Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Fourth Report


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 Fiona Mactaggart MP drew our attention to the fact that there are a number of unpublished Home Office practices known to entry clearance staff and some advisers.[84] She criticised this, arguing that immigration policy should be open.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 It will inevitably cause problems if ECOs are obliged to take into account unpublished considerations, as applicants are likely to be disadvantaged thereby.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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 7 August 1998