| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME AND VICTIMS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
That the following provisions shall apply to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords]:
Committal
1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
Proceedings in Standing Committee
2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Tuesday 6th July 2004.
3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Consideration and Third Reading
4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings commenced.
5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
Other proceedings
7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Question agreed to.
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CRIME AND VICTIMS BILL [LORDS] (MONEY)
Queen's recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
(a) any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act, and
(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under another enactment.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Question agreed to.
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Health Professions (Operating Department Practitioners and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.
That the Mental Health (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1272), dated 6th May 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
That the draft Licensing (Indoor Arenas) (Northern Ireland) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.
That the draft Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order [17 May],
That this House approves the draft Guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, which was laid before this House on 23rd March, insofar as it relates to guidance to licensing authorities on the discharge of their functions under that Act.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the Beer from Small Breweries (Extension of Reduced Rates of Excise Duty) Order 2004 (S.I., 2004, No. 1296), dated 10th May 2004, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th May, be approved.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Question agreed to.
COMMITTEES
Culture, Media and Sport
Ordered,
That Charles Hendry be discharged from the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and Mr Nick Hawkins be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
European Scrutiny
Ordered,
That Mr Mark Hendrick be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and Anne Picking be added.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]
Immigration and Nationality Directorate
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
10 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): I am delighted to have the opportunity of an Adjournment debate on documentation and the immigration and nationality directorate. I reassure the Minister that I do not want to engage him in a big debate on immigration policy. I have views on that subject—broadly in favour of a more liberal system—but I have not come along to argue about broad, strategic policy questions. Equally, I do not want to take advantage of this opportunity to raise humanitarian cases, as one could and as I have done in the past. I have written to him and his Department about one or two particular cases, but they are not my top priorities—they are more to illustrate the particular policy point that I want to raise this evening: procedures.
My experience has prompted this debate. I know that I am not the only Member of Parliament who has found that often the majority of cases in the weekly surgery concern immigration and asylum. I ask myself why that is so. I do not represent Southall or Slough. Twickenham is not a major centre of immigration and refugees. Less than 10 per cent. of our population are from ethnic minorities. It is fairly cosmopolitan in one sense, in that there are many second-generation immigrants and refugees, and because it is a fairly affluent and educated part of London there are many people who travel and have overseas wives and husbands. In that sense, it is quite a mixed population, but in no sense could it be said to be a major concentration of migrants. Therefore, I ask myself why we have so many problems.
The problems are very often not major cases of policy; they are not the kind of issues that I would normally want to take to a Minister, to whom I would appeal as a last resort for his humanitarian judgment. They are often purely clerical problems—people who are immensely frustrated because of delays in the processing of their visas or naturalisation, who go to their MP, often in desperation, because they do not know what is happening and have been waiting for a very long time. I am being affected by the issue and Ministers are being involved in fairly low-level clerical problems. That seems fundamentally unsatisfactory.
I therefore raised a question on 23 February with the then Minister of State for Citizenship and Immigration. I asked:
"Why does the Home Office not adopt the simple policy of copying travel documents once they have been verified, and releasing them so that people can get on with their lives while they are waiting?"
Somewhat to my pleasant surprise, the then Minister replied very positively:
"I agree with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman proposes; that is exactly what we are trying to do. In some cases, for various important reasons, it is not possible, but I agree that in general, documents can be copied and sent back, and we have asked the immigration and nationality directorate to implement that process in future." —[Official Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 17.]
I was delighted by that gust of common sense and constructive reaction. There was a large cheer around the House, which led me to believe that many other Members had exactly the same problem.
14 Jun 2004 : Column 618
I have returned to the issue in this debate, however, because I can see no evidence that that is happening. Since 23 February, I have dealt with a succession of cases, some of which I have referred to the Minister's office, which illustrate that it would be much simpler for the Department, members of the public and ourselves if documents were simply copied instead of being hoarded for long periods in the immigration and nationality directorate. That is a simple measure, but it would affect the ability of a large number of people to conduct their lives satisfactorily. I therefore wish to pursue the question of why the positive initiative offered by the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) has not been followed through.
In preparing for this debate, I studied the IND website to learn about the many different applications that can be made. It was clear that the Home Office and the IND accept that there is a problem, as there are various provisions for people who need to remove their travel documents in an emergency. There are many good reasons why people have to travel. There may be family disasters or they may be working for an employer who requires them to travel overseas. I am not making a case for people who simply want to swan around while their refugee status is resolved, as there are often compelling reasons why they have to travel.
The Home Office appears to recognise that, as it identifies two categories in which it is willing to help applicants. First, it says that people can withdraw their passports in cases of naturalisation and if they need them for reasons other than travel, including identity purposes, without being penalised and losing their position in the queue. That is helpful, but I have encountered cases in which people who use that facility find it difficult to get back into the pipeline. Why is it necessary to penalise people at all? Many people seeking a visa who do not fall into those categories and whose application is prolonged may have compelling reasons for wishing to use their passport. Why should they be penalised and sent to the end of a long queue?
The second category identified by the IND applies to people who need identity papers to open a bank account. On its website, it says that it will make "appropriate arrangements". It does not explain what those arrangements are, but hints that it is possible to access that facility. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate how many people use those facilities and how many people apply to have their passports returned for travel purposes, even if that involves a penalty. I do not expect those figures today, but they would give us an idea of the seriousness of the problem.
The right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston accepted that it would make much more sense, in the vast majority of cases, to copy documents and return them to applicants. In her reply on 23 February, she referred to "various important reasons" why that is not always possible, and it would be useful if the Minister spelt them out. Obviously, if an applicant for visa status is a suspected terrorist or criminal the authorities would wish to keep them under surveillance. I have no quarrel whatever with that as it is quite sensible, but such cases involve a microscopic percentage of people. What are the "important reasons" for withholding passports in many cases? It would make perfect sense to release the documents at the first available opportunity. People are often required to submit various documents, not just
14 Jun 2004 : Column 619
passports but birth certificates and other documents, to be used for identity purposes and kept on file. In most cases involving people applying for extended or indefinite leave, or for refugee status, the objective is surely to enable them to use their documents to apply for bank accounts and driving licences. We want them to use proper, formal procedures, not operate in the grey area of the underground economy. So for goodness' sake let us make sure that they have access to their documents and can work in a proper legal manner.
Similarly as regards travel, it is not clear to me why somebody applying for, say, refugee status of various types should be discouraged from travel. They may wait two, three or five years to have their position regularised. Why should they not be able to come and go freely? If they leave the country, their passports are available for checking by immigration officers when they come back in.
My final reason for questioning the desirability of the immigration and nationality directorate holding on to documents is that they frequently get lost. I sometimes believe that Twickenham residents are particularly vulnerable to that. I have very large numbers of cases of essential identity documents disappearing in the Department.
There is an appalling case winging its way to the Minister—the case of Gisella Grant, who as a young lady came to the UK from Trinidad many years ago. She came as a student, married a British person and is now divorced. She wishes to regularise her position in the UK by seeking naturalisation. I have not written to the Minister, but the details will follow. She applied for naturalisation and did not feel any sense of urgency about the matter, but submitted the documents and discovered some time later that the Department had lost them. For a long period she has been pursuing the Department, trying to find out what happened. She has now involved me in the case.
Unfortunately, Ms Grant's employer, a film company where she has quite a responsible job, is being pursued, as many employers currently are, in respect of illegal immigration, and she is being asked to prove who she is. She cannot. She has no documents to prove her identity. The Home Office has lost her passport. Last week she was fired because she cannot prove who she is and her documents are somewhere in the Home Office. That is not a unique case. My argument, based on that example and others, is that it would be much more sensible for documents to be released as soon as possible and returned to the applicant.
There is a series of special problems, which I shall cite because they are among the examples about which I wrote to the Home Office. First, there are cases of naturalisation. Naturalisation is rarely highly controversial. It rarely involves illegal immigrants. It often involves people who have been resident in the UK for long periods and who are working, settled members of the community. The problem with naturalisation is that the applications usually take a long time because, for perfectly good reasons, the immigration and nationality directorate wishes to obtain references and other materials. So why cannot passports be copied and returned to the applicants once they have been submitted and the checks carried out?
14 Jun 2004 : Column 620
I have given the Minister two examples of a great deal of unnecessary hassle caused by documents being held in such cases. There was a Mrs. Sen whose problem has been resolved, thanks to the intervention of a Government Minister. I am grateful for that, as is she, but the problem need never have arisen in the first place. The second case, which has not yet been fully resolved and about which I have written to the Minister, concerns a Mr. David, an Antiguan gentleman who is seeking naturalisation. He has lived in the UK for many years. He did get his passport back—the story has moved on since I wrote the letter—and he did travel, but now the passport has had to go back into the system. His job requires him to travel frequently, so he does not know whether to keep reapplying to have his passport released. The Home Office will not tell him how soon the application will be dealt with—whether it is days, months or years—and will not communicate, answer the phone or answer letters. A simple way out would be to copy his passport and proceed with the evaluation of his application in an orderly way.
Naturalisation causes one set of problems. A second set relates to partners. One of the cases about which I have written to the Minister concerns a Russian lady, Mrs. Gulamova, and her German fiancé, Mr. Beaumont-Bruckauf, who live in Twickenham. Her application has been turned down, maybe for good reason—I am not questioning that—but in support of the application the fiancé had to submit his documents to the Home Office, which caused a great deal of confusion in the Home Office. Officials there thought he was applying for a visa for himself, and there was a great deal of secondary correspondence that completely missed the point. The problem is that that young man has to travel a great deal—he works in the City—but cannot do so because his passport is stuck in the Home Office to support his fiancée's application and appeal. That is completely unnecessary—there is no reason why the passport should be there.
A third set of examples relates to mixed relationships. I have some experience of those problems because I originally married into an Indian family and my son married into a Slovakian family. I have three cases on my books about which I have written to the Minister. Mr. and Mrs. Gooch have been waiting for more than a year for Mrs. Gooch's passport and are unable to travel. Andy Ford is married to a Brazilian lady, and they have one child. The application to regularise her position has been outstanding for three years, and the family cannot travel because her passport is stuck in the Home Office. Another case is that of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts is a Brazilian lady who is facing difficulties with her case. I am not arguing for or against the Home Office questioning her status—it might be right to do so—but there is no reason why the passport cannot be released to allow the family to travel while the matter is being resolved.
In conclusion—I have strayed a little beyond my quarter of an hour—I want to make some suggestions as to how, in the spirit of the former Minister's comments, the Government could help people involved in such cases. First, will the Minister seriously consider which documents need to be retained in the IND and for what reason? It should not merely be for reasons of tradition or habit. Secondly, is it not possible to introduce a
14 Jun 2004 : Column 621
general system along the lines hinted at by the former Minister, whereby when people submit their applications—whether for a visa, a naturalisation or other purposes—the documents are checked, the cheques are received, the passport is copied and put in a pre-paid envelope and returned to the sender, perhaps with a stamp saying that the application is under review, and the individuals simply get on with their lives? Then, when the application has been considered—in a month's time, a year's time or five years' time—they are summoned back to a passport office so that their passport can be properly stamped, or they can send it in. That procedure would save an enormous amount of grief, reduce the risk of loss, and make life much simpler for everybody.
10.17 pm
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |