Examination of witnesses (Questions 163
- 179)
MONDAY 16 FEBRUARY 1998
MR MIKE
GAPES, MP,
MS JOAN
WALLEY, MP
and AUDREY WISE,
MP
Chairman
163. Colleagues, could I welcome you to
this meeting of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee Entry Clearance
Sub-Committee, in particular Mr Gapes who is now getting a taste
of his own medicine as I understand it, having been a Member of
the Committee during the last Parliament. We are grateful for
the memoranda you have submitted to the Sub-Committee. We thought
we would take an evidence session to allow you to amplify any
points you have made within your own memoranda and for us maybe
to ask one or two questions on some of the issues which have arisen
during our evidence sessions. Welcome to the Committee. I will
start the questioning. By all means feel free to reply each of
you to each question. As you know, the inquiry relates specifically
to Islamabad and New Delhi. We have chosen those two Posts for
various reasons, notably because Islamabad appears to be the one
complained about the most. Could I ask the three of you what proportion
of your work on entry clearance problems relate to the two Posts,
Islamabad and Delhi?
(Mr Gapes) Shall I go first?
164. Mike, by all means.
(Mr Gapes) I would say up to two-thirds. Half
to two-thirds because of the nature of my constituency where I
have a large number of constituents with relatives in India and
Pakistan. Obviously I have others. I have some from Karachi, but
very few. I have quite a few from Bombay as well. I would say
half to two-thirds but it is difficult to totally quantify.
(Ms Walley) If I could just supplement that and
say that from the point of view of my own constituency I tend
to deal with a significant number of constituents who come from
Kashmir and therefore use the Islamabad offices. It is really
as a result of my visit out there some time ago now when I was
concerned at the time about the lack of facilities and the way
in which many of the applications were being dealt with and that
remains a matter of concern.
(Audrey Wise) I should think that probably approaching
two-thirds would be Islamabad. Perhaps that is a bit of an overstatement.
More than half would be Islamabad anyway. Others would be divided
between New Delhi and Bombay, quite a lot from Bombay. A lot of
visitor visa problems and also some spouse visa problems.
165. Of all the Posts that you deal with
generally how do the Posts of Islamabad and New Delhi compare
with the others that you have mentioned, Bombay and one or two
others? Is it true that Islamabad stands out as a major problem?
(Ms Walley) If I could just answer that. I do
not think I could make a valid comparison between Islamabad and
Bombay because of the nature of my constituency.
(Audrey Wise) I think Islamabad is the worst.
There have been specific problems which have arisen which seem
really pretty well confined to Islamabad about spouse visas since
primary purpose was abolished. I would say that on visitor visas
probably they are much of a muchness but where there is a distinction
Islamabad is worst.
(Mr Gapes) My view is New Delhi is a better Post
than Islamabad. The time for waits for interviews for marriage
cases could be normally six months, sometimes a lot longer. We
had a serious problem with the computer system in Islamabad last
year. Having visited the facilities—this was in 1995 when
I was on the Select Committee—I went to both Islamabad and
Delhi and spent two hours each talking to entry clearance people
and my impression—it was only an impression at that time—was
that I thought the people of New Delhi had a more sensitive feel
for the culture and the situation and did not seem to have an
approach of trying to keep people out of this country which is
what I sensed from Islamabad.
Chairman: Thank you.
Ms Abbott
166. To Mr Gapes: one of the specific points
that you mention is the lack of cultural awareness by the ECOs.
One of your recommendations arising from that is greater training
for ECOs. Would you care to share with the Committee your sense
of the ECOs and their attitude and how that affects the decisions
they make?
(Mr Gapes) Certainly up until recently, as I understand
it, being posted to the consular section of Islamabad, Delhi or
any other High Commission was not regarded as a major prime job
that people wanted. It was low down the pecking order, junior
level people, often recent recruits to the Foreign Office were
sent to those kinds of posts and they tended to stay there for
a time and then move on. I think the status and the way in which
people were regarded was not particularly high within the service.
I think that is part of the problem. Secondly, overwhelmingly
I think people who are in those positions have inevitably not
got experience of the cultures and traditions of the countries
they are dealing with. They are recent graduates or they are people
who have come out of universities only a few years ago and they
have not got the depth of experience which might give them that
feel for those countries. I do have a specific concern particularly
with regard to Muslim applicants. I do not think they understand
the importance to a Muslim of the Haj, going to Mecca once in
their life, and the fact that for elderly relatives——
I have examples at this moment, in fact I got two cases this week,
of elderly women going from India to Saudi Arabia but because
they are elderly women and because the Saudis will not allow unaccompanied
women to go to Saudi Arabia they have to go with a male relative.
The male relatives who are in a position to take them are sons
in this country. Therefore they get visas from India to the UK
and then meet the family here and go from here to Saudi Arabia.
I have got a case at this moment where because of lack of advice
they failed to apply for a multiple entry visa to the UK which
means that they can go from India to the UK and then to Saudi
Arabia and then are expected to go straight back to India. But
they cannot go straight back for two reasons. One, an unaccompanied
elderly 80 year old lady is not able to travel alone because she
has never travelled in that situation. Secondly, to comply with
Muslim religious requirements they have to start and return to
the same place when they go on the Haj which means they have to
come back to London in order to go back to India. Because they
have failed to get the multiple visa because they were not advised
correctly there is now a problem and that is why I am involved.
It seems quite elementary to me that when you have an elderly
woman applying in India for a visa, and they know it is for the
Haj, that they just say "you need a multiple visa because
you need to be able to go back to the UK after you have been to
Mecca in order to go back to India from there".
167. Joan Walley, you have visited Islamabad.
I just want to focus on this issue about the entry clearance officers
and their attitude and their approach.
(Ms Walley) It is some time since I visited Islamabad,
it was about seven or eight years ago, but nonetheless the thing
that struck me at the time was if I put myself in the shoes of
people who were making that visit I just felt that the facilities
there were wholly inadequate in terms of the number of people
who were there queuing on any one day. If you take account of
the length of journey that they often have to travel in order
to get there, often in very difficult circumstances———
168. Can I just stop you there because the
facilities colleagues will see for themselves. I am more interested
in the entry clearance officers, how they behave and treat applicants.
Have you anything to say on that?
(Ms Walley) Yes, I would like to because I think
having actually got there and queued for a long time to then see
somebody I did not really feel that there was an understanding
of, if you like, the reasons why people were making applications
in the first place. There were various examples. Obviously there
are two categories of people who are wanting to get entry clearance
on a permanent basis and people who want visitor's visas as well.
I just found a complete lack of understanding of the reasons why
people should want to come here in the first place. I just did
not feel that they really understood the culture. I thought that
people were getting very poor service indeed and a lack of recognition
of perhaps why they were there in the first place. One example
when I was out there was there were people who comprised a cricket
team and they wanted to come out and play a cricket match in Nottingham.
There was no way in the length of time that they had to get their
visas sorted out that there was any way those visas could actually
be agreed. I do make the distinction between the ways in which
both long-term applications were being dealt with but visitor's
applications too. There was not any understanding of how they
should be dealt with in a civil matter and dealt with quickly
in my view.
169. Audrey, on the same point of entry
clearance officers and their approach to their work.
(Audrey Wise) I have not visited the Post so my
experience comes entirely from my constituents being on the receiving
end here as sponsors for the nearly 11 years which I have represented
Preston. I agree with what Mr Gapes has said about the question
of Haj. In fact, one of the letters that I happen to have brought
with me, one of the case files, deals with a family who were told
"you have got no special reason for visiting", to which
I would say does a family need a special reason like a wedding
in order to visit, and there was no understanding of the fact
that, as they often do, they were combining it with Haj. It is
perfectly sensible to do that. When the entry clearance officers
say "well, you are spending a lot of money on this visit",
they are not taking account of the fact that this is not simply
a holiday of a lifetime, it is an event of very special significance.
It seems to be dismissed in a way which I agree with my colleague
shows no sensitivity to the culture and, of course, no sensitivity
on the point of the closeness of families. In several of the cases
that I have brought with me they say "you have not seen your
son for five years, you have not seen your son for 15 years, you
have not seen your son for ten years, you are obviously not close,
why do you want to see them now?" I find that really quite
insulting in any case to anybody who cares about their family
but especially in a culture where family ties are regarded as
particularly important. I would resent it with my family and I
know my constituents deeply resent the notion that they need a
wedding in order to justify a visit.
170. Can I just ask you one specific question.
You make the specific point that it ought to be possible for sponsors
to lodge some kind of bond. That is something that has come up
in the past. Like you I deal with a lot of these cases and I rather
tend towards that because at least it would have the merit that
people would know where they were and they could get their relatives
here for that wedding or that christening but the argument is
that it would discriminate against the poorer applicants. I wonder
if you can say something about that?
(Audrey Wise) Yes. I have to say that it was not
my idea, it came to me from my constituents.
171. Yes.
(Audrey Wise) I was mentally quite resistant to
it because it reminded me of the bail system and I felt that they
should not be treated as criminals or potential criminals or alleged
criminals. It took a number of years of having people at advice
surgery after advice surgery pleading to be allowed to demonstrate
their good faith. It came to me that my objection really was pedantic,
meaningless, because they were in effect being treated as worse
than criminals. Although I do not want them to be treated as though
they are all likely to be criminals I think it is even worse to
be treated as not even meriting the consideration that somebody
accused of a crime does. I came to it. I was pushed that way by
my constituents. It arises over and over. It arises in nearly
every one of my advice surgeries and I do a lot of this work and
I have a lot of surgeries. Somebody will say "can I deposit
my passport, the deeds of my house, £500" it used to
be and now it is more, a thousand pounds. I even had someone who
wanted to bring his sister here, his elderly sister, who could
have come as a wife any time in the previous 30 years when her
husband was alive, he wanted to bring his sister to help him to
deal with business matters and he was refused and he went around
until he had raised £30,000 to deposit. My constituents are
very ordinary people on the whole with ordinary levels of income
and they do not feel that it would be discriminating against them.
I also think, of course, that it could be that the most useful
security to be lodged would in fact be passports and this would
not be in any way discriminating financially against people who
are on lower incomes. In any case they have to show they have
got resources in order to accommodate, usually pay the fares,
and they do not think it would be discriminatory, they want it.
(Mr Gapes) Can I come in on the same point. I
have the same experience of constituents coming to me saying "what
do you want as a guarantee? I will give anything to guarantee"
because they regard the refusal of a visit visa to their relative
as an insult to them, it is seen as a slight on them. They have
lived in this country for virtually all their lives, some of them
have been born in this country, they are respectable people, they
have never been in any trouble and yet, as they see it, their
integrity, bona fides, has been challenged by the refusal. Although
the Foreign Office says "this is nothing to do with your
credibility as a sponsor, it is entirely based on the interview",
they do not see it that way. They want to try and somehow deal
with the problem. I have some reservations about this because
of the enforceability of it. We know the example of Mr Asil Nadir's
friend who had promised money but Mr Nadir disappeared. I will
not go along that track but there are possible problems that might
arise if someone then absconds and disappears in this country
and are you then taking away the house and the money. The enforceability
might be a problem. I also think in certain cultures and in certain
societies with certain people it might be more acceptable than
others. I think we would need to look at it carefully. However
I do get the same message from my constituents as Audrey does.
(Ms Walley) If I could just very briefly endorse
this whole feeling. I think the main thing is there is not a feeling
that there is trust, if you like, between the office and those
actually making the application and that is what I would welcome
the Committee giving some consideration to, as to how that trust
can be built in because people feel it is not there because of
the way that they have been treated.
(Audrey Wise) Could I just add that if it was
a security actually lodged then the question of absconding and
can you claim on a promise would not arise. If it was passports
I think that it would be easier. In any case, of course, the whole
bail system does depend on that. For every absconder I think there
are lots and lots of people who do surrender to their bail otherwise
we would not have a bail system. I do not think it should be made
a requirement, I think they should be allowed to do it and it
should count in their favour. They want to show good faith and
there is no mechanism by which they can show good faith. I think
that is really the key issue of it.
Mr Wilshire
172. Could I preface my questions by assuring
you that I am not seeking to make any sort of a point because
some of the things that I will ask could be interpreted in that
way. I am seeking genuine help before setting off. I have found
reading all the submissions and listening to what people have
to say that this is a subject full of anecdote, assertion and
summary. Mrs Wise is the only person to my knowledge who has actually
provided a case study, which I am thrilled about, because I do
believe that we will have more success by going there and saying
"look, here is a complaint, let us look at that file, let
us look at that actual incident". Are any of the three of
you able to let us have some case studies to back the complaints?
(Mr Gapes) Can I say I understood the basis of
evidence was that you did not want individual cases and that is
why I have not given you individual cases. I could give you a
whole filing cabinet of individual cases if you really want them.
I tried to write something which drew on experience.
173. Nor do I think we want names mentioned
on the public record of individuals. I personally would find it
much easier to go across there and say "Okay, somebody has
said this" and the answer will be "Well, they are imagining
it", whereas if we go and say "this happened with Mr
X or Mrs X, now tell me about it", I would find that much
easier. Do you feel able to provide a few selective case studies?
(Mr Gapes) I am quite happy to write afterwards
and send you a few examples. This is very general and it was meant
to be general.
Chairman
174. Which is what we asked for obviously.
You are quite right, we did not invite Members or colleagues to
submit issues on live cases to us to take across to the Indian
Sub-Continent to sort out while we are there but obviously if
there are cases which relate to the individual points you have
made.
(Audrey Wise) I am very happy to supply some.
I brought some with me because I was hoping I could quote some.
Ms Abbott: What I
would say is this. If you are a Member of Parliament for somewhere
like Brixton or Hackney you have plenty to do without inventing
worries about what happens in Islamabad. You should, as a colleague,
place some confidence in colleagues telling you this is happening
in their constituencies. They are coming in good faith. You do
not have to invent work if you represent these types of areas.
Mr Wilshire
175. I must make it quite clear I prefaced
my remarks with a health warning because I could see that would
be the accusation. What I am worried about, and I hope the three
of our colleagues can see this point, is if we go to these Posts
with assertions we could get the reply "your colleagues are
inventing it" and we are high and dry without evidence. That
is all I am looking for.
(Audrey Wise) I am more than happy. I have got
something in front of me on one of the points that I illustrated
which is not a case that I sent.
Chairman: If you would
wish to let us have copies of a few cases which illustrate the
points raised in your memoranda we would be quite happy.
Mr Wilshire
176. Chairman, can I move on to the other
thing you have heard me raise before and that is to try and get
some figures. Again, I do not imply anything. Could the three
of you give us any indication of the sorts of numbers of complaints
that you are getting?
(Ms Walley) Can I just perhaps begin by saying
that I said at the very beginning and at the outset that I do
not have a great number of constituents as a proportion who write
in because that is not the nature of my constituency. My concern
is about those who do write in or who do in good faith make genuine
applications and then feel it is not being proceeded either quickly
enough or with the courtesy or with the understanding that they
would expect. I am not talking about a large number of people.
I am talking about the quality, if you like, of the service that
they receive when their applications are being processed.
(Mr Gapes) On visit visa cases I get about eight
to ten new visit visa cases every week. On top of that I get a
number of complex asylum cases and I also get the refusal of marriage
cases, the settlement cases as well. Cumulatively, because you
are dealing here with lots of correspondence, I am dealing with
hundreds of cases in a year which are related to these matters.
(Audrey Wise) I too am dealing with a considerable
number. I can probably get exact numbers from the computer. We
do keep a record under a particular file number. It is only lately
that we have separated spouse visas from visitor visas but I can
probably separate them for the immediate past period. It is a
considerable number. Each one takes a long time because even though
there is no appeal mechanism for visitor visas it is my practice
where I feel that there is a point to be made, where I feel cut
up about what has happened to the constituent, then I write quite
an elaborate letter asking for it to be looked at again. It is
a lot of work on each case. Yes, I can probably let you have numbers.
177. It would be very helpful because you
three are the only ones who have done us the kindness of accepting
our invitation of talking to us. To try and find what the figure
might be overall for 659 of us is proving incredibly difficult.
(Mr Gapes) Can I give you a little bit of information.
I was on a visit to the Migration Visa Correspondence Unit office
in Palace Street in November I think it was. I asked them could
they run this through their computer. I was interested to know
which MPs had most cases registered with the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office. The figures were quite interesting. I had, if I remember
correctly, 80-odd at that time that were live cases with them.
Two of the Bradford MPs, Marsha Singh and Terry Rooney, had double
mine, about 160, and Stephen Timms in Newham was also there registered
at 57. Those were the names that I saw at that time. I was told
that I was about the sixth largest number of cases in the country.
I know that some other London MPs, some Birmingham MPs, will have
similar kinds of workloads. I guess there will be 30/40/50 Members
of Parliament who have got a considerable number and a few others
who will get the odd one now and again.
178. That is very helpful. The question
that flows from that, I am very aware probably unanswerable, is
what again would be helpful to know is what proportion of applications
end up as MPs' problems. There is no way of discovering it accurately
because satisfied customers do not come to MPs and say "everything
is marvellous". Do you have a feel for that?
(Mr Gapes) Yes. They give figures of the percentage
of refusals of visit visas and I have seen those figures. I think
they may be in Lady Anson's figures. I have certainly seen those
figures because I have seen figures which, again from memory,
were something like a third of all applicants at Islamabad were
refused and about 17 per cent of the Indian applicants, I do not
know whether it is a Delhi figure or Bombay figure, 17/20 per
cent. This is off the top of my head. It was a lower figure from
India than Pakistan. I assume, therefore, that people we are dealing
with are amongst that segment of refusals. People do not come
to MPs if they have been accepted.
179. Absolutely not.
(Mr Gapes) Except in a case where they come to
us because they are worried and they come before the application
is made asking "will you write a letter of support"
beforehand. I do get a few of those.
|
