Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Tony McNulty (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 5 July 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill.


Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

Yes, I can, and to be honest, we would not be embarking on the roads on which I am about to elaborate unless we thought that substantive improvements would be made at the end of the process. An independent monitor is responsible for scrutinising refusals, including those that do not attract the right of appeal. That is not done in some sort of vacuum in the way that some hon. Members suggested. The independent monitor’s role will be enhanced to become a full-time post that is more embedded—for want of another phrase—in the system. There will be greater training for ECOs and their supervising managers—that is under way as we speak—and greater resources will be engaged to allow entry clearance managers more time to review decisions and to enable the recruitment of the network of regional managers. The points system will equally provide clearer and more transparent criteria. So the irony is, in part, that a small amount—barely 2 per cent.—of all refusals for student visas go to appeal and are then successful. In relative terms, the amount of time and effort taken by UK Visas and the ECOs to process those cases is enormously inflated. If we get rid of that appeal layer and implement all the improvements to ECO decision making that I am talking about, both elements will ensure that more resources can be devoted to the front end of the operation, rather than otherwise. Again, we can talk about that specific appeals element, which is in the Bill, in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow makes the case, I suspect, for serving on yet another Committee considering a Bill on immigration, asylum and nationality, but that is a matter for the Whips, not for me. I would hate to destroy his record, given that he is running so well and has served on all those Committees since 1992. Again, he makes a fair point about the five years for refugees. If we go down that route, it is incumbent on us to ensure that people do not wait five, eight, 10 or 12 years to get to the stage where they are declared as refugees in the first place. That is the Government’s starting point, and that is what we are trying to do. We are trying to implement those changes for two key reasons. First, we want to establish across the board the principle that people must reside in this country for five years before they can become eligible for settlement. That is not new; it is more or less the system that was in place beforehand.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
436 c269-70 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Databases Appeals Asylum Applications Fraud Employment Fingerprints Legal aid scheme Immigration controls Immigration Undocumented migrants Documents Entry clearances Passports Refugees Temporary accommodation Visas
Legislation
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk