Examination of witnesses (Questions 180
- 201)
MONDAY 16 FEBRUARY 1998
MR MIKE
GAPES, MP,
MS JOAN
WALLEY, MP
and AUDREY WISE,
MP
180. We have got the total figures for refusals
but whatever one's point of view some of those refusals will be
genuine. It is trying to find out how many of those refusals give
rise to the sorts of problems that we are talking about. Do you
have a feel for it?
(Mr Gapes) I am not questioning that some refusals
will be genuine. I am also not questioning that some people who
come to MPs may well be people who are not telling me the whole
truth, that is an inevitable part of this job, you never get the
whole truth from anybody. Nevertheless, there are people who feel
deeply aggrieved when their relatives are refused.
Mr Wilshire: I am
just trying to get at the proportions. I am sure you realise that
one of the claims will be that there are not many people who actually
have these problems. I would like to disprove that claim.
Ms Abbott
181. The problem of trying to establish
what proportion of people go to their MP is there is more than
one variable involved. In fact, if an MP has a reputation for
being effective in a city or some of these places they will get
a very high number. I am thinking of my colleague, Keith Vaz,
who before the last election used to get them from all over the
Midlands because he was known to do it very well. The kinds of
figures you are searching for might not tell you anything because
it depends on the reputation you have whether people come to you
or not.
(Audrey Wise) As far as I am concerned it is enough
to be a wholly disproportionate part of my workload and the workload
of my assistants.
(Mr Gapes) Absolutely right.
(Audrey Wise) I have one assistant in particular
who is near full-time for me and before primary purpose was abolished
he spent three-quarters of his time on immigration related work,
now it is dropping because of the abolition of primary purpose.
I must say that on the other side of that equation, if I look
back to a few years ago I did not have as much problem with visitor
visas as I do now. I had more problems with spouses and with fiances
then, fiances are now more or less a dead duck. Visitor visa problems
increased after the abolition of the appeals mechanism. They increased
quite substantially then after it had been abolished for perhaps
six months to a year, not immediately but soon after. Lately it
has increased again in that I have a lot of problems about grandparents
whereas at one time grandparents could get admission for a visit.
Over this past couple of years or so that has altered materially.
It used to be that I could say if it was a young man or a young
woman "no chance". I could have quite a short conversation
explaining the situation and I did not spend a lot of my time
arguing the point because I knew it was time that was not going
to be productive. We found at that time when a grandparent, somebody
in their fifties say, wanted to come and see grandchildren then
it was much better treated than it is now. This is quite a worrying
development.
Mr Wilshire: Could
I just say one thing in conclusion from Mrs Wise's point about
workload. I suspect there is one issue that all six of us would
agree on, that entry clearance officers are not noted for trying
to make MPs' lives easier!
Chairman: Before we
carry on I think I ought to place on record that some colleagues
did apologise that they were unable to come today because they
had other commitments.
Mr Wilshire: Sorry,
Chairman, I was not aware of that.
Chairman
182. One or two who were unable to be here
would have liked to hear the evidence. A related point from the
last line of questioning. How do you find that the FCO have dealt
with the complaints you have raised in relation to these issues?
Have you found the complaints system is becoming more and more
cumbersome?
(Mr Gapes) I am very unhappy. I actually attached
to my memorandum a letter which I had been sent after I raised
verbally over a lunch for a retiring Slovenian ambassador when
I took the opportunity to talk to Baroness Symons during that
lunch and senior officials about the fact that I felt I was making
a complaint to the Foreign and Commonwealth office and I was getting
a reply from the Migration Visa Correspondence Unit just sending
me back the refusal notice I had already been given by my constituent
which frankly was not appropriate and caused great problems. I
did not feel, and I still do not feel, that there is a proper
review mechanism. These entry clearance managers are supposed
to review the decisions taken by entry clearance officers but
I have not seen any statistics of how many cases they actually
overturn and it is one of my recommendations that data should
be made available. There is no proper appeals procedure, it was
taken away in 1993, and this internal review normally seems to
be simply a reaffirmation of the previous decision. I have had
cases where, for example, there is somebody seriously ill in this
country or there is a complicated birth and they want the visit
of an elderly relative to help the mother in those circumstances
and it is refused by the ECO, it is refused on review, it is refused
on the second application, it is refused on the third application.
There does not seem to be any mechanism, unless you really make
a great fuss and then the Minister—and they do—overturns
the decision of the ECO. But why should I have to make so much
fuss to get what is a very basic case in my view dealt with? I
do not think any of us as MPs should spend all our time threatening
to go to the press or put down questions in Parliament, raise
points of order or whatever else we do for elementary cases. We
really should not have to do that. Because there is no appeals
mechanism and there is no proper review internally that is one
of the frustrations.
(Audrey Wise) I am very dissatisfied too. I have
only just changed my practice, I now write to the Minister, but
it has been my practice for some years to write to the Correspondence
Unit and I have done that really to save everybody trouble and
to save time. I have had quite a lot of irate conversations, I
have sent very strong letters objecting to the fact that there
is a habit of sending back a four paragraph standard letter. It
does not matter what you say in your representations, you get
the same letter back saying that the entry clearance officer has
looked at it, the manager has looked at it and they believe that
the decision as taken is within the immigration rules. I could
write the reply before I send the letter. Now I do not send letters
without a case. I tell people if I cannot make a case. Even if
I am sympathetic, I have got to feel I have a case to make and
so I pick and choose, I vary how I approach the cases. What I
say varies, it applies to the specific points raised in the refusal
notice and the specific answers which I have obtained from my
constituents. It is extremely galling when that produces simply
a standard letter. Now because I have made such a fuss about that
I am more inclined to get a fuller reply in the first instance
because they know that if I get the standard letter I will write
again. Ultimately the points get addressed, even though not satisfactorily
but at least they get addressed. I do think that there has been
great advantage taken of the fact that there is no proper appeals
system. If there was an appeals system then I think that the issue
would be much more satisfactorily resolved, whether people won
or lost it would be seen to be more reasonable. I have this very,
very strong view about the way things are treated. The reason
I am writing to the Minister is so that the Minister now knows.
(Ms Walley) Ever so briefly, I do try to be thorough
in how I do take up cases. I do feel, which is really why I felt
obliged to give evidence, that there is not the accountability
that I would like to see in this. It does not matter how many
cases you are dealing with, how many or how few, it is whether
they get treated fairly. There is lack of accountability in this
whole procedure. You end up in the end not knowing who it would
be best to send your concerns to. If you are dealing with visitors'
applications, usually the reason for the visit has long past by
before there is any kind of progress on this.
(Mr Gapes) Can I mention one other thing which
is sometimes people come to you because something is quite urgent
and occasionally you get the reply which is too late to have any
relationship to the reason why the visit was requested. Now clearly
partly that is often because the constituent comes to you very
late but sometimes it is because the relative has only been refused
ten days or a week before the wedding that they intended to go
to or whatever. Clearly there needs to be a mechanism and there
does not appear to be one whereby they can take out ones which
are urgent and look at them urgently and review them urgently
rather than just sending back a standard reply with the original
refusal notice saying that this was carried out according to the
proper procedure and that is it. They are, of course, free to
apply again which is fine but no good for that occasion.
Chairman
183. Moving on to the subject of fraud and
forgery which has been raised with us. It has been put to the
Committee that some of the rigorous questioning of applicants
is because forgery and fraud and corruption has been quite rife,
particularly in Pakistan. I just wondered whether you have had
experience of that and whether you have any suggestions particularly
in terms of forgeries?
(Mr Gapes) I think it is undoubtedly the case
that there are people not simply in Pakistan but also there are
so-called immigration advisers in this country who are not legally
qualified and are not solicitors who basically are making a great
deal of money out of gullible people, out of the immigration system.
There are people who go around saying "If you buy this document
from me" or "If you give me £500 or £1,000
I will guarantee that your relative gets the visa". The immigration
authorities know that and they find these things all the time
and the consequence of that is you get people going for interview,
even with perfectly valid good cases but because they have been
wrongly advised, giving the wrong answers to questions because
they think it will impress people. That is another problem that
we have because sometimes you find the relative in this country
comes to you with an inexplicable case, "Why has my relative
been refused?", and then the reason you are told is because
they have said something at interview which is palpably not true
because the sponsor has already provided the information for dealing
with that. The only possible explanation is that in India or Pakistan
the person has been advised by someone: "this is what you
need to say in order to get the visa".
184. Do you think the FCO or the authorities
are doing enough to try and prevent that?
(Mr Gapes) When I was in Delhi I actually saw
the people on the street outside the High Commission who were
touting the official forms and going round trying to sell them
to people. I do not know whether they can do anything about it.
It would have to be something done with the host governments as
well I would assume to try and clamp down on it. Clearly there
is a problem and there need to be safeguards. I am not saying
we should not be very tough. My advice to any constituent who
comes to me is "tell the truth, do not make things up and
make sure that your relative tells the truth". The problem
is if the culture is such that you do not have bank accounts and
you keep your money under the bed and you do not pay taxes and
your society operates in that way then it is quite difficult I
guess for people when they go for interview, they want to present
themselves in the best possible light. If somebody outside is
writing out false bank statements or other documents it must be
quite difficult. That is part of the problem.
(Audrey Wise) I was going to raise the question
of bank accounts. This is something that occurs very frequently
in the cases that I get. That will lead to the production of false
documents because there is a huge emphasis on producing bank statements
and bank books. A lot of my constituents tell me that their relatives
just do not have bank accounts, sometimes the bank is too far
away, they live in villages, they do not trust banks, they do
not understand banks and the banks are not convenient for them.
There are three pretty good reasons why they do not have a bank
account. It is like a sort of complete stalemate, it does not
seem acceptable for a person to say "I do not have a bank
account". In my younger married days I did not have a bank
account, not everybody in this country has a bank account, but
it is infinitely more general than it is here. I think that we
need to have more sensible ways of judging the genuineness of
the application and not make such a fuss about documents like
that. There are some things where fraud cannot be part of it.
I have got something here: "You plan to stay for two months
in the UK, your sponsor has stated you will stay for three months"
and that is taken as a reason for refusal. They have a daughter
who resides in the UK. That is put in and just left hanging. The
nephew is the sponsor because the nephew can afford it more but
it seems to be another objection being taken because there is
a daughter, an only child. These things are not things about fraud.
I think the money aspects are the things which are problematic
about fraud. There I think that the sensible thing is to rely
on British documents which they always get anyway. They get British
bank statements, they get letters about paying the fare and they
get evidence about accommodation, even for visitors. Why do they
need the applicant's bank book, non-existent bank book, when they
have got the sponsor's financial statements?
Ms Abbott
185. Would you accept as well though that
some of the issues of "fraud" which are picked up at
interview are not fraud as such? The thing I often find is someone
is asked "what do you call your aunt" and they say whatever
and then the interviewer says "yes, but on the passport her
name is so and so". It is quite common in these cultures
to be called by one name in your family and another name in your
passport. Entry clearance officers seem to find this quite inexplicable.
(Ms Walley) Just very briefly, I am not wanting
to be anecdotal, I do find this kind of misunderstanding that
Diane Abbott just referred to. A lot of it goes back really to
them not getting good sound advice of whether they have, for example,
I do not know, consumer rights in this country about services
people could be buying. When people actually resort to the advisers
that they are and they are told "it is best to do it this
way, it is best to do it that way", even if it is against
their better judgment, often they feel that unless they go along
with that then they will not be in a situation where their application
can be properly considered. I think maybe there is some area there
where the Committee could actually look at the kind of advice
that is given to people when making the applications in the first
place to avoid the kinds of misunderstandings either because of
what advisers have said or because of the genuine family misunderstandings
that have been referred to. It has not been unknown for people
on a very few occasions to say to me that maybe they may have
doubts about somebody else's application they know about, where
perhaps they may have genuine reason to believe that there might
be some genuine fraud. If there are those cases then there ought
to be some way, if you like, of being able to register concerns
in an anonymous way where people have genuine reasons to believe
that there is perhaps a case for fraud to be properly made.
Chairman
186. One of the central difficulties appears
to be that the system requires the entry clearance officers to
judge the applicant's intentions and quite often many applicants
claim that they have been misunderstood. Again it comes back to
using this idea of professional advisers and perhaps the wrong
information being put on the application. Have you any alternatives
to suggest to us to the present system whereby it is down to the
entry clearance officer to judge the intentions of that particular
applicant, or any ways of improving the system?
(Mr Gapes) If you were to go down the road that
Audrey was talking about earlier with certain kinds of guarantees
from the sponsor's family that might be one way but it would not
meet all cases. I have a certain unhappiness about the standard
profiling system that they operate whereby if you are an elderly
relative who has never been to this country before you are automatically
refused unless there is some sort of special reason or if you
are a single young person of 22 you are automatically refused
because it is assumed by virtue of that fact that you will overstay,
you will get married. On the other hand, there are problems because
there are people who do abuse the system and then cause problems
for everybody else who subsequently are interviewed. I suppose
all MPs can give examples of where we have been misled. I myself
have been misled in a couple of cases by people coming to me,
I make representations and after the event I find out I have been
lied to. That is not a very nice thing to admit but it happens.
There are people who will try to abuse any system, whatever system
there is. I just think the costs in terms of community relations
and the resentments that might be built up in this country of
going down the road that we are doing at the moment for the long-term
could be very, very bad. We have got to bring in an appeals system
somehow and we have got to deal with the way in which the applicants
are dealt with to improve that process. There is one aspect as
well which is when people think there has been a refusal when
there has not actually been. I do not know whether you want to
come on to that later. This is the so-called "sift"
system where when someone goes for an interview and they are told
"you have not got all the documents, go away", the relative
thinks that they have been refused. The relative, the sponsor,
in this country comes to the MP and the MP takes it up and we
have not got the reference number but we have got the name and
we have got the date and because it is a Singh or it is a Mohammed
or a Patel it cannot be found in the system because there are
so many people with that name. It turns out that there was never
a refusal because they were never interviewed and there was not
a record. If I go into the Post Office, or I go into Sainsbury's
to buy cheddar cheese I can pull a little number off and I have
got a piece of paper with a number on it. Could there not be a
system at the British High Commission where people go and they
pull off a number which actually gives them their unique dedicated
number at that stage?
187. Do you think the pre-sift procedure
serves the purpose for which it was intended or are you concerned
that the pre-sift procedure really is causing more confusion?
(Mr Gapes) I think having a procedure to tell
people—— If you give them a piece of paper that says
"you have not been refused, you are just asked to go away
and get extra documents" and to keep a record of that person
so there is actually a means if there is then a come back in this
country that you can prove they were actually there and they were
told to go away, otherwise there is a wild goose chase that goes
on throughout the whole system for weeks and then you find out
later on that they were never interviewed in the first place.
(Audrey Wise) I think that there ought to be an
appeals system. I think that the reasons given by entry clearance
officers do not actually deal with the good faith of the people,
they are often completely irrelevant to anybody's good faith.
I also think that people should, as I say, be allowed to show
evidence of good faith, not required but allowed, because of course
the drawback with an appeals system is that it does take time
and it also costs money. If you can cut down the number of appeals—even
if you allow an appeals system it is better if the number is kept
to a minimum for cost and other reasons—the entry clearance
officers would know that their work is going to be scrutinised.
Even if it was only a small proportion that went to appeal then
the work is getting scrutinised and has to stand up to examination.
I think that is important. I think those two things are very important.
I remember vividly when the appeals system was abolished one of
the reasons given was in order to help with the spouse appeals
to speed them up. It was stated that they had chosen the most
important thing and the spouse was the most important thing. I
have to say to separate other members of the family on what amounts
to a permanent basis is a very serious thing to do. That is what
is happening. There is a presumption that people of a modest background
are likely to not go back, that people who have— The question
is of how long. I have constituents who have said on a previous
visit they have had a visa and they have said they expect to stay
two months and in the event they have stayed four months, that
might be six or seven years ago, they have then applied and they
are told "but you stayed four months and you said you would
stay two months". The visa is for six months but they are
treated as if they have been an overstayer. That is totally unreasonable
because there can be many reasons why people cannot forecast the
exact length of their visit. It is my experience that my constituents
as sponsors want their relatives on the whole to stay longer than
the relatives often do. I think the presumption is wrong. I think
the work should be tested through an appeals system and there
should be an opportunity for people to show good faith.
188. On the question of scrutiny could I
very briefly ask you, you have had raised by your constituents
the question of a bond or a system which operates like a bail
bond system. Has anybody ever mentioned the tape recording of
interviews? Have any of your constituents mentioned that?
(Mr Gapes) Not tape recording, it has never been
raised.
(Audrey Wise) No. They complain about the interviews
but I do not think their minds work along those paths. They do
raise questions of interpretation sometimes, translation. Perhaps
not as often as you might expect. There is a reasonable acceptance
of the integrity of translation but it is raised sometimes. They
often say, especially in the case of, say, grandparents in their
fifties and sixties, that they were terrified and they did not
know how to answer some of the questions. They have expressed
that doubt. They do not seem to have thought about tape recording.
Ms Abbott
189. What would your view be? It has been
raised with us by some of the voluntary organisations that because
these things turn on what people are alleged to have said in interviews
that tape recording might shed some light. That would be over
and above the question of appeal.
(Mr Gapes) I do not think the number of cases
where people claim that somebody said something or they did not
say it—— My concern is that people have been told
by people in India or Pakistan "this is what you need to
say in order to get through". So in most cases they will
have said what the transcript says they said but they may have
said it because they think this is the answer the interviewer
expects. That is a problem that is not going to be solved by a
tape recording.
190. The other point that was put to us
in relation to tape recording was that if you have a tape recording
you would hear all of the remarks that the entry clearance officers
made that are not necessarily transcribed.
(Mr Gapes) This is a bit like police evidence,
is it?
191. That is right.
(Mr Gapes) Then we get into a whole question about
authenticity of tapes and everything else. I do not know.
192. It has come up in evidence.
(Audrey Wise) I have no objection to it. I cannot
say I have particularly thought about it. I think that sometimes
there is misunderstanding. There does not seem a view very prevalent
that there is actual lying on the part of entry clearance officers,
more that people cannot get their meaning through and there are
misunderstandings, lots and lots of misunderstandings.
Mr Wilshire
193. Can I turn to a specific point raised
by the British Council, that is to do with student visas. Have
any of the three of you, or all of the three of you, had complaints
about the inability to get visas for students to come here and
study?
(Mr Gapes) I have had cases not for studying but
for medical students to do with work practice where they come
in and to get their qualification they have to get a GP in this
country to provide them with their period of work. No, the problem
of student visas for India and Pakistan is not an issue that comes
up very much.
194. Ms Walley?
(Ms Walley) I have had complaints but not in respect
of either India or Pakistan but from elsewhere. Just recently
there has been one case that I have dealt with where someone has
actually got entry clearance to arrive here and would have liked
to have then taken up opportunities for retraining and has felt
very concerned that has been denied them. I can let you have details
of that particular case if that would be helpful.
195. Mrs Wise?
(Audrey Wise) It is not an issue for me, no. I
can only think of one case off the top of my head. It is more
when you get a number of cases that you see a pattern and you
form a view. On one case it is of no value in forming a judgment.
No, it is not an issue for me.
196. The issue of overstayers comes up most
clearly with students. Mr Gapes, you have helpfully said that
you have had at least one case where you have tried to help and
have been taken for a ride. Have you, Ms Walley or Mrs Wise, had
a similar experience?
(Audrey Wise) I do not think so. In relation to
students you are quite right, there is the occasional person where
there is an issue about renewal. I have got an issue at this moment
about somebody who has not been well and has had to miss a year.
That sort of thing causes problems. Those are problems that we
would take in our stride as things we would just deal with rather
than needing your kind of investigation. I have not got particular
troubles there. I have got a lot of anxiety about people, and
Mike has touched on this a little bit, who want to come not only
for a holiday to see the family but where there is a real need
for a temporary caring role. There does not seem to be a provision
for that. I would like there to be a specific provision because
at the moment instead of that reinforcing the likelihood of getting
a visa it actually seems to work the other way round and that
is a problem which does recur.
197. Thank you, that is very helpful.
(Ms Walley) I have not had any cases in respect
of education, no. I do have cases where they want to have that
caring role.
(Mr Gapes) Can I make one point. I do have examples,
and I think we all do, where there are people who have come in
as visitors and then applied for asylum and then got married while
they were here and they then last seven or eight years. Those
people could cause enormous difficulty. People in the community
themselves often come to me and make complaints about what they
regard as people trying to short-circuit the settlement process
and feel that is a problem that creates a problem for them. Certainly
if we were able to have a much better system dealing with visit
visas and also have a system which was more sensitive culturally
I think you would find that the British Asian community would
generally be very, very clear that they do not want people coming
in in the back of lorries and bypassing the system, they feel
very strongly about that.
Chairman
198. I think we are coming to the conclusion
of our points but before we close are there any points that you
think we have not touched on today that you want to raise bearing
in mind we have read the memoranda which were submitted? Are there
any points that you think we have missed or that you would wish
to raise with us?
(Audrey Wise) I do not know whether you are only
dealing with visitor visas. I have raised in my memorandum the
extra documentation being asked for by Islamabad.
199. Yes.
(Audrey Wise) I do believe that this is a serious
problem. Not against the kinds of documents being asked for which
have been habitually asked for to demonstrate financial stability
and jobs and so on, but I think that if a constituent has to ask
the Inland Revenue for additional letters over and above P60 forms
then that is a real burden on the Inland Revenue and also it is
very hard to get. Then for how many people live in a house it
is really impossible to get any certificate of that. An estate
agent will not do it, still less will the environmental health
officer or the electoral officer. It is impossible to get it.
While I can see that it is important to establish that there is
accommodation, and indeed I would want it to be established that
there is accommodation, I do not want an extra housing burden
in my constituency because we have got ample, but we should not
ask people for documents which it is literally impossible to obtain.
Nobody can give a certificate as to how many people live in a
particular house.
200. Okay. Thank you.
(Ms Walley) Anything you can do to make the system
more straight forward and understandable, less prone to misunderstandings
with perhaps some kind of fast track system where we are talking
about visitors' access, I am sure that would be welcome. I hope
as a result of this inquiry we can move more towards that.
(Mr Gapes) Could I make one point. You have been
concentrating on Islamabad and Delhi. I think we also need to
look at the way in which cases are dealt with in some of the West
African countries. I have had particular problems with Ghana and
Nigeria. One example that we have not referred to is I had someone
refused because the sponsor had posted the letter from a postal
district in North London rather than from Ilford. That was one
of the reasons given on the refusal notice. They subsequently
admitted that this was wrong and it should not have happened but
the fact is the entry clearance officer in a West African country
had actually written that as a reason for refusal.
201. Thank you for that, Mike. Having listened
to your evidence today and taking on board all the memoranda and
evidence we have received Islamabad and Delhi are going to be
difficult enough to deal with without doing a tour of West Africa!
(Audrey Wise) I would just point out that Bombay
is as much of a problem as New Delhi. In fact, I get more cases
that are Bombay. It just depends on the geographical area that
your constituents come from.
Chairman: Can I ask
my two colleagues if there are any final questions? With that
can I thank all three of you for giving up your time this afternoon
to give evidence to the Select Committee, it is much appreciated.
We have learned some interesting facts today and hopefully it
will stand us in good stead when we visit next week. Thank you
very much.
|
