| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 709
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.Mr. Madden : Once again I urge those Conservative Members who initially had reservations about the clause to have the courage of their true convictions and to vote against clause 9. We understand that they cannot bring themselves to vote against this wretched Bill, but I urge them to pluck up the courage to vote against the clause. To do so would reinforce whatever reputation they may have for their belief in principles, the right to natural justice and the right of appeal against judicial and quasi-judicial decisions. It would be appreciated by their constituents who, if the clause becomes law, will lose the right to have their relatives and friends visit them in this country, a right that many of them, as British citizens, hold very dear. I hope that the clause will be defeated, that this important right of appeal will be retained and that we shall be able to say to the British people, whatever their race, colour or religion, that we believe that they, as British citizens, are all equal before the law and have the right to appeal against administrative decisions.
Mr. Maclennan : This is undoubtedly one of the most important amendments before the House and it should enjoy the support of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Certainly it should enjoy the support of those who earlier expressed their anxiety about the importation into a Bill, purportedly dealing with asylum matters, of a further measure to clamp down on visitors to this country who are not seeking asylum.
It might tolerably be argued that a Bill to curb asylum seekers will not cause deep public concern. It may be thought that, after the passage of a modest amount of time, anxieties about fingerprinting and people coming from Angola and other countries who have no relatives in this country to welcome and support them when they arrive here will be blocked out and that no problems will arise from the asylum aspects of the Bill. The Government can have no such hope, however, regarding clause 9. It will directly affect the lives of many citizens in this country for many years to come. It will stimulate deep hostility among those who feel themselves to be discriminated against, when members of their families are denied the right to visit them here. Such people cannot experience the support and joy of temporary visits because the Government of the day believe that it is administratively inconvenient properly to scrutinise their applications. That must be bad for race relations in the United Kingdom.
It may be that Governments of different political complexions have felt it necessary to have a firm immigration policy for the benefit of race relations in the United Kingdom. However, that firm policy must be seen to be fair if it is not to exacerbate the ill feeling among minority communities that those who are in the majority are abusing their power to their family disadvantage.
I hope that the Minister will not seek to justify the inclusion of something in this Bill which even the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker)--stimulated as he was by a desire to split the House on the issue of race before an election--did not think it appropriate to include in his Bill. This nasty inclusion is the creation of someone who postured in the past as a liberal in matters of race. The Home Secretary appeared to relish that reputation, and I will not speculate on why he now chooses to cast off that mantle.
Column 710
If the House fails tonight to extrude the obnoxious clause from the Bill, I hope that those in another place will examine with particular attention the possibility of restoring what successive Governments accepted as necessary to ensure that applications for visits to the United Kingdom were fairly perused and open to appeal. The obnoxious clause was not included by the Government on a whim in response to pressures from a particular group in society ; it was introduced as a result of careful deliberation. It is true that the right of appeal was introduced by a Labour Government, but it was endorsed by Conservative Governments. No political parties were divided on the matter until this Government introduced the amendment.The Government's method and approach to immigration and race relations are obnoxious because they cause a split in the United Kingdom on not only the grounds of colour but the grounds of party. The Minister must remove the clause and accept the amendment. If he does, he will receive the thanks and appreciation of all hon. Members for having allowed sense to prevail over the corruption of administrative power that has been too long enjoyed.
Mr. Gary Waller (Keighley) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for listening to the concerns which some of my hon. Friends and I have expressed about clause 9. My hon. Friend listened most courteously. He went away and thought about the issues which we had raised and proposed some changes. I am not critical of the changes. Indeed, I believe that they will help the way in which administrative decisions are made in the future. But they will remain essentially administrative decisions.
I share the anxieties that have already been expressed tonight that there will be no possibility of appeal against administrative decisions which may be wrong because human decisions so often are fallible. One must bear in mind that those decisions are of great significance to many people. It is often difficult for people who have settled in Britain to travel to visit their relatives in their country of origin. People who have settled in Britain often have jobs from which it is difficult for them to spend much time away. Therefore, if a family is to be brought together from time to time, there is no alternative to a journey to Britain by a relative. Entry clearance officers certainly have difficult decisions to make. The information that they have is often limited. That is why adjudicators are often better placed. They will see the sponsor and perhaps others. As constituency Members we know that, while ultimately it is the intentions of the visitor which are important, the evidence given by sponsors can be absolutely vital. In the communities in Britain, a sponsor would be unlikely to co-operate in a decision to ignore immigration rules because that would do great damage in a close-knit community.
When one reads the adjudicator's decision in the determination of many cases, one appreciates that where successful appeals are made there is often no credible reason for rejecting an application. As we have heard, every year there are 1,500 or so successful appeals. I am not satisfied that, because an applicant will have another opportunity to apply and the evidence will be heard by different entry clearance officers wherever possible, the decision will necessarily be right.
Column 711
At present, we have a helpful safeguard and I regret that it will be lost in the future. I have had few representations against clause 9. It is not because of the number of representations that I have received that I intend to vote against the Government on amendment No. 15. I intend to vote against the amendment because of my knowledge of such cases as someone who has represented constituents and dealt with such cases for many years.If the amendment would make it essentially easier for people to overstay illegally or evade the immigration rules, one would have to think carefully about it. However, in my experience the people who appeal do not intend to overstay or evade the immigration rules. They are often people with a good case. It is because those good cases will not have an opportunity to be heard and because administrative decisions will not be overturned where they are weak that I am afraid that I shall have to go into the Opposition Lobby this evening.
Mr. Corbyn : I compliment the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on what he said and his decision about how to vote this evening. That is a sign that at least some Conservative Members are not prepared to accept what the Government gave as a great retreat as anything more than a figleaf to cover them during the Committee proceedings. The removal of appeal rights for visitors is a disgraceful removal of the right of ordinary people to a proper hearing. It is also the removal of any accountability for public officials who grant or refuse the right of entry clearance or a visitor's visa.
Earlier today, almost 1,000 people--almost all of them black--were brought to the House of Commons by the National Black Caucus to lobby against this clause. I pay tribute to the National Black Caucus for doing so, for the spirit and intelligence of its lobby and for everything that it said, because it came directly from the heart. All hon. Members who represent constituencies that contain many people with families living in the Caribbean, Africa, Asia, the far east and many other parts of the world, are aware of the consequences of the system. To put it in context, last year there were 10,000 appeals against refusals of visits to this country. Those appeals were made by people who arrived in this country, sought entry, were refused and were sent back to the country that they had come from, where they went through the appeals system and 17 per cent. of those appeals were granted. Under the Government's cock-eyed system and by their own admission, 1,700 people were wrongly denied entry to this country.
10.15 pm
The existing appeals system is seriously flawed because the appeal must take place in the country of application. If someone who has saved up a great deal of money to come to this country from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India or the Caribbean is refused admission on arrival and has to return home, although he might win an appeal it is useless if he has spent the best part of a year's wages on the air fare to come here in the first place.
I do not know whether the Minister understands the heartache and misery caused to families who prepare years in advance for a wedding or some other great family occasion, only to find that the grandparents, distant uncles or cousins whom they so desperately wanted to attend are
Column 712
suddenly not allowed to come. Does he understand the humiliation of it? Families preparing for a great family occasion on a Saturday or Sunday often get an anguished call on Wednesday or Thursday the week before from relatives who cannot get permission to come into the country or who have arrived and been sent back. Hon. Members who represent inner-city constituencies regularly experience the hassle of trying to persuade immigration officers that there is some new evidence, or some merit in contacting the Minister's private office and all the rest of it.The way in which the system operates is wrong and the Minister should not be introducing clause 9 but should accept its removal and should introduce a new clause to allow an in-country right of appeal so that people would not have to suffer the nonsense of being removed from this country and told that they can appeal in the country that they have come from.
Another side to the question is the way in which entry clearance officers at particular British missions abroad will be making the decisions. I have attended interviews for entry clearance for permanent residency and I am sorry to have to say that entry clearance officers indulge in a large degree of subjective decision-making, based on a person's wealth and on what they choose to call the immigration history of the family concerned. Basically, that subjective decision-making means that if one is poor, black and comes from Africa, the Caribbean or south Asia there is a high chance that one will be refused admission to this country for a visit, but if one is white and comes from the United States, South Africa or Australia one is unlikely to be refused admission to this country. If the present rather inadequate right of appeal is removed, immigration officials will have totally untrammelled power over the lives of many families and the happiness of many people. There will be no accountability. The system is racist because of whom it is directed at and it is flawed in its approach.
I hope that the Minister will understand that the anger outside the House and throughout ethnic communities in this country will not go away, whatever the decision this evening. There will be challenges and I hope that successful amendments will be made to the Bill in the House of Lords and that the decision will be challenged legally by a judicial review. The Minister has not heard the end of it yet. I also remind the Minister that, although many people are badly treated when they apply to visit this country, British tourists who seek to visit India, Bangladesh or any other country are treated decently by their high commissions and embassies here. The Minister should think about the small rate of refusal for visitors' visas for British tourists who seek to visit those countries. I can imagine the screaming headlines in the Daily Mail if many British people seeking to visit India as tourists were denied entry. I can just imagine the way in which that newspaper would present such stories. Why cannot such papers turn their undoubted propaganda skills round to attack the Government for removing a basic right of appeal against an unjust decision by an unaccountable official?
I ask the Minister to recognise the strength and justice of our case for the removal of clauses 9 and 10 from what is a wholly inadequate Bill in any case.
Mr. Winnick : I wish more Conservative Members other than the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) had spoken against the clause. He rightly said why its inclusion
Column 713
could not be supported and said that he would vote against it. I welcome that decision, but it will be rather unfortunate if he is the only hon. Member on the Conservative Benches so to vote because many people are deeply concerned about the clause. They rightly understand that it represents a form of discrimination against a section of people who will be discriminated basically because they intend to invite here relatives or friends from the West Indies or the Indian sub- continent.I regret that the Government have decided to include this clause in the Bill. We were not told that that was their intention when the Bill was submitted to the House prior to the general election. I am particularly worried because if the Bill as it now stands is passed, how long will it be, as my hon. Friends have already asked, before other rights of appeal are taken away? Does it mark the beginning of the end of the appeal system?
The appeal system came into existence 22 years last July. I speak with some experience of it, because in the past I represented people, almost on a continuing basis, who appeared before adjudicators. As the Minister knows, one must prove before the adjudicator the relevance of circumstances at the time that the decision was made by an entry clearance officer. It is no use someone coming before an adjudicator and saying that the situation has improved because the appellant has more money than he did when he originally applied to visit this country. The adjudicator must simply decide whether the decision taken by the entry clearance officer at the time was right in law.
One must argue the case on behalf of the appellant to show that the circumstances at the time of the original decision were such that that decision should have been different. The fact is that in nearly 20 per cent. of visitor cases appeals the adjudicators or the immigration appeals tribunal have found that the original decision by the entry clearance officer was wrong. Surely that is a matter of some concern.
Mrs. Roche : Does my hon. Friend agree that another reason for having the appellate system is that it provides a check on the way in which entry clearance officers and immigration officers carry out their functions? That check is important even if those functions are not subject to an appeal. Recently an immigration officer at a port of entry changed his mind on a decision because, as he said frankly to me, he knew that he could not argue his decision on appeal. The mere existence of the appellate system changed his mind. That is why it is so important to keep it.
Mr. Winnick : My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If a decision is appealed against, the entry clearance officer must write what is known as an explanatory statement, which can run to eight or 12 pages, and in which he or she must give, at length, the reasons it was decided to refuse the application.
If there is no appeal system for visitors, entry clearance officers know that, however much they believe that they have done their job well, it will not be subject to appeal. At most what will happen is that the Member of Parliament representing the sponsor will write to the Minister. In reply the Minister will probably say
Mr. Winnick : Well, he may not say that as such ; he will put it in more dignified terms. He will say that the entry
Column 714
clearance officer considered all the facts and circumstances, came to his or her decision and that he, the Minister, can see no reason for overruling it. The entry clearance officer will know that there will be no adjudicator, no immigration appeals tribunal, no judicial review in certain circumstances, and no High Court case. He will therefore have total power to decide whether a person can come to this country on a short visit. I believe that that is wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) referred to the Wilson committee. That committee recommended an appeals system because it believed that if the United Kingdom were to have tight immigration controls, which most of us believe are necessary, there must also be elementary justice and that people who are denied the right to come here should have the right to appeal. That system has operated for some 22 years and if we are to take away certain people's right to appeal, how soon will it be before other rights are also taken away ?Some people may say that few people are involved in sponsoring visitors. That is neither here nor there. Many people invite relatives to this country for perfectly genuine reasons. They want to see their parents or adult children and are willing to make sacrifices so that that close relative can come to the United Kingdom. When the relative from the Indian sub-continent or the West Indies is refused, they believe--rightly or wrongly--that it is because he or she has a black or Asian skin and that, had the person concerned been white, there would have been no trouble. Great harm may come to race relations in this country if people who are settled here, with every right to be here, find that their closest relatives cannot visit them. We are discussing not people coming here to live--that is not the issue--but people who wish to visit. Once they are here as visitors, they have no right to stay. The Minister is not arguing that the appeals system must go because people overstay their visit and go underground. He is nodding in agreement at that. A fundamental right is being taken away. We shall no doubt lose the vote tonight, especially if only one Conservative Member intends to vote with us. However, the principle is important and I hope that the other place will not reach the same decision as I fear this House will reach tonight. I hope that the other place will recognise that what the Labour party has been saying, supported by the Liberal party and the one Conservative Member, is extremely important and that it will successfully challenge the Government. We shall be unable to do so tonight because, although Conservative Members understand the issue, they fear opposing the Government. They do not have the courage to do so and they are abdicating their responsibility as Members of Parliament.
Ms. Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington) : I could not let the clause pass without making a few remarks because the Bill will affect so many of my constituents and has the potential to affect many British citizens throughout the country.
We have heard that one Conservative Member will vote against the Bill. Although some Conservative Members may have the excuse of ignorance about the Bill's effects, some of them know only too well the misery, humiliation, financial loss, unfairness and racism that will flow from the Bill. If they march through the Lobbies with the Government tonight, they should look to their consciences.
Column 715
One of the strengths of the appellate system in relation to visits is the guarantee of fairer decisions by administrators. I worked in the Home Office and I am familiar with the type and grade of official who makes such decisions, and I cannot understand how Ministers think that it is acceptable to remove checks and balances from middle-ranking, often not entirely satisfactorily trained, executive grade officials in the Home Office. They leave relatives of British citizens liable to arbitrary and unfair decisions.At this late stage I do not expect to change anyone's mind about clauses 9 and 10, but I should like to convey, both to my hon. Friends who may be wondering why we cannot proceed to a vote and Conservative Members who are to vote with the Government what it feels like to be a Jamaican, a Pakistani or a Turk who has lived in the countryside and saved the equivalent of many years' salary to come to this country for a wedding, birthday or christening. In the religions and cultures of such countries, weddings and christenings mean much more than they do to most of us. I want to try to convey to hon. Members what it means to have saved the equivalent of many years' salary, put on one's best clothes, left the Jamaican or Bengali countryside, travelled to a big city in one's own country for the first time and taken an aeroplane to Heathrow only to be humiliated by the sort of treatment that is ritually handed out to black people visiting this country.
10.30 pm
Like many Opposition Members, I have been telephoned at all hours of the night by frantic relatives who, at the last minute, have realised that a loved sister, cousin, grandparent or even parent will not be able to come to a wedding or a christening. It is hard to convey to people who are not familiar with those cultures what such a denial means to the families involved.
It will be starkly obvious to black British citizens whose relatives are unable to visit them for such family occasions that if they were French or German--if they were white--their relatives would be able to visit them without encountering all the hindrances. No other clause in the Bill more clearly reveals the racist nature of immigration control than clause 9, which hits, not those who are coming to settle, but those who genuinely want to visit and who may not have seen their grandchildren, brothers, sisters or other relatives for 10, 20 or 30 years.
The clause is an abuse of the process. It is wholly unjustified. The majority of hon. Members do not understand how much unhappiness, unfairness and wasted money the clause will cause. Anyone in the House who knows, understands and works among those whom the clause will affect cannot, in good conscience, vote for the clauses as they stand.
Mr. Vaz : There is one brave man sitting on the Conservative Benches : the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller), who, through his experiences and his daily work dealing with immigration cases, has decided to come to the Chamber today to show his dissent over the Bill's proposals and to vote with the Opposition against the measure.
Clauses 9 and 10 are squalid measures that will hit out at the rights that have, for many years, been accepted as
Column 716
fundamental. Before I entered the House I worked as a lawyer in a law centre in Leicester. When people came to that centre the one guarantee that I could give them when their relatives were refused admission to this country was that they could use the appeal process. That right is to be removed and the one concession that the Minister is proposing to make is an administrative one that already exists. In Committee-- [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Minister does not wish to hear what I have to say because I want to comment directly on his visit to the sub-continent. In his submission to the Committee in which he discussed the administrative changes that he was proposing to introduce, he talked about his visit to the sub-continent. I, too, have visited the sub- continent in the past month and I, too, met the immigration and entry clearance officers whom he met. [Interruption.] He wants to know when and whom I visited. I do not think that the Minister can tell us the name of the First Secretary (Immigration) in Bombay. Can he remember it? It is no use his looking at his officials. Does he know the name of the First Secretary (Immigration) in New Delhi? He does not. I have met Martin Hilson and David O'Rourke and I have discussed with both of them and with other entry clearance officers what the Minister proposes to do by means of this squalid measure. He proposes to put these entry clearance officers in an intolerable position. They are supposed to become judge and jury in both first and second applications. I looked at the Official Report of the Committee's proceedings to find out whom the Minister consulted before he came to this conclusion. He did not discuss the Bill with the very people who will have to administer its provisions. He said of the system in Committee :"I then asked myself what could be done administratively to improve it".-- [ Official Report, Standing Committee A, 8 December 1992 ; c. 650.]
So the Minister consulted himself. Those who daily deal with these cases in Bombay and New Delhi have a wealth of experience and if the Minister would only ask them they would tell him that they will not be able to cope with the number of applications that will be made. The Minister went on to say that three Members of Parliament came to see him to discuss these matters and at the end of a great struggle and fracas he emerged with these concessions. They represent no more than what already happens. If a person cannot get his or her relative into this country as a visitor, he or she goes to see the relevant Member of Parliament. That Member writes to the migration and visas correspondence unit. That unit then writes to the post abroad and the post abroad writes back setting out reasons. It is not clear how the Minister's proposals differ from what already happens. The Minister goes on to talk about exceptional and compassionate circumstances. I refer him to the case of the gentleman who came to visit one of my constituents in Leicester. His former wife was dying in the royal infirmary in Leicester. Her last wish was to see her former husband whom she had not seen for several years. I submitted to Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, the very people to whom the Minister suggests Members of Parliament should write, a doctor's certificate, signed by a consultant at the royal infirmary. It was faxed to the office of the Minister and from there to Bombay. We asked that exceptional and compelling circumstances be considered because the woman in question was dying.
Column 717
When the visa was refused, I raised the matter with the Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, who is not here tonight even though these measures touch on his area of responsibility. He refused to overturn the decision. I gave a personal undertaking that if the person was allowed to come here he would return a month later, after he had seen his dying wife and attended her funeral.In the meantime, the woman died at the royal infirmary--while the administrative procedures on which the Minister wants us to rely were under way. Finally, I went and begged the Under-Secretary of State, in his office, to reconsider the matter and allow the man to come to this country. The Minister refused to make a decision until he had been briefed. He would not accept the personal undertaking of a Member of Parliament and a doctor's certificate. He saw me in the House at 11.30 pm the night before the funeral and on the basis of that meeting he at last overturned the decision of the entry clearance officer.
Is this what Members of Parliament will have to do to get people into this country for exceptional and compassionate reasons? When in New Delhi I dealt with the case of a gentleman of substantial means--one of the wealthiest industrialists in India. He wanted to send his son to a university in this country and was prepared to pay the full overseas fee of £10,000. He was able to show that this young man had invested £500,000 in this country. The entry clearance officer in New Delhi would not allow that young man to undertake the course of study because he said that the last time that the young man was here he went through the appeal process and therefore manipulated the situation in order to stay longer. I appealed to the First Secretary (Immigration) in New Delhi and tried to contact the high commissioner, Sir Nicholas Fenn, who was unfortunately suffering from food poisoning that day and was unable to see me. I tried to get through to the deputy high commissioner, but unfortunatley he had gone to Uttar Pradesh and was also unable to see me. I left my discussions with the First Secretary, who would not change his mind. He said that he would look at the case and he discussed it with his officers, but could not overrule the decision. I gave a personal undertaking. I said, "This gentleman will return to India because his father is a substantial industrialist. He wants to remain in India and does not want to remain in Britain. He is prepared to give our country £10,000 a year in overseas fees." However, the First Secretary (Immigration) would not change his decision. He told me, "This young man has the right of appeal." I said, "That right is to be taken away by the Government." He said, "That does not matter : the right exists at the moment."
I called a press conference to publicise the case in India so that people realised in advance of Prime Minister Major's visit on 26 January how Indian citizens were being treated. Lo and behold, half an hour before my press conference the visa was issued. Those are the lengths to which hon. Members will have to go to get genuine visitors into this country and that is totally unfair.
The procedures outlined by the Minister will not solve the basic problem. During the general election campaign Conservative Members promised people that they would protect their rights, but at the first opportunity they are prepared to renege on those promises. The Minister knows
Column 718
that the legislation will double the workload of every hon. Member who deals with immigration cases, but he has said that he will not restore it because of the backlog of cases.I shall tell the Minister what happened to me when I went to the immigration appeal tribunal on Thursday. He may not like to hear about it, but he shall. I went to give evidence for a constituent who had been waiting 12 months for a case to be considered. I arrived for the hearing, but the Home Office officer who was to present the case was not there. The appeal could not proceed and the adjudicator had to telephone my office and give me a personal apology because of the way in which the Home Office had operated. Does the Minister want us to place our confidence in people who cannot turn up for agreed engagements?
It is getting late and hon. Members want to vote, but this right is extremely important and we should not be ashamed to stay here for as long as it takes to change the procedures. If the Minister does not change his mind, he will be remembered in the history of immigration law as the Minister who removed the right of appeal and wherever he goes in the country to whatever community event, he will be reminded of that.
Mr. Charles Wardle : Understandably, strong feelings have emerged in the debate. Some hon. Members have spoken with passion and sincerity. However, the debate has not been without some confusion and humbug. I am frequently impressed by the contributions of the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). If it were not for a trace of self-importance that seems to creep in, he would more frequently advance most impressive arguments.
I will not stand by while any hon. Member seeks to malign officials. It is entirely wrong to name officials who cannot answer back. Some hon. Members said that entry clearance officers treat badly people who apply for visit visas. It has also been suggested that Home Office officials treat people badly and the calibre of immigration officers has been impugned.
There has been confusion. For example, a person from the Indian sub- continent, as the House knows, will require a visa. Therefore, a citizen of that part of the world who has no visa should not travel here without it and would most definitely waste an air fare if he did so. However, if that individual has a proper and valid visa and arrives here having spent the air fare but is refused entry for whatever reason, he will still have a right of appeal because he would have been turned away while he had valid documentation. Other hon. Members spoke of the Caribbean. As was pointed out in Committee, most of the Caribbean islands are not countries whose nationals require a visa to visit here. Jamaica, which was once my home, has been mentioned. Jamaicans are not visa nationals for the purposes of visits to this country. In 1991, some 26,000 people from Jamaica visited the United Kingdom and just 392 were refused entry. As well as confusion, there has been humbug and not a little scaremongering to boot.
It is worth bearing in mind the fact that in 1991, the last full year for which records are available, some 5,700,000 visitors were welcomed to the country, of which some 400,000 came on short stays, in one capacity or another, from the Indian sub-continent. The confusion and the humbug do not end there. Let us look at applications for 1991, globally, for visa applications. Some 919,000 applications were received, and 91.6 per cent. were successful at the first attempt. Of those refused, 12,300
Column 719
appeals were made, of which 1,542 were allowed. I agree with Opposition Members that that is 1,542 cases about which one should think long and hard.We had a little humour and some fun from the hon. Member for Leicester, East--why not--when he spoke about me drawing my own conclusions. The hon. Gentleman told me that he has recently paid another visit to Bombay and Delhi, but he knows that I met every entry clearance officer on post there and listened to their advice. I did the same in Islamabad, Karachi, Colombo and Dakha. When I draw my conclusions, they are based on the research that I have carried out.
Mr. Vaz : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Wardle : I wish to make some progress and the hon. Gentleman had a full go, but as he asks so charmingly, how can I resist his entreaties?
Mr. Vaz : Let me try to be charming again. When the Minister went to see the entry clearance officers and immigration officers, did he discuss the removal of the right of appeal? Did he discuss the implications for their daily workload of removing the right of appeal?
Mr. Wardle : The hon. Gentleman's question is a little disingenuous because, if he had any pretensions to government, he would know full well that no Minister could talk about a Bill that had not been published and presented to Parliament. He will appreciate that the line of inquiries that I followed enabled me to learn a great deal while I was there.
The appeals backlog on immigration cases is about 23,000 and about half those cases involve visas for short-term visits. Opposition Members are right, of course, to say that we should look to staffing, to the calibre and training of our entry clearance officers in posts abroad and to improve the facilities and training of personnel in the Home Office. It is right for me to say that we do all of those things. Why, I wonder, is there humbug when someone makes suggestions which, if implemented, would improve administrative measures? Why should it be said, "That is not a good thing"?
Why not take a hard look at the reality of visit visa appeals, bearing in mind that no other country has quite the same mechanism? It is a creaking, improbable out-of-date appeal mechanism. It seems that its principal justification revolves round sponsors. The person who intends to make the visit will find under the present machinery that the term of his visit has long passed and the purpose of it has eluded him because it takes so long for an appeal to be sorted out. It must make much more sense to take a hard look at the procedures, instead of wallowing in compassion, and to say, "How can we improve the service for anyone who has to apply for a visit visa to come to the United Kingdom ; what can we do to serve him or her better?" I assure the House that to leave the current creaking and outmoded appeal mechanism in place will do the applicant no service. It must make more sense to consider the realities and to abolish the appeals that run for so long, and instead to offer a service that will enable the genine visitor--let us bear in mind that there were 5.7 million such visitors in 1991--to continue to enjoy the object of his plans, which is to come to the United Kingdom.
Column 720
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16--Ms. Abbott : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Wardle : Not for the moment--[ Hon. Members :-- "Give way."] I gave way to hon. Members throughout the consideration of the Bill in Committee and I have done so on the Floor of the House, so why should I make an exception of the hon. Lady, as long as she will be brief?
Ms. Abbott : I listened with great care to the Minister and he has failed to clarify the matter for Opposition Members. Even if there is a creaking right of appeal, how will there be an improvement in the service if we take away people's rights?
Mr. Wardle : People have a right to a decent, well-run service. Instead of indulging in all this compassion, the House should look for effective administrative measures, some of which are listed in the press release. It is a document that won much interest when it was published before Christmas.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 would, not surprisingly, delete clauses 9 and 10 from the Bill. Clause 9 amends section 13 of the Immigration Act 1971 to provide that a person shall not be entitled to appeal against the refusal of an entry clearance, or against refusal of leave to enter, if he is seeking to enter the United Kingdom as a visitor, if he is a short-term student on a course of not more than six months duration, if he is a prospective student or is a dependant of a person in one of those categories. Appeals remain in place for someone who is about to be deported or for someone who is seeking to obtain settlement in this country.
Clause 9 is necessary to streamline the appeal system to make it work properly and so to enable it to provide an effective and timely remedy to those to whom I have just referred, who will be challenging decisions which vitally and centrally affect their lives. It is not an attack on the entitlement of people who are settled in this country to have their relatives come here to visit them. Those visitors--genuine visitors--will always be welcomed to this country. It is scaremongering to suggest otherwise. The measures that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is putting in place, which were the subject of the press release, will provide a speedier means of having disputed decisions reviewed and treated.
Clause 10 removes the right of appeal against decisions taken on certain specified grounds where the applicant does not meet a mandatory requirement of the immigration rules. It is worth explaining why such appeals cannot succeed at present. Again, there has been confusion. The power of the appellate authorities in determining an appeal are set out in section 19 of the 1971 Act. Subsection (1) provides that an adjudicator shall allow an appeal if he considers that the decision involved was not in accordance with the law or any applicable immigration rules, or, where a decision involved the exercise of a discretion, if he considers that the discretion should have been exercised differently. In all other cases he must dismiss the appeal. Subsection (2) provides that a decision which is in accordance with the immigration rules is not to be treated as involving an exercise of discretion simply because the Secretary of State has declined to depart from the rules. It is right and necessary that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State should retain a residual
Column 721
discretion to waive the requirements of the immigration rules in exceptional circumstances as no set of rules can cater for every possible set of circumstances. The flexible use of exceptional leave in asylum cases is the obvious example of the need for that. However, the general expectation in the non-asylum cases with which clause 10 is concerned must be that the immigration rules, which reflect the policy laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend and approved by Parliament, will be applied and that the function of the appellate authorities is simply to ensure that the rules have been applied correctly in individual cases. If the appellate authorities were able to direct the Secretary of State to waive the rules in particular cases, in effect they would be determining immigration policy, which is not their proper function.Some immigration rules provide for the exercise of discretion--for example, a decision to deport will always be discretionary. Other rules contain requirements that the Secretary of State or the immigration officer has to be satisfied of certain matters that can be tested only in a balance of probabilities, such as a person's intention to leave the United Kingdom at the end of a period of study. In both those cases, there is room for argument as to whether the decision is correct and an appeal may be either allowed or dismissed.
Some rules, however, contain requirements that must be met if the application is to succeed and where the question of whether the requirement is met can be easily determined on the basis of documentary evidence. When an application is refused because such a requirement is not met, the adjudicator has no option but to dismiss the appeal when it eventually comes before him. The existence of a right of appeal in such cases does nothing to redress genuine grievances ; it serves only to enable those appellants who have no claim under the immigration rules to remain in this country and to spin out their stay here pursuing hopeless appeals, while delaying the hearing of other appeals that certainly do involve issues of substance. I therefore urge the House to reject amendments Nos. 15 and 16.
Government Amendments Nos. 36 to 39 clarify the types of document that are involved in mandatory refusals for the purpose of clause 10. Those are essential official documents that must be held if an application is to succeed under the relevant immigration rules--entry clearances, passports or other identity documents and work permits. I believe that that clarification will be generally welcomed. I commend the amendments to the House.
Mr. Fraser : Not a word that has been said by the Minister justifies clause 9 being included in the Bill. The clause can be summed up in two words--it stinks. When the Prime Minister was doing his memory lane stuff in Brixton, pointing out where he used to live in Loughborough junction, why did not he point out that we had a great big piece of redundant machinery that gave people rights of appeal which he would remove as soon as he got back into office? When the Home Secretary was going around ethnic constituencies in the midlands and Yorkshire at the time of the general election, why were not people told that there was a piece of creaking machinery that the Government proposed to remove?
Clause 9 is a deceit for the ethnic communities of this country. It breaks a trust. Those people trusted the Government. There used to be a bipartisanship about fairness and decency in appeals on these matters. Clause 9
Column 722
will split families, prevent reunion in times of joy, prevent visits in times of bereavement and give validity to decisions that often will be based on speculation, not evidence. Clause 9 will give credence to decisions that are often based on speculation, not evidence ; and a spurious validity to previous refusals, so that people will have the stigma of an immigration refusal. It will also refuse the right of appeal at the very time that we have citizens charters which are supposed to improve the lot of those who challenge administrative decisions. This exception will remove them. Most of all, clause 9 will be a stain on the reputation of the Home Secretary who, on the whole, is a man who is aggressive rather than spiteful, tough rather than mean. I believe that he will come to regret this occasion. It will be a stain on the reputation also of the Under-Secretary who, even if we do not agree with him, is generally considered to be fair-minded. It will be a stain on the reputation of this country. Let no one be deceived about the kind of reputation that it will create when people's right of appeal is taken away. There will be a stain also on the reputation of every Conservative Member who votes for clause 9 tonight.Question put, That the amendment be made :
The House divided : Ayes 248, Noes 299.
Division No. 107] [11.00 pm
AYES
Abbott, Ms Diane
Ainger, Nick
Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Allen, Graham
Alton, David
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Armstrong, Hilary
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ashton, Joe
Austin-Walker, John
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Barnes, Harry
Battle, John
Bayley, Hugh
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Bell, Stuart
Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Benton, Joe
Bermingham, Gerald
Berry, Dr. Roger
Betts, Clive
Blair, Tony
Blunkett, David
Boateng, Paul
Boyce, Jimmy
Bradley, Keith
Bray, Dr Jeremy
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Burden, Richard
Byers, Stephen
Caborn, Richard
Callaghan, Jim
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Canavan, Dennis
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Chisholm, Malcolm
Clapham, Michael
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Clelland, David
Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Coffey, Ann
Cohen, Harry
Connarty, Michael
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Corbett, Robin
Corbyn, Jeremy
Corston, Ms Jean
Cousins, Jim
Cox, Tom
Cryer, Bob
Cummings, John
Cunliffe, Lawrence
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Dalyell, Tam
Darling, Alistair
Davidson, Ian
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Denham, John
Dewar, Donald
Dixon, Don
Dobson, Frank
Donohoe, Brian H.
Dowd, Jim
Dunnachie, Jimmy
Eagle, Ms Angela
Enright, Derek
Etherington, Bill
Evans, John (St Helens N)
Fatchett, Derek
Faulds, Andrew
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Flynn, Paul
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Foster, Don (Bath)
Foulkes, George
Fraser, John
Fyfe, Maria
Gapes, Mike
Garrett, John
George, Bruce
Gerrard, Neil
Godman, Dr Norman A.
Godsiff, Roger
Golding, Mrs Llin
| Next Section
| Home Page |