HC Deb 07 November 1973 vol 863 cc1135-44

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

I wish to draw the attention of the House to a matter of growing concern, namely, the availability and efficiency of the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office.

I understand that the department moved to Croydon approximately 12 months ago. Whereas one had hoped that as a consequence of that move the service would improve, it appears to have become considerably worse. I have in my files many examples to support that point of view. One is from the National Citizens Advice Bureau which wrote to me on 12th September stating: The bureau reports that it is becoming increasingly difficult to get through to anyone at all, let alone someone with reasonable authority. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury draws my attention to letters between him and a London firm of solicitors who are making similar complaints. Indeed, last July in another place he was advised that there have been 19 written complaints so far about the immigration and nationality department of the Home Office at Croydon. Those figures were given in an official answer on 23rd July, and the company concerned complained by letters to the Home Office, which were replied to in January 1973 in letters addressed to Mr. M. Edwardes-Evans.

The point I make in referring to those letters is that these are not new complaints. They have been going on since January of this year, and there has still been no effective improvement in the service to the public, or in the service given by that department of the Home Office.

A Rochdale firm of solicitors made an application to the Home Office in January 1973 on behalf of a Mr. Mohammed Akram. I received a reply to that application yesterday here at the House of Commons. It had taken nine months to get the case dealt with by the Home Office and for a solution to be reached.

The position is extremely serious. It is a scandal and a disgrace, and it does not surprise me in circumstances such as this that people lose faith in Governments and Government Departments. There can be nothing more frustrating for an elector than to be constantly writing letters to a Government Department and either not to receive a reply or to receive a putting-off reply; or trying to telephone a Department and being unable to get an answer to the telephone call until ultimately being answered by someone who apparently has no authority and is not able to deal with the problem. I can think of nothing that has such a destructive influence on the confidence of the electorate in the system of Government than the constant frustration felt by people who are trying to get some action from a Government Department and are unable to get it.

I accept that it is the Foreign and Commonwealth Office abroad that is responsible for dealing with the problems of immigrants, but this office, too, leaves much to be desired. I have numerous cases in my constituency of people who have waited 18 months, two years and even 2½ years to get an answer to a question on immigration.

On Monday of this week, I saw a constituent whose wife died of tuberculosis in Rochdale in 1970. The man remarried in July this year and is now attempting to bring his wife to this country. She has been granted an interview for 4th November 1974. That is only the interview. When she goes for the interview, if there is not time to deal with her that day, she will be sent back the 500 miles that she has travelled in order to attend and be told to return in another eight months. That will then amount to about 20 months.

When this lady eventually has the interview, if it is found that she does not have a particular piece of paper, she will be delayed again for another six months. Ultimately, it will amount to 2½ years before the interview takes place, and then the application may be declined. We then return to the immigration department of the Home Office. The wife will then write to the Home Office to appeal against the decision, so they grant her an interview in respect of her appeal nine months afterwards. I am not exaggerating when I say that these cases can take between three and four years to reach settlement. It is an absolute disgrace.

I am not appealing at this moment for more immigrants to come to the country, or for fewer. I am not arguing the immigration issue. I am concerned about the accessibility of a Department and its ability to deal with complaints and requests in an adequate space of time and to give people a proper and immediate answer.

My files are full of complaints of human misery—and I mean human misery—caused by families being split, and so on, because the Home Office does not deal with complaints expeditiously. The whole position desperately needs attention and action. Without it we are entitled to query the reason for these things happening, and to ask what it is all about.

The immigration and nationality department is not even accessible by telephone. I have read recent correspondence between the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) in which it is said that it is intended to try to do something about this problem. I have letters from the National Citizens Advice Bureau. Here is an example: Tuesday 22nd May, phoned at 4 o'clock. No reply. 4.20 p.m. stated my problem. 4.25 p.m. obtained a ringing signal. 4.48 p.m., dialled again, held for eight minutes, no reply, presumed office was closed. The day after: 11 a.m. engaged. 11.15 a.m., decided to make inquiries. On third attempt stated my problem and was advised that I must dial another number. 11.30 a.m. started dialling the other number, which was continually engaged. 11.45 a.m. a reply received. Officer gave certain information but informed that in his opinion it was essential that the nationality department be contacted. 11.50 a.m. followed this advice. Dialled each number three times, received engaged signal and number unobtainable signal 11.58 a.m. obtained ringing tone. 12 p.m. engaged. 12.03 p.m. engaged. 12.05 p.m. engaged. 12.07 p.m. engaged. So the story went on. The number was engaged right through until 1.20 p.m. They then rang the operator to see whether there was anything that she could do to help. She agreed to have the line tested and to ring back. At 1.40 p.m. the operator rang back to say that the lines were in working order but that it was a small switchboard. At 2.10 p.m. the call was connected by the operator. Incidentally, the line was so bad that both parties had to shout, and only the barest details could be discussed.

I have many letters which I could produce. The Rochdale and District Community Relations Council has made similar complaints, so has the office for the assistance of immigrants, and so, too, have local and London solicitors.

I suggest that the problem falls into four categories. First, the immigration department is not accessible by telephone. Secondly, it takes weeks to get an initial reply to letters. Thirdly, immigrants are shuffled off abroad in a deplorable manner. Fourthly, appeals take months to be heard.

I appeal to the Minister of State to look at this matter seriously. I suggest that the office at Croydon, especially the telephone exchange, should be more adequately staffed. I am told that one reason for the trouble is that they cannot get staff. If one pays peanuts, one gets monkeys. If one cannot pay the rates that attract staff, one will not get them. I hope that even if it means increasing the rates of pay, the Minister will consider that possibility.

The Government believe in free enterprise, and free enterprise by a man selling his labour is as legitimate as free enterprise by a man selling the products of his labour. If it is impossible to recruit labour at the price offered it means that not enough is being offered, and something should be done about it.

Secondly, more clerical and typing-pool staff are required at Croydon. I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be persuaded to increase considerably the number of staff abroad.

Finally, I make a suggestion which I understand has already been made in writing. When a person applies for a condition on his passport to be extended, instead of an extension being made for a routine six months as appears to be the case at present, perhaps consideration could be given to extending passports for 12 months, thereby reducing at a stroke the work of that section of the department by 50 per cent.

I look forward with great interest to the Minister's comments on this matter, and I very much hope that as a consequence of this debate there will be a major improvement in the service given by that department. That is not a reflection on the present staff, but, with additional staff, the department will be enabled to use all staff more efficiently than at present.

10.25 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane)

This is an important problem, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cyril Smith) has provided an opportunity for us briefly to discuss it this evening. I am grateful, too, for the notice that he gave me of the general areas of the criticisms that he intended to make.

The immigration and nationality department of the Home Office is in the front line of our work because it deals so closely with people. The hon. Gentleman made criticisms, but I am glad that he appreciated the work of the staff who are doing the job at the moment. I should like to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of all our staff in very difficult circumstances.

I reject at once some of the phrases which the hon. Gentleman used, such as "scandal and disgrace". I honestly believe that he painted a distorted and unfair picture of the situation. He cited several cases of exceptional delay or difficulty. In general we do much better than that, but I am not complacent, nor are my staff, about the present situation, and we want to improve our service as rapidly as possible. I go to Croydon at regular intervals, I shall be there again next Wednesday, and among other things I shall be reviewing the situation to date and seeing what more steps we can take in the direction which the hon. Gentleman is urging.

I want to cover the points that he raised and to put the whole matter in perspective, but I resent talk about the hopelessness of this department or, as the hon. Gentleman put it, the files of human misery. I should like to show him many of the files which I see day by day. They show a high degree of human concern on the part of my staff to reach the right decisions and to ensure that people get a fair deal. In a large number of the cases I believe the care and effort taken by our staff are appreciated even if, very often, the final decision has to be "No".

There are two background points which should be kept in mind. First, the Government are operating a policy of firm immigration control. We promised to reduce immigration to the inescapable minimum, and we have kept that promise. Perhaps I may illustrate by giving the latest figures. In the first six months of this year—that is, the first year in which the 1971 Immigration Act has been in full operation—fewer than 14,000 people, mainly wives and dependants of men already established here, have come from the Commonwealth for settlement in this country. That is about 25 per cent. fewer than in the same period last year, and the lowest rate of arrivals since control over Commonwealth immigration was first imposed by the Conservative Government in 1962.

The relevance of that to the debate tonight is that while we are firm, we must not be arbitrary. We aim at fairness in our operation of this control as between one individual and another, and the House would rightly expect us to do that. But we must recognise that the care which we therefore try to show in every case is bound to take its toll of officials' time, and with that, too, I am sure the House would agree.

The second background factor which gives an illustration of the scale of the problem is not directly related in all respects to the debate. Last year, more than 38 million people passed outwards or inwards through our seaports and airports. To deal with that movement, and with applications for people to come which in many cases we have to turn down, we have an immigration service whose present strength is about 1,250, and an immigration and nationality department of about 1,100 people.

The hon. Member rightly mentioned the move to Croydon of the immigration and nationality department a year ago. That was done because the accommodation available for us in central London had become wholly inadequate for the proper discharge of the department's functions. Before we moved, the department was spread over a number of buildings, four of them in the Holborn area and one at Tolworth. Because of staff expansion due to the great increase in the total volume of this work over recent years, the accommodation at Holborn was very cramped and the facilities for interviewing personal callers, to which we attach great importance, were particularly bad. This fragmentation among different offices caused the department's work to suffer.

However, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about a deterioration since we moved to Croydon. To take only one aspect, we knew that the move would mean some inconvenience to callers—as it has to Ministers and senior officials—but the public transport is good, there is a regular and quick train service from Victoria and the department at Croydon is only a few minutes' walk from either of the two stations.

It is true that the number of callers to Croydon in person is less than it was in central London. In the year since the move there have been 171,000 callers, a good half of whom were Commonwealth citizens, compared with 212,000 in the year before the move. But we still have well over 4,000 callers a week and they can get attention in comfortable surroundings which are far superior to those which existed at Holborn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and any other hon. Members who like to do so will come down to Croydon in person, as soon as they like to arrange it, to see the situation for themselves. We would welcome their visits.

However, there has been one disappointing aspect of the move—and this is at the heart of the problems that we are discussing. That is the loss by the department of many experienced officers in consequence of the move. It came at a time when a large increase in work was starting. This increased trend has continued throughout the past year and at present our workload is 25 per cent. up on 1972.

To quote a few figures, the department is now getting more than 20,000 items of correspondence a week—about one million over the year—compared with 645,000 in the previous year. Moreover, there have been special problems caused by the aftermath of the Uganda expulsion, by entry of the EEC, by the coming into force of the 1971 Immigration Act and, more recently, by the large volume of applications for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies made by Pakistani citizens, many of whom live in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

All this has caused extra work, much of it difficult, and this has led to delays in correspondence. We hope that in Croydon it will be easier to recruit and retain the large numbers of junior staff we need, but, because of the current very welcome state of full employment, we still find it difficult to recruit suitable staff in sufficient numbers for us to provide as good a standard of service as we should like—in spite of regular advertisements in the local Press.

The department is about 15 per cent. under strength at present, but the recruitment situation is better in Croydon than in central London and the staff that we have managed to recruit so far are of very good calibre. With further experience they will become a valuable asset to the department in the months and years ahead. In the meantime, we shall continue with active steps to try to attract and retain sufficient new recruits.

The hon. Member and other hon. Members have had difficulty over the telephone inquiry bureau. We are very conscious of this. When we moved to Croydon, the number of lines in the main telephone inquiry bureau was increased from 15 to 25 and a further four lines were installed for nationality inquiries. But because of the continuing shortage of staff with the necessary experience of this work—I stress that—we have not yet been able to man all the lines, although we are aiming to man up to 23 lines, including three for nationality inquiries. The result is that in recent weeks it has been possible to handle about 5,000 calls a week—about 3,000 to 3,500 on immigration and the rest on nationality questions.

I must add again, to put it in perspective, that, in spite of the acute shortage of suitably-qualified staff for telephone inquiry work, the department has handled more than 203,000 calls during the year at Croydon compared with 188,000 during the year before the move, an increase of nearly 10 per cent. Here again, I will simply assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing our utmost to increase the number of staff who man the telephone inquiry bureau, and I think there are slightly better things to come because in the last fortnight we have been able to man 18 to 20 lines every day. We shall continue to try to increase this figure.

It is true that there is an unjustifiable delay in answering some correspondence. This is simply because of the great increase in work I have mentioned and because, as I have said, we are heavily under-strength. We try to separate all obviously urgent work to give it priority at all stages, but inevitably there must be some delay in producing substantive answers to correspondence which involves inquiries overseas, and in these cases it may well take many weeks to get the necessary answers from overseas to enable us to reply adequately. But if there are any particular cases of delay which the hon. Gentleman would like me to pursue, I shall be glad if he will give me details.

I remember the unfortunate cases of Mr. Akram, and that involving a personal friend of mine. There was uncertainty about Mr. Akram's position under the Pakistan Act. Nevertheless, I accept that we slipped up in that case and I have apologised both to Mr. Akram and to the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned something about immigrants being shuffled off abroad. I am sorry he did not develop the point because I was puzzled and bothered by what he said. If he means sending men back overseas, I deny it completely. There has been great tact in dealing with these unfortunate cases, but I will investigate any cases he has in mind in this context.

Mr. Cyril Smith

I meant that they are shuffled off when they come to the department.

Mr. Lane

Now I understand. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not mean what I feared he meant.

We certainly sometimes experience long delays with appeals, but any appeals system which deals with difficult human issues of this kind is bound to take some time. I said in reply to a Question from the hon. Gentleman on 22nd February that we have increased our Home Office staff which deals with these appeals, but there is a limit to the staff we can make available for this purpose.

The Department is responsible for preparing the explanatory statements sent to the appellants and the adjudicator before the appeal is heard. Again there is a backlog of work in this section of the department, but we are hoping to make inroads on it during the winter and then to speed up the hearing of appeals.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the problems of applications made abroad to our entry certificate posts there. This is primarily a matter for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I will draw what the hon. Gentleman said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State there. The position is that in the last few years the staffs of our entry certificate posts have been strengthened in the overseas territories, particularly in the Indian subcontinent. But they remain under very great pressure because of the large numbers of Commonwealth citizens who are seeking entry certificates to come here, particularly dependants, because of the complexity of the job and of dealing with applications in the absence of reliable local records, and because of the prevalence, unfortunately, of attempts at fraud.

I realise, and all my officials realise, that we are dealing here with people and not with numbers. We realise, too, that the service is not at present as good as we should like it to be. We shall continue to do our utmost to improve it and we shall certainly bear in mind the points and suggestions which the hon. Gentleman made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Eleven o'clock.