APPENDIX 3
Memorandum submitted by
Jenny Jones MP
I understand that the Entry Clearance Sub-Committee
of the Foreign Affairs Committee is conducting a short inquiry
into entry clearance procedures at overseas posts-with particular
reference to Islamabad and New Delhi.
As an MP representing a significant ethnic minority
population originating from the Indian sub-continent particularly
the Punjab region, a sizeable proportion of my caseload relates
to entry clearance and other related matters. I would like to
submit evidence to the sub-committee based upon my constituents'
and my experiences with particular reference to New Delhi.
The areas upon which I wish to submit evidence are;
the "pre-sift" procedure, MPs' letters of support, updating
Entry Clearance Officers' knowledge of cultural practices in the
UK.
The pre-sift procedure for visitors visa applications
This procedure is operated at New Delhi and is designed
to alert applicants to the fact that their applications are unlikely
to succeed and they might therefore wish to withdraw and not pay
the non- refundable fee.
Whilst appreciating the logic behind this procedure,
my casework experience shows me that it is a procedure not readily
understood and leaves entry clearance officers open to charges
of subjective decision making. One case I recently took up baffled
me as the criteria for rejecting an application under the pre-sift
procedure simply did not apply. Clearly my advice to my constituent's
relatives was to go ahead and make a formal application and see
what happens, but the applicants are concerned that the decision
on their application may now be prejudiced because they will be
seen as acting against the advice of the entry clearance officers.
My view is that the pre-sift procedure and its criteria
needs to be clearly stated to applicants; that formal applications
should not be prejudiced by advice given during the pre-sift process
and this will have to be reflected in how a formal application
is processed; that the right of appeal needs to be brought back
for visas to ensure that pre-sift is not being used on a subjective
basis. If the pre-sift procedure cannot be made more transparent,
then it should be dropped.
MPs' letters of support
Like a lot of other MPs I find it difficult to gauge
how much credibility is given to the letters of support which
I write and send to the entry clearance officers. I am mindful
that unless I provide a creditable reason as to why an application
should be favourably considered my letters of support will have
a "devalued" currency, and I therefore only supply them
accordingly.
I would also find it helpful to have it clarified
as to who should have copies of these letters. My personal policy
is to request the Migration and Visa Section of the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office in London to forward the letter of support
to the relevant entry clearance officer. I do not supply copies
to the applicants. My reason for doing so is to ensure that my
letters are not misused in any way-like most MPs I am conscious
of the fact that there are "advisers" and "agents"
who would misuse MPs' letters. However I was recently told in
two separate cases that the entry clearance officer wanted to
know why the applicants did not have copies of my letter with
them at the time of their interview. It would be useful to have
the procedure clarified as to who is expected to have copies of
MPs' letters of support.
Entry Clearance Officers' knowledge of changing
cultural practices in the UK
Quite a few of the visit visa applications which
I deal with are concerned with family events, namely weddings
and funerals. Recently two applications have been refused for
relatives wishing to attend funerals on the grounds that the ashes
of the deceased would be returned to India to be scattered on
the Ganges and the relatives could attend that ceremony and pay
their last respects rather than attend the funeral in the UK.
Whilst this practice is observed amongst elderly Indians who were
the primary immigrants into the UK, it is much more common for
younger Indians to scatter ashes following cremation in the UK.
This is just one example of how cultural practices
and traditions will change as successive generations assimilate
into the UK. Entry clearance officers need to be kept up to date
with these changes if their decisions are to be just, particularly
as there is no right of appeal.
I would be grateful if the sub-committee could consider
the above evidence.
January 1998
| 
