---

6.2 pm

Mr. Siôn Simon (Birmingham, Erdington): I am grateful for the opportunity to have an Adjournment debate on a matter in which my interest was first stimulated when some constituents relatively recently began to express concern that it seemed to be impossible to obtain anything other than printed copies of changes to the immigration rules.

It is widely accepted that the internet is the future, and indeed the present. There have been many statements from the Government over the years about the importance of citizens being able to interact with the Government online, and much progress has been made. Acts of Parliament and most statutory instruments are already available on the web, but that does not mean that all legislation is readily available. In particular, until three days ago, changes to the immigration rules were available only in paper form from The Stationery Office.

Surely of all Government information, that which is likely to be of most interest to many people abroad should be available through the medium that is global, virtual and free. That may not sound like a big issue, but if someone is denied knowledge of legal changes affecting his immigration case because he cannot get the documents, it certainly is. The immigration and nationality directorate has a website that is reasonably comprehensive.

I was pleased to learn from a constituent earlier this week that what would have been one of my main requests to the Minister has already been met—as I said, just three days ago. It is now the case that any changes to the immigration rules are shown separately, as well as being incorporated in the consolidated version of the rules that was previously available. Until that extra facility was added earlier this week, anyone wishing to spot the changes would have had a difficult, if not almost impossible, task. I congratulate the Minister on that useful and important new facility.

There are still one or two other points that I would like to raise. Unless the Minister is aware of any later change not yet mentioned on the IND website, it is correct to say that the latest changes to the immigration rules are those that took place on 30 May. That is the first set of changes to be separately documented on the website, but it was not added until 9 June, 10 days after it took effect. As those changes to the immigration rules do not appear to have been accompanied by any press release—certainly, none is mentioned on the website—it follows that most people will have been ignorant of them for 10 days before they were made available on the website.

Of course, those changes were the first to be separately available. On the same date, the consolidated version of the rules was also updated. I wonder whether the delay in making available the new rules, which were effective from 30 May, occurred because work on the consolidated version was not finished. If that was the case, I urge the Minister to ensure in respect of any future changes that the changed document is made

12 Jun 2003 : Column 920

available without delay and that it is noted at the top of the consolidated document that the new changes, which are effective from a stated date, have yet to be incorporated in the consolidated version. In that way, it will be possible for any interested parties to work out for themselves the effect of any changes. I submit to her that it is far better than allowing people to be in the dark simply to put the information on the web so that they can see how the law has changed and the ways in which it might affect them.

While I warmly welcome the publication of the documents on the IND website, I wonder whether it will be possible to go further. The Minister may well have a technical explanation of why it is not possible to do so. I am by no means expert in these matters, as no doubt she and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are, but I wonder why the immigration rules and any changes to them are not published as statutory instruments. That is the usual method that the Government use to introduce secondary legislation and I cannot think of any logical reason why the immigration rules and changes to them are treated so differently. I look forward to hearing her remarks about that.

I have mentioned the changes to the rules that took effect on 30 May. An examination of that changed document shows that there have been no fewer than seven sets of changes in the past 12 months: on 27 August, 7 November and 26 November 2002, and on 8 January, 10 February, 31 March and 30 May 2003. An examination of press releases issued by Ministers appears to show that only four of those changes merited a press release. The other three sets of changes do not appear to have merited a press release of any kind. I cannot help but wonder if it is right for changes to be made and a press release not to be issued in explanation. Does the issue relate to the point that I made about statutory instruments, which tend to be published with details of the new legislation followed by an explanatory note? Immigration rules do not currently have the benefit of such explanations.

While the IND is to be commended for many aspects of its website, and especially the consolidated immigration rules, one aspect is now clearly out of date—the "How we apply the rules" section. For example, that section still refers to spouse visas as being issued for a 12-month period, whereas since April, they have been issued for 24 months. I note that the website was updated today, which is commendable, but that period is still erroneously listed as 12 months rather than 24 months. I ask the Minister to ensure that the website is updated not only regularly, but properly.

The major set of changes in the past 12 months appears to be those that were published on 31 March this year and took effect on 1 April. There were seven pages of detailed changes and a press release was duly issued at the same time. It is three or four pages long and was issued in the name of the Home Secretary. The changes deal with all sorts of matters, including tightening up on switchers—those who come to the UK in one visa capacity and then want to change to a different category. They also deal with the change in the spouse visa period that I have mentioned.

12 Jun 2003 : Column 921

The press release said nothing about switchers. On spouse visas, it merely said:

"The changes will also tighten up the rules on marriage to prevent people getting involved in sham marriages as a way of getting into, or staying in, the UK."

That is hardly a lot of detail and does not specifically mention two years at all. In other words, the press release gives minimal detail about the changes. That is to be expected, as it is in the nature of a press release, but it is also why we could do with some more detailed and up-to-date explanation on the website.

It was not until the website was updated on 10 April, nine days after the legislation took effect, that those not in possession of a written copy of the statement of changes to immigration rules could read about the detailed changes that had already passed into law. Those seven pages of detailed change included some very important ones. Following the White Paper, "Secure Borders, Safe Haven", which was issued in February 2002, many people wanted to know which of its proposals would make it into the immigration rules and in what form. The fact that the wording of the detailed changes was not available in any form on the internet until after the changes had taken effect bolsters the problem that I am highlighting. I urge the Minister to speed up access to any future changes and to consider whether it would be possible for such documents to be published as statutory instruments, as well as on the IND website.

As regards the changes that took effect on 1 April, the Minister may recollect that I asked two written questions about the matter. The first asked

"whether, following the recent changes made to paragraph 284 of the Immigration Rules, he will take steps to make it clear that the holder of a fiancé(e) visa of six months' duration can apply for their spouse visa in the UK."

The Minister replied:

"It was never intended that the "no-switching provision"—prohibiting those given leave to enter for six months or less from switching into marriage—would include those given leave to enter as fiancés. This will be made absolutely clear in the next rules change."

I was happy to get that answer, but I point out that when the next rule change was made on 30 May, it did not incorporate any change to paragraph 284. I therefore ask the Minister for an assurance that the issue remains on her to-do list.

My second question asked

"when, following the recent changes made to paragraph 287 of the Immigration Rules, the current holder of a 12 month duration spouse visa issued in March or earlier can apply for their Indefinite Leave to Remain visa; and whether such a person may apply for indefinite leave to remain near the end of their current 12 month visa."

The Minister kindly replied:

"The recent increase in the probationary period on marriage to two years will not affect applications to remain on the basis of marriage made before 1 April. The probationary period in these cases will remain one year and applications for settlement can be made no more than one month in advance of the end of the probationary period."—[Official Report, 15 May 2003; Vol. 405, c. 433W.]

12 Jun 2003 : Column 922

Again, I welcomed that answer, but it raises a more profound point. Anyone reading the immigration rules would undoubtedly conclude that the Minister's answer, although eminently sensible, is not actually what the rules say. That is, the changes introduced with effect from 1 April did not incorporate any transitional provisions to make the situation clear. Will the Minister consider whether it might be sensible to incorporate transitional provisions in the immigration rules where a profound change is being made, such as the duration of spouse visas moving from one year to two years?

According to the changes introduced with effect from 30 May this year, the current rules were laid before Parliament on 23 May 1994. They have since been amended no fewer than 25 times. I suggest to the Minister that it may be time for the 1994 rules and those 25 sets of changes to be replaced by one new consolidated set of rules. That would make it easier for everyone, including the IND, to follow them.

I am conscious that these matters are not exactly sexy, but they are no less important for that. I am very grateful to the Minister and the House for their time, and for the positive work that the Minister has already done and the positive changes that she has already made. I look forward to hearing her comments on what further progress she plans to make.

---