House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report

ENTRY CLEARANCE OPERATIONS WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO ISLAMABAD AND NEW DELHI

ENTRY CLEARANCE OPERATIONS

Members' concerns

17. A wide range of points were made by the various Members who took up the Sub-Committee's invitation to give evidence. Two specific points were raised by a number of Members:

the attitude of ECOs towards applicants; and

the response to representations made by them.

Concern on the first point was also expressed by other witnesses.

ATTITUDES OF ENTRY CLEARANCE OFFICERS

18. The Sub-Committee received a considerable amount of criticism of the attitudes of entry clearance officers on the Indian Sub-Continent. Audrey Wise MP told us that offices in Islamabad regularly demanded certain documents beyond those sought by other Posts.[24] Joan Walley MP complained about protracted delays in obtaining interviews and processing paperwork, and applicants not being dealt with in an appropriate and sympathetic way.[25] Mike Gapes MP, who visited both New Delhi and Islamabad in 1995, commented that he had sensed on that visit that entry clearance staff in Islamabad sought to keep people out of the United Kingdom.[26] Neil Gerrard MP said that complaints to him about the attitudes of ECOs were "common".[27] Theresa May MP had received a number of complaints about staff attitudes in both Islamabad and New Delhi.[28] Janet Anderson MP wrote:[29]

"..... there is a prevailing feeling among the Pakistani Community in my constituency that the Entry Clearance Officers in Islamabad begin each case examination with the view "how can I refuse this application?""

19. Similar views were expressed by other witnesses. Mr Chatwin, of the Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants commented that there were problems with the attitude of entry clearance staff in Islamabad.[30] Helen Powell, of the British Council, formed the impression that ECOs there "basically make up their minds from their own opinions".[31] The Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit had the impression that, in Islamabad, ECOs operated on the principle that if one rule was made easier, another should be interpreted more stringently.[32] The Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) commented that preconceptions by applicants in Islamabad of entry clearance officers' attitudes and their application of the rules contributed to negative public perception.[33] The Asian Resource Centre complained of rudeness by ECOs and commented:[34]

"To most people's experience the Entry Clearance Office in British High Commission of New Delhi and Islamabad is the most unwelcoming and unfriendly place!"

20. The Members who visited New Delhi and Islamabad each sat in on a number of interviews and had the opportunity to speak informally with both applicants and ECOs. Staff at both Posts were distressed by the frequency with which they were accused of discriminating against applicants. It was pointed out on numerous occasions by ECOs and their managers that it was their job to apply the rules even-handedly and that the easier option was always to issue a visa. Thus, a decision not to issue was not taken lightly. The Rules required that cases which, in their opinion, did not qualify under the Immigration Rules should be refused.

21. Neither Mr Illsley or Mr Wilshire saw behaviour by ECOs or their managers that remotely justified any of the allegations summarised above, in any of the interviews they witnessed. ECOs in both places treated applicants with respect and interviews were conducted in a thoroughly professional manner. Mr Illsley and Mr Wilshire were told that senior staff investigated claims of inappropriate documentation being demanded by ECOs and that, where these were substantiated, instructions were given to ECOs to cease to do so. It may, of course, be that particular bad cases have entered the folk-lore. Another possibility is that attitudes of ECOs have improved in recent years, as the IAS evidence suggests may be the case.[35] We believe it would be helpful if FCO took steps to project, particularly in the ethnic minority media, a positive image of the United Kingdom's entry clearance operation on the Indian Sub-Continent.

RESPONSE TO REPRESENTATIONS

22. One of the factors behind our inquiry is the substantial increase in the number of representations made by Members. A wide range of reasons may lead a Member to raise a particular case with the Minister, but the more common ones include:[36]

requests for information on the progress of an application

expressions of support for applications made or in prospect

representations in respect of refusals, particularly of applications for visit visas and other categories where there is presently no right of appeal.[37]

23. Baroness Symons was not expecting a return to pre-election levels.[38] She attributed the increase in part to people who had been refused under the previous Administration trying again,[39] although there had been no changes of substance in the Immigration Rules other than the abolition of the "primary purpose" rule and the concession for certain unmarried partners.[40]

24. The power of the Minister to alter decisions in response to representations from Members is limited to decisions within the Immigration Rules and the delegation of authority which the FCO holds.[41] So, if the Minister takes the view that the ECO has made a poor judgement, it can be changed.[42] In such circumstances, the first step is for the Post to be asked to look afresh at the original decision. Otherwise, if the Minister is satisfied that the requirement of the Rules are met, she can direct that entry clearance be granted.[43] Since 1 May 1997, FCO has put in place arrangements to identify cases referred by Members where there is prima facie evidence of poor decision making. These are reviewed by the Migration and Visa Department (MVD) Policy Unit and the finding referred to senior officials or Ministers.[44] Decisions on cases falling outside the Rules are a matter for the Home Secretary.[45]

25. The bulk of Members' representations are handled by MVCU. In 1996, the Unit handled 7,572 letters from Members'. MVCU aims to reply to Members within 15 working days.[46] Baroness Symons indicated that the Unit had been strengthened to reduce delays in responding to enquiries.[47] When she gave evidence, Baroness Symons told[48] the Sub-Committee that this target was being met in 78% of cases. The latest available figure, for June 1998, is 57%. We are disappointed that, despite the strengthening of the Unit, its performance appears to be deteriorating. We recommend that FCO give urgent attention to this.

26. There was criticism of the responses which MVCU made to Members' representations and of the time it took to send a response. Mike Gapes MP commented[49] that Members frequently received standardised replies indicating that the application had been reconsidered in Post, but the Entry Clearance Manager was satisfied that the refusal was correct. Janet Anderson MP made a similar point.[50]

27. Both in New Delhi and Islamabad, entry clearance staff commented that Members' representations were taken seriously in Post. They were normally expected to send full reports to MVCU, which took time to prepare. There was a feeling that sometimes there were delays in notifying Posts of letters, and Posts were then required to respond very quickly, sometimes within 24 hours, to fit in with MVCU's need to meet its own target deadlines. Both New Delhi and Islamabad indicated that responding to enquiries by fax from MVCU could have a highly disruptive effect on their other work, particularly where tight deadlines were set for the response. ECOs were disappointed to see that material in their reports was frequently not incorporated into replies sent by MVCU. They believed that there would be a better understanding by Members of the reasoning behind particular decisions if fuller responses were sent. We agree. We recommend that there should be a presumption in responding to Members' representations about refusal of visas that the fullest possible explanation of the reasoning behind the decision is given.

28. In both Posts, it was said that it was not uncommon for Members and their staff to contact ECOs directly about specific cases, sometimes at home. The IAS memorandum comments that some of the correspondence received in New Delhi was described to them as "vitriolic". A particular problem in New Delhi was that ECOs living on the compound were liable to be telephoned by Members or their representatives about cases in the middle of the night.[51] ECOs were divided as to whether direct dealing with Members was a good idea; some saw it as a means of building a relationship and as a means of remedying deficiencies in MVCU replies to Members, while others considered that there were risks that they might be felt to be unduly influenced. Without exception, they objected to late night calls when they were off-duty.

29. We believe it is better for all Members' representations to go through Ministers, both to preserve the constitutional proprieties and so that there is a degree of external reassessment of the original decision. We also believe that routing enquiries in this way protects ECOs from any suggestions that they may have favoured any particular Member. We urge our colleagues to act accordingly. We also urge them to couch their correspondence in moderate terms and to respect the professionalism of ECOs. Baroness Symons made clear in her evidence the attention she gives to Members' representations. We are satisfied from what Members of the Sub-Committee saw in Islamabad and New Delhi that Members' representations are considered thoroughly and conscientiously by staff.[52] Telephoning ECOs at home at unreasonable hours places an unfair burden on them and their families and we draw the attention of colleagues to this.

30. One problem which seems to be particularly acute in Islamabad arises from Members making representations in respect of applications including applications not yet lodged, typically at the instigation of sponsors. A view seems to have developed in some quarters that a Member's support is an essential prerequisite to a successful application. This is not the case, as it is the applicant and nobody else whom the ECO has to assess against the standard criteria. Entry clearance staff made clear that neither the presence or absence of such letters in a particular case had any effect on their consideration of the application. Such letters of recommendation are often very difficult for Posts to tie up with subsequent applications and clog up the work of the MVCU. We urge colleagues to exercise considerable restraint in making representations in support of applications yet to be made, or decided, so that Ministers' and Posts' efforts can be concentrated on disputed decisions.

Students

31. In a joint memorandum, the British Council, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), the Council for International Education (UKCOSA) and the Association of Recognised English Language Services,[53] asserted that students wishing to study in the United Kingdom faced "three main problems:

(ii) there are delays after the visa application has been submitted; and

(iii) there is a widespread view among student applicants that entry clearance officers are insensitive and rude."

The first problem was described as applying to "both Delhi and Islamabad, and to many other entry clearance posts".[54] The second and third related to Islamabad in particular. The memorandum suggested that policy on issuing visas to students might have both short-term and long-term implications, the former in terms of loss of income to the United Kingdom and the latter in terms of developing negative attitudes to the United Kingdom. A contrast was drawn with the positive marketing strategy of competitors in the international student market such as Australia.[55]

32. The criticisms were expanded in oral evidence. Professor Scott (CVCP) commented[56] that some ECOs would remark to applicants that a course was inappropriate. Helen Powell, of the British Council stated[57] that students were on occasion discouraged from taking English courses in the United Kingdom (typically to bring their standard of English up to that required for entry to a university course). Asked whether there was active discouragement of students taking English courses in this country, Ms Powell said[58] "Absolutely, yes, from my experiences in Islamabad". There could also be difficulties also over other short courses.[59] On ECO's attitudes, Ms Powell commented that at an education festival in Karachi, Islamabad and Lahore "there were constant complaints about the ECOs, their manner and interview techniques".[60]

33. The Members who travelled to the Sub-Continent met the senior British Council representatives in both New Delhi and Islamabad. They discussed both the general issues raised by students applying for visas and the specific allegations that had been made about ECOs in Islamabad with Ms Clare Newton, the Acting Director of the British Council office there. She drew attention to the fact that for the 1995-96 academic year, a significantly higher proportion of British Council sponsored student visa applications had been refused in Islamabad then in Karachi, although she added that there was anecdotal evidence that the position in Islamabad had now improved. A fast-track scheme, for British Council sponsored student visa applications had been initiated in 1997 but had not worked well, partly because it had been affected by the computer breakdowns that summer.[61] Mr Lockhart (British Council) commented that the fast-track approach worked well in Delhi.[62]

34. In the course of the visit to the Indian Sub-Continent, the participants discussed some of the problems raised by student visa applications. The Rev. Tom Bruch (UKCOSA) had already commented that there was some evidence that ECOs set too high a standard of proof regarding the requirement for students to leave the United Kingdom at the end of their studies. ECOs pointed out that the Immigration Rules required them to assess whether, at the time of the application, the student had the intention to leave. They would take into account a range of factors, not least the applicant's estimate of the salary enhancement likely to arise from completing successfully the proposed academic course of study. In some cases, this was very small when compared with the apparent investment to be made (in travel, fees and maintenance). In these circumstances, the ECO may doubt whether the intention of the applicant is to complete the proposed course of study and consequently probe quite deeply in this area. Another factor which ECOs take into account in assessing the genuineness of the application is the competence of the prospective student in the English language measured against the requirements for the course.

35. ECOs also take into account the documentary material supplied to prospective overseas students by academic institutions in the United Kingdom. Dame Elizabeth Anson, the Independent Monitor, commented in her 1996 Report that some institutions were failing to provide the necessary information to the student on matters such as language proficiency requirements, duration and cost of courses and the cost of living in the area, thus impeding the entry clearance process as the ECO has no basis on which to judge the adequacy of the proposed financial support. Mr Bruch confirmed[63] that this could be a problem and added that UKCOSA had prepared a special briefing on helping international students obtain entry clearance.[64] The British Council is also preparing a pre-departure guide for students, which is designed amongst other things to help students to prepare for entry clearance.[65]

36. We recognise that it is the Government's policy to welcome genuine students who wish to come to the United Kingdom. Their presence is a substantial asset to the United Kingdom and, according to evidence we received, contributes at least £2 billion annually to the national economy.[66] However, it is undoubtedly the case that claiming to be a student has been abused as a means of entering the United Kingdom. The fast-track arrangements in New Delhi for student applications under arrangements involving the British Council appear to work well and may have wider application. We understand that the High Commission in Islamabad has put in place new liaison arrangements with the British Council. We believe that the British Council may be able to provide information that will help ECOs to reach more soundly-based decisions on student visa applications and we hope that the High Commission will make the maximum use possible of this source of expertise. We recommend that the Government review the guidance given to ECOs to try and reduce the risk of students wishing to study in the United Kingdom and who genuinely intend to return being refused visas.

24 Ev. p.60. Back

25 Ev. p.60. Back

26 Q165. Mr Gapes also commented (Q186) that some representations that had been made to him in particular cases had subsequently proved to be false. Back

27 Appendix 5, p.79. Back

28 Appendix 6, p.79. Back

29 Appendix 19, p.100. Back

30 Q72-3. See also Q89, 94. Back

31 Q137-9, 145. Back

32 Appendix 12, p.93. Back

33 Appendix 8, p.85. Back

34 Appendix 17, p.98. Back

35 Appendix 8, p.87. Back