Passport Applications

George Mudie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I was clear last week and again this week that we are making particular arrangements for people who find themselves outside the three-week timetable and have to travel within the next seven days, to ensure that they can be upgraded and receive their passport in time, and that those individuals will receive a refund.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I respect the Home Secretary for saying sorry, but under the circumstances, “sorry” is an easy word. What has happened is that people have been harmed: they have lost money, they have lost holidays and they have incurred costs. If the Home Secretary is sorry, will she back it up by ensuring that people are recompensed?

[Mrs May]

I have said that we are making arrangements —I said the same in the House last week—to ensure that people who have an urgent need to travel but have not received their passports within three weeks can be upgraded free of charge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I first want to thank and congratulate the front-office staff in passport offices. Someone said that they are only doing their job, and asked why we should thank them. I think that to have worked under the pressure that they have worked under, to have had angry people on the phone every time they pick it up and to have been badgered by MPs is to have done a tremendous job. I have had nothing but kindness, patience and tolerance when I have been in touch with staff in Belfast, Liverpool and, above all, Durham. I just think that they are worth more than the money that the Government are paying them, and I hope that they remember that.

However, I cannot say the same for the parliamentary hotline. Too often it has rung out—nobody has answered. The only job staff seem to do is to pass complaints to the passport office. Now that we have discovered a line that gets us through to Durham, we in Leeds have found that it is easier to speak to the ordinary staff: it gets the job done quicker, and we can speak to staff who have more knowledge. I expect more from a parliamentary hotline.

While I am getting out all my bad temper, I must say that I cannot understand what has happened to the invisible management. Normally, when we get through to an office, if the poor person who answers cannot deal with the problem, we ask to speak to a supervisor or a member of the management. It is impossible to speak to such a person. I have, however, noted that we can speak to the Minister for Security and Immigration, and that will be marvellous when we cannot get any answers.

I agree with what has been said about its being too soon to judge. For the people involved who are watching this, it will be quite painful to see Members from the two sides battling over figures, times and numbers, and over who is to blame. The dust will settle, and the Home Affairs Committee and other places will find out the facts and agree a sensible way forward.

The Home Secretary has put some stuff on the table that we hope will work. The hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) said that we should congratulate her. The jury is still out, but she has not satisfied the minority who are bruised, harmed and out of pocket, or who have had real stress and worry about the whole exercise. Members are upset about the minority who have had to cancel holidays and to pay for delayed holidays, or who have been told by a passport office that they could have their passport if they paid an upgrade, which sounds terribly like blackmail. It sticks in the craw when we are told, “Look, things happen.” As the hon. Gentleman said, this is about how we react to what happens.

Ordinary people have gone through a terrible time. I have a story about an individual who put in for four passports before time: one came through, but the other three did not, and he had to pay about £180 to get them, and to travel 70 miles to Durham to pick them up. All that I and many Members in the Chamber wanted to hear from the Home Secretary was an acceptance that we all make mistakes, as do Governments of all hues. What should a Government do when they make a mistake that hurts someone? If they have caused distress or cost a family £180 to pay for another flight, it is not enough to say sorry. If this was a private firm, the Government and Members would be up in arms, saying, “Give people recompense. You’ve let them down.”

The point is that the Government knew for five months that they were running into trouble. Did they alert anyone to that fact? The answer is no. They did not change the website, and people put in for passports—putting their holidays in danger—because the Government did not come clean. My view is that they should kill the argument by saying, “We will give recompense. We will review every case put forward for recompense, and we will look at the individual circumstances.” That would have settled the matter. People have been hurt and mistakes have been made but, however those mistakes happened, we cannot let ordinary people suffer because of incompetence or such mistakes.

Finally, when I raised the issue with the Home Secretary last week, she did not answer my point about retrospective recompense, but she said that such a service would be free in future. That is confirmed by a document from the Library, but it points out that the free upgrade

“is only available to first time passport applicants if there are valid compassionate circumstances.”

That is the sort of nonsensical, empty phrase—with too many qualifications—that does this House no good. I genuinely hope that the Home Secretary has done her arithmetic, because that may be the problem. Arithmetic is nothing, however; we as politicians must keep our faith with ordinary people, which means that when we make a mistake or do something that hurts them, we put it right.

HM Passport Office

George Mudie Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

That is absolutely clear. That is the attitude that we have taken throughout the immigration system. For the first time ever, we have an operating mandate for our Border Force and our border security, and as I said earlier in response to the shadow Home Secretary, one of the reasons for bringing overseas passport applications into HMPO was to have greater consistency in how they are assessed and enable expertise to be used in better detecting fraud.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

We all have constituents who have made straightforward applications within Home Office guidelines and who a day or two before they flew were forced to pay £55 for an upgrade to get their passports. What consideration is being given to repay that money?

[Mrs May]

I recognise that some people have paid sums of money to ensure that their passport application was upgraded, and I have indicated that for urgent travel in the future we will be doing that free of charge. I recognise that people have had those difficulties, and that there are still people with applications in the system that are concerning them. That is why we have taken the steps outlined today.

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

George Mudie Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I say to the right hon. Gentleman that in many cases the appeal process for family visit visas is being used just as a means to present fresh evidence into the appeals system in support of the application, and that is not the point of an appeals process. There is another point for individuals who go through the appeals process: if fresh evidence is available, they should make a fresh application. It takes less time for a fresh application to be considered than for an appeal to be considered. With a fresh application, people will on average be able to have a decision within 15 days, rather than eight months with the appeals process.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

In all fairness to the applicants, the Home Secretary should withdraw the word “abuse”. Is it not true that the independent commissioner for the UK Border Agency continues to show concern about applicants being turned down for not sending in documents that they were never told in the first instance were required? If she continues to say the applicants are abusing the system, then in all fairness she must say that UKBA entry clearance officers are abusing the system. Does she not agree that the system does not need to be abolished, but to be made to work more sensibly?

[Mrs May]

Let me say to all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have raised this issue that analysis of a sample of 363 allowed family visit visa appeal determinations in April 2011 showed that new evidence produced at appeal was the only reason for the tribunal’s decision in 63% of those cases. In only 8% of cases was new evidence not at least a factor in the allowed appeal. If people have new evidence, they can make a fresh application. It will be heard and considered, and a decision will be given to them in far less time than it takes to go to appeal. A system of appeal is about appealing against the original decision, not appealing against the original decision plus bringing forward extra evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I want to speak about the withdrawal of family reunion visas. The Government propose to do away with recourse to an independent judge, in place of which they say that a fresh application should be made to the same people who turned down the application in the first place—an additional paper might swing the case. I have 20 years of personal experience of visa work in my constituency. In 2000, the decision of the Labour Government was deeply and warmly welcomed by the ethnic communities, families who have come here but have mums and dads, grandparents and siblings in another country. We all speak about family values, but I think that all hon. Members will agree that they should be treasured. It is important that in the event of a wedding, a birth, an illness, a funeral, even just so that the old lass can see her daughter and grandchildren, family members should have the opportunity to visit.

I want briefly to describe some of my experiences. There is the elderly person, an old lass, from a village in Pakistan who wants to visit her daughter and granddaughter. The decision is that there is something in the papers—something that the old lass knows nothing about—that leads someone to believe that the motivation for coming is not the one set out. Case closed—refused. There is the person who has come here two or three times and every time has returned home within the visa period, but that is not taken into consideration. They are not trusted to go back. Cases are turned down because documents not asked for were not given. I had a recent case concerning a man who I thought was 80, but rather than mislead the House I will settle for the 70s. One of the reasons for his being turned down was that he did not give the entry clearance officer any details of his employment. The provision means that the applicant has to go back to that entry clearance officer for a decision rather than an independent judge.

It might be said that I am prejudiced about those cases, but I have three reports from the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, John Vine. The second one says:

“While there were no decision quality issues revealed in 761 cases”

out of 1,500 cases

“I found there were errors affecting decision quality in 515 cases. In a further 201 cases the lack of evidence retained on file made it impossible for me to assess whether the correct decision had been made.”

The same report from 2011 said:

“The general quality of decision-making can and must be improved.”

In 2010 John Vine discovered that UK Border Agency managers were dismissive of determinations made by immigration judges to allow appeals. More importantly still, he found that because these cases were being dealt with in Abu Dhabi, where all the Pakistani cases go for a decision, people from the Gulf were being treated in a better fashion than people from Pakistan. It took John Vine’s intervention to address that. He is saying, as the professional commissionaire, that there is a lot wrong.

My personal experience—I think this goes for any inner-city Member with a large ethnic community—is that the situation is dreadful. The Minister will say, “No, we’re not asking you just to pay the fee again and send it back—we’re suggesting that you read the decision, see what basis you have been turned down on, and send those papers.” I have got news for the Minister: if someone brings me a decision letter and asks for my help, I go through it closely to see what the entry clearance officer is asking for or is turning a person down for, and then write a considered letter, get the evidence and send it for a review, as every Member of this House can. I can count on one hand the number of times when the entry clearance officer changes the decision; despite the fresh evidence, the decision is upheld. The Minister is going to tell our communities, “Don’t go to an independent judge.” Why do people want to go to an independent judge? It is not because 38% of cases are accepted, but because they will have someone who will listen, ask questions, ask for documents, and take a decision based on all those points.

I plead with the Minister to reconsider the heartbreaking decision to withdraw this right of appeal and to keep it, because it is desperately needed.