APPENDIX 5
Memorandum submitted by
Mr Neil Gerrard MP
As an MP who deals with a large amount of immigration
casework I should like to submit the following comments on entry
clearance procedures at overseas posts to the sub-committee that
has been set up to consider this matter.
One of my main areas of concern is the practice of
"preliminary interviews" for visit visas. This practice
creates a great deal of confusion amongst applicants and their
families. It is obvious from the cases I have dealt with that
many applicants are unaware of the informal nature of these interviews
and believe that the advice given at this stage is the official
decision on their application.
Whilst I appreciate that these interviews have been
established so that people do not waste their money on applications
that have little chance of succeeding, I would question whether
overall they are in the interest of people applying for entry
clearance. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is always keen
to state that each case will be judged on its individual merits.
Yet it is apparent that when advising at preliminary interviews
officials often refer to previous applications and do not consider
fully any new evidence. Surely, this must raise doubts as to whether
there is any degree of accuracy in the official's assessment of
whether a case is likely to succeed and I am certain that applicants
who would have been granted entry clearance have been dissuaded
to proceed with their application at this stage.
If the preliminary interview procedure is to be maintained
there needs to be greater clarity as to its purpose and the advice
given needs to be recorded in some form. I am often approached
by the relatives of people who claim to have applied and been
refused. However, when I have contacted the Foreign & Commonwealth
Office about this matter, the relevant application cannot be found
and it has to be presumed that the person has decided not to apply
after a preliminary interview. Of course, without the details
of this interview being recorded or the results being recorded
systematically, it is impossible to ascertain the reasons for
the advice given and as an MP I find it very frustrating as I
often have to work on "hearsay" rather than facts.
Delays also mean that there is a contradiction in
the process for applying for visit visas. Whereas it is advantageous
to a person's application if they can show that they are visiting
the UK for an event such as a wedding or a funeral, delays often
mean that an application fails because the date of the event has
passed.
Another area of concern is obviously the waiting
times for applications by spouses/dependents at posts such as
Islamabad. The problems with delays is evident throughout the
entry clearance procedure including delays in initial interviews,
in decisions being made and in the issuing of explanatory statements.
I would particularly like the sub-committee to consider this last
stage of the procedure as it is not possible for an appeal to
be listed until the explanatory statement has been issued. Therefore
people who have applied at large entry clearance posts are immediately
put at a disadvantage in the appeals process.
On a more general level, the sub-committee may wish
to examine the way in which decisions by ECOs are monitored. It
is difficult in looking across a large number of cases to see
a consistency in ECOs' decisions. (This is made all the more difficult
when the quality of written notices of refusal varies greatly-some
of which are illegible.) For example, it is obvious in some cases
that they have failed on the grounds that the ECO was not satisfied
that the sponsor did not have sufficient accommodation or finance
to support the applicant without recourse to public funds. However,
in other cases where the sponsor has had very similar finances
and accommodation the ECO has allowed entry clearance. Therefore,
it is unclear as to what action is taken to ensure consistency
in decision-making. I feel this issue is particularly important
when considering visit visas as there is no appeals procedure
which, in theory, can scrutinise the accuracy of an ECO's decision.
Another common complaint brought to me by constituents
is about the attitudes of the officials at entry posts. They often
refer to the manner in which the ECO addressed the applicant and
feel that the interview was conducted on the basis that the applicant
was under suspicion. I realise this is a difficult subject for
the sub-committee to investigate but it may be possible to look
into whether the process could be made less confrontational.
Finally, the sub-committee may wish to examine the
logistics of gaining access to entry posts and the facilities
provided at the posts. In several countries, applicants have to
travel hundreds of miles and I have had reports of people then
having to queue outside certain entry posts for several days.
I have taken up individual cases with the Minister, but a general
survey of the facilities provided at entry posts and the distances
travelled by applicants would be a useful exercise.
January 1998
| 
