| Previous Section | Home Page |
Clause 6
Curtailment of leave to enter or remain
Mr. Charles Wardle : I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 5, line 7, leave out rejected' and insert
given to the person notice in writing of his rejection of'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss the following : Government amendment No. 35, amendment No. 8, in page 5, line 8, after person', insert
at the same time as the notice of refusal'.
Amendment No. 9, in page 5, line 23, after order', insert only if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant will not comply with restrictions placed on him to report to an immigration officer at an appointed time ; '.
Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 26, at end insert
(5) Any decision to detain and the grounds therefor must be given to the person detained, in writing in a language which he understands.'.
Mr. Wardle : The amendments require that if the power to curtail a leave under clause 6 is exercised, the notice of curtailment must be served at the same time as the notice refusing the asylum application. I am pleased to repeat the assurance that I gave to the Committee that curtailment of leave will not automatically follow refusal of an asylum claim. Each case will be considered on its merits.
The key question will be whether the asylum application has raised doubts about the continuing entitlement of the person to stay in this country under the immigration rules. When it is decided at the time the asylum claim is determined that a person no longer qualifies to remain here the intention has always been that the notices should be served simultaneously : the person would be notified of the refusal of his claim, the curtailment of his leave, and the decision to make a deportation order against him. He would then be entitled to appeal to a special adjudicator against the deportation decision. Where the decision is not taken at the time the asylum application is refused, we accept that it would be wrong to leave the person uncertain as to his status in this
Column 698
country : for example, it would be unfair to leave a student pursuing long-term studies in suspense as to whether his leave was to be curtailed at some later date. Clarification was sought in Committee about that and I am happy to give it. Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 therefore make clear the way in which the powers should be operated and I commend them to the House.Amendment No. 9 would provide that a person could be detained only if there were reasonable grounds for assuming he would not comply with other restrictions requiring him to report to an immigration officer. This is already our practice when considering detention in immigration cases generally. It will continue to be so under the specific power in clause 6. We will exercise the power to detain only if we do not think that the person would keep in touch ; and that a failure to detain would frustrate our intention to enforce departure.
Detention is not undertaken lightly. As well as having an obvious impact on the individual concerned, it is also costly and it is generally undesirable for the Department to tie up limited detention accommodation unnecessarily. However, it must remain an option for those--relatively few--cases where we have reason to believe that an applicant will not co-operate or comply with other restrictions that might be placed on him.
9.15 pm
Amendment No. 10 provides that a person who is to be detained should be supplied with the reasons in writing and in a language that he understands. Few would disagree with the view that applicants should be informed about the processes affecting them, particularly where a matter as serious as detention is concerned. However, I am not convinced that such a requirement needs to be placed on the face of the Bill.
Applicants who are to be detained will be notified in person by the detaining immigration officer in a language that they can understand and via an interpreter if necessary. We are considering what written information should be given to detainees to reflect the procedures that will affect them.
Mr. Corbyn : Will the Minister amplify the question of the translation of information to be given to people being interviewed? The trained officers often have no access to a sufficient number of interpreters who can translate into the appropriate languages. When one asks for more unusual dialects or languages, the Home Office is unable to assist. What progress has been made in that matter? During the last round of Home Office questions, the Minister promised progress.
Mr. Wardle : That point will arise under a later set of amendments. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are now discussing information on the intention to detain. That will be available in a limited number of languages. It is impracticable to expect notices to be available in every conceivable language, but every attempt will be made to explain what is happening to individuals concerned in those relatively few cases. When we discuss amendments Nos. 22, 26 and 27, I shall be pleased to comment a little further on the question of interpreters if the hon. Gentleman presses me.
I think that further written information is available in about 10 languages in the immigration detention accommodation and staff are available to deal with detainees' inquiries.
Column 699
For those reasons, I urge the House to support amendments Nos. 34 and 35 and to reject the other amendments grouped with them.Mr. Fraser : The Government amendments have met the point that I raised in amendment No. 8. Although they have not amended the Bill, the Minister has given assurances, so we shall not take the matter further. As we cannot vote against the clause, may I say that we are deeply concerned about the principle of curtailment of leave because it can discourage an application for political asylum. It is particularly severe when a student who may be doing a three-year degree course is considering whether to make an application, because the effect of applying for asylum if conditions change in the student's home country may lead not only to a refusal but to the student being returned to the country from which he appealed for safety. However, I made that point in Committee and we do not wish to divide on the matter.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made : No. 35, in page 5, line 8, after person', insert
concurrently with the notice under paragraph (b) above'-- [Mr. Charles Wardle.]
Clause 7
Appeals to special adjudicator
Mr. Fraser : I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 30, leave out in consequence of the refusal.'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this, it will be convenient to take amendment No. 12, in page 5, line 47, at end insert
( ) Nothing in section 15(5) of the 1971 Act shall be taken to prevent a person appealing against a refusal to revoke a deportation order under the preceding subsection where that person remains in the United Kingdom.'.
Mr. Fraser : The amendment may seem to make a trivial point, but we propose to leave out the words
"in consequence of the refusal"
because the appeal should be based on whatever grounds are available rather than simply on the consequence of the approval. I cannot understand why it is necessary for those words to appear in the Bill as they seem to restrict the right to appeal. The Minister may have an explanation. If he assures us that they do not inhibit the appeal, then so be it.
Amendment No. 12 was raised in Committee. As the Minister knows, section 15 of the Immigration Act 1971 prevents an appeal against a revocation of a deportation order while the appellant is in the United Kingdom. The Minister promised to ensure that the law was amended so that, if the application for revocation of the deportation order could be made to raise a political asylum matter under the convention, section 15 of the 1971 Act would not prevent that application from being made. Unless it was intended for the issue to be covered by Government new clause 6, it is still not clear to us how an application for revocation can be made while a person remains in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Charles Wardle : Amendment No. 11 is unnecessary since removal is only at issue following a refusal. The
Column 700
wording of the current draft thus accurately and clearly reflects the appeal rights of a person who has been refused leave to enter. Amendment No. 12 appears to reflect misunderstanding about the way in which the new rights of appeal against a deportation decision for asylum seekers will work. I am grateful for the opportunity to clarify the issues raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser).Clause 7(3) confers a right of appeal against a decision to make a deportation order under section 3(5) of the 1971 Act. It also confers a right of appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order which has already been made, either under section 3(5) or, on the recommendation of a court, under section 3(6). Unlike the equivalent provision in the 1971 Act, there is no requirement in the Bill that an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order should be made from abroad. The only restriction is that a person may not bring an appeal against a refusal to revoke a deportation order if he has already appealed under clause 7 against the decision to make the order.
Amendment No. 12 seeks to provide that nothing in section 15(5) of the 1971 Act shall prevent an appeal under clause 7 against a refusal to revoke a deportation order being made while the person is still in this country. But the key words of section 15(5) are :
"A person shall not be entitled to appeal under this section against a refusal to revoke a deportation order so long as he is in the United Kingdom".
The restriction clearly applies only to appeals under section 15 of the 1971 Act, not to appeals under clause 7 of the Bill.
Therefore, I trust that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Norwood will accept that both amendments are unnecessary, and I urge the House to reject them.
Mr. Fraser : I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8
Appeals from Immigration Appeal Tribunal
Amendment proposed : No. 13, in page 6, line 22, after law' insert or fact'.-- [Mr. Allen.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 14, in page 6, leave out lines 23 to 25.
Mr. Charles Wardle : I am sorry for my delay, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hours have been dragging on and I get the strong impression from the helpful hint of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) that I may deal with the amendments fairly swiftly. Both amendments seek to widen the scope of clause 8. In respect of amendment No. 13, the final tier of appeal in immigration and asylum matters from the immigration appeal tribunal to the Court of Appeal is intended only for the resolution of questions of law. Questions of fact should already have been resolved by the appeal structure leading up to this tribunal. Asylum claims are initially decided on behalf of the Secretary of State by officers of the asylum division. Appeals against the initial decisions can be made on questions of either fact or law to a special adjudicator. Provision is made for appeals, with leave, from the special adjudicator's determination to the tribunal on questions of either fact or law. As a matter of general practice, the Court of Appeal does not usually interfere with a
Column 701
tribunal's findings of fact, particularly where such findings turn on which witnesses are to be believed or the weight to be attached to particular evidence. I can see no reason to make an exception to this practice in the situation covered by clause 8.With regard to amendment No. 14, a leave requirement is routinely provided for in the case of appeals to the Court of Appeal from courts, such as the county courts, and tribunals, such as the employment appeal tribunal. I can see no reason why a special exception should be made in the present case. In addition, the absence of a leave requirement would be likely to result in an unacceptably large number of unmeritorious appeals having to be heard by the Court of Appeal, thereby causing significant delays in those courts and consequent hardship for litigants.
For those reasons, I urge the House to reject the amendment. Amendment negatived.
Clause 9
Visitors, short-term and prospective students and their dependants
Mr. Allen : I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 36, leave out from line 36 to line 5 on page 7.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 16, in clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 6 to 33, and Government amendments Nos. 36 to 39.
Mr. Allen : It is hard to choose the most obnoxious clause in this Bill, but I suppose that this one would get my vote. In its previous incarnation this Bill was known as the Asylum Bill ; it has now turned into the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. Why "Immigration"? My colleagues and I do not believe that immigration matters have any place in an asylum Bill. If the Government were serious about helping people whose desperate plight we outlined so vividly in Committee, they would have introduced measures that related only to political asylum. The Government threw in immigration only in order to make what they see as political capital out of the Bill. This looks more like a ploy to assist the Secretary of State's campaign for the leadership of the Conservative party than a conscious effort to help people seeking political asylum or wanting to visit relatives and friends in this country.
This deliberate confusion is a smokescreen to sell the idea which the Secretary of State tried to sell in his wild contribution on fingerprinting --that asylum seeking is somehow linked to the mass immigration policies pursued 30 years ago. He tried to raise the spectre of mass immigration. That pre-election scare is also part of the new ideology which the Secretary of State is using to improve his image with the right wing of the Conservative party.
What worries me most about the Secretary of State's cavalier attitude to civil liberties, in fingerprinting and other matters, is that certain fundamental principles which have long been part of British law are being undermined because there is seen to be political advantage in that. I am thinking particularly of the principle of natural justice. In almost every other walk of life there is a right of appeal. Even a convicted murderer has a right of appeal. A social security claimant who believes that his claim has been wrongly assessed has such a right. For all systems of administration this right offers the possibility of redress
Column 702
when a decision has been wrongly taken. This basic tenet of natural justice has survived intact for several hundred years--until the advent of this Government.It is a dangerous step to throw away such a principle of natural justice. Today, the right of appeal for people refused applications for visitors visas is being dispensed with. What group will be the next to lose their right of appeal? Let us not forget that this is not a little-used appeal system. Only last year, 1,700 successful appeals were heard from the Indian sub-continent. If a similar number are unjustly refused next year, however, they will not have the chance to put the matter right by appeal because their right to do so will have been abolished. It is argued that many more might have lodged successful appeals had they wished to pursue them. As the Secretary of State pointed out, in his usual callous manner, at the press conference that launched this Bill, there is no point in giving these people the right of appeal as many of them have now lost their reason for coming to this country because of delays. He took an almost perverse pride in the fact that the weddings, funerals, christenings or religious ceremonies which had provided the original reasons for coming had now taken place--so why give these people the right of appeal? That was the Minister's attitude when he should have been admitting that officers in his charge continually make wrong judgments that require to be put right on appeal. He almost took pride in saying that there was no need for appeals.
9.30 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the European dimension. In the harmonisation process, Britain seeks to become the lowest common denominator in the Community. Britain still retains a right of appeal which does not exist in many other countries. In seeking the abolition of the right to have a visitor's visa refusal heard again the Secretary of State is lowering to European level one of the few areas of immigration law in which Britain can take some pride. Thousands of unjustified refusals are being brought to light and corrected by the appeals system and only Conservatives would think that the answer is to abolish the appeals system rather than to find out why so many appeals go wrong and why so many unjust decisions are taken in the first place. There is a 20 per cent. failure rate by the civil servants. What an outcry there would be if one in five income tax assessments and one in five social security applications were wrong. The right of appeal has brought the problem to light, and rather than abolishing appeals the Secretary of State should find out why the system allows so many wrong decisions to be made in the first place.
We shall later discuss the better training and supervision that is required for officials who take the decisions. Once again it is a question of openness versus secrecy and the way that the Government have pushed the Bill through Committee. When the Trevi group was meeting in the Queen Elizabeth conference centre the Committee was in session. The Committee was not informed about what was going on until we demanded papers from the Trevi meeting. It was almost as if the Trevi group had a life of its own and did not need to worry about what Parliament was deciding.
Column 703
An example of that is the way in which immigration officers are virtually immune from having their responsibilities scrutinised in this place. Despite my best efforts and those of my hon. Friends, the immigration officers' training manual is not open to public view. On the day that we were debating that and the Trevi group were meeting we were told that there would be a European manual on immigration officers' practice and that it would be publicly available. However, the British manual is not to be seen.There is no rational justification for removal of the right of appeal against an administrative decision. It will give unfettered powers to civil servants and immigration officials and can only lead to worse decisions since they will not be subject to review by an independent authority. That is exemplified by experience. When the courts decided in 1976 that there was no right of appeal against a refusal to vary leave if the application was made late, more late applications were refused. When the Immigration Act 1988 removed the right of appeal on the merits of people threatened with deportation who had been in the United Kingdom for less than seven years, the number of deportation decisions shot up from 863 in 1987 to 3,440 in 1991. The removal of the right of appeal can therefore be expected to lead to a rise in the number of refusals.
Many refused visitors do not appeal and, of those who do, many more do not pursue their case after the initial anger and humiliation and the need to understand have faded. That makes it clear that the number of people who win such appeals is only a small percentage of those refused wrongly and unjustly. Many more would have been successful had they pursued their case or kept in touch with their representatives and provided documents and information as necessary. There is room for reform of the immigration appeals system to ensure that all cases are heard and decisions are reached more speedily, but this should not be at the expense of justice.
The Home Office reacted to the widespread criticism of this part of the Bill--in Committee and elsewhere--by issuing a press release on 8 December 1992 when the Minister made his response to the Committee. I will not delay the House by describing the pantomime in Committee, when the Minister as the dame was dragged, feigning reluctance, to announce one or two supposed concessions. As I hope to demonstrate, the concessions amounted to nothing.
The Government's response does not meet the main concerns about the loss of the right of appeal. The main proposal is that refused visitors should receive a far more detailed refusal notice, setting out the reasons why a visa had been refused. This might help to explain the thought processes of the entry clearance officer dealing with the case, but may also be intended to pre-empt any application for judicial review of decisions--the only method of challenge remaining open. It was interesting to hear Lord Justice Taylor's remark, in the Dimbleby lecture, that if the due process is not gone through one will necessarily end up with more and more judicial reviews. If the intention is to speed up the process, the exact opposite may occur.
The press release also stated that a previous refusal would not prejudice any subsequent applications. This should be a matter of course. Every application should be considered on its own merits, but it is known that this is not the case. The standard entry application form asks, in question 19 :
Column 704
"Have you ever been refused a visa or entry clearance at a UK diplomatic mission or Post?"It then asks people to complete an additional form if they have been refused. It is clear that the purpose of the question is to enable the entry clearance officer to find any previous papers about the earlier application and to compare them with the present one. It is not unknown for people to be asked whether anything has changed since the previous application and, if they say that it has not, for the application to be refused.
Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East) : Does my hon. Friend agree that the so-called concession that the Under-Secretary announced in Committee, and to which my hon. Friend referred, is only what is happening at the moment? Any constituent can go to his Member of Parliament, who writes to the Foreign Office and gets a detailed response. There is nothing new here.
Mr. Allen : A number of practices set out by the Minister in his press release are already standard. Equally, one does not need an asylum Bill to make the amendments that the Minister announced in Committee. If he wishes to make those amendments, they can be done easily, and with the agreement of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, provided that they are not a substitute for the right of appeal, which is the backdrop for all these matters.
The press release issued by the Minister also sets out the other courses of action that are open to would-be visitors, and my hon. Friends have referred to them. The Home Office also states that the Foreign Office will revise its information leaflets for visitors and will consider a leaflet for sponsors. At present the leaflets are produced only in English and do not explain the pitfalls of immigration rules. It is our view that any leaflet produced should be translated into appropriate languages and should be accessible. They should be widely available, and not only on request, at British posts.
Most seriously, the Home Office press release is exclusively about visitors and visas. It does not mention the other forms of entry clearance, entry certificates, letters of consent, refusals at ports of entry of people who do not require visas or students or prospective students.
The Minister said in Committee that he meant to include all forms of entry clearance, but he said nothing about people who do not require prior entry clearance who are refused at a British port or airport. If the statements in the leaflets do not apply to port refusals, they amount to a further attempt to introduce a universal visa requirement through the back door. If they do not apply to students, there is no justification for this further discrimination against them. It is important that the Home Office provides further clarification.
The clause will hit hard British families--black British families, Asian British families and other British families whose only crime will be the wish to see relatives--parents and grandparents, for example--on occasions such as holidays, religious ceremonies, marriages, christenings and funerals. It is one of the worst parts of an extremely poor Bill and the Opposition will divide the House when the Question is put on the amendment to ensure that the clause is thrown out of the Bill. If that is not done in this place, we hope that the clause will be seriously revised, if not thrown out completely, in the other place.
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney) : Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have a
Column 705
substantial Asian or Commonwealth community residing in their constituencies. Much resentment has been expressed to me- -I am sure that this has been the experience of many other Members with such a community--about the clause. It is difficult to understand why it is in the Bill. Such a clause was not in the 1991 Bill. Goodness knows what considerations led the Minister to decide to include it in this measure.The Minister has not taken aboard sufficiently the fact that settled in our country are hundreds of thousands of people from new Commonwealth countries who are here legitimately. Visitors from those countries have to obtain a visa to come here, and that puts them apart--in a sense it discriminates against them--from others who come to the United Kingdom who are not required to surmount the same hurdles. I talk, of course, of visitors from visa countries and their families who are in this country.
Taking account of that, is it not extraordinary that given the number of appeals--it is not huge in relation to the number of appeals generally that remain outstanding within the system--the Minister should ask the House to remove entirely the right of appeal for visitors who have been refused a visa and entry to the United Kingdom?
I take the view that officials are nothing other than people who are trying to do their best in administering our laws. I am not mounting an attack on entry certificate officers, but obviously they are not infallible. Mistakes are made occasionally, and they are duly recorded, as is the number of successful appeals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said when addressing the House from the Opposition Front Bench, about 1,500 successful appeals were made last year. I think that that is the Minister's own figure. Are we saying that we are not interested in 1,500 examples of injustice that would otherwise be allowed to stand?
Is it not the fact that the availability of appeal is an important element in the decision making of entry certificate officers generally? It is only a back-up power, as it were, but to some extent it enables there to be surveillance of their decision making. It is an important factor in the decisions that they make.
9.45 pm
The Government have made a grave error and I shall explain why. First, I want to emphasise the number of people from visa countries who want to come here simply as visitors for family reasons. Surely families, especially grandparents, have the right to see their children and their children's children. Unlike those of us who have our families of all generations with us in Britain, those families are separated not by 50, 100 or even 300 miles, but by thousands of miles. It requires great effort simply to get to this country. The Minister knows the considerable cost of air fares. For the most part they are poor families--and, quite frankly, their families in this country are often among the lowest paid workers. Those families already have to overcome many obstacles.
There is another point of which I do not think the Minister has taken any account. However, I assure him that it is well understood and resented in our settled immigrant communities. I am referring to the fact that the Minister is actually imposing a double discrimination system--the visa system and the abolition of the right of appeal--at the very moment when the Single European Act has come into force and 300 million Europeans can come to this country at will. They are not required to prove
Column 706
that they will not be a burden on public funds or that there is adequate housing and accommodation for them. They do not have to show that they will stay here for only six months--they can stay here for six years. That is what the Government have granted to 300 million Europeans, very few of whom have the human and family contacts with people in this country that is enjoyed by many of our constituents whose parents and grandparents come from the Indian sub-continent and some of the African Commonwealth nations.That policy is discrimination. It is granting truly extraordinary rights to millions of Europeans who do not have close family connections with this country, while erecting a new barrier, by abolishing the right of appeal, against the millions of people who have family connections with people who are settled here. The Minister has made an appalling error and I ask him to think carefully about what has been said. The matter was thoroughly turned over in Committee, when the arguments were put very powerfully. I ask him to think about the effect of such a double discrimination on the sentiments and thinking of hundreds and thousands of people in this country who believe--or at least hope--that all political parties are determined to rule and administer our laws in a way that is equitable to all.
Mr. Madden : There is a common view that the clause represents a new and sinister dimension to the Bill that goes well beyond the provisions of the previous Bill. When news of the clause swept through our black and Asian communities there was panic among the Conservative Members who represent some of them. Soon after the Bill had been published and been given its Second Reading, there were newspaper reports that Conservative Members were concerned about the abolition of the right of appeal for those refused a visitor's visa. The reports suggested that those Conservative Members had warned the Government that they could not be certain of their support in the Lobby tonight during Report stage and Third Reading.
We were told that Members of Parliament, including the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller)--I am pleased to see him in his place--the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and eight other Conservative Members were so concerned about the matter that they would not automatically support the Bill.
In Committee, the wriggling and squirming of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva) was a spectacle to behold on almost every occasion that the Committee sat. There were all sorts of gossiping and chats about how the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth and other Conservative Members could be got off the hook on which the Minister and the Home Secretary had put them. There were meetings at the Home Office between those worried Conservative Members and the Minister.
Lo and behold, the day came--and on 8 December, in Committee, the Minister was able to read from a prepared press release that a number of concessions were to be made, which would meet the concerns and worries of the Conservative Members in question--it would be all right, lads and lasses, because they could all vote for clause 9 tonight with a clear conscience.
As you have already heard, Madam Speaker, those concessions do not amount to a row of beans. In reality, if clause 9 becomes law, large numbers of people refused a visit visa will have no remedy. They will be able to write to,
Column 707
or otherwise contact through their sponsors, Members of Parliament--including those worried Conservative Members who had doubts about clause 9 in the first place. We will then be able to write to a Foreign Office Minister responsible for visit visa administration, urging that a person refused permission to visit relatives, to attend a family wedding or funeral, or to visit for some other legitimate purpose should be allowed to do so. No doubt we will receive the same kind of letter that we already receive, expressing regret but saying that there is nothing that the Minister can do and that the applicant will just have to lump it.At present, such people have a right of appeal--and we heard that a large proportion of those who appeal are successful. That right is of central importance, and it is extremely worrying that the Government are proposing to abolish it--which is triggering in the minds of many black or Asian people in particular concern over further action and whether other rights of appeal might be abolished.
I wonder how many other hon. and right hon. Members shared my concern when I saw tonight the gleam in the eye of the Home Secretary when he was saying how unsatisfactory are photographs as a means of identification. How much longer before a fiance applying to enter this country to be married, or a spouse seeking to join his or her partner in this country, will have to be fingerprinted before applying? How much longer will it be before settlement refusals will no longer be capable of being appealed against?
In Committee, the Minister failed miserably to justify clause 9. He said :
"With a backlog of 23,000 appeals awaiting hearings by adjudicators, it must be recognised that the system is not delivering a fair, effective and timely remedy either to would-be visitors or to those seeking to settle here. It is necessary to concentrate resources on those cases which vitally affect a person's future. We do not undervalue the importance to many people born or settled here of visits by relatives. We recognise that what we need is to develop measures to ensure that the small proportion of would -be visitors who at present succeed in their appeals are not disadvantaged."--[ Official Report, Standing Committee A , 8 December 1991 ; c. 649.] What disingenuous gobbledegook is that?
The Minister was arguing that the inefficiencies of the appellate system, which have created a backlog of 23,000 cases, is the justification for abolishing a longstanding right of appeal.
Mr. Bernie Grant : My hon. Friend speaks of justification. Is he aware that the right of appeal for visitors came about as a result of an initiative by the Wilson Government, and that a commission was set up specifically to examine the way in which new Commonwealth citizens were being treated at our ports of entry ? Is it not strange that it takes a commission to establish a right of appeal, and that this Government can destroy that right of appeal at a stroke without even having the courtesy to justify their wish to get rid of it ?
Mr. Madden : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. No doubt that is why the director of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, writing to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on 5 January, said :
"We must convey the now widespread belief that there can be no rational justification for this proposal"--
that is, clause 9.
Column 708
"Removal of a right of appeal against an administrative decision, thus giving unfettered power to a civil servant or immigration official, can only lead to more careless decision-making since the officials know that their decisions will not be reviewed by any independent authority."Mr. Moraes continued :
"You will already know from the statistics that this removal of an appeal right will disproportionately affect black British people and those settled here, as people from black and third world countries have a much higher chance of refusal."
In the new spirit espoused by the Minister in Committee in November, I deliberately delayed writing to him until 17 December about a constituent of mine whose 63-year-old mother wished to come here for medical treatment that she had been advised urgently to undertake when she last visited the country in 1990. She wished to come accompanied by her daughter. Her son, who has lived here for five years, had arranged for private medical treatment to be provided in Bradford ; he was already prepared to pay the £2,500 that was required. As a home owner in full-time employment, he was perfectly willing to accommodate his mother and sister during their stay. I was surprised to receive, on 31 December, a reply from a Foreign Office Minister, who informed me that he, rather than the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Home Department, was responsible for such matters. An official in the migration and visa correspondence unit told me :
"Because of the break in diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Iraq and the closure of the Embassy in Baghdad, Mrs. A and Miss A have no alternative but to apply for entry clearance at one of our visa-issuing posts outside Iraq. I enclose a list of our visa-issuing posts in Europe which have a waiting time of two weeks or less for non-resident applicants, which I hope your constituent will find helpful. I suggest that Mrs. A and her daughter first telephone or write to the post they choose in order to answer any preliminary enquiries and to book an appointment for a personal interview, which is an essential part of the entry clearance procedure. This will save time and avoid the risk of a wasted journey."
That came as very bad news to my constituent, who told me this weekend that there was no European country to which an Iraqi national could obtain a visa within Iraq, and that the nearest place where his mother and sister could obtain a visa was in Jordan. That would involve a 16-hour bus ride, and the lady concerned is now so badly disabled that she is wheelchair bound.
That case clearly illustrates the difficulties that will confront the Minister, and many other Members of Parliament, in the coming months and years if this wretched clause becomes law. My constituent is right to argue that if the Government hold a compassionate view and want to help those who wish to visit this country for medical and other reasons, the information that I have received from the Foreign Office does not reinforce or strengthen any conviction that the public might have about the true intentions of this Government. Clause 9 is an integral part of this wretched, racist Bill. I hope that Conservative Members who, when it was first announced, were extremely worried about its consequences--
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.-- [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]
Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
| Next Section
| Home Page |