§ Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 7, line 35, at end insert:
§ ("(3AA) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is, by virtue of subsection (3A) above, no right of appeal; and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament."").—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. AllenI beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out from "appoint" to "monitor" in line 3 and insert,
the Commission for Racial Equality (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission")".
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient also to discuss amendments (b) to (g) to the Lords amendment, plus Government amendment (j) to the Lords amendment, and Lords amendment No. 11.
§ Mr. AllenThe Conservatives are in a terrible mess and that would normally give some pleasure to the Opposition. However, when the Conservatives make a mess they are not the people who suffer, but people outside. When they are incompetent on the economy, my constituents lose jobs or businesses, and when the Government stupidly introduce a daft experiment to pay pensions into bank accounts, it is pensioners who become isolated while postmasters go bust.
When the Home Secretary needed to impress his Back Benchers, he bolted an anti-immigration clause on to what is essentially an asylum Bill. The relatives and friends of black and Asian British people will thus find that, virtually alone in our legal system, they will be denied the right to appeal against the wrongful denial of a visitor's visa. Last year, 3,845 such wrongful decisions were overturned because people had the right to appeal. That is the only reason for those decisions being changed. It was not because of any magnanimity by the Minister or the Home Secretary. The right of appeal has been abolished, and if those 3,845 people are wrongfully denied right of access to 63 this country, they will have no redress. By abolishing the right of appeal the Government are acquiescing to the continuation of wrongful decisions.
The Government need to play to several audiences and the amendments and proceedings in the Lords and elsewhere are an elaborate pantomime to try to convince the ethnic minority British that the proposals to abolish the right of appeal will not hurt them. A package of transparent concessions was offered in Committee, but it was laughed out of court. It was tragic and almost amusing to watch the Minister as he pretended to be dragged into making concessions to his Back Benchers, most of whom spent their time in Committee studying their correspondence and other papers. Suddenly they sprang to life to gain marvellous concessions which nobody believes have any substance.
Having failed to carry the day with those, the Government are now offering monitoring in place of a right of appeal. But not each case or each refusal of a visa will be monitored, nor can monitoring be initiated by someone who has been denied a visa. A minute and random sample will be monitored, the exercise will be unknown to the applicant and there will be no possible redress for errors. I hope that no one in any minority community in Great Britain will be gullible enough to be bought off by such flimsy and obvious manoeuvring. When the Tory begging bowl is passed around in the Asian business community, I hope that it will be greeted with the question, "How did you vote about the right of appeal being abolished for visitors?"
The Government have attempted to wangle their way out of the problem by promoting what they would term a friendly amendment in the Lords. It is worth considering why the amendment was proposed. The Government argued that there is an overwhelming need to end the appeal system, which we have had for 21 years and under which people have applied for visitor or student visas. In Committee, the Minister claimed that clause 12, which abolishes the right of appeal for those refused entry clearance as visitors, students intending to study for less than six months, proposed students and their dependants, is necessary to prevent the immigration appeal system from getting clogged up and thus preventing genuine appeal cases from being heard. The Opposition have never accepted that argument and its policy implications.
6.30 pm
Lords amendment No. 10 proposes that the Secretary of State shall appoint an individual to oversee and review
in such a manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance in cases where there is … no right of appeal".Furthermore, the appointed personshall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions to the Secretary of State who shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.I have a number of criticisms of the role, responsibilities and powers of the appointed person. The proposal is a weak attempt by the Government to cover up the injustice that they will serve on many people in the United Kingdom and their relatives abroad by abolishing the right of appeal.
§ Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)My hon. Friend may or may not know that for some time I represented 64 appellants almost on a daily basis. I believe that I was the person involved in the very first appeal, which was heard in July 1970, so our system has been in existence for almost 23 years.
What is wrong is not merely that the right of appeal is being abolished. As my hon. Friend said, that right allowed the tribunal to find that the decisions taken by adjudicators in a number of cases were wrong. Is he aware that, when the entry clearance officer is deciding whether to accept or reject an application, he will bear in mind the fact that he will have to justify the decision if an appeal is lodged? He will have to write an explanatory statement, which will go before an adjudicator in the event of an appeal.
Once the right of appeal is removed, the entry clearance officer will have no fear of what may happen as a result of his decision, because it will not be possible to challenge his decision in any meaningful way.
§ Mr. AllenMy hon. Friend brings all his experience to bear in pinpointing that important matter. The problem is not merely that decisions in a large number of applications have been rejected and overturned on appeal, but that the checking mechanism of the appeal system, which provides a stimulus to entry clearance officers to get the decision right in the first place, will be removed. The figures on that do not appear in any statistics, because that threat of appeal if people get the decision wrong exists only as an internal policing role.
Of the 13,882 people who appealed on refusal of entry clearance abroad, 3,845 had their appeals allowed. It is outrageous that the Government are prepared to see that those who are initially wrongfully refused entry to the United Kingdom can be left with no recourse to any further consideration of their cases. The Government's proposal of a monitor is inadequate for the appeals procedure. However, we are aware that the monitoring process will be steamrollered through in the normal manner this evening, so it is incumbent on us to make efforts to strengthen the monitoring process, as well as criticising the reason why we need that process—the abolition of the right of appeal.
Our amendments set out proposals to give teeth to the monitor. Initially, they are aimed at ensuring greater independence for the monitor from the Secretary of State. To start with, how independent can a monitor be if he is appointed by the Secretary of State? Our amendment would ensure that the monitor is appointed by the Commission for Racial Equality. The appointee would then have a truly independent role and he would not have his role of independent scrutineer determined by the Secretary of State.
The CRE appointee would determine which cases he investigated and would have access to the files necessary for a proper investigation of refused cases. We believe that the CRE would be the appropriate organisation to appoint the monitor and such an arrangement would ensure that the body that has experience in monitoring the actions of immigration authorities would be able to oversee the workings of the entry clearance system. Its record, and the work that it has done, speak for themselves. It would bring an element of independence to the process, thereby ensuring that all communities could have faith that the process was working on an impartial basis.
That raises the question of adequate resources. The monitor that the CRE chooses must have a properly staffed and resourced office. It is not clear whether the 65 Secretary of State's appointee will have the adequate secretarial or administrative back-up that a monitor must have if he is to be effective. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that he will have that.
The number of cases that a one-man or one-woman operation could monitor would be minuscule. With one person attempting to dip into the various files and reviews, only a tiny number of cases would be reviewed. Even with this unambitious proposal of monitoring, we should set a target of at least 10 per cent. of refusals being examined by the monitor and his staff. Anything less would render the exercise even more transparently an exercise in camouflage of the abolition of the right of appeal than it is already.
In carrying out his responsibilities, the monitor should, if necessary, be allowed to call witnesses before him to enable him to determine the reasons for refusal of entry clearances. He should have the power to refer any such refusal to the Secretary of State for reconsideration. If he is to be effective, it is essential that the monitor is able to contact those who are refused as individuals and get full access to the notes and files.
The Minister has promised that people will be sent a more detailed refusal letter, but it is not quite clear how detailed that refusal letter will be. There may be notes of an interview between the entry clearance officer and the refused visitor, as referrred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). Those notes will be set out from the entry clearance officer's point of view, and it seems unlikely that any documents presented to him will be kept. There will be no explanatory statement setting out his thought processes and, more importantly, nothing from the visitor's point of view.
In appeals that succeed, the visitor can usually explain misunderstandings or misinterpretations in the first interview or even give a more full explanation than that recorded by the entry clearance officer. However, as the Bill stands, that information will not be available to the monitor, so his decision will be given after only a cursory examination of some of the papers. We could not readily accept that. Even if, on the information available, the monitor believes that a decision is wrong, there will be no redress for the individual visitor. He will not even know that his case has been reviewed and he will not be informed of the outcome or told that entry clearance will be granted in future. Because he will not know about any review, he cannot make any representations.
If, magically, on that brief random sample the monitor decides that injustice has been done, there will be no way of redressing it. We are not talking about an odd problem or two—last year almost 4,000 individuals won their appeals. This year, people will not even know whether their cases are being reviewed. The Government's proposals will simply perpetuate injustices unless adequate information and access are provided. Indeed, the very fact that an inadequate monitoring system exists may make the position worse. The courts may feel that due process has been gone through, which will undermine the concept of judicial review. The monitor's report, especially if it is favourable, could be used to support any suggestion that decisions are generally fair. That will make it even harder for individual visitors to contest unjust refusals.
It is worth repeating that currently 20 per cent. of refusals are found to be in error on appeal. I make no apology for repeating the analogy that I used some time ago on Second Reading—imagine what would happen if there was a 20 per cent. error rate in other areas of the civil 66 service, perhaps in the income tax returns of hon. Members or their constituents, or perhaps in social security claims. It would be absolutely intolerable.
The very fact that the scale of the problem has been highlighted is due to the appeals system. People can appeal, and we can find out what mistakes have been made. That will no longer be available and the monitor will not be able to overturn even the most blatantly wrong decisions. I hope that the House agrees that that is neither acceptable nor just.
Our amendments would ensure that the monitor reports to the House not once a year, as the Government propose, but monthly. That may appear to be a heavy burden, but as the monitor will have very few powers the least that we should do is to ensure that he regularly alerts the House to the high number of applications being wrongfully refused. Hon. Members can then debate the issue in the House. Of course, this is not really the place where appeals against wrongful refusal should be heard, but if it is all that is available, hon. Members should have the necessary information provided monthly. I repeat that we are talking not about the odd case, but about at least 4,000 cases a year. There would certainly be enough cases to keep hon. Members chewing over the monitor's report each month. We need to scrutinise the system as thoroughly as possible.
The amendments would broaden the scope of the monitor's investigations, which is crucial to improving his proposed role. He should investigate refusals of entry and refusals of entry clearance. We want the monitor to review and investigate the rejection of both and the latter is included in Lord's amendment No. 10. Refusals of leave to enter at airports and ports, or any refusals of students or prospective students, would not then be excluded, as they currently are, from the monitor's remit.
We are conscious of the need to give the monitor teeth. We have realised for some time that the Government's intention behind this proposal is merely to give some respectability to the withdrawal of the right of appeal for those refused entry clearance. We give the right of appeal to a common murderer, but not to a mother seeking to enter this country to be present at, for example, a family funeral, christening or other religious ceremony. In the Government's view, they are not worthy of retaining the right of appeal.
6.45 pm
The plan to conceal the abolition of the right of appeal has not worked. I call upon the Government to accept the amendments and give the monitor some genuine powers and a genuine role. If the Government do not do that, they stand accused and condemned of just carrying out a public relations exercise to limit the political damage that they have inflicted not just on themselves, but on many of our innocent fellow citizens, by abolishing the right of appeal.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris)I must inform the House that amendment No. 10 involves privilege.
§ Mr. CorbynOver the years, I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with individual cases of immigration law and refusals of entry clearance. It takes up an incredible amount of the time of any hon. Member representing a constituency, as I do, which has people from all parts of the world. I shall not go into great detail, 67 but I can tell the House of the horror and misery caused to those families who cannot be reunited because of the bureaucracy of our immigration rules.
It is fundamentally wrong that our immigration laws should be the opposite of all other presumptions of law. The presumption of guilt is on the individual, there is a lack of right of appeal, a lack of natural justice in dealing with the case and the Secretary of State is judge, jury gaoler, executioner and deportation officer. He has total power over the lives of a large number of people.
The history of the clause with which we are dealing lies in the way that good and expert immigration lawyers have, over the years, consistently challenged the nonsense of the operation of existing immigration law. They have had a number of successful judicial review cases and have also taken cases to the European Court. The Government are attempting to raise the threshold for judicial review in an attempt to evade any accountability for the decisions made by entry clearance officers. Although the Lords amendments do not go anything like as far as I would wish, at least they provide the basis for monitoring and examining what is happening. That has to be a slight improvement on what the Government initially wanted.
We must deal with a number of issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, those seeking entry clearance currently have a right of appeal if the decision goes against them. The appeal is heard and a decision made, albeit often in unfortunate circumstances because frequently those people have already been removed from this country and have lost their ability to return. I understand that in one year, one third of all the cases appealed are successful—yet the Secretary of State wants to remove that right of appeal.
The proceedings in Committee were farcical. It was obvious that Afro-Caribbean and Asian families resident in this country were concerned and angry at the prospect of visitors being unable to come here for happy family events such as birthdays, weddings or the birth of a child, or for sad family events such as funerals. They were alarmed by the prospects of the removal of the right of appeal and the unfettered power that that would give to officers in British missions overseas.
In an attempt to get out of that mess, the Secretary of State contacted the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Deva), who willingly went along with the nonsense of allowing a second application rather than a proper right of appeal. Presumably the hon. Gentleman presented that as some kind of victory and indication of his parliamentary skills, but the opposite is true. It made an appalling situation even worse. It was a travesty of justice in the first place, and it makes a total mockery of sense of justice to allow a second bite of the cherry if one can afford to pay for it. It is time that was made clear and put on the record.
As to the right of those from Somalia to enter the country at this time, I have been contacted by solicitors representing a number of Somali citizens who seek family reunion. As the Minister knows, if a family gains full asylum status in this country, family reunion is automatic. Increasingly, the Department is both to grant asylum to anyone. I am not sure of the process through which one must go to persuade the Home Office that one is worthy of asylum.
68 Instead, the Home Office grants the lesser right of exceptional leave to remain, which means a four-year delay until such time as the application for family reunion can be considered. That is a long time in the life of a child, and is totally unjustified and unfair if the Minister knows all along that the Home Office will have to grant entry to the rest of the family at some time, so that it can be reunited.
Persons who are granted exceptional leave to remain in the country must pay the usual visa fees, which can be as much as £60 per person. Those fees are waived in respect of relatives of refugees but not of those given exceptional leave to enter. I do not understand why those persons must pay when they are granted the right of residence in this country for virtually the same reasons as relatives of refugees.
It is time that the Government understood the deep anguish felt by many in this country at the way in which their relatives and friends are treated when they merely try to visit. In Committee, we warned of the implications—of the unpleasantness, and of the total lack of accountability in respect of the work done by entry clearance officers in British missions abroad.
The basic tenet of Government in a democratic society is that official decisions can be challenged at some stage. The only way that an individual can now challenge the decisions of individual immigration officers at British missions abroad or in this country is to contact a Member of Parliament. That Member of Parliament can contact a Minister, and if he does not give a satisfactory answer, the Member of Parliament can try to raise the matter in the House. That is not satisfactory, and there ought to be normal, basic rights of appeal—as there are in every other area of life.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North is attempting to improve proposals that he admits are not anyway very satisfactory. The suggestion is that just one individual will serve as a monitor. As just one constituency Member of Parliament, I cannot monitor in detail all the problems that are brought to me—and I am sure that I speak for other right hon. and hon. Members in that regard. How on earth will one individual be able adequately to monitor the situation on behalf of the Government?
The Minister has the largest private office in the whole of Whitehall, and the biggest budget. He has also the largest staff and the biggest volume of individual casework. That is because immigration law has been concocted in such a curious way. We need in its place real rights of appeal, real rights of accountability, and real rights for those who seek family reunion or who want legitimately to join relatives in this country.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North rightly pointed out, there is need also for an independent basis for the monitor. I am not happy with the idea of the Secretary of State appointing a monitor to monitor himself. I can imagine who the Secretary of State might appoint to sit at the desk in the corner of his office, whom he can tell how to monitor the work. Monthly, not annual, reports are needed, as is some form of appeal other than an appeal to the very same Secretary of State who made the original decision or on whose behalf the decision was made.
The issue will not go away. Every few years, the Government try some new means of removing the rights of those who want to join their families, friends and relatives 69 in this country. We have seen various changes to immigration rules, and the curtailment of the rights of Members of Parliament and of access to judicial review and the European Court. There is now to be a lack of any form of appeal against decisions. When a totally erroneous and ludicrous decision is made, I am sure that a way will be found to have the case made the subject of judicial review—and then we shall be back on the merry-go-round. It is time to review the issue in the light of justice, equality and fair play, rather than make those affected suffer bureaucratic horrors and misery.
The losers in that bureaucratic merry-go-round are the families separated by thousands of miles of sea and mountains of paperwork, and the growing children who are unable to remain with their parents, as they should rightfully do—to live happily and harmoniously. They cannot do so because of the way in which immigration law operates.
§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)I share he views so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) but take them further. My hon. Friend said that the Government will find some way to get around ludicrous decisions, but that will not be possible. Where a ludicrous decision is made, the sufferer will be returned to wherever he or she came from, and then it will be too late to do anything. That is the basic problem of monitoring as opposed to the right of appeal.
The abolition of that right is a monstrous act for a decent country to perform. I declare a certain personal interest, in that all four of my grandparents came to this country at the end of the last century to seek asylum—whether by that term or otherwise—from the vicious miseries then imposed on Jewish people by the Tsar and his armies. As I listened to the debate, I wondered whether my grandparents would even have gained entry to this country on the terms now proposed.
If they had not done so because some official had exercised his or her power, my grandparents would have boarded another ship; if they had the money to do so—or would have been put on another ship. Neither my revered father or I would have had the proud privilege of serving the House, whether as a Member of Parliament or as an official, or in any other capacity.
§ Mr. Charles WardleI hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman is aware that we are debating the abolition of appeal against the refusal of visit visas and mandatory refusals of entry clearance. That has nothing to do with asylum applications or with appeals against the refusal of settlement applications.
§ Mr. JannerThe whole system of appeals should apply to everyone. My constituents complain that a relative is not allowed entry to attend a funeral—
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerOrder. What the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks is one thing but, as a lawyer, he will appreciate that the amendments are fairly tightly drawn. The hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks should remain within the bounds of the Lords amendments under consideration.
§ Mr. JannerOf course I accept your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was only responding to the Minister's intervention. I will direct my remarks with pleasure at 70 clause 10, point by point—and then there can be no allegation that I am straying one inch from the path of legal propriety. Amendment No. 10 to clause 10 states:
The Secretary of State shall appoint a person".Why should the Secretary of State appoint the monitor? Why should the individual who is to be monitored decide who is to do the monitoring? Even with our system of appointment to Select Committees, one of which I am privileged to chair, it is not the relevant Department or Minister being monitored that appoints the members of that Committee but the Whips. They may make mistakes —for example, no woman serves on the Employment Committee. However, at least the members of Select Committees cannot be accused of being appointed by the Minister.The Secretary of State is to appoint "a person"—one person to monitor thousands of applications. That will provide thousands of opportunities to do people harm and injustice. That person will not be "an officer of his". What good news. Thank heaven for small mercies. At least the Home Office will not be landed with a responsibility that I am sure its officials would not welcome.
7 pm
The person appointed will monitor refusals not in accordance with the interests of natural justice, but
in such manner as the Secretary of State may determineThe Secretary of State will not only appoint the monitor, but decide the way in which that monitor will do his duty. What a travesty. The person to be put on trial will appoint the judge; there will be no jury; and the same person will decide the way in which the tribunal is to proceed. This is not justice, but a cover-up—an attempt to make people think that justice will be available. It is not a way of ensuring that those who come to this country have rights; it constitutes an assurance that no such rights will exist.The Lords amendment states:
The Secretary of State shall appoint a person, not being an officer of his, to monitor, in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine, refusals of entry clearance".Following such a refusal, the applicant must return to his own country, because he will have no right of appeal. The refusal will then be monitored.
§ Mr. Charles WardleThat is right.
§ Mr. JannerBut how is the monitoring to be carried out? I wonder whether the Minister has ever stood beside such people and watched the way in which they work. Of course, there are good ones and bad ones.
§ Mr. WardleYes.
§ Mr. JannerNo doubt the Minister has observed such people since taking his present post. Of course, they would not have known who he was; they would have carried out their work in the ordinary way, because the Minister would have appeared incognito.
Can the Minister imagine what it would be like to be a relative of one of my constituents, coming over from India to attend a wedding, and to be told, "Goodbye—out you go. One day, someone will monitor the refusal of your application, and make a report a year later. Her Majesty's Government will consider the report—in such manner as they will determine—and then decide how to deal with it. Eventually, it will be laid before the House." Of course, the Government will have a big enough majority to ram through anything they like, just as they will be able to ram 71 through this rubbish tonight—unless there are enough by-elections to change things: that cannot happen soon enough for me.
Refusals will be monitored only when there is no right of appeal,
and the person so appointed shall make an annual report on the discharge of his functions".What does that actually mean? The report need not be made at the end of the year; it can be made six months later, by which time everyone who has been refused entry and has gone home will probably be dead. As Keynes said, in the long run we are all dead: certainly, the amendment is a dead measure which will breathe no life into this corpse of a Bill.
§ Mr. AllenMy hon. and learned Friend is being characteristically generous—even to the Government—in assuming that each refusal will be monitored. Unfortunately, that will not happen; a random selection will be made. Only a handful will be examined, and those whose cases are monitored will be extremely lucky. Who knows what will happen then? No action need arise.
§ Mr. JannerIf I was trying to be generous, I covered it up as best I could. I certainly was not suggesting that every case would be considered. That cannot happen: cases will be monitored
in such manner as the Secretary of State may determine".As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North has pointed out, the manner in which they are monitored will depend on the staff allotted to the one person who is to act as supreme monitor of the public school machinery that is being installed to determine who is allowed into the country.What will happen to the report? The Secretary of State
shall lay a copy of it before each House of Parliament.How wonderful. But when will that happen, and what can the House do if it does not like the report? What will happen to those who are sent home, and what will happen to their families? What misery will be caused? How many people who should have been allowed in will be excluded, and what hardship will be imposed by a bad system, a bad Bill and a clause that Opposition Members have tried to improve? No doubt even our modest amendments will be rejected.I know that the Minister does his best to be kind in individual cases. I urge him to recognise the vast unkindness that clause 10 and the Lords amendment will do, and how little the monitor will be able to do to put matters right.
§ Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)I spoke about this matter on Second Reading. I share the concern of families whose connections are refused entry to attend important functions which any normal family would expect to be fully attended. When travelling in different parts of the world, I have talked to entry clearance officers; I genuinely believe that many try to do as fair a job as possible, given the circumstances in which they operate. In some countries—in Thailand, for example, and on the Indian subcontinent—they experience real difficulties.
On Second Reading, I suggested that offence is caused to those who issue invitations in this country, and that it might be worth while to consider sponsors and their supporters. In my constituency, the cases that cause the 72 gravest offence involve people who have made a considerable effort to invite visitors—parents, perhaps—and to fill in forms saying that no claim for social security will be made. They may have gone to further trouble by coming to my surgeries and asking me to countersign such forms.
Many such people are stalwarts in their local communities, and are constantly praised at various functions for being law-abiding and contributing so much to society. I sincerely believe that that is the case. When their relatives are refused entry, the impression is given that they are colluding with someone who is seeking to break the law, which gives enormous offence.
Many appeals are submitted after the wedding, or whatever, has taken place: the appellant realises that, by the time the appeal is heard, it will be pointless, but wishes to justify the original invitation. Appellants want to clear their names, and to make it clear that the invitation was genuine and that they would not collude with any illegal activity.
I have corresponded with entry clearance officers, and I know how they work. As I said on Second Reading, I want to help them. They will often set on one side the information given from this country. The applicant sitting before them may be very unsophisticated, with no knowledge with what the ECO is fishing for. The person who has invited the applicant may have a shop, and the applicant may be asked whether he will be working.
In normal circumstances, someone staying with a relative who has a shop would be odd not to help out, and that might be understood to mean work; but it would bring about an immediate refusal, because an application for a work permit is not being made. Unsophisticated applicants may be caught out—although it may not be intended—by questions with a legalistic base, which do not relate to the ordinary existence of those who issue invitations.
I agree with what Opposition Members have said. We want justice to be done. I understand the reasoning behind the amendment: to allow appeals to be heard more quickly so that families who are settled here can bring to this country wives and others who are at the end of a long appeals system, which to some extent is clogged by people who want to make short-term visits.
People usually issue invitations for important functions well in advance, and therefore should not be faced with refusals that can cause great offence. A doctor in my constituency did not speak for three months after his parents were refused the opportunity to come here. Fortunately, I was able to intervene, and eventually his parents were allowed entry. The shock and horror of refusal, after issuing a perfectly normal invitation to his parents to come and stay with him for a short time, caused tremendous offence to that doctor.
Many of us are very uneasy about there being no right of appeal. I do not know whether figures are available which show that people who came here on a visitor's visa stayed on illegally. I suspect that some have. It would be odd, given human nature, if that had not happened, but I suspect that the number is tiny, compared with the number of refusals.
I shall listen carefully to what the Minister says about monitoring and about how account is to be taken both of the invitee and of the invitations issued by British citizens, who have every right to ask members of their families to join them here for important family occasions.
§ Mr. BoatengThe Government add insult to injury by their amendment of clause 10. The injury is the removal of the right of appeal. The insult is the imposition of a monitor. What we wanted, what we hoped to see, was some sort of watchdog. What we got was a poodle—not just a poodle but a blinded poodle, a poodle with its vocal chords cut, a neutered poodle, a poodle incapable of uttering so much as the barest squeak of disapproval against any action taken by an entry clearance officer or any immigration officer who determines an application to enter at a port of entry. That is not good enough.
The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) referred to the sponsors, to those who issue the invitations. The experience of many of us—I cannot believe that it is confined to those who sit on this side of the House—is that the most important feature of a sponsor, someone who issues an invitation, and very often the determining feature of a sponsor, is not the merits of a particular case, whether it be an invitation to a wedding, a christening or another innocuous family event, but the colour of the sponsor and the race of the sponsor who issues the invitation. There is no escaping the issue of racism that underpins this provision.
I would not be making a protest with the force and strength that I do about this amendment if I, or any other hon. Member. could be satisfied that racism was not involved in the administration of the immigration system. We all know that it is. We all know that a different standard applies to visitors from Canada, the United States and other areas of the world from that which applies to the Indian subcontinent, Africa, the Caribbean and Latin America. If one's skin is black or brown, the reality is that one will be treated differently. That is the truth of the matter.
7.15 pm
I wish that the Minister could say with conviction that that is not the case, but he knows that it is the case and that different criteria apply depending upon the origin of those in the community who issue the invitations and the place to which they are sent. That is the conclusion to which all of us, regrettably, have come. No one should easily make the charge of racism. All too often it is easy enough to cry "Racist", but those of us who deal with these cases day in, day out do not make that charge lightly. It is a charge that is borne out by the facts.
What is so nauseating about amendment No. 10 is that, having abolished the right of appeal, it proposes the appointment of a monitor. This person will be appointed by the Secretary of State. His functions will be determined by the Secretary of State. He will be resourced by the Secretary of State. He will be expected to oversee the role of the entry clearance officers.
That is not good enough. There must be a better way. Those who take an interest in these matters are left with the suspicion that an agenda has been embraced by the Home Office: to seek every opportunity to minimise the capacity for there to be some surveillance, some control over the operation of the immigration rules by entry clearance officers and others.
The suspicion is that the Home Office does not want the entry clearance officers to be scrutinised or to be accountable, and that it wants those who make these decisions to know that the opportunities for scrutiny and for people to be brought to book where there has been injustice will be minimised.
74 The Minister has received many representations. I do not question the fact that he takes our representations seriously, nor do I question the care and attention that both he and those who work for him give to them. However, it is precisely because of that care and attention, and precisely because the Minister knows that, time and time again, injustices have occurred, by virtue of the nature of the decisions and the judgments that have been reached, that there ought to be a right of appeal.
It is precisely because the right of appeal is to be abolished, which we condemn, as does everyone who knows or cares about this subject, that we say that this monitoring process must be capable of providing some redress for those who suffer injustice as a result of the omissions and mistakes of the officials who are charged with this responsibility.
The proposed monitoring does not go far enough. We do not accept it. We believe that it is right to seek to strengthen it. Even at this late stage, we hope that the Minister will go at least some of the way towards recognising that the monitoring process needs to be beefed up and made more accountable to this House, so that individuals can be given some hope of redress.
§ Mr. GerrardAs many of my hon. Friends have already said, the clause to which the amendment relates includes some of the most controversial aspects of the Bill and those most likely to affect people already living in this country. I am referring to the abolition of the right of appeal for visitors who are refused entry clearance and the great distress caused by such refusals to the families involved. The abolition will also apply to students.
Lords amendment No. 10 allows for the monitoring of refusals of entry clearance, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said, not refusals of leave to enter. That is an important distinction, which can be significant for people who arrive as potential visitors from countries where visas are not required before coming to the United Kingdom. I shall say more about that issue later.
The Government have said that all refusals will be checked by senior officers. I think that, in saying that, the Minister was attempting to reassure people that appeals would be dealt with in another way. However, reconsideration by a senior officer of a refusal will not give people confidence that an independent decision has been made. The amendment contains the Government's alternative proposal, which is to check or audit refusals of entry clearance. As has already been said, that is no substitute for the right of appeal, but, if that is how we are to proceed, we should at the very least do it properly, which is the purpose of our amendment.
I was interested in the way in which the amendment was first moved in another place. The Minister there spoke of the intention—the periodic review by an independent person of a sample of cases in which entry clearance had been refused. It was stated that the person appointed to carry out the review should be seen to be independent of the Home Office or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, that entry clearance officers and managers would not know in advance which cases were to be examined and that the results should be made public. It is worth questioning whether the amendment matches even those very limited aims. Perhaps the Minister will tell us in more detail how the monitoring will work.
75 Who will decide which cases are to be reconsidered? Will it be the monitor or the Home Office? In what depth will the cases be examined? What access will the monitor have to files? Will he be able to examine files from British posts abroad? Will he be allowed to examine instructions to entry clearance officers and sit in on interviews to see at first hand how the process is conducted? Will the annual report contain details of individual cases that the monitor has examined? If publication is to be merely a statistical exercise, it will be relatively worthless. Of course, the statistics of the cases checked by the monitor need to be published, but we should also be allowed to consider individual cases, to know what the monitor thought of them and his recommendations for improvements, if necessary. What level of staffing will be provided?
One reason that the Government gave for refusing the appeals system was cost. Another was the backlog that was building up. When the formal right of appeal has been abolished, there are likely to be more refusals and, therefore, more cases that the monitor should review. Even if a reasonable sample is taken—for example, 10 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North suggested—we could end up with a system under which the sample to be considered will be as great as that under the previous appeals system, but with much less chance of justice because the system will not provide redress to individuals.
I am especially concerned about the people who are refused entry, an issue dealt with in amendment (e). It is, of course, perfectly possible for people to be refused entry as opposed to entry clearance. Those who are refused entry do not at the moment have a formal right of appeal. Many avenues, such as approaching a Member of Parliament, have been cut off. Many people who have dealt with such cases, for example, hon. Members who have taken up the cases of constituents who are refused entry when arriving for a visit, will know of the inconsistencies and the subjective nature of the decisions made.
Why is one person refused entry, another given temporary admission and another admitted? It is often extremely difficult for anyone dealing with such cases to see any distinction between them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) said, the one distinction that can often be made is the colour of the skin of the person applying to enter the country.
Last year, I had the experience of dealing with someone who had been stopped at Heathrow, arriving for a visit. A constituent contacted me about the case and was appalled at the way in which the person had been treated at the airport and the fact that his word was being questioned. In fact, in that instance, the person was a white American who could hardly believe what was happening. I told him that it happened every day, certainly to black and Asian constituents, whose friends and relatives are stopped at the airport. They may be angry, upset, annoyed and appalled that their word is being questioned, but they are never surprised because they know that it happens as a matter of course.
People often get in touch when a visitor is coming and ask whether they can contact me if they need help when the relative arrives at the airport. It is expected that the visitor 76 will be stopped, especially where visas are not required and it is merely a refusal of entry—they are the cases which will not be monitored under the Government's proposals.
Our amendment would have the important effect of bringing refusals of entry into the monitoring system. Although such a provision might be inadequate, such cases would at least be considered in some form. Clearly, Lords amendment No. 10 will be accepted. As has been said, it is grossly inadequte, but if it is to be put into effect, our amendment, which should be accepted, would at the very least provide something of use. If the Lords amendment remains in its present form, it will be wholly inadequate.
§ Mr. WinnickIt is right that Members of all parties should be concerned about the abolition of the appeals system. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and some of my hon. Friends have spoken about the Bill's effect on community and race relations.
It cannot be emphasised too often that this part of the Bill affects many people, some of whom were born here or have been in Britain for a long time, who are perfectly entitled to be here and who are part and parcel of our country. They might invite someone to this country—usually a close relative or friend—and then find that it is extremely difficult for the invitee to get in, especially if the sponsor is of West Indian origin or is originally from the Indian sub-continent. When I dealt with such cases some years ago, it was rare for my clients to be European. The explanation is perfectly simple—Europeans have much less difficulty in coming here as visitors than do people from the West Indies or the Indian sub-continent.
What should concern the Government is the number of refusals—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen)—that have been overturned by the adjudicator. Why is it that in such a large percentage of cases in which a person has been refused entry—obviously a minority of cases, that is not in dispute—and in which an appeal has gone before an adjudicator in Britain, the refusal has been overturned? Without even being able to see the appellant involved—he cannot do that—the adjudicator has judged that the decision taken by the entry clearance officer is wrong and the appeal has been upheld.
Instead of being concerned that so many cases have been overturned, the Government have decided to abolish the right of appeal itself. The Government seem so embarrassed by the fact that those decisions have been overturned that they have decided not to allow that to occur any longer by taking away the right of appeal.
7.30 pm
I remember representing a young Palestinian woman who had been in Britain for a short time. She worked here, she was perfectly entitled to be here and she was not subject to any restrictions. She invited over her brother who was living in a middle eastern country. The entry clearance officer decided that the brother should not be allowed to enter Britain because he would have no incentive to leave this country. Fortunately, an appeal was made and when the case went before an adjudicator, his sister, the sponsor, explained that she had not seen her brother for a long time and that she was able to support him for the short period in which he would be living in Britain. I am pleased to say that the adjudicator decided that the appeal should be allowed.
77 I find it difficult to believe that, under the Government's proposal for someone to monitor refusals, such a case would come to the surface. After all, how many cases will the monitor consider? We have been told that it will not be literally every case. He may not look at one in five or even one in 10. The case to which I have referred might not even have come to the monitor's attention if such a position had existed in the past and if there had been no appeals system.
It must be emphasised that the entry clearance officer decides whether a person should enter the country on the basis of the facts that are presented. He must be satisfied that the person will leave Britain at the end of his stay. Of course, that is why there are quite a number of refusals and why the appeals system is in operation.
If the Minister had told us that the appeals system was being abolished because of the number of successful appeals after which a person, having won the right to come here on a visit, decided to overstay, at least we could have had some sort of reasoned argument, even if we disputed that statement. As I understand it, however, the Minister has not said that the appeals system is being abolished because people have abused it by deciding to stay, against the law, after winning their appeal, and that it has been a job for the Home Office to locate those people so that it can turf them out. We have not had a reasoned argument for the abolition of the appeals system.
I said in an intervention that the appeals system is useful because when the original decision is being taken by the entry clearance officer, that immigration official working abroad has to be careful. He or she knows that if the person is refused and there is an appeal, he will have to write an explanatory statement which will go before the adjudicator. He will have to set out all the arguments—sometimes four, five or six pages long—to justify the decision. That will no longer occur under the Government's proposals. The entry clearance officer, however conscientious he or she may be, will know that if the answer is no, the chances of the decision being challenged are very slim.
The monitor may pick up the decision during his year's work, but most likely that will not occur. If a Member of Parliament writes to the Minister, it is, again, not likely that the entry clearance officer will have to go to the same lengths to justify his decision as he would if there were an appeals system. The new system will work against the person who is trying to come to the United Kingdom for a genuine visit.
As we know, there has been an outburst during the past week or so about the number of people coming to Britain. There has been an upsurge of racism among Conservative Members, although fortunately a small minority. Again, the race card is being played and, again, we are being told as we have been told previously of the hordes of people who are coming over to Britain and of the alien invasion.
We know how tight immigration control is in practice. We know how difficult it is for people to come over here. We know that primary immigration into Britain ended years ago. Those of my hon. Friends who take up cases all the time know how difficult it is for many people even to be able to come on a visit here if they come from the Indian sub-continent or from the West Indies. That is a fact. It is unfortunate that people who legitimately want to invite a close relative or friend or friend from the parts of the world that I have mentioned should find it even more difficult as a result of the Government's decision.
78 The Minister is a courteous person. I have found that whatever decisions he reaches, he is always willing to listen, unlike some of his predecessors. I am sure that my hon. Friends appreciate that we have a Home Office Minister who is courteous and who at least listens to our representations. However, he has a very bad brief. The Government have taken a wrong decision which is harmful to community and race relations. Perhaps even at this very late stage—one is obviously not hopeful—there will be further serious consideration of the proposal by the new Home Secretary.
§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who has enormous experience of dealing with immigration and race policies, especially as he is a former chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service. On Second Reading, I warned the Minister that it would be unacceptable to replace a right of appeal with the administrative arrangements that he had in mind then. The whole House regrets the fact that he chooses now to add the official monitor to his list of administrative arrangements. That will not make up for the fact that the right of appeal will be removed.
On Second Reading and when we most recently discussed the matter, I listed a number of immigration officers and entry clearance officers in posts abroad. I shall not repeat their names for fear of further damaging their careers. I told the Minister then that those entry clearance officers were very concerned about the fact that the Government proposed to take away the right of appeal. I hope that the Minister will tell the House that he has now had a chance to consult those entry clearance officers and that they are in full agreement with the Government's decision to remove the right of appeal and to replace it by the appointment of the monitor.
It is not clear precisely whom the Minister has in mind to be the official monitor.
§ Mr. WinnickLord Owen.
§ Mr. VazPerhaps the Minister has in mind the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), the uninvited guest of his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). Perhaps he will be chosen because of his unbiased and fair views on immigration policy. The House has a right to know how the monitor will be chosen. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North has suggested Lord Owen. Lord Walker may be another possibility, as he seems to sit on most of the quangos that the Government have created. The identity of the monitor is of great interest to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) refers to the proposal as being akin to putting in place a neutered poodle without vocal chords. I think it is akin to something even smaller than a poodle—perhaps a neutered chihuahua with no vocal chords. Clearly, the person appointed by the Minister will be responsible to him. It is clear that it would not be possible for that person to take the place of a well established appeals system that has proved in many cases to be one in which people can have faith.
I am concerned about the great backlog in the appeal system and I wish that cases could have been dealt with much more quickly. It is odd when there is a backlog simply to abolish the tribunal that is considering the cases.
79 The entry clearance officers in Bombay and in New Delhi told me that they want a fair system. They thought that it was wrong that they should have to second-guess themselves, because they could not possibly act impartially once they had rejected a case. Even if that case were given to another member of staff—perhaps a more senior member such as a first secretary—that person would still be in close contact with the other entry clearance officers. They preferred a system whereby "an independent tribunal"—dare I repeat the words that the Minister writes to hon. Members almost every week?—"set up by Parliament to consider independently the merits of the case" should consider that case.
I pick up on a point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). Ministerial decisions have been hived off to officials and quangos such as that which will no doubt surround the new official monitor. My hon. Friend's point concerned the way in which hon. Members have to deal with immigration officers at Heathrow airport and other ports. He is right to raise the serious problems that are now occurring because of the misuse of the guidelines by immigration officers.
Those in the Minister's private office know all about one case of mine because I rang up and had a rant to them about it. As usual, I was dealt with very courteously. Under the present guidelines, hon. Members must deal with officials at both the posts and at the ports. Instead of a reasonable conversation with the Minister or one of his officials, hon. Members must deal with officers who, by the nature of their shift pattern, have to go off after dealing with a case and interviewing a client. That case is taken over by another immigration officer who has no direct knowledge of the way in which the matter was dealt with. A relative of a constituent of mine was kept in detention for 48 hours because officials could not find an interpreter in the language of his choice. It cost the taxpayer more to keep that person in detention rather than to give him temporary admission.
When I asked for permission to speak to that person, I was told by the immigration officer that I would have to leave my constituency duties in Leicester and travel to Heathrow where I would be allowed to interview the person. The officer did not consider it appropriate in those circumstances for the person to be put on temporary admission, although the person's sponsor, who was well known to me, was prepared to give any guarantee necessary in order to ensure that that person was properly interviewed. It is a denial of the rights of hon. Members that we are not permitted to see such people at our surgeries in our constituencies.
Everyone has, to some extent, lavished the Minister with praise about how courteous, kind, nice and reasonable he is. I have yet to experience an occasion on which I have brought to the Minister's attention the case of an abandoned spouse when he has been courteous and offered me a cup of tea and said that that person could stay. Perhaps he will do so in the future.
If the Minister will not listen to the views of Opposition Members and also those of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who has yet again come out in support of the rights of people to be able to visit their relatives in this country, he should listen to voluntary organisations. Those organisations—such as the United Kingdom 80 Immigrants Advisory Service and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—have come forward with tremendous experience. Those organisations and others, including the churches, have urged him to think again about the removal of the right of appeal and I urge him even at this late stage to do so.
§ Mr. Charles WardleI have listened to the debate with care. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz) referred to the refusal of temporary admission and to people's being kept in detention. I emphasise that temporary admission is considered and granted wherever possible. It must be for the immigration service to decide where that is not appropriate. I suspect—1 am guessing here—that the hon. Gentleman may have been referring to a recent case concerning a constituent of his who was a sponsor of someone who came from Malawi. I may have that right or I may have it wrong. I suspect from the name of the individual concerned that he came from northern Malawi. If so, he need have looked no further than to me if he wanted someone to exchange a few words in Chichewa with that individual—but I will leave it at that.
The House will be aware that the abolition of appeals against refusal of visit visas and the right of appeal against mandatory refusals has already been debated and passed in both Houses. The hon. Member for Nottingham, North, who opened the debate, talked of strengthening the monitoring process. In fact, the Opposition amendments seek to do more than that: effectively, they seek to reinstate the appeal powers.
The Opposition amendments to Lords amendment No. 10 seek to reinstate some form of appeal process for visitors and others who lose their right of appeal under the provisions of the Bill. When my noble friend the Minister of State accepted amendment No. 10—it was, of course, Baroness Flather who moved it—he made it clear that we were not contemplating some alternative form of appeal system by which applicants or sponsors could seek to have the decision in an individual case overturned, but, rather, a periodic review or audit of a random sample of entry clearance refusals by an independent person, to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision making were maintained. The Opposition's proposed amendments seek, in effect, to hijack that scheme and turn it into something very different. Not only do they seek to create an avenue through which to challenge decisions in individual cases; they would create a system that would be even more wasteful, cumbersome and ineffective than the appeals procedures that are to be abolished.
Amendments (a), (b), (c) and (f) seek to involve the Commission of Racial Equality in the process, either by having the Commission conduct the monitoring or by having it nominate the person who is appointed to conduct the exercise. The Commission performs a valuable service in promoting race relations, but the proposed monitoring of administrative procedures and decisions by entry clearance officers is simply not an appropriate function to give to that body.
Amendment (d) would make the appointed person rather than the Secretary of State responsible for determining the manner in which the monitoring should be conducted. We have made it clear, however, that the person appointed will have a wide degree of independence in the way in which he conducts the exercise. The choice of 81 which cases should be reviewed will be entirely his. However, the exercise must in practice be conducted within agreed guidelines on such matters as how long the exercise should last, how many posts should be visited and when the report is produced. Those matters must ultimately be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. I refer here to the Foreign Secretary because this matter concerns the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Amendment (e) would extend the scope of the monitoring to cover refusals of leave to enter at United Kingdom ports as well as refusals of entry clearance. That is simply not practical. It has nothing to do with my noble Friend's amendment—nor is it necessary in order to maintain consistent standards at the ports.
Amendment (g) would require monthly rather than annual reports to be made to the Secretary of State. That implies a continuous monitoring process, rather than the periodic audit review that is envisaged. It is not, in our view, justified.
The hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) talked about Somali asylum seekers and about family reunion in cases of exceptional leave to remain after four years. A distinction must be drawn between the granting of exceptional leave to remain and the granting of refugee status under the terms of the Geneva convention.
In an entertaining contribution, the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said that it was monstrous that this country should abolish appeals in such cases. However, he omitted to tell the House that we are the only country in the world to have such a system. Other countries do not have such a system—not because of a lack of innate fairness, but simply because they know that the system that we have employed for the past 20 years is cumbersome and does not work.
Millions of people visit this country every year. There were 5.7 million visitors in 1991, in addition to other short-term visitors, and that figure relates just to non-EC nationals. If we add the EC nationals to the total, it is clear that we provide a broad welcome. The House might wish to recall that more than 92 per cent. of applications for visit visas were approved in 1991.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) referred to sponsors. I agree with them that some appeals have certainly been prompted by a sense of hurt on the part of sponsors when they face rejection. That is precisely why in Committee we introduced the various administrative improvements which include guidance for the sponsor, guidance for the applicant and a daily review at the station by senior officials. If there is swift feedback of additional information that alters the case, it will be dealt with promptly. If a refusal notice is issued, it will be clear that that will not prejudice further applications.
The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) referred to racism. I entirely reject his assertion. I remind the House that there is a clear-cut policy in the immigration service with regard to racism to ensure that there is absolutely no prejudice in the service. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a result of discussions, both in Committee and outside with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), I have introduced a new system of auditing complaints against the immigration service which will be independent of Home Office officials. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is an important step forward.
§ Mr. MaddenWill the Minister give way?
§ Mr. WardleI will not give way for the moment. I will break my generous rule for once because I am aware of the time.
The audit of the work of entry clearance officers will act as a check on that work.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) referred to refusals. It must make much more sense to consider the refusals each day rather than to launch into a cumbersome appeals system which may run for two years, by which time the event, in respect of which someone originally intended to come to this country, will long since have passed. I remind the hon. Member for Walthamstow, as I reminded the House earlier, that amendment No. 10 was not moved by my noble Friend the Minister of State. It was moved by Baroness Flather.
The hon. Member for Walsall, North, whose work as chairman of UKIAS was outstanding and distinguished, also referred to the need to control the work of entry clearance officers. I remind him that there will be a daily review by the senior officer in post in addition to the audit system that I have described.
§ Mr. MaddenWill the audit of complaints against immigration officers be published and reported to the House on a regular basis? The Minister has made great play of the daily review. Clearly hon. Members will be passed much information and complaints when applications are refused. Should we ring the Minister's office or that of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when we want to pass on that information which ECOs around the world will be desperately anxious to receive on a daily basis?
§ Mr. WardleThe answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question is yes. In response to his second question, when he is dealing with entry clearance officers, he must approach my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs.
I refer briefly to Government amendment (j). Amendment No. 10 requires a person to be appointed to monitor a sample of entry clearance refusals. The person carrying out that function will obviously have to be paid an appropriate fee and other expenses such as travel costs will have to be met. Amendment (j) provides the authority for those payments to be made. As I have already said, the scheme will be administered by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the appointment will be made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
With respect to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, concerns have been expressed in both Houses that, unless the system is open to some form of independent oversight, inconsistent and arbitrary decision making may follow removal of the right of appeal. The Government intend to ensure that the entry clearance system is fair and consistent and that it is properly controlled. The Government were happy to accept amendment No. 10, which provides for the appointment of an independent person to carry out periodic monitoring of a sample of entry clearance work to ensure that fair and consistent standards of decision making are maintained.
I make it clear that we are not contemplating an alternative appeals procedure. This will not be a procedure for applicants or sponsors to seek to have a decision in an 83 individual case overturned. The monitoring will complement the administrative measures that I announced in Committee, including the daily review of refusals by entry clearance managers, to which I have already alluded. Matters of detail are in the process of being worked out. However, I can confirm that the key features of the scheme that will be introduced are as follows: the monitoring will be conducted over a regular period; the person appointed to conduct the exercise will be independent of the Home Office and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; entry clearance officers and managers will not know in advance which of their cases are to be examined—that is where the control element lies; and the reports of the independent person will be made public.
I hope that that goes some way towards allaying the fears that have been expressed by some hon. Members that the removal of rights of appeal will lead to arbitrary decision making. For that reason, I urge the House to reject the Opposition amendments and to accept the Government amendments.
§ Question put, That amendment (a) to the Lords amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 278.
86| Division No. 287] | [7.57 pm |
| AYES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Corbett, Robin |
| Adams, Mrs Irene | Corbyn, Jeremy |
| Ainger, Nick | Corston, Ms Jean |
| Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE) | Cousins, Jim |
| Allen, Graham | Cox, Tom |
| Alton, David | Cryer, Bob |
| Anderson, Donald (Swansea E) | Cunliffe, Lawrence |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE) |
| Ashton, Joe | Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Austin-Walker, John | Dafis, Cynog |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Darling, Alistair |
| Barnes, Harry | Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral) |
| Battle, John | Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) |
| Bayley, Hugh | Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) |
| Bell, Stuart | Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I) |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Denham, John |
| Benton, Joe | Dewar, Donald |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Dixon, Don |
| Berry, Dr. Roger | Donohoe, Brian H. |
| Betts, Clive | Dowd, Jim |
| Blair, Tony | Dunnachie, Jimmy |
| Boateng, Paul | Eagle, Ms Angela |
| Boyce, Jimmy | Eastham, Ken |
| Bradley, Keith | Enright, Derek |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Etherington, Bill |
| Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E) | Evans, John (St Helens N) |
| Burden, Richard | Fatchett, Derek |
| Byers, Stephen | Faulds, Andrew |
| Caborn, Richard | Field, Frank (Birkenhead) |
| Callaghan, Jim | Fisher, Mark |
| Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE) | Foster, Rt Hon Derek |
| Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V) | Foster, Don (Bath) |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Foulkes, George |
| Canavan, Dennis | Fraser, John |
| Cann, Jamie | Galloway, George |
| Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry) | Gapes, Mike |
| Chisholm, Malcolm | Garrett, John |
| Clapham, Michael | George, Bruce |
| Clark, Dr David (South Shields) | Gerrard, Neil |
| Clarke, Eric (Midlothian) | Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John |
| Clelland, David | Godman, Dr Norman A. |
| Clwyd, Mrs Ann | Godsiff, Roger |
| Coffey, Ann | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Cohen, Harry | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Connarty, Michael | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Grocott, Bruce |
| Gunnell, John | Mudie, George |
| Hall, Mike | Mullin, Chris |
| Hanson, David | Murphy, Paul |
| Hardy, Peter | O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire) |
| Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy | O'Brien, William (Normanton) |
| Heppell, John | O'Hara, Edward |
| Hinchliffe, David | Olner, William |
| Hoey, Kate | O'Neill, Martin |
| Home Robertson, John | Orme, Rt Hon Stanley |
| Hood, Jimmy | Patchett, Terry |
| Hoon, Geoffrey | Pendry, Tom |
| Howarth, George (Knowsley N) | Pickthall, Colin |
| Howells, Dr..Kim (Pontypridd) | Pike, Peter L. |
| Hoyle, Doug | Pope, Greg |
| Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N) | Powell, Ray (Ogmore) |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) | Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E) |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport E) | Prentice, Gordon (Pendle) |
| Hughes, Simon (Southwark) | Primarolo, Dawn |
| Hutton, John | Quin, Ms Joyce |
| Illsley, Eric | Radice, Giles |
| Jackson, Glenda (H'stead) | Randall, Stuart |
| Jamieson, David | Redmond, Martin |
| Janner, Greville | Reid, Dr John |
| Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side) | Rendel, David |
| Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn) | Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW) |
| Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C) | Roche, Mrs. Barbara |
| Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW) | Rogers, Allan |
| Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham) | Rooker, Jeff |
| Keen, Alan | Rooney, Terry |
| Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn) | Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) |
| Khabra, Piara S. | Rowlands, Ted |
| Kilfoyle, Peter | Ruddock, Joan |
| Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn) | Salmond, Alex |
| Kirkwood, Archy | Sedgemore, Brian |
| Leighton, Ron | Sheerman, Barry |
| Lestor, Joan (Eccles) | Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert |
| Lewis, Terry | Shore, Rt Hon Peter |
| Litherland, Robert | Short, Clare |
| Livingstone, Ken | Simpson, Alan |
| Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) | Skinner, Dennis |
| Llwyd, Elfyn | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Loyden, Eddie | Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury) |
| Lynne, Ms Liz | Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent) |
| McAllion, John | Spearing, Nigel |
| McAvoy, Thomas | Steel, Rt Hon Sir David |
| McCartney, Ian | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Macdonald, Calum | Stevenson, George |
| McFall, John | Stott, Roger |
| McKelvey, William | Strang, Dr. Gavin |
| McLeish, Henry | Straw, Jack |
| Maclennan, Robert | Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury) |
| McMaster, Gordon | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| McNamara, Kevin | Tipping, Paddy |
| Madden, Max | Turner, Dennis |
| Mahon, Alice | Vaz, Keith |
| Mandelson, Peter | Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold |
| Marek, Dr John | Warden, Gareth (Gower) |
| Marshall, David (Shettleston) | Wareing, Robert N |
| Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S) | Watson, Mike |
| Martin, Michael J. (Springburn) | Wicks, Malcolm |
| Martlew, Eric | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Meacher, Michael | Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W) |
| Meale, Alan | Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen) |
| Michael, Alun | Winnick, David |
| Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) | Wise, Audrey |
| Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute) | Worthington, Tony |
| Milburn, Alan | Wray, Jimmy |
| Miller, Andrew | Wright, Dr Tony |
| Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby) | Young, David (Bolton SE) |
| Moonie, Dr Lewis | |
| Morgan, Rhodri | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe) | Mr. Andrew Mackinlay and |
| Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley) | Mr. John Spellar. |
| Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| NOES | |
| Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey) | Ancram, Michael |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Arbuthnot, James |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby) | Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) |
| Amess, David | Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv) |
| Ashby, David | Freeman, Roger |
| Aspinwall, Jack | French, Douglas |
| Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E) | Fry, Peter |
| Atkinson, Peter (Hexham) | Gale, Roger |
| Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley) | Gallie, Phil |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North) | Gardiner, Sir George |
| Baldry, Tony | Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan |
| Banks, Matthew (Southport) | Garnier, Edward |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Gill, Christopher |
| Bates, Michael | Gillan, Cheryl |
| Batiste, Spencer | Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair |
| Bellingham, Henry | Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles |
| Bendall, Vivian | Gorst, John |
| Beresford, Sir Paul | Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW) |
| Biffen, Rt Hon John | Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Greenway, John (Ryedale) |
| Body, Sir Richard | Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N) |
| Bonsor, Sir Nicholas | Grylls, Sir Michael |
| Booth, Hartley | Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn |
| Boswell, Tim | Hague, William |
| Bottomley, Peter (Eltham) | Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom) |
| Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia | Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) |
| Bowden, Andrew | Hampson, Dr Keith |
| Bowis, John | Hanley, Jeremy |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes | Hannam, Sir John |
| Brandreth, Gyles | Harris, David |
| Brazier, Julian | Haselhurst, Alan |
| Brooke, Rt Hon Peter | Hawkins, Nick |
| Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes) | Hawksley, Warren |
| Browning, Mrs. Angela | Hayes, Jerry |
| Budgen, Nicholas | Heald, Oliver |
| Burns, Simon | Hendry, Charles |
| Burt, Alistair | Hicks, Robert |
| Butler, Peter | Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L. |
| Butterfill, John | Hill, James (Southampton Test) |
| Carlisle, John (Luton North) | Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham) |
| Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) | Horam, John |
| Carrington, Matthew | Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter |
| Carttiss, Michael | Howard, Rt Hon Michael |
| Cash, William | Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A) |
| Churchill, Mr | Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W) |
| Clappison, James | Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne) |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Hunter, Andrew |
| Coe, Sebastian | Jack, Michael |
| Colvin, Michael | Jackson, Robert (Wantage) |
| Congdon, David | Jenkin, Bernard |
| Conway, Derek | Jessel, Toby |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st) | Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey |
| Coombs, Simon (Swindon) | Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine |
| Couchman, James | Key, Robert |
| Cran, James | Kilfedder, Sir James |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire) | King, Rt Hon Tom |
| Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon) | Knapman, Roger |
| Davies, Quentin (Stamford) | Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash) |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Knight, Greg (Derby N) |
| Day, Stephen | Knight, Dame Jill (Blr'm E'st'n) |
| Deva, Nirj Joseph | Knox, David |
| Dickens, Geoffrey | Kynoch, George (Kincardine) |
| Dicks, Terry | Lait, Mrs Jacqui |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Lawrence, Sir Ivan |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Legg, Barry |
| Dover, Den | Leigh, Edward |
| Duncan, Alan | Lennox-Boyd, Mark |
| Duncan-Smith, Iain | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Dunn, Bob | Lidington, David |
| Durant, Sir Anthony | Lightbown, David |
| Dykes, Hugh | Lilley, Rt Hon Peter |
| Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield) | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Evans, Jonathan (Brecon) | Lord, Michael |
| Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley) | Luff, Peter |
| Evans, Roger (Monmouth) | MacKay, Andrew |
| Evennett, David | Maclean, David |
| Faber, David | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Fabricant, Michael | McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick |
| Fenner, Dame Peggy | Madel, David |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Maitland, Lady Olga |
| Forth, Eric | Malone, Gerald |
| Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring) | Mans, Keith |
| Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley) | Marland, Paul |
| Marlow, Tony | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel) | Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S) |
| Martin, David (Portsmouth S) | Soames, Nicholas |
| Mates, Michael | Spencer, Sir Derek |
| Mawhinney, Dr Brian | Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset) |
| Merchant, Piers | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Milligan, Stephen | Spink, Dr Robert |
| Mills, Iain | Spring, Richard |
| Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) | Sproat, Iain |
| Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW) | Squire, Robin (Hornchurch) |
| Moate, Sir Roger | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Molyneaux, Rt Hon James | Steen, Anthony |
| Montgomery, Sir Fergus | Stephen, Michael |
| Moss, Malcolm | Stern, Michael |
| Needham, Richard | Streeter, Gary |
| Nelson, Anthony | Sumberg, David |
| Neubert, Sir Michael | Sweeney, Walter |
| Newton, Rt Hon Tony | Sykes, John |
| Nicholls, Patrick | Tapsell, Sir Peter |
| Nicholson, David (Taunton) | Taylor, Ian (Esher) |
| Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) | Taylor, John M. (Solihull) |
| Norris, Steve | Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E) |
| Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley | Temple-Morris, Peter |
| Oppenheim, Phillip | Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V) |
| Ottaway, Richard | Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) |
| Page, Richard | Thurnham, Peter |
| Paice, James | Townend, John (Bridlington) |
| Patnick, Irvine | Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th) |
| Patten, Rt Hon John | Tracey, Richard |
| Pawsey, James | Tredinnick, David |
| Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth | Trend, Michael |
| Pickles, Eric | Trirnble, David |
| Porter, Barry (Wirral S) | Twinn, Dr Ian |
| Porter, David (Waveney) | Waldegrave, Rt Hon William |
| Portillo, Rt Hon Michael | Walden, George |
| Powell, William (Corby) | Walker, Bill (N Tayside) |
| Rathbone, Tim | Waller, Gary |
| Redwood, John | Ward, John |
| Richards, Rod | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Riddick, Graham | Waterson, Nigel |
| Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm | Watts, John |
| Robathan, Andrew | Wells, Bowen |
| Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn | Whitney, Ray |
| Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S) | Whittingdale, John |
| Robinson, Mark (Somerton) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne) | Wiggin, Sir Jerry |
| Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent) | Willetts, David |
| Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela | Wilshire, David |
| Ryder, Rt Hon Richard | Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton) |
| Sackville, Tom | Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld) |
| Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas | Wood, Timothy |
| Shaw, David (Dover) | Yeo, Tim |
| Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) | |
| Sims, Roger | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Skeet, Sir Trevor | Mr. Sydney Chapman and |
| Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick) | Mr. Timothy Kirkhope. |
§ Amendment to the Lords amendment accordingly negatived.
§ Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (j), at end add—
§ '(3AB) The Secretary of State may pay to a person appointed under subsection (3AA) above such fees and allowances as he may with the approval of the Treasury determine.'.
§ Lords amendment No. 10, as amended, agreed to. [Special entry.]
§ Lords amendment No. 11, agreed to.
§ Lords amendment No. 12 disagreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 agreed to.
§ Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Mr. Graham Allen, Mr. James Arbuthnot, Mr. Tony Blair, Mr. Secretary Howard, Mr. Charles Wardle; Three to be the quorum.—[Mr. Charles Wardle.]
87§ Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.