reply to a letter from me dated 25 February about the naturalisation application of a constituent I shall call Mr. A. The Minister said :

"You will be pleased to hear that this case is receiving detailed attention. I should mention, however, that Mr. has previously been refused naturalisation because he did not appear to have sufficient knowledge of English to meet the statutory requirement. To check the current position it is likely, therefore, that our inquiries will include an interview. We will ask the local police to arrange this. I am afraid I cannot say how much longer it will now take to determine Mr. 's application. When we have completed all the appropriate inquiries we shall, of course, let his solicitors know the decision as soon as possible."

In reply to an intervention, I understood the Minister to say that the police were not automatically involved in inquiries. It is absurd for the police to be required to interview that applicant to satisfy themselves whether he has sufficient English to met the statutory requirements. It seems a criminal waste of police time when crime is causing so much public concern and when today the Home Office and Home Office Ministers have been busily trying to persuade the public that they are not responsible for the cime wave going on around us. Why are CID officers--detective sergeants or detective

constables--required to undertake inquiries in connection with British citizenship? It would be much more appropriate for civilian officials to be employed. It would also be less intimidatory. Detectives would be freed to chase criminals, and in my view the service would be much better.

Tonight the Press Association is reporting a parliamentary reply in which the Home Secretary announces the establishment of an executive agency for the issue of passports. The Home Secretary has made a commitment that passports will be issued within 20 working days. That comes as very good news to many of my constituents, who have had to wait months and months for passports. If passports can be issued within 20 working days, there is absolutely no reason why it should take more than six months to grant naturalisation and citizenship.

---

Column 1072

I appeal to the Minister to give urgent consideration to the question of further decentralisation of citizenship inquiry work. Why should we not have an office in each region--the east midlands, Yorkshire, the north, Scotland, Wales, and so on? That would bring the service very much closer to the customers, who at present have to put up with a very bad service. I am sure that decentralisation would be very welcome to the Minister's officials. Certainly it would be very welcome to our constituents.

There is no doubt that the fee increases that we are being asked to approve are totally unjustified. This is the rip-off of the century. The Home Office and its Ministers stand accused of a mix of excessive profiteering and breathtaking incompetence. If they were the subject of a "Which?" consumer investigation, they would qualify for every booby prize there has ever been.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's magnificent flow, but I should point out that our single objective, following advice given to us by the Select Committee, is simply to recover costs.

Mr. Madden : In 1987, the Department made a profit of more than £6 million. The operation is now assumed to be extremely profitable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) has said, all sorts of costs are lumped in to conceal the extent of the profitability of British citizenship work. These fees are wholly unjustified. It is especially wrong that people whose applications are refused should have to pay very substantial deposits. People whose applications are refused are not told why, nor do they have any right of appeal. In addition, their deposits are kept.

This is a grotesquely incompetent service. From the point of view of the customer, it is appalling in any terms. British citizenship is a right. Our constituents have a right to expect the Home Office to deliver an efficient, effective and speedy service. I hope very much that the next time the Minister comes to the House it will not be to increase the fees. I hope also that he will announce that some of the proposals of the Select Committee and of hon. Members speaking in this debate have been adopted.

11.23 pm

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : Like my hon. Friend, I am appalled by the very large increase in these fees. I am particularly disturbed at the way in which it is being implemented. It was announced in February that the increase was to be introduced on 1 March. We are on the threshold of April, yet the debate is only now taking place. Presumably, if the House were minded not to pass these regulations, there would have to be some complicated manoeuvring in the Home Office to repay money that has already been received as a result of the increase.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Madden) has said, the Home Office makes a considerable profit on the fees charged for nationality work--£6 million profit in previous years. Given the increase of about 25 per cent. in the basic registration charge and a higher increase for some other services, there is likely to be a considerable increase in profits in future years.

On top of that, deposits are kept for the three years during which the application is processed. If the application is then refused, the majority of the deposit is retained and, under the regulations, the proportion is to be

---

Column 1073

greatly increased to £60 on the full fee where the basic application costs £135 on grounds of marriage. At the end of those three years, no reasons are offered if the application is refused and no appeal is possible. The only course is to make a fresh application some years later. That smacks of Kafka. One has to pay for something in advance with no idea how long the process to get it will take ; if it is refused, one cannot know why, and there is no appeal against the refusal. But as one would not know the reasons for the refusal anyway, it would be difficult to appeal against it.

The Minister should think again about the amount being charged, the appalling delays, and the language that he has used tonight. The idea that there is an underlying improvement in the trend of the way in which nationality fee applications are dealt with is extraordinary. For people in our constituencies, it does not add up to much to be told that the delay is still three years. As has been said, many people need their passports quickly--perhaps because they have jobs that require them to travel. There is some suggestion that employers are loth or extremely unhappy to employ or promote people who do not hold British passports because they know of the extraordinary delays that those poeple are likely to encounter while travelling through airports or any ports of entry anywhere in the EEC, never mind the rest of the world.

Mr. Vaz : Has my hon. Friend had any examples in his constituency, as I have had in mine, of constituents who, having made an application, have not received any acknowledgment from the Home Office that their case is being dealt with? People who applied in 1987 may have received a postcard reply, but no further communication from the Home Office. They therefore visit their Member of Parliament at his surgery to try to speed up the matter. Does my hon. Friend agree that the timetable should include a further acknowledgement to keep people informed about the stage that their application has reached, and informing them of how long the process will take? At the moment, they get no explanation until hon. Members write to the Minister and get a reply saying that it will take three years.

Mr. Corbyn : My hon. Friend has made a fair point. I hope that the Minister heard it and will take it on board. I have been approached by constituents who, having applied for British nationality and paid their fees, have not received any acknowledgement. The only way that they can tell whether the application has been processed is by examining their bank statement to find out whether the cheque has been cashed. That is very unsatisfactory.

When constituents approach me on such matters, I always tell them that the delay in dealing with applications is about three years. If there is some overwhelmingly pressing reason why they should have the passport more quickly, such as for travel, I take up the case and write to the Minister. I join my hon. Friends in paying the warmest tributes to the Minister's office and staff who are extremely helpful and co-operative and who reply to letters, doing their best to deal with the cases. I am in no sense being critical of them when I say that I want to see a better system rather than this system of cutting off the rough

---

Column 1074

edges by having a good way of dealing with hon. Members' queries. I hope that the Minister understands that point.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : The hon. Gentleman is giving sensible advice to his constituents. The whole point of the bulletin that we shall be issuing shortly is that it will give information that will be generally helpful to applicants. It would not be sensible to transfer many staff into writing letters to people who have outstanding applications to tell them where their application is when they could be using that time to reduce the backlog still further.

Mr. Corbyn : Obviously any organisation with a serious backlog must decide how much staff time should be spent catching up and how much should be spent dealing with the people with problems. The Minister should appreciate that there is understandable concern if a cheque was cashed two or three years ago but the applicant has heard nothing. I do not wish to add to the problems, but, as the process is computerised, it is not that difficult to send a follow-up letter. I feel--

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. Deputy Speaker-- proceeded, pursuant to Order [22 March], to put the Question :-- The House divided : Ayes 21, Noes 192.

Division No. 107] [11.30 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Beckett, Margaret

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Cohen, Harry

Cryer, Bob

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Graham, Thomas

Haynes, Frank

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Loyden, Eddie

Madden, Max

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Meale, Alan

Nellist, Dave

Skinner, Dennis

Soley, Clive

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Tellers for the Ayes :

Mr. Keith Vaz. and

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn.

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Amess, David

Amos, Alan

Arbuthnot, James

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Arnold, Sir Thomas

Ashby, David

Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)

Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

Baldry, Tony

Bellingham, Henry

Bendall, Vivian

Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Blackburn, Dr John G.

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Boswell, Tim

Bowis, John

Brazier, Julian

Bright, Graham

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's)

Buck, Sir Antony

Burns, Simon

Burt, Alistair

Butterfill, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Carrington, Matthew

Cash, William

Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Chapman, Sydney

Chope, Christopher

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Colvin, Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Cope, Rt Hon John

Couchman, James

Cran, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Day, Stephen

Devlin, Tim

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Dover, Den

Dykes, Hugh

Fallon, Michael

Favell, Tony

Fishburn, John Dudley

Forman, Nigel

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Forth, Eric

Franks, Cecil

Freeman, Roger

French, Douglas

Gale, Roger

Gardiner, Sir George

Gill, Christopher

Glyn, Dr Sir Alan

Goodlad, Alastair

---