§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
§ 10 pm
§ Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham)I am delighted to have the opportunity of an Adjournment debate on documentation and the immigration and nationality directorate. I reassure the Minister that I do not want to engage him in a big debate on immigration policy. I have views on that subject—broadly in favour of a more liberal system—but I have not come along to argue about broad, strategic policy questions. Equally, I do not want to take advantage of this opportunity to raise humanitarian cases, as one could and as I have done in the past. I have written to him and his Department about one or two particular cases, but they are not my top priorities—they are more to illustrate the particular policy point that I want to raise this evening: procedures.
My experience has prompted this debate. I know that I am not the only Member of Parliament who has found that often the majority of cases in the weekly surgery concern immigration and asylum. I ask myself why that is so. I do not represent Southall or Slough. Twickenham is not a major centre of immigration and refugees. Less than 10 per cent. of our population are from ethnic minorities. It is fairly cosmopolitan in one sense, in that there are many second-generation immigrants and refugees, and because it is a fairly affluent and educated part of London there are many people who travel and have overseas wives and husbands. In that sense, it is quite a mixed population, but in no sense could it be said to be a major concentration of migrants. Therefore, I ask myself why we have so many problems.
The problems are very often not major cases of policy; they are not the kind of issues that I would normally want to take to a Minister, to whom I would appeal as a last resort for his humanitarian judgment. They are often purely clerical problems—people who are immensely frustrated because of delays in the processing of their visas or naturalisation, who go to their MP, often in desperation, because they do not know what is happening and have been waiting for a very long time. I am being affected by the issue and Ministers are being involved in fairly low-level clerical problems. That seems fundamentally unsatisfactory.
I therefore raised a question on 23 February with the then Minister of State for Citizenship and Immigration. I asked:
Why does the Home Office not adopt the simple policy of copying travel documents once they have been verified, and releasing them so that people can get on with their lives while they are waiting?Somewhat to my pleasant surprise, the then Minister replied very positively:I agree with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman proposes; that is exactly what we are trying to do. In some cases, for various important reasons, it is not possible, but I agree that in general, documents can be copied and sent back, and we have asked the immigration and nationality directorate to implement that process in future."—[0fficial Report, 23 February 2004; Vol. 418, c. 17.]I was delighted by that gust of common sense and constructive reaction. There was a large cheer around the House, which led me to believe that many other Members had exactly the same problem. 618 I have returned to the issue in this debate, however, because I can see no evidence that that is happening. Since 23 February. I have dealt with a succession of cases, some of which I have referred to the Minister's office, which illustrate that it would be much simpler for the Department, members of the public and ourselves if documents were simply copied instead of being hoarded for long periods in the immigration and nationality directorate. That is a simple measure, but it would affect the ability of a large number of people to conduct their lives satisfactorily. I therefore wish to pursue the question of why the positive initiative offered by the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) has not been followed through.In preparing for this debate, I studied the IND website to learn about the many different applications that can be made. It was clear that the Home Office and the IND accept that there is a problem, as there are various provisions for people who need to remove their travel documents in an emergency. There are many good reasons why people have to travel. There may be family disasters or they may be working for an employer who requires them to travel overseas. I am not making a case for people who simply want to swan around while their refugee status is resolved, as there are often compelling reasons why they have to travel.
The Home Office appears to recognise that, as it identifies two categories in which it is willing to help applicants. First, it says that people can withdraw their passports in cases of naturalisation and if they need them for reasons other than travel, including identity purposes, without being penalised and losing their position in the queue. That is helpful, but I have encountered cases in which people who use that facility find it difficult to get back into the pipeline. Why is it necessary to penalise people at all? Many people seeking a visa who do not fall into those categories and whose application is prolonged may have compelling reasons for wishing to use their passport. Why should they be penalised and sent to the end of a long queue?
The second category identified by the IND applies to people who need identity papers to open a bank account. On its website, it says that it will make "appropriate arrangements". It does not explain what those arrangements are, but hints that it is possible to access that facility. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate how many people use those facilities and how many people apply to have their passports returned for travel purposes, even if that involves a penalty. I do not expect those figures today, but they would give us an idea of the seriousness of the problem.
The right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston accepted that it would make much more sense, in the vast majority of cases, to copy documents and return them to applicants. In her reply on 23 February, she referred to "various important reasons" why that is not always possible, and it would be useful if the Minister spelt them out. Obviously, if an applicant for visa status is a suspected terrorist or criminal the authorities would wish to keep them under surveillance. I have no quarrel whatever with that as it is quite sensible, but such cases involve a microscopic percentage of people. What are the "important reasons" for withholding passports in many cases? It would make perfect sense to release the documents at the first available opportunity. People are often required to submit various documents, not just 619 passports but birth certificates and other documents, to be used for identity purposes and kept on file. In most cases involving people applying for extended or indefinite leave, or for refugee star us, the objective is surely to enable them to use their documents to apply for bank accounts and driving licences. We want them to use proper, formal procedures, not operate in the grey area of the underground economy. So for goodness' sake let us make sure that they have access to their documents and can work in a proper legal manner.
Similarly as regards travel, it is not clear to me why somebody applying for, say, refuge status of various types should be discouraged from travel They may wait two, three or five years to have their position regularised. Why should they not be able to come and go freely? If they leave the country, their passports are available for checking by immigration officers when they come back in.
My final reason for questioning the desirability of the immigration and nationality directorate holding on to documents is that they frequently get lost. I sometimes believe that Twickenham residents are particularly vulnerable to that. I have very large numbers of cases of essential identity documents disappearing in the Department.
There is an appalling case winging its way to the Minister—the case of Gisella Grant, who as a young lady came to the UK from Trinidad many years ago. She came as a student, married a British person and is now divorced. She wishes to regularise her position in the UK by seeking naturalisation. I have not written to the Minister, but the details will follow. She applied for naturalisation and did not feel any sense of urgency about the matter, but submitted the documents and discovered some time later that the Department had lost them. For a long period she has been pursuing the Department, trying to find out what happened. She has now involved me in the case.
Unfortunately, Ms Grant's employer, a film company where she has quite a responsible job, is being pursued, as many employers currently are, in respect of illegal immigration, and she is being asked to prove who she is. She cannot. She has no documents to prove her identity. The Home Office has lost her passport. Last week she was fired because she cannot prove who she is and her documents are somewhere in the Home Office. That is not a unique case. My argument, based on that example and others, is that it would be much more sensible for documents to be released as soon as possible and returned to the applicant.
There is a series of special problems, which I shall cite because they are among the examples about which I wrote to the Home Office. First, there are cases of naturalisation. Naturalisation is rarely highly controversial. It rarely involves illegal immigrants. It often involves people who have been resident in the UK for long periods and who are working, settled members of the community. The problem with naturalisation is that the applications usually take a long time because, for perfectly good reasons, the immigration and nationality directorate wishes to obtain references and other materials. So why cannot passports be copied and returned to the applicants once they have been submitted and the checks carried out?
620 I have given the Minister two examples of a great deal of unnecessary hassle caused by documents being held in such cases. There was a Mrs. Sen whose problem has been resolved, thanks to the intervention of a Government Minister. I am grateful for that, as is she, but the problem need never have arisen in the first place. The second case, which has not yet been fully resolved and about which I have written to the Minister, concerns a Mr. David, an Antiguan gentleman who is seeking naturalisation. He has lived in the UK for many years. He did get his passport back—the story has moved on since I wrote the letter—and he did travel, but now the passport has had to go back into the system. His job requires him to travel frequently, so he does not know whether to keep reapplying to have his passport released. The Home Office will not tell him how soon the application will be dealt with—whether it is days, months or years—and will not communicate, answer the phone or answer letters. A simple way out would be to copy his passport and proceed with the evaluation of his application in an orderly way.
Naturalisation causes one set of problems. A second set relates to partners. One of the cases about which I have written to the Minister concerns a Russian lady, Mrs. Gulamova, and her German fiancé, Mr. Beaumont-Bruckauf, who live in Twickenham. Her application has been turned down, maybe for good reason—I am not questioning that—but in support of the application the fiancé had to submit his documents to the Home Office, which caused a great deal of confusion in the Home Office. Officials there thought he was applying for a visa for himself, and there was a great deal of secondary correspondence that completely missed the point. The problem is that that young man has to travel a great deal—he works in the City—but cannot do so because his passport is stuck in the Home Office to support his fiancée's application and appeal. That is completely unnecessary—there is no reason why the passport should be there.
A third set of examples relates to mixed relationships. I have some experience of those problems because I originally married into an Indian family and my son married into a Slovakian family. I have three cases on my books about which I have written to the Minister. Mr. and Mrs. Gooch have been waiting for more than a year for Mrs. Gooch's passport and are unable to travel. Andy Ford is married to a Brazilian lady, and they have one child. The application to regularise her position has been outstanding for three years, and the family cannot travel because her passport is stuck in the Home Office. Another case is that of Mr. and Mrs. Roberts. Mrs. Roberts is a Brazilian lady who is facing difficulties with her case. I am not arguing for or against the Home Office questioning her status—it might be right to do so—but there is no reason why the passport cannot be released to allow the family to travel while the matter is being resolved.
In conclusion—I have strayed a little beyond my quarter of an hour—I want to make some suggestions as to how, in the spirit of the former Minister's comments, the Government could help people involved in such cases. First, will the Minister seriously consider which documents need to be retained in the IND and for what reason? It should not merely be for reasons of tradition or habit. Secondly, is it not possible to introduce a 621 general system along the lines hinted at by the former Minister, whereby when people submit their applications—whether for a visa, a naturalisation or other purposes—the documents are checked, the cheques are received, the passport is copied and put in a pre-paid envelope and returned to the sender, perhaps with a stamp saying that the application is under review, and the individuals simply get on with their lives? Then, when the application has been considered—in a month's time, a year's time or five years' time—they are summoned back to a passport office so that their passport can be properly stamped, or they can send it in. That procedure would save an enormous amount of grief, reduce the risk of loss, and make life much simpler for everybody.
§ The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the debate. He was somewhat self-deprecating when he categorised some of the work that he deals with in his surgeries as low-level administrative work. It is important that people should go to see their Members of Parliament about issues relating to citizenship, naturalisation and leave to remain in this country, because they are very important lifestyle decisions. It is also important that, as a Member of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman should have the opportunity to raise those issues in the House. I assure him that for every case that he sends me, I receive many from other Members—not only about the retention of personal documents, but about other issues related to immigration and asylum.
The retention of personal documents belonging to applicants for leave to enter or to remain in the United Kingdom, or for naturalisation of citizenship, is an issue that the immigration and nationality directorate takes extremely seriously. Decisions to retain documents are taken to enable the effective operation of the IND's business. It retains personal documents only where it is absolutely necessary for the consideration of cases, and procedures are in place to ensure that proper care is taken of documents so that they can be returned to applicants at the appropriate time, although those procedures are not always followed religiously in each case. Documents are occasionally lost because of the numbers involved. I shall come to that in a moment.
Early in the hon. Gentleman's contribution, he asked me why it was important for the IND to retain documents, what purpose that served and in what circumstances it was necessary to do that. I cannot provide an exhaustive list in our short debate but there are important reasons for retaining documents, especially passports. He will appreciate through the debate on the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, Etc.) Bill, which is currently in another place, that there is much concern about documents in asylum cases being destroyed. Significant evidence exists to show that applicants often destroy documents on the instruction of agents or other people to mask their identity or put them in a position whereby they cannot be removed, should the asylum application fail. They cannot be removed from the country without being redocumented. Not every country is prepared to offer us the facility of redocumentation that some provide.
622 I cannot go into detail about the individual cases that the hon. Gentleman raised in the debate but I shall endeavour, either through the correspondence that he has engendered in his letters to me or by reference to the official record of the debate, to write to him about the cases and explain why it was believed to be appropriate in each case to retain the relevant documents. In many cases, retention of the documents pending a grant of leave is necessary to insert in them appropriate evidence of the leave. Often, the permission that is entered in the document by a stamp or some other appropriate secure method is the record of the decision. The applicants subsequently have evidence that the decision has been made in their favour. In a significant number of cases, especially those that relate to leave to remain, that is necessary. It therefore appears logical that stamped or certified documents should be retained.
There are many cases of fraud or deception in relation to documents and when an application is considered, it is imperative that the case worker—the person who has to make the decision—has access to the original documents to ascertain, in the light of IND's knowledge at the time of what constitutes a genuine document, whether such a document is being presented to prove a specific point. I emphasise that because today, I had an interesting meeting with an hon. Member about an individual case.
At the heart of the case and the request to me to exercise my discretion in favour of the applicant was the credibility of the applicant's account of events. That issue had been addressed and readdressed by the applicant, representatives and, latterly, the Member of Parliament in several ways. On each occasion, documentary evidence had been produced to try to prove the veracity of the applicant's account. However, on every occasion, the documents were photostat copies. It was impossible to tell whether the documents were fake or genuine and to test them against other documents that were known to the IND in order to make a judgment.
I had to tell the hon. Member that, if the assertions could be supported by credible, reliable independent evidence, I would have been inclined to have the decision reviewed. However, because photostat copies were being produced, it was impossible for me to tell whether the documents that had been copied were genuine. That also applied to my officials, some of whom are very experienced. We could not tell whether the documents were genuine and the hon. Member would therefore have to go back to his constituent, and the decision to refuse the application would have to stand in the meantime.
The three examples that I have given are clearly not an answer to all the points that the hon. Gentleman has made but, in my view, they provide credible reasons for the documents to remain with the application for the period of time that it takes for it to be considered. That is not to say that there are no circumstances in which that is not necessary, and the hon. Gentleman invites me to look again at the procedures, the processes and the nature of the applications that the IND is undertaking, to see whether it is necessary to retain documents in all cases in which they are being retained. I agree to do that.
That said, however, the answer to the problem seems to be to deal with cases quickly and efficiently, and to return the documents to the applicant together with the 623 decision, or at the time of the decision, within a reasonable period. That is what we are seeking to achieve in the IND, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman is seeing an increase in efficiency in the IND on those issues, because I know that other hon. Members are experiencing that.
The fact of the matter is that the IND receives a significant number of documents in the post every single day. For example, applicants seeking leave to remain send the IND about 22,000 items per week. Because many of those documents are important, personal documents of the nature that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, there is in the post room an access-controlled secure environment. All recorded, special or registered post is already entered on to the post room database, which shows the recorded, special or registered post serial number and where in the IND each package has been sent once it has come in. I should like to emphasise that at no time are valuable documents left unattended or unaccounted for.
The hon. Gentleman asks me, in a beguiling way, to add to that process at some stage a process of photocopying the documents, securing that those photocopies are correct and then returning the documents to the applicant immediately. The question for me is whether it would be appropriately resource-intensive for that procedure to be the norm, or whether I ought to continue to build on the work of my predecessor in this post, who concentrated on ensuring that applications were dealt with as quickly as possible so that decisions could be made in a reasonable period of time, and those passports and supporting personal documents turned round and sent back to the applicants.
624 As I have said, some progress has been made on this matter. For example, since charging for leave to remain commenced on 1 August 2003, the length of time for which personal documents are retained in the general group of IND has been much reduced. From receipt by the IND, applications now take three or 13 weeks to process, and current targets are to process 70 per cent. of the intake in three weeks. By week three, 70 per cent. of applications with all supporting documents are now returned to the applicant. The general group of IND aims to process 100 per cent. of intake by 13 weeks, although a small number of more difficult cases are sent on to the immigration service and may take longer.
I accept immediately that that has not always been the case in the past, and that there is a backlog of work that needs to be worked through, but given that those targets are now being regularly achieved in the IND, there is hope that the resources and processes now in place will be able to bite into that backlog. I can also say to the hon. Gentleman that all passports and personal documents are now being returned by recorded delivery mail; alternatively, a customer may call to pick them up.
I have not been able to go through all the aspects of the response that the hon. Gentleman's contribution merits. However, I have tried to show him where the priority is for the concentration of resources, and I think that he will agree that that is the appropriate priority. I ask him to bear with us in this development of progress, in the hope that we shall be able to turn round applications, including applications for citizenship, much more quickly than we have in the past, and that his citizens and others will not be deprived of their documents for too long.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.