---

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment No. 3) Regulations 2008

In so far as the order deals with fees, this is pretty well on the margins of the regulations but essentially within them. Why do I believe that the information should be made available? I have tabled a number of Questions for Written Answer on a particular case, that of an application made by a person who applied for entry into the United Kingdom in Tbilisi in Georgia. There have been a large number of questions going back nine months, some of which have taken a long time to answer. In one case I think it took five months to get a holding answer which arrived at the end of July, just before the Recess. In that case, realising that something was wrong, I went to the tribunal with prepared documentation because I knew that the decision which had been taken overseas was wrong. Indeed, the tribunal chairman ruled that the decision should be overturned and the person was given access to the United Kingdom. That case threw up deficiencies in the way the system operates abroad. This is basically about the practical application of the regimes that we establish in the United Kingdom. When I rang the ambassador, he told me that he could not intervene in these kinds of decisions. It begs the question: at what stage and to whom are officers overseas accountable for the decisions they take? I cannot see where the accountability lies. My suggestions for amending the regime are about securing a greater level of accountability, because Parliament is entitled to know what is happening in each office. They would not greatly increase the workload of stations overseas in so far as they already submit some of that information centrally to the United Kingdom. That information should be made public in an annual report.