ENTRY CLEARANCE OPERATIONS WITH PARTICULAR
REFERENCE TO ISLAMABAD AND NEW DELHI
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
58. We are struck by the fact that no evidence has
been submitted on how effectively the entry clearance system overseas
meets the objectives of immigration policy. Without such information,
it is difficult to judge how effective the entry clearance operation
is. For instance, there is anecdotal evidence that, from the Indian
Sub-Continent, as many as 50% of holders of visitors' visas fail
to return. We recommend that research be commissioned in this
area, in order that the entry clearance operation can be focussed
as effectively as possible.
59. Fiona Mactaggart MP drew our attention to the
fact that there are a number of unpublished Home Office practices
known to entry clearance staff and some advisers.[84]
She criticised this, arguing that immigration policy should be
open. We agree. It will inevitably cause problems if ECOs are
obliged to take into account unpublished considerations, as applicants
are likely to be disadvantaged thereby.
60. One of the concerns that prompted this inquiry
was the high level of Members' representations. This would undoubtedly
be reduced if there was a right of appeal against all visa refusals,
rather than just settlement visa refusals. As we have said earlier,
the Government is committed to introducing such a right and we
are glad that the Home Secretary has now announced specific proposals
for those refused a visa to visit a family member in this country.[85]
We hope the necessary legislation will be introduced speedily.
61. The Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) recommended[86]
that consideration be given to FCO part-funding of IAS overseas
offices to advise applicants to posts in Islamabad and New Delhi
in order to ensure that their applications are in proper order.
We recommend that consideration be given to this idea, which
might deter some people from employing agents as these have a
reputation for giving poor advice.
62. In the course of this limited inquiry, it has
been abundantly clear that the fair and impartial operation of
the entry clearance operation places a heavy responsibility on
the staff concerned. Faced with frequently incomplete information,
they are obliged to make judgements in accordance with the Immigration
Rules in force at the time. There will inevitably be those who
are dissatisfied with that judgement when it goes against their
wishes. As Baroness Symons put it:[87]
".....Of course, people
are always going to be unhappy when the decision on an application
is not what they want. I am afraid there are always going to be
people who feel that the decision has not been fair, for whatever
reason, and that is in the nature of what we are doing here. It
is, after all, one of the means by which we do make sure that
the rules on immigration into this country are properly enforced.
It is a difficult matter for many people but it does have to be
done and I am afraid we are always going to have a certain number
of people who approach Ms Abbott and other MPs who feel those
decisions have been wrong."
We believe that those who perform this difficult
function on our behalf deserve the support of the House.
84 Appendix 10, p.89. Back
85
Official Report 27 July 1998, Vol. 317, Col. 36. See also Cm.
4018, paras. 5.7 to 5.10. Back
86
Appendix 8, p.88. Back
87
Q15. Back
| 
