House of Commons - Managing Migration: The Points Based System

Managing Migration: The Points Based System - Home Affairs Committee Contents

12 MPs' representations

270. As part of our inquiry we considered a related concern: the process by which Members of Parliament can make representations about visa and asylum applications to the UK Border Agency, and the response of the UKBA. We took evidence from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Identity, Meg Hillier MP, on 3 March 2009. We also conducted a survey of all 646 MPs asking for feedback on their experience of making representations in immigration and asylum cases. In addition, we visited the MPs' hotline in Croydon.

Backlog and delays in processing applications

271. In 2006 it emerged that the Home Office had a backlog of between 400,000 and 450,000 undecided asylum application cases. The Minister for Identity acknowledged that "there has been an historic backlog which we are well under way to resolving. We are very clear that we will have it resolved certainly by 2011".[323] The Chief Executive of the UK Border Agency, Lin Homer, updates us at regular intervals with progress on clearing this backlog. Her latest letter, dated 7 July 2009, reported that 197,500 cases had been concluded to date.

272. The existence of this backlog means that many of our constituents routinely receive letters advising them that, in line with the UK Border Agency's target for clearing the backlog, they can expect their case to be resolved by 2011. The fact that many of them must wait for anything up to two years more for a decision on their case, especially when they may have been waiting years already, is unacceptable, and is often the reason that MPs make representations to the UK Border Agency.

Options for representation

273. MPs wishing to make representation on an immigration or asylum case have three possible avenues. First, they can write to Visa Customer Services, which is part of the Home Office International Group. They can do this by writing directly, or by writing via the MPs' Liaison Unit based in Croydon, which acts as an interface with Visa Customer Services. Second, they can phone the UK Border Agency-run MPs' hotline in Croydon, and speak to a dedicated hotline officer. Third, they can contact the Home Office Minister's office directly—replies to letters received by the Minister's office are drafted by Visa Customer Services.[324]

274. For routine enquiries the UK Border Agency advises MPs to contact Visa Customer Services, which aims to respond to 95 per cent of all correspondence within 20 working days.[325] The Minister for Identity, Meg Hillier MP, encouraged Members to use this avenue for routine enquiries.[326] For urgent enquiries, primarily those regarding compassionate leave, MPs are advised to use the MPs' Hotline. The Hotline receives around 22,500 enquiries per year. It also provides an email service. It aims to reply to 95 per cent of all correspondence within 10 working days and 100 per cent within 20 working days.[327] MPs can also appeal in urgent cases directly to the relevant Home Office Minister. Meg Hillier MP told us that, where there is a "sticking point", Members should contact Ministers.[328]

275. The Home Secretary has a wide discretion when it comes to immigration and asylum matters, and in some aspects of nationality applications. The immigration rules provide that the Secretary of State may grant leave to enter or remain but, equally, leave to enter or remain may still be refused if any of the general grounds for refusal contained within Part 9 of the Immigration Rules apply. In most instances, the discretion is exercised within the Immigration Rules—generally by waiving some part of the relevant rule or rules so that leave to remain may be granted.

276. It is therefore open to MPs to raise cases with Ministers if they wish them to review the initial decision and/or step outside the rules to make a decision in a constituent's favour. However, it is rare for a decision to depart entirely from the rules set out in the Immigration Rules and published policy documents—the most exceptional compassionate circumstances would usually have to be shown. Moreover, Ministers would not normally intervene if an appeal was outstanding, and would be unlikely to reverse a decision which had been through the appeals process unless new and compelling information had become available.[329]

Survey of MPs

277. 114 out of 646 MPs completed our questionnaire, and a further five submitted comments only. A summary of the results is annexed to this Report.[330] Overwhelmingly, MPs felt that the level of information they received from UK Visas—via Visa Customer Services—was poor. Of 112 respondents, 63 per cent rated the way their representations were dealt with as 5 or lower on a scale of 1-10 where 1 is poor and 10 excellent. Specific and repeated criticism centred on the length of time taken to receive a response to representations, poor initial decision-making by UK Border Agency staff, the use of standardised paragraphs in responses, and the difficulty in getting hold of UK Border Agency officials to discuss cases.

Speed of response

278. Glyn Williams of the UK Border Agency admitted that it was "fair to say in terms of handing MPs' correspondence that the performance of International Group has dipped in the last 12 months. That sort of coincided with the move from UK Visas into International Group".[331] He thought the Agency had been "slightly caught off guard" and it was not hitting the 20-day target for 95 per cent of replies—in fact, it was averaging 60 per cent in 20 days and 77 per cent in 30 days. He did "not see why we cannot do much better than that".[332]

279. The Minister for Identity, Meg Hillier MP, told us that Visa Services receives 48,000 letters a year on visa cases, of which around two-thirds are from MPs.[333] Between them, she and the Minister of State for Borders and Immigration dealt personally with 12,000 letters a year.[334] She thought that she alone probably signed 30 to 40 letters a day. The Minister was insistent that she personally read the accompanying documentation and case put forward by an MP when she received a letter.[335]

280. The Minister noted that, amongst other measures, the UK Border Agency was implementing an online tracking process so that MPs could find out where their letters were in the system.[336] Glyn Williams noted that "we have established two visa sections in King Charles Street [London]: one to handle work from Algiers; and the other, which started a month ago, to handle some settlement work from Pakistan. We are trialling the concept of whether we can effectively decide cases in the UK as opposed to in locations".[337]

Quality of response

281. Many MPs responding to our survey complained that Refusal Notices were answered with standard word processed paragraphs and that frequently specific individual or meritorious circumstances were overlooked or disregarded. In fact, we have regularly expressed concern about the lack of clarity in visa Refusal Notices. In our recent Report, Monitoring of the UK Border Agency, published on 12 January 2009, we concluded:

Based on our experiences as constituency MPs, and from recent visits, including to visas offices in India and Bangladesh, we have ourselves expressed concern about the length and unintelligibility of visa refusal notices. We were pleased to learn that the Independent Monitor has made similar criticisms about the indiscriminate use of standardised paragraphs, and of unintelligible or obscure legal jargon.[338]

Meg Hillier MP told us that "we do use standard wording and there is a good reason for that—there are 220 drafters in the immigration team and about 16 in Glyn Williams' team".[339]

Decisions by Ministers

282. The Minister for Identity, Meg Hillier MP, noted that not all MPs used direct appeal to a Minister as an emergency last resort, as it was intended:

I am often approached by MPs who are approached by the constituents with an issue around a visa where actually there has never even been an appeal on the original application…we have to get a balance between taking MPs' representations as seriously as they deserve, without allowing everybody to circumvent the appeals system.[340]

She considered that there were "very few cases where there is a reason for ministerial discretion and that would be those difficult cases that were outside the rules"[341] and observed: "I would not think it appropriate for Ministers to become an alternative appeal approach".[342] She later wrote to us that Ministerial interventions resulting in overturn of a decision had happened on only two occasions recently, both in January 2009.[343]

283. We were concerned that, where MPs appealed directly to Ministers, the information they provided was not always passed on to officials elsewhere in the system. One example was of a case of a disabled single mother and three daughters, who were taken to an immigration detention centre even whilst the case was under consideration by Home Office ministers following representations from an MP.[344]

Potential increase in representations under the Points Based System

284. Given that the right of appeal will be replaced by a paper-based administrative review under the Points Based System, we asked the Minister for Identity, Meg Hillier MP, whether she expected to see an increase in MPs' representations as a result of the removal of appeal. She simply considered that "it would be interesting to see how many people do try and then go to their MP".[345] We consider that response a little complacent.

285. We were also concerned that the Minister's absence on maternity leave would render the Home Office temporarily short-staffed in responding to MPs, particularly in the context of a likely increase in representations under the Points Based System. Accordingly we wrote to the then Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith MP, to enquire about cover arrangements. The then Home Secretary informed us that Shahid Malik MP would pick up Meg Hillier's immigration correspondence caseload, although Alan Campbell MP would take on the role of correspondence champion. However shortly after this Mr Malik stood down from his post with no person appointed to cover his temporary absence.

286. We note the introduction of an online case tracking system and dedicated account managers to respond to MPs' representations in immigration and asylum cases. However, too many MPs remain dissatisfied with the quality and speed of response to their representations. It is clear from comments made by MPs in response to our survey that officials are right to diagnose the transfer of Visa Customer Services from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the UK Border Agency as a turning point for a deterioration in standards of service. Attention must be given by the UK Border Agency to improving the speed of their service, and improving significantly on the current performance of only responding to 60 per cent of MPs' representations within their target time of 20 days.

287. On several previous occasions—including in our recent Report, Monitoring of the UK Border Agency (published on 12 January 2009)—we have recommended in no uncertain terms that visa Refusal Notices must refrain from using standardised paragraphs or unintelligible jargon, and should instead set out clearly and plainly the individual reasons for a refusal. It is essential that precisely the same principles apply also to responses to MPs' representations, which must address the specific points and circumstances raised by MPs. They are currently failing to do so.

288. Whilst we note the Minister for Identity's efforts personally to read and respond to correspondence, it is clear to us that no busy government minister could consider in detail the 30 or 40 letters a day she confirmed that she received. We were also concerned about a shortage of ministerial time available to deal with MPs' representations given inadequate cover arrangements made by the Government for the Minister for Identity's absence on maternity leave, especially in the context of a likely increase in MPs' representations with the right of appeal being removed under the Points Based System.

289. We remain seriously concerned about the scale of the backlog in processing historic asylum cases, the consequence of which is that many of our constituents are being advised that their case may not be concluded before 2011. Although in our view MPs should appeal directly to ministers only as a last resort, to ensure that ministers can give priority to the most urgent cases, we entirely understand the frustration of many MPs over the huge delays in processing cases which drives them to appeal directly to ministers.

290. We consider that constituents' representations to MPs, and MPs' representations to the UK Border Agency and ministers, will increase under the Points Based System, since the system contains no independent right of appeal against visa refusals. This could lead to MPs and ministers becoming an alternative appeals process, although it would be inappropriate for anyone to receive preferential treatment simply as a result of an MP making representations. We therefore recommend that the UK Border Agency must prepare for an increase in representations, including by increasing the capacity of the MPs' Hotline and Visa Customer Services, and by liaising with MPs to advise them how best to advise constituents refused visas under the new system.

291. The essence of dealing with MPs' representations is the provision of good customer service to those who seek information about their cases. Even UK Border Agency senior officials admit that they can 'do much better'. We agree with them.

323 Q 42 (03/03/09) Back

324 Ev 252-253 Back

325 Ev 253 Back

326 Q 23 (03/03/09) Back

327 Oral briefing from UK Border Agency during Committee visit to MPs' hotline in Croydon Back

328 Q 23 (03/03/09) Back

329 House of Commons Library, Standard Notes SN/HA/1634, Immigration: Discretion outside the Rules, 26 June 2008, and SN/HA/3186, Constituency casework: immigration, nationality and asylum, 14 January 2009. Back

330 Annex B [Summary of MP survey responses] Back

331 Q 12 (03/03/09) Back

332 Qq 12-13 (03/03/09) Back

333 Qq 19-20 (03/03/09) Back

334 Q 20 (03/03/09) Back