| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.51 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East): Having listened to the debate and the strong opinions expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House, the one question that I genuinely have is why on earth the Home Secretary is defending the regulations. I think that everyone who has studied them will know that they are cruel, heartless and discriminatory, and I know that the Home Secretary and his officials are not of that character. Therefore, I genuinely cannot understand why they want to pursue the regulations.
Are they doing so because of the money? That certainly cannot be the answer, because, only the other day, we had an announcement that, in the next three years, the Government are spending an extra £400 million on coping with asylum seekers. If there were an easier way of coping, we could save an awful lot of money. It seems utterly pointless to pursue the order to realise a maximum of £9 million in savings.
We should also think of the reputation of British politics. After the previous Conservative Government completely abolished the right to appeal, the Labour party
made its appeal proposal in 1993, which was genuinely appreciated by large parts of the immigrant community. As we know, subsequently, many of those people voted for the Labour party. They thought that the Labour party cared about them, and, quite wrongly, that the Conservative party did not.What on earth are those people going to think when they realise that, although Ministers said that they would re-establish appeals and care for applicants, the Government never suggested even once in their general election manifesto that charges would be imposed for appeals? Charges are not imposed for any other type of appeal, and it is quite wrong to deny justice to someone on the basis of them.
I do not believe that the people affected will turn from one party to another, but many of them will simply be sickened entirely by politics and say, "We want nothing to do with you or your crowd." As one of the old stagers in the House--I have been here a long time--I can see the effect of politics on the British people. At one time, they cared deeply about the issues and for one party or another, and they had respect for politics. Quite honestly, however, this business of getting votes by making a promise and not delivering simply gives people the impression that they have been conned. I do not want to make a party political point, but I think that every party should bear that in mind.
The Home Secretary apparently misled the House on the facts about the extent of discrimination. I have the figures, having taken some little trouble to get them. Around the world, one in 15 people have been rejected. For example, one in every 202 applications from Americans was rejected. For Australians, the figure was one in 703. For those from Pakistan, Bangladesh or Ghana, the figure was one in five; for Nigeria, it is one in six. Clearly, the measure will apply to those countries more than to others. Is there not a danger that the order--which will deprive people of the right to justice and consideration--will be found to be illegal under human rights legislation?
How are we suggesting the legal aid system should work? The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, wrote to me to say that cases can go to the Legal Services Commission
- subject of course to . . . financial eligibility and merits tests.
How many people will this order apply to? It is obvious that if we are talking about a grandfather, grandmother and one of their children, or a nephew, who want to come to this country, the amount charged will be three times £500. To pretend that the figures will be anything but that misleads the House, which is very bad. A figure of £500 may not seem a great deal to people with credit cards or bank accounts, but for families in Bangladesh, Pakistan or India it is a year's salary. It is not a tiny amount of money; it is an horrendous amount, which must be paid in advance.
I have a great deal of respect for the Home Secretary and I do not think he supports the proposal at all. I do not say this unkindly, but I listened to his speech, and he did not give the impression that he thought that the measure was a good idea. I have a feeling that something funny has happened within government. Those in the House tonight should give a message; not that we disagree with the Government, although I do, but that this is a cruel, heartless and stupid proposal which goes against promises made by the Government. The proposal will bring no benefits to anyone; it will simply cause resentment and create injustice. It should be thrown out and I hope the House of Commons will have the courage to do so.
I hope the Government will think again. If we are trying to save £4 million or £6 million, there are many ways in which we can do that without depriving people of their right to justice simply on the basis of being poor.
The Labour party does many good things--I have great respect for it--but it sometimes forgets the effects of its policies on the poor. My third child has just finished university. Student loans do not affect people with a bit of money, but what about the poor people? I get the impression that when student loans were proposed, we forgot that it meant that a child coming from a poor home would come out of university with a debt of about £12,000.
In the case of immigration visits, richer families will not have to worry, but poorer families will be deprived of their rights. That is wrong. Anyone in a democracy should oppose the measure, and anyone who stands for the principles of a Labour Government should have nothing to do with it.
10.59 pm
Mr. Piara S. Khabra (Ealing, Southall): There has been a wide-ranging debate on the issue, but I would like to concentrate on the appeals fee. I listened to the Home Secretary's argument, but I am not fully convinced. We are debating what I and many others regard as the injustice of levying fees for appeals against the refusal of a visa to visit family members in the United Kingdom.
I have a multicultural constituency, and a large number of those who live there come from the Indian sub-continent. It is my experience that many of their relatives want to come to the UK for various reasons, and many have expressed concern about the regulations. It appears that they are discriminatory and have been deliberately designed to restrict the entry of many genuine visitors.
The Government's commitment to a fair and firm immigration policy has been tarnished by the regulations. At issue is not only the potentially prohibitive charge of £500 for an oral hearing or £150 for a papers only appeal but the unnecessarily rigid definition of a family visitor.
As a Member of Parliament with considerable experience of immigration matters, I welcome the reinstatement of the right of appeal against refusal of a visa application in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, but, along with organisations including the Commission for Racial Equality, the Immigration Advisory Service and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, I am greatly concerned that the benefits of the Act will be negated by the levying of charges on appeal. Although the regulations state that the fee will be refunded when
the appeal is successful, an applicant has no guarantee of success, so some who are unfairly refused a visa will simply not be able to take the risk.In costing the administration of the appeals, the Lord Chancellor's Department has argued that 80 per cent. of appellants will opt for a papers only appeal. However, as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has pointed out, if cost were not an issue, most appellants would opt for an oral hearing, in an attempt to maintain their credibility for future visa applications as well as for the immediate request.
Another crucial point is that what may seem a reasonable fee to some is completely unmanageable for others, and especially for applicants from the Indian sub-continent, who make up a large proportion of those who apply to come here as visitors and whose yearly income is not even equivalent to the level of fees imposed. In US dollars, the UK's average income in real terms is $21,800 a year. In India, the figure is $1,800, and in Bangladesh just $1,470. The charges place an unacceptable burden on many who might otherwise have applied.
Furthermore, according to the 1998-99 family resources survey, the average household income in Pakistani or Bangladeshi households in the UK was 24 per cent. lower than the national average, and the figure for black households 39 per cent. lower. That suggests that many of the groups likely to have family members applying are less likely to be able to offer financial assistance to meet the costs.
In July, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced an additional allocation of £600 million for immigration control. Assuming, as the Home Office does, that 80 per cent. of the expected 19,500 appellants per year will opt for papers only, the total cost to the appellate authority of administering family visitor appeals would be £4.3 million. Even if all 19,500 requested an oral hearing, the fees received would be £9.75 million: a small proportion of the £600 million extra funding available.
I also question the unnecessarily rigid definition of a family visitor, as the nature of family relationships--especially extended ones--means that a family visitor can often be hard to define. Their importance also varies on a case-by-case basis.
Abolishing the charges would not create a flood of immigrants to the United Kingdom, nor even an influx of asylum seekers. We are dealing not with primary immigration but the right of family members to appeal against a refusal to attend a funeral, a wedding or another life event in the United Kingdom.
Many of my constituents have visited my surgery to tell me that the level of fees will be restrictive for many appellants and their sponsors, and that the reinstatement of the right of appeal in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has become meaningless. The charges also mean that people with a moderate income are refused access to justice, which will be available only to those with a lot of money. It is a mockery of justice that sponsors or appellants cannot afford to challenge the decision of the entry clearance officer in a court of law.
Finally, I am happy that the Secretary of State has given a commitment to review the order in due course.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |