HC Deb 13 May 1964 vol 695 cc567-76

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Ladywood)

We move from a debate which has had a great deal of humour in it to an issue which has a very considerable element of sadness in it, namely, the case of two Canadian boys, the sons of a British mother, who were refused permission to land in this country in order to join their grandmother and to work to help their family in Canada.

These boys, John and Michael Penny, are the sons of a British woman who reared a family of nine. Four of the family of working age were unemployed, and the father was also unemployed. In former times, the family had been able to come to Britain, and, in consequence, three of the children were born in this country. But now they have fallen on difficult times and the mother, Mrs. Ruby Penny, appealed to her mother, Mrs. Butts, who is a constituent of mine, asking if she could help. She invited the two eldest boys, John and Michael, to come and live with her. Arrangements were, as she thought, satisfactorily and legally made for their employment, but to her horror and amazement she discovered that her grandsons had been refused permission to land and were allowed to stay for only three hours at London Airport with no opportunity of seeing their grandmother.

The grandmother thereupon wrote to me as the Member for the constituency and said: I am writing to you as a heartbroken grandmother. I think it is disgusting. My daughter was in the A.T.S. during the war and was a war bride. She met her husband who was serving his time over here and went back to Newfoundland to live. The only way I could do anything to get them over was on the hire purchase terms. I could not pay cash. I have had my husband ill with coronary thrombosis for the past two years; he can only work when he is fit". She raised the £13 16s. for a deposit on a loan and, genuinely believing that all was in order, committed herself to a payment of £5 10s. per month in repayment of the loan. There are still 17 months to go before this bill is paid, and, as she says, she is still not able to help her grandsons. She says, "I have only done what a mother would do in the same circumstances". To me, these are the words of an honest-to-goodness British mother who never sought to bring anyone into this country by illegal means. As far as she was concerned, this was clearly a misunderstanding.

On Sunday, 5th April, the boys arrived at London Airport. I should like, first, to give their view. When I saw the Home Secretary, I had not received a communication from them, but I have now had two letters, from one of which I will quote, and I ask the Minister to note carefully what the boys say: We arrived in London 8.45 in the morning and went to the Immigration. They asked us why did we come to England. We said we were going to work and they asked for our work permit. We said we hadn't any and he told us we could not enter the country. He asked us if anybody had come to meet us and we told him yes, so he went out and got our aunt and grandfather. One of the immigration officers said he was trying to help us every way he could. But the other one said no, no, no, you haven't got work permits so you can't come in; you will have to go back on the first return flight, and that's the law he said. My grandfather asked him to put us in jail for a week until we could see what was going on, but again the immigration officer said No. We even said we would join the Army and he said No. We asked to see"— I ask the Minister to note this— the Canadian Consulate, and he said No. I must ask for special attention to be directed to that specific statement. I was not aware of it when I saw the Home Secretary.

I went to Canada House yesterday and was informed that a duty officer is available at all times, day or night, during the 24 hours. A duty officer is always available for consultation even though, naturally, he cannot interfere in these matters. The duty officers have telephone calls from Dover and other ports and are available for consultation. It was monstrous that these boys were not permitted to telephone or to consult the Canadian Consulate.

Why were the boys so hastily, unfairly and almost immorally returned only three hours after they had been travelling, not just a day, but some days? They were exhausted when they arrived here. I cannot help feeling some shame that we should have treated our Canadian friends in this manner. I doubt whether we would have given this treatment to Americans who had asked to contact the American Consulate. Our Commonwealth friends in Canada must feel that they have been snubbed, however legalistic the argument may appear from the point of view of the Home Office.

What about the ordeal of the boys? They were put on an aircraft within three hours, not to be taken direct to their home. They had no money and no means of subsistence. I believe that their aunt gave them the only £2 she had in her purse to assist them as best she could. They were put on an aircraft and simply dumped in Montreal, more than 1,000 miles from their home.

The Trans-Canada Air Lines manager at the Montreal airport telephoned the boys' mother at her home and said that the boys had been returned, but that they could not be taken home unless she sent 110 dollars for the fare. Of course, she could not do that. She had no money, nor had the family. The mother was horror-stricken and distressed beyond measure.

Eventually, however, T.C.A. carried the boys to their home, their arrival there being followed by receipt of a further bill from British Overseas Airways for 392 dollars, the cost of the journey from London to Montreal.

What treatment did the grandfather and the daughter receive? They were alarmed at it. The grandfather was not allowed to go into the immigration office with the daughter. The daughter was asked in and she asked for her grandfather, but she was not allowed to go out and speak to him. An officer went out to speak to him. No contact was allowed. In fact, even the grandfather was not permitted to buy a packet of cigarettes without an escort. Why was there fear that they might have some contact with somebody outside? These people felt that they had been treated like criminals. I cannot believe that that sort of thing was necessary.

I have looked at the regulations and cannot see anything in them which says that an immigration officer has no discretion whatever. The sixth regulation says, in fact, that genuine visitors—for example, those coming to stay with relatives—should be readily admitted unless the immigration officer has reason to believe that their presence in the United Kingdom is likely to result in a charge on public funds. If the boys had said that they were coming for a holiday, they would, of course, have been admitted.

The seventh regulation says that it will sometimes be appropriate to impose a prohibition on the taking of employment where the immigration officer has reason to suppose that the visitor, although not a voucher holder, may be contemplating taking up regular employment.

But I see nothing that gives the immigration officer the power merely to say "No. You cannot ask anybody. You cannot make representations. You must be bundled back"—or bounced back in a manner which I think is very wrong. If the immigration officers had admitted the boys for a limited period, the grandfather was willing to give whatever guarantee he could to bring them back.

Then it was argued that they had not got a return ticket. But, in any case, although they had not a return ticket, they were sent back. Are we to assume that if they had been millionaires they could have been admitted, or even if they had only been able to show clearly that they had the money? I am afraid that the way in which they were returned was rather disgusting. Now the family in Canada is faced with a monstrous bill beyond its capacity to pay.

Work permits have now been granted, and I am pleased that that is so. I advised an employer on the way to make application as he wished to employ the boys. I cannot help feeling that the airline was wrong in not making certain that the boys had the necessary travel documents, and so I think it has an element of responsibility for what happened. They had only single tickets and no permits to enable them to land. Also, I cannot help feeling that because of the hasty action which was taken, the Home Office has some responsibility for the expenditure which was incurred.

I think that the Government ought to accept responsibility for having acted hastily in not allowing these boys to consult an official of their Government, and that they ought to pay the bill which these boys are being asked to pay. These two young people cannot come to this country unless they find the money for their fares, which means, of course, another bill.

I have read in the Press that an employer is considering raising money to help these boys. I do not know whether that is true. I am told that the situation is not quite as reported in the Press, but, nevertheless, it is most undesirable that an employer should regard it as his responsibility to provide money for such a purpose when a mistake of this kind has been made.

In fairness to the B.O.A.C., I must tell the House that I have been to see senior officials of the Corporation. I was received with great courtesy, with sympathy, and with some understanding, and the plight of this distressed family is receiving sympathetic consideration.

I ask the Government to take steps to ensure that every case is examined fairly and carefully. Secondly, I ask that immigration officials should interpret our regulations in a more humane way. Thirdly, I ask that they should be told to allow immigrants to consult representatives of their Government if they wish to do so. Fourthly, I ask that steps be taken to ensure that the documents of immigrants are in order before they leave their country.

I conclude by referring to a second letter written by Michael, which shows how deeply wounded they were. He says: My mother is really heartbroken to think that they wouldn't let us into her England, because Sir, that is the way my mother thinks—England is her's. She left England when she married my father but her heart has always been home. She works hard to keep my other brothers and sisters. This is a story of distress and shattered dreams. This human drama is an example of how not to deal with a problem which suddenly arises in this way. I cannot believe that this is the British way of solving a problem of this kind. This is bureaucracy. This is an example of the stupidity of officialdom, and I hope that the Government will take the necessary steps to ensure that this human drama is never repeated.

10.44 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Mervyn Pike)

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. V. Yates) for the way in which he has approached this very sad case, which has distressed us all. If I may say so with humility, we are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the responsible way in which he has approached this problem. He has consulted us at every step. He has brought us into his confidence, and I am sure that the House realises the sincerity with which he has approached this debate.

I know that he will not think me unsympathetic if I have to approach it more with my head than my heart, because this is a case of the law. It is a case of implementing the regulations. As my time is limited, I want to make certain that I get the whole of the facts on the record carefully and clearly. So the hon. Member will forgive me if I go through the whole history of the case as carefully as I can.

As he said, the boys—John and Michael Penney—arrived at London Airport from Montreal at 8.45 a.m. on 5th April. They had Canadian passports and told the immigration officer that the purpose of their visit was to take employment as metal moulders at the Perry Barr Metal Company, Birmingham. They said that they were unemployed in Newfoundland, where they lived, and had no prospect of employment there. They had brought scarcely any money with them, and had only single tickets, which had been purchased by their relatives in this country. They did not have Ministry of Labour vouchers, and said that they did not know that vouchers were needed.

These two young men were Commonwealth citizens, subject to Part I of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, who had come to the United Kingdom to take employment without having obtained the necessary vouchers. There was thus an evident case for refusal of admission under section 2(1,a) of the Act. The immigration officer dicussed the situation with the young men in the presence of their aunt and grandfather, who had come to London Airport to meet them.

At this point the hon. Member said that the grandfather was not allowed to see them in the first instance, with the aunt. We have looked into this and we cannot find that the facts accord with this allegation. At the outset the boys said they wanted to work here and stay with their aunt, Mrs. Powell, who was to meet them at the airport. They did not mention the grandfather. The immigration officer asked a B.O.A.C. receptionist to find Mrs. Powell. She did so, and brought her to the immigration officer. The chief immigration officer was present by this time. After about five minutes' discussion he told Mrs. Powell that the boys would have to be refused admission, and explained why. She then asked if the grandfather could join them. The chief immigration officer agreed, and suggested that Mrs. Powell might like to fetch him, which she did.

I want to put the record straight, because these are the facts as I know them. The hon. Member said that the grandfather was not able to go to buy cigarettes without an escort. The facts, as I know them—and we have confirmed them—are that the boys and their relatives were interviewed in the immigration hall at the airport and afterwards they all stayed in the arrivals lounge. No immigration or airline official remained with them. From the arrivals lounge there is free access to the departure lounge, where refreshments and cigarettes are on sale. None of the staff on duty that day recollects being asked about cigarettes by either of the boys or their relatives, and no immigration official accompanied any of them to buy cigarettes. It is possible that somebody in uniform, on being asked by the grandfather, showed him where to buy the cigarettes; but, if so, that would be done out of kindness and not as a matter of officialdom.

The immigration officer has a duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that a passenger who has not passed the immigration control does not make off. From what I have ascertained, this was one of the cases where the maximum of informality was used. I am assured that the boys and their relatives were treated quite informally, and not as subject to any routine. The relatives suggested that the young men might be allowed to stay for a short holiday before returning, but they had come for employment and the chief immigration officer to whom the case was referred was not satisfied that they would leave the country at the end of the holiday, if for no other reason than that neither they nor their relatives appeared to be in a position to buy tickets for the return journey. The two young men were refused admission, and the reason for the refusal was explained to them and their relatives at the airport.

The hon. Member has said—and I think he will agree that this is the first time that he made the point—that they asked to be able to get in touch with the Canadian consul and that this was refused. This is the first that we have heard of this, and I find it difficult to believe, because it is a firm rule that anyone can get in touch with the consul. If they asked for this, it is difficult to understand why they were refused. I am only able to answer the point across the Floor now on first hearing.

Mr. Yates

Will the hon. Lady look into it?

Miss Pike

Yes, I will.

I should like to explain more fully the rules and why we had to take this legalistic step. The rule is that Commonwealth citizens from overseas who come here with the intention of working must have Ministry of Labour vouchers if they are to be admitted into this country. This appears in paragraph 20 of the Home Secretary's Instructions to Immigration Officers which provides that, subject to certain exceptions, which are not relevant to this case, … a Commonwealth citizen who wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of taking up or looking for employment must hold a Ministry of Labour voucher.… An exception should not be made to this rule because it is claimed that a job will be found.… Persons who require vouchers but have not obtained them should normally be refused admission. We did not make these rules arbitrarily. They exist in order to ensure, as far as we can, that we operate an immigration control that is fair to all those Commonwealth citizens who want to come here.

It will be within the recollection of the House that over a quarter of a million Commonwealth citizens have applied for vouchers. Most of them are waiting their turn for the issue of what we term "category C" vouchers. The scheme allows, however, for certain classes to obtain priority in the issue of vouchers, and these include those with bona fide offers of employment. It may interest the House to know that something like half the applicants who claim that they have genuine offers of employment cannot satisfy the Ministry of Labour that this is so. Clearly, a mere claim that work will be found is not enough.

It would, therefore, not be practicable to work this scheme of control if some Commonwealth citizens were allowed to come here on the off-chance and were admitted on the plea that jobs could be found for them. They would, in effect, be obtaining a priority to which they might not be entitled. I am not wishing to be hard-hearted about this. I wish only to put the facts clearly and squarely.

It would appear, to judge from subsequent events, that when these young men arrived they did not have a firm offer of employment, and the job in respect of which vouchers have now been issued was obtained only after their situation had been widely publicised in the Press. The fact that vouchers have now been issued does not, as has been suggested, show that the original decision was mistaken, but only that the young men may now have been able to establish a claim to priority within the rules.

The other suggestion that has been made is that, whatever the rules may be about people coming to take work, these young men should have been allowed to spend a holiday in this country. But a holiday visitor is someone who is both able and willing to return home at the end of his holiday. These young men would not have been able to return home, because they did not have the fare.

Miss Alice Bacon (Leeds, South-East)

Is it not a fact that whilst it is normal practice to remove the refused immigrant by the first available craft the removal instructions could be held up while representations were being considered? Will the hon. Lady think about that point? As for the fact that they did not have the money to return home, are they not now being asked for money which the hon. Lady says they do not have?

Miss Pike

I was not aware that at that time there were any representations. It is true that if they had said that they wished to get in touch with their consul or Member of Parliament their return would have been held up pending that, but as far as the immigration officer was concerned this was in no way an exceptional case, though a sad and distressing one, within the regulations.

As for the fact that the airline had to take the boys back to Montreal, they came on a B.O.A.C. plane from New York. B.O.A.C. was liable only to return them to New York, but it returned them to Montreal which was the nearest point to which they could fly. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ladywood and the House understand the liability for payment, but B.O.A.C. is looking at this as sympathetically as it can.

The hon. Member for Ladywood also made a point, which is relevant, about the information which people receive. As far as we can ascertain, a great deal of publicity has been given to the regulations. The travel agencies know, the ticket agencies know, and the airline and shipping people know these things. I accept that there are people living in Commonwealth countries who, in spite of a mass of publicity and leaflets, are not aware of these things. Had they taken the precaution of consulting the immigration officer in Canada this difficulty would not have arisen. The lesson we must learn from this is not that our rules and regulations are wrong, not that our immigration officers are not as sympathetic as they can be in trying to interpret the rules as humanely and flexibly as they can, but we must ensure as far as humanly possible that Commonwealth people coming here appreciate what the rules are and what the consequences are for them if they fail to get the necessary labour and travel vouchers.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.