MR. EARLSTON SPENCER (WORK PERMIT) (Hansard, 30 March 1977)

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)
At the end of last year I received an extract from the Jamaica Daily News. My attention was specially drawn in that extract to an item inside a box, which I shall read to the House as it is brief. It ran: Social worker Earl Spencer, who was detained at Up Park Camp June 20 under the Emergency Regulations, is to be released today"— that was from the Jamaica Daily News of 26th November 1976— so that he can travel to the United Kingdom to prevent his UK work permit from expiring. Mr. Spencer's release is conditional on his remaining in the United Kingdom. If he returns to Jamaica while the State of Emergency is in force he will be subjected to further detention. His release from Up Park Camp was approved by National Security Minister Keeble Munn. When my eye fell on that news item, I felt it right to inquire into the facts which lay behind it, it being extremely remarkable on the face of it that a detainee in Jamaica should be released so that he could return to the United Kingdom to prevent his work permit expiring and that that should be conditional on a matter that is in no way under the control of the Jamaican authorities, namely, his remaining in the United 540 Kingdom. That is an extraordinary assertion.
It took some little time, owing to various mishaps with which I need not detain the House, to obtain from the Home Office any facts about the background to this extraordinary news item. When they came, they were contained in a Written Answer on 17th January this year. Here again, I think that it will be convenient if I put the terms of that Answer on the record. It said: Mr. Earlston Spencer"— that appears to be his correct name— a citizen of Jamaica, came to this country on 13th April 1975 and applied successfully for a work permit as a social worker from the Department of Employment. I take it that that means a work permit from the Department of Employment to work as a social worker.
The Answer continued: He embarked on 22nd April 1976"— that is to say, just over a year after his arrival— and returned on 25th November 1976 while his work permit was still current, for the stated purpose of resuming his former employment and applying for a renewal of this work permit which expired on 30th November 1976. So it was a very near squeak. He had only five clays of his existing work permit, of which he had not been availing himself for some six to eight months, in existence when he got out of detention in Jamaica and arrived in the United Kingdom.
I resume quotation from the Written Answer: He was given leave to enter the United Kingdom for two months"— that is, two months from 25th November— and that leave is still current. The Answer concluded with the words: His stay thereafter would depend upon his making a successful application under the Immigration Rules for an extension of his leave."—[Official Report, 17th January 1977; Vol. 923, c. 37.] It seemed to me, as no doubt it will have seemed to anyone reading that Written Answer, that a number of questions were still left unanswered—indeed, that it concealed, as the novelists used to say, more than it revealed. I put some of these difficulties immediately to the Home Secretary. I said: I do not know by whom he was employed as a social worker; but one cannot help 541 wondering about the efficiency of an employing authority which can dispense with his services from April to November and then re-employ him for a couple of months without any certainty that he can stay at the end of them. I must say that I hoped—my hope so far has been in vain, although I trust that it will be fulfilled tonight—that I might receive some information as to the peculiar circumstances and the nature of the social work and the nature of the employer with whom Mr. Spencer had been working.
But I had other difficulties. I suggested that the Home Secretary would wish to be satisfied under what pretext Mr. Spencer had entered the United Kingdom initially, in order while he was here to apply for and obtain a work permit. I drew the attention of the Home Secretary to the alleged blackmail on the part of the authorities in Jamaica who allowed him out of detention on condition that he came to the United Kingdom and stayed here.
In response to that inquiry, I received from the Home Secretary, dated 25th February—a month after the expiry of the two months' leave which Mr. Spencer received on landing on 25th November—a reply which I can only describe as devious and unsatisfactory. Still, it did shed some additional light, though what additional light it shed was not reassuring. It said: Had there been reason to believe that Mr. Spencer's purpose in coming to this country last April that was a mistake; it should have been April 1975— was to take employment without permission he would have been refused admission. There was no such reason, and he was admitted as a visitor. I pause there to consider the remarkable statement, if it is accurate, that is imported by these two sentences. It says that if the authorities had supposed his intention was to take employment without permission, they would not have let him in. But had he said, when he presented himself, "My intention is to get in first and then apply for a work permit", presumably they would have admitted him. If this is so, I cannot see any purpose in having the system of work permits.
If, on the other hand, it means that, had there been reason to believe that Mr. 542 Spencer's purpose was to take employment, he would have been refused admission, and that it was only because it was not known that that was his intention when he was admitted as a visitor, one is bound to inquire what can be the value of a system that admits a person as a visitor and is then perfectly ready thereafter, although he had at the moment of admission indicated that his intention was to obtain work, to supply him with a work permit.
Whether the words "without permission" ought to be in that sentence or not, the conditions which that statement describes are, on the face of it, objectionable. The Home Secretary's letter of 25th February continues: there is, as you know, no prohibition on someone, whether lawfully here as a visitor or living overseas, from applying for permission to work here". If that is so in the widest sense, it is very difficult to see what sort of control can be exercised upon entry if anyone can come in as a visitor and there is no prohibition upon him when lawfully here as a visitor applying for permission to work here.
There is an avenue wide open if applications are considered automatically on their merits from persons who have got in here simply because they were visitors and who would not have been allowed here if it had appeared upon their first presenting themselves that their real intention was not a visit but the taking up of employment. One can imagine circumstances in which a person genuinely arrives as a visitor and then special conditions arise in which it would be reasonable, quite exceptionally, for that person to obtain work.
I hope that one of the facts that will be given tonight is the date upon which Mr. Spencer first applied for his work permit and the date on which it was given to him. It looks as though—it is not clear and I hope that we shall have the facts—it was shortly after arriving that he made his application for the work permit.
The letter continues: In Mr. Spencer's case the Department of Employment, applying the usual criteria, agreed to issue a work permit, and, as is normal practice, the Home Office then granted Mr. Spencer an appropriate extension to his permitted stay in this country. 543 What was that appropriate extension? What was in the first place his permitted stay as a visitor? What was considered to be the appropriate extension? Whatever was the total of those two, it took him through from April 1975, when he arrived, to 30th November 1976, a period during the last eight months of which he did not find it necessary to be at work in this country. All those matters need to be cleared up before we can understand this case or appreciate the light which it may throw upon the administration of the immigration controls.
Then I think that curiosity is legitimate as to the nature of the social work concerned. I say that it is legitimate because we are told that this is a person who was admitted as a visitor and who would not have been admitted if it had been realised at the time that he intended to get work here. What was the nature of this social work for which Mr. Spencer was found so specially suitable that, although he had arrived as a visitor, the opportunity was pounced upon to secure his services; and what was the authority which was employing him?
I should also like to know what the authority had to say when Mr. Spencer went off to Jamaica for six or eight months after being employed by one authority, if it was with one authority, for a year? Did it grant him leave of absence? Did it say "You have worked very hard for a year. Now you are entitled to six months' holiday"? Or did Mr. Spencer just sling his hook, as they say? When he came back and was admitted—I again quote from the first Written Answer— for the … purpose of resuming his former employment and applying for a renewal of this work permit"—[Official Report, 17th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 37.]— was he going back to the same employer; and, if it was the same employer, what did the employer say when he walked in? What explanation did Mr. Spencer give of his eight months' absence—perhaps a description of the conditions of detention under the security rules in Jamaica? Did he tell the authority "Look, I have been allowed only two months. So you must understand that you are re-employing me, subject of course to the Department of Employment and the Home Office, only temporarily"?
544 As it stands at the moment, this is a highly unsatisfactory narrative. One's dissatisfaction is increased by the difficulties which have attended upon the extraction from the Home Office even of the inadequate facts and explanations set out in the Written Answer and the letter which I have placed before the House.
I have therefore sought this short debate to enable the Home Department, on a matter which is in itself of some public interest, to come clean with the full facts, but also because I believe that a case of this kind shows that far greater surveillance is necessary over the exercise of the power to grant a work permit, which can of course be extended and can eventually terminate in permanent residence, to persons who initially come to this country, either genuinely or otherwise, for the purpose of paying a visit and making themselves acquainted with our historical monuments and our beautiful scenery.
I should like, finally, to give this assurance to the Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply. I shall not lose my interest in this case until all the facts have been disclosed which I believe one is entitled to know and which would either remove the anxieties which prima facie this case arouses or would point to the remedial action which needs to be taken in the administration by the Home Office of the immigration law.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for providing an opportunity for us to discuss briefly this case of a man originally admitted as a visitor who was subsequently given permission to take employment here. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed concern about the granting of permissions to take employment in such circumstances.
I shall first set out the facts and explain the application of the relevant immigration rules. This man, who is a citizen of Jamaica, first came to this country as a visitor on 13th April 1975. Under the immigration rules someone seeking entry as a visitor is admitted if he satisfies the immigration officer that he is 545 genuinely seeking entry for the stated period of the visit and that he can, without working, support himself for this period and meet the cost of the return or onward journey.
Visitors coming to stay with relatives or friends are also admitted if the immigration officer is satisfied that no more than a visit is intended and that the support available is adequate. But in all cases leave to enter should be refused if the immigration officer is not so satisfied and, in particular, leave to enter should be refused where there is reason to believe that the passenger's real purpose is, for example, to take employment.
It is open to a Commonwealth citizen who wishes to ascertain in advance whether he is eligible for admission to the United Kingdom to apply for an entry certificate to the appropriate British representative in the country in which he is living. Generally speaking a passenger holding an entry certificate is not to be refused leave to enter unless the immigration officer is satisfied that false representations were employed or material facts were concealed for the purposes of obtaining the certificate or a change of circumstances since it was first issued has removed the basis of the holder's claim to admission.
Before coming here this man had, on 26th March 1975, obtained an entry certificate for the purpose of coming here as a visitor from the British High Commission in Kingston, Jamaica. On arrival he presented his passport, containing this valid entry certificate, to the immigration officer and satisfied him that he was coming here for a visit only. The immigration officer accordingly admitted him in the normal way as a visitor; that is to say, he admitted him for six months only.
If the immigration officer had had any reason to believe that Mr. Spencer's purpose in coming here had been to take employment without permission and had been satisfied that he had obtained his entry certificate by making false representations or concealing material facts, he would have refused him entry.

§ Mr. Powell
Supposing the officer's view had been that his intention in coming here was to take employment, would he 546 not, in accordance with the regulations that the hon. Lady has just read out, be required to refuse him entry?

§ Dr. Summerskill
As I have said, that would be a reason for requiring him to refuse entry. But the immigration officer was satisfied that he was coming here for a visit only.
On 15th September 1975 an application was made for permission to take employment to enable this man to become a warden-youth worker with a housing association which runs a hostel for homeless West Indians. Mr Spencer was to help them to find training or employment. As a visitor he had worked voluntarily for the association in a field in which he had had several years' experience before coming to this country.
There is nothing in the Immigration Act 1971 that prevents such an application being made. It is in fact by no means unusual. In 1974, 5,000 Commonwealth citizens and about 3,000 foreign nationals already in this country as visitors or students were successful in obtaining permission to take approved employment. In 1975 about 4,000 Commonwealth citizens and 2,400 foreign nationals were successful. In 1976 there is every indication that the number is even lower.
The immigration rules make clear that in relation to variation of leave to enter with a view to employment, the general position is that where a person wishes to come to work in the United Kingdom the employer must have obtained a work permit before the person sets out. People admitted as visitors or students or for other temporary purposes have no claim or entitlement to stay here in employment. If the Department of Employment is prepared in a particular case to approve the proposed employment, an appropriate extension of stay may be granted; if not, an extension is refused.
A work permit is issued for a named overseas workers in respect of a specific job with a specific employer. Permission can also be given for work to be taken by a person from abroad already in this country, subject to the same criteria as for a person abroad. Before a permit can be issued certain basic conditions must be satisfied. Among these are that, with some exceptions, the work is such as to require a person with a professional qualification, skill or experience. Secondly, a 547 condition is that the employment of an overseas worker is necessary, and, thirdly, that there is no suitable resident labour available to fill the post offered and the employer has made adequate efforts to find such a worker.
The basic condition relating to the non-availability of suitable labour here means that the operation of the work permit scheme is closely linked to the state of the labour market. In a situation of persistent unemployment widely affecting the labour market, even at the levels of skill, qualification and experience demanded by the scheme, it becomes increasingly difficult for that basic condition to be satisfied. This is the present situation and it has obtained for some time. In those occupations where the skills criteria do not obtain an annual quota operates and the stringency of the labour market requirement has been intensified by reductions in the quotas. Policy on this and related matters is kept under constant review.
The employer's application satisfied the normal criteria of the work permit scheme. Mr. Spencer had several years' experience before coming to this country. The job had also been advertised and notified to the Employment Services Agency without success. The Department of Employment agreed to authorise the employment, and, in accordance with normal practice, the Home Office granted him an extension of stay up to 30th November 1976—the date of expiry of the permission.
He embarked from here on 22nd April 1976 and returned on 25th November 1976 for the stated purpose of resuming his employment and applying for a renewal of his permission to work. As his permission was still current and since 548 he satisfied the immigration officer that he was coming to resume the employment for which it had been issued, he was given leave to enter for two months. However, our records show that he left this country again on 1st December 1976.
I trust that the explanation I have given about Mr. Spencer's case has met the right hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction.

§ Mr. Powell
It would be interesting to know how they managed to get on after April 1976 without the services of someone who was so irreplaceable. It may possibly have occurred to the hon. Lady that arrangements of this sort are capable of being used not bona fide in order to provide a means of entry to this country, and of continued permits which would lead to eventual permanent residence. I am sure that the hon. Lady will ensure that that possibility is taken into account even more carefully in future as a result of the investigation of this case.

§ Dr. Summerskill
I am certain that there was no abuse of the work permit system in this case and that the work permit was justifiably given. If there had been any indication of any abuse, I should certainly share the right hon. Gentleman's concern. However, I have looked at this case extremely carefully, and I cannot see that there is any abuse. Admittedly the man in question left in April, but he was detained in Jamaica for some time before returning subsequently in November.