Memorandum submitted by Mr Mike Gapes,
MP
I welcome this opportunity to address members
of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. Having spent five years
as a member of the Committee in the last Parliament it is with
fond memories and some trepidation that I appear before you today.
I have since April 1992 been the Member of Parliament for Ilford
South, a London constituency with thousands of constituents of
Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, or Sri Lankan origin and with
significant numbers of constituents born in or with family links
to West and East Africa and the Caribbean.
There are now thousands of British Asians in
Ilford, British citizens by birth, by naturalisation or by marriage
settled, financially secure making a vital contribution to our
local economy and community. These families, like any other of
my constituents, have birthday parties and wedding ceremonies
and sadly funerals too to which they wish to invite relatives,
friends or business associates, but the difference for them is
that their relatives have to go through a process of applying
for an entry clearance visit visa whereas other constituents including
the several thousand born in the Irish Republic or elsewhere in
the European Union or many other countries do not.
Most applications for visit visas are approved
and do not come to the attention of MPs but sadly for far too
many of my constituents particularly those with relatives in Pakistan
and Bangladesh there are difficulties and refusals. I estimate
that about one third of my surgery appointments are made up of
immigration or nationality related cases including visit visa
refusals, marriage cases and asylum cases. It is beyond the scope
of this inquiry to deal with the latter but for the record I would
also draw attention to the estimated 4,000 refugees living in
my Borough from Somalia, Zaire, Angola, Iraq and elsewhere.
I have become increasingly concerned about the
way in which visit visa applications and entry clearance matters
are dealt with by our posts in the Indian Sub-Continent. I have
raised this matter with Ministers and officials at both the FCO
and the Home Office. I attach a letter sent to me by Emyr Jones
Parry dated 7 October 1997 which sets out the procedure as seen
by the FCO which may be helpful to the Committee (see Annex).
Based on my own experiences and seen from the
perspective of many of my constituents the present system is not
working well. In my view, these issues should be addressed urgently
by the Government in order to maintain good community relations
in this country. It is essential that immigration policy should
be seen to be both firm and fair. There can be no question of
the need for immigration control. But there is a problem of perception.
For far too many of my constituents there is serious cause for
concern over the way in which prospective visitors are denied
access to the United Kingdom.
The United Kingdom's immigration history means
that a considerable proportion of the population—British
citizens and foreign nationals who have settled here—have
family ties in other countries. Visits to the UK are an essential
part of family life for people in these circumstances.
HIGH COMMISSION
ACCOMMODATION AND
FACILITIES FOR
APPLICANTS
Constituents are concerned about the long wait
their relatives encounter at our posts in the Indian Sub-Continent,
especially in Islamabad. The lack of basic facilities such as
adequate numbers of toilets while applicants are waiting for their
turn in queues for a very long time is worrying. The heavy handed
attitude of the security personnel and locally appointed staff
have also been a matter for concern in some cases.
"SIFTING"
PROCESS
The "sifting" process, brought in
to prevent individuals making applications with inadequate documentation,
is designed to help applicants, but often seems to hinder their
applications. Applicants are persuaded to withdraw their applications
but there appears to be no guidance given as to why their application
would fail and the nature of the documentation that would be needed.
The lack of information and guidance also confuses
applicants. They assume their applications have been refused and
inform their relatives in the Untied Kingdom that their applications
have been refused.
Their relatives in the United Kingdom, understandably
distressed, contact their MPs. We contact the Migration and Visa
Correspondence Unit or the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State
at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The reply the Unit or
the Minister receives from the posts is that "they have no
record of refusing the application" which is strictly
accurate, but not the whole story.
It would be helpful if the applicant is given
written, individually numbered, notification that their application
has not been refused and that further supporting documentary evidence
has been requested. A record should be kept of the application
so that it could easily be traced should relatives contact their
Member of Parliament.
"PROFILING"
OF APPLICATIONS
When applicants have passed through the "sifting"
process and when they reach the window to see the entry clearance
officer, constituents tell me that very little consideration is
given to the actual application. I understand that entry clearance
officers use a "profiling" system and under this, it
would appear that applications are classified in categories. Young
single persons—male or female, older dependants, mainly
parents, people in poor backgrounds, are regarded as unlikely
to return and are refused on crude "balance of probabilities"
criteria.
It appears to be generally assumed with regard
to nearly all applications from the Sub-Continent and also from
some other posts too that young people will either get married
or seek employment in the United Kingdom. Elderly relatives are
refused because it is assumed they will want to settle here permanently.
People in poorer background are refused because it is assumed
they will remain here illegally for economic reasons—even
when they have family and commitments in their country.
The requirement to satisfy an entry clearance
officer that a visitor will leave the UK at the end of the visit
introduces a huge element of subjectivity in the decision making
process. No matter how much evidence an applicant provides, it
will always be possible for the entry clearance officer to express
a doubt about the true intention of the applicant. Many applications
made to attend weddings in the family in the United Kingdom are
refused. The reasons given on the refusal notice include statements
such as "the applicant has little enthusiasm for attending
his relative's wedding". Or "the applicant does not
know the couple personally." Or "the applicant has not
attended previous marriages in the family." Or "the
applicant has not met the sponsor for a few years."
It must be remembered that within the Asian
culture, large numbers of people are invited to wedding ceremonies,
often including business acquaintances and others not personally
known to the couple. Every member of the extended family of both
bride and the groom would be especially invited. Members of the
Committee may have attended weddings of their constituents or
friends where there have been over a thousand guests. All are
valued guests, but not all are personally known to the bride or
the groom.
I myself as an MP have attended several weddings
where I have been invited by a senior member of the family—an
uncle or brother or father of the bride or groom even though I
have not met those who are getting married until the wedding day
itself.
Regrettably it would appear that many entry
clearance officers lack awareness of the cultural importance of
family events.
Constituents tell me they are concerned at the
way visa applications are processed from the three categories
mentioned above. Very little regard is given to "compelling
compassionate circumstances" as described in the immigration
rules.
Such circumstances may involve bereavement in
the family. Distraught families here cannot understand why people
in such circumstances are refused visas. Funeral arrangements
cannot be made as the families would be waiting for relatives
to come from aborad.
When a member of the family is taken ill, unmarried
relatives—sons and daughters, elderly relatives, parents
may experience considerable difficulty in persuading the entry
clearances officer, even when documentary evidence from the hospital
consultant is provided, that the purpose of their visit is to
be able to be with their ill, and in some cases, dying relative.
Regrettably because there is now no right of
appeal, constituents feel they have to approach their MP to try
to get a refusal overturned. Many constituents now feel that the
entry clearance officers have taken on total and unaccountable
power. They fail to understand that I as the MP have little or
no power to challenge or change the decision.
Sponsors now regularly come to my advice surgeries
offering financial guarantees to the immigration authorities and
even saying they are willing to give an undertaking that their
relative will surrender their passport on arrival or that they
are even prepared to surrender their own passports to the immigration
authorities at whichever airport their relative would be arriving.
RELIGIOUS OR
CULTURAL AWARENESS
The entry clearance officers are sometimes not
aware of the religious implications of visits. For example, elderly
Muslims living in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh or East Africa wishing
to go on a pilgrimage or Haj to Saudi Arabia may wish to be accompanied
by their relatives in the United Kingdom. This may be due to their
age and health or because the Saudi authorities work on a quota
system. It would appear that vouchers are generally available
in the Untied Kingdom as the quota in the Indian Sub-Continent
is immediately taken. However, Haj can only be completed if they
return to the place where they started from, in this instance
the United Kingdom. This would mean that such people would require
a multiple entry visa, yet occasions arise where applicants in
India obtain a visa for the UK on the basis of going from there
to Saudi Arabia but are not advised they will need a multiple
entry visa. This then creates problems later on.
SETTLEMENT CASES
There seems to be considerable delay in processing
settlement cases. I have been told that once an application is
lodged, it takes six months for the interview to take place and
in some cases, the application may have to be referred to the
Home Office in the United Kingdom for a decision, therefore resulting
in further delay.
Despite the welcome abolition of the "primary
purpose" rule, sponsors are now asked to provide, as a matter
of routine, what is regarded as unnecessary documentation such
as confirmation from the Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency
that they have been paying tax and that they have not been claiming
benefits even when documentation from the sponsor's employers
or documentation of the sponsor's business is made available.
Concern is also expressed about the lack of
awareness on the part of the entry clearance officers of the common
practice of many British Asian extended families living in the
same property. The owner of the property may sometimes not be
the sponsor, and would probably be the sponsor's parents. The
owner of the property has consented that the son and their daughter-in-law
or their daughter and son-in-law could live with them and that
there is adequate accommodation available for them to live in
the same property. Some applications are refused because the sponsor
is not the owner of the property.
Support for the concerns I have expressed above
comes from the reports of the "Independent Monitor of refusals
in entry clearance cases where there is no right of appeal",
an office which was established at the time of the withdrawal
of appeal rights. In her second report, Dame Elizabeth Anson (The
Monitor) stated that while she was satisfied that most applications
had been considered properly, "a number have caused me grave
concern".
Recommendation for consideration by the Inquiry:
1. APPEAL RIGHTS
I understand consideration is now being given
to the possibility of appeal rights for visitors being restored.
However, it must be remembered that people wishing to travel for
family events cannot wait for several months for the appeal to
be heard. Appeals should be heard quickly at the point of application
where applicants are available to answer questions or give their
account of the events that took place at the interview.
2. MEMBERS' REPRESENTATIONS
AND THE
MIGRATION AND
VISA CORRESPONDENCE
UNIT
Consideration should also be given to the responses
that Members receive from the Migration and Visa Correspondence
Unit. Often, sponsors have seen the refusal notice and refute
or clarify the entry clearance officers concerns. However, Members
of Parliament making representations receive stock pile standardised
replies indicating that the entry clearance manager has reconsidered
the application, but is satisfied that the decision is correct.
And a copy of the refusal notice is attached, which both the Member
and the sponsor have already seen. Such replies are unhelpful
and inappropriate.
I understand from the attached letter sent to
me by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the Unit's role
is not to overturn the decision. However, consideration should
be given to establishing a body within the Migration and Visa
Correspondence Unit to monitor harsh decisions. The Migration
and Visa Correspondence Unit or some other body must also have
powers to overturn such decisions.
3. ENTRY CLEARANCE
MANAGERS
Consideration should be given to keeping data
on how many applications at each post have been overturned by
entry clearance managers.
4. TRAINING OF
ENTRY CLEARANCE
OFFICERS AND
OTHER STAFF
Consideration should also be given to provide
training to entry clearance officers to enable them to learn the
culture of the communities they are dealing with. More experienced
entry clearance officers should be employed at Islamabad, Delhi
and other posts with a great deal of entry clearance work. I understand
that the Home Office is introducing reforms into their system
and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office should do the same.
It should be made clear to security personnel
and locally recruited staff that applicants have a right to be
interviewed and should not be turned away a the door. All those
wishing to apply for a visa should be given a number and explanatory
note concerning procedure.
Trained interpreters should be provided and
provision should be made for people who wish to be accompanied
for interviews as some of the elderly applicants may never have
travelled and may find the process intimidating.
5. COMPASSIONATE
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES
When medical evidence is produced from the medical
profession in the United Kingdom confirming the applicant's relative's
illness, the process should be completed quickly and compassionately.
Applicants wishing to attend funerals should
also not be subjected to unnecessary and irrelevant hassle and
delays.
The United Kingdom prides itself in community
relations and tough anti racist legislation. However, failure
to address these concerns may result in difficulties, resentments
and deterioration of relations in the future. It may also lead
to difficulties with other Commonwealth governments.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to set
out my concerns.
February 1998
| 
