Mr. NASRI BOUAZIZ (Hansard, 26 April 1978)

§ Mr. Robert Taylor (Croydon, North-West)

About a year ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the end of March 1977, to be precise, I was approached by a distraught constituent who claimed that his rather immature daughter was about to marry a young man who was due to be deported and that the marriage was solely one of convenience in order to allow this young man to avoid deportation.

As like any other Member would have done I contacted the Home Office to ascertain the facts of the case and I was informed that the young man in question, who is the subject of this debate, Mr. Nasri Bouaziz, had arrived in this country in 1974. He had been given permission to enter the country for a period of one year, as a student, and he was allowed into the country on condition that he did not engage in any form of employment.

After 1974 he was not traced until late in December 1976, when it was found that he was working for Pye Telecommunications, in the borough of Croydon. Because he had overstayed the period for which he had been permitted to come into this country, and because he had broken the main condition upon which he had been allowed to come in, the Home Office, I understand, decided that he should leave and a deportation order was made.

That was in December 1976. In April 1977 the order was due to be enforced, but at the eleventh hour a marriage was contracted between the daughter of my constituent and this young man. In an endeavour to substantiate that this was a marriage of convenience, the father of the girl involved produced for me a photostat copy of entries from a diary made by his daughter that showed that even at that time she had suffered ill treatment at the hands of Mr. Bouaziz. The father was so worried about this contracted marriage that he wrote on 2nd April to the registrar of marriages in Croydon, saying: Dear Sir, This is a written objection to my daughter's intended marriage set for Tuesday 5th April 1977 on the grounds that it is a 1569 marriage of convenience. The intended groom, one Nasri Bouaziz, was at the time of making the application for marriage under a deportation order, issued by the Home Office. I well understand the great difficulty and dilemma of the Home Office at that time, because here was a young couple who, to all intents and purposes, were keen to get married and here was a parent objecting on the ground that it was a marriage of convenience. I well understand that at that time it was virtually impossible to prevent the marriage from taking place. In fact, it did take place at Croydon on 5th April 1977.

As the Member of Parliament involved, I naturally hoped that that would be the end of the affair and that I should hear no more because the marriage had turned out to be successful and happy, but as soon afterwards as 14th May the bride telephoned her father in a state of great distress. She was living in a hostel, in Clapham, and when the father visited her in company with a witness from his trade union he found her very distressed, with black eyes and in a very unfortunate condition. I met her at that time and can confirm that fact. Nevertheless, only three days later, the couple attended an office of the Home Office and both said that they wished to make a further effort to make the marriage successful.

I heard no more about the problem until 15th October when the father communicated with me again and told me that his daughter had returned to the family home in a state of nervous exhaustion and in fear of violence. As a result, the father instructed his solicitors to apply for an injunction to prevent his daughter suffering further molestation and to put in hand divorce proceedings.

Having seen the daughter I contacted the Home Office and set out the facts in a letter of 20th October. I asked for confirmation that the facts established that this was a marriage of convenience and that, under the law, the bridegroom should be deported in accordance with the original deportation order of December 1976.

I received a reply from the Minister, whom I am pleased to see here, dated 16th December 1977. She said: I am sorry to learn that Mrs. Bouaziz is being so badly treated that she finds that she cannot continue with the marriage. Mr. Bouaziz is now without a basis of stay under the immigration rules and, in the circum 1570 stances, I have decided that his leave to remain should be curtailed to expire on 31st December 1977. In the course of the next few days he will be notified of my decision, against which he will have a right of appeal to the independent appellate authorities. On 4th January, I inquired whether an appeal had been lodged and whether this young man was still in this country. The Minister told me on 7th February: Mr Bouaziz did not exercise his right of appeal nor apparently has he submitted any further timely application to remain on his former or any other basis. Steps will be taken to check whether he has embarked: if he has not, he would appear to be an overstayer and liable to prosecution for an offence under the Immigration Act 1971, the penalty for which is a fine of up to £200, up to six months' imprisonment, and liability to deportation. I wrote again on 20th February to find out whether any steps had been taken to implement those stipulations in the Minister's letter. I received an acknowledgement on 17th March, but no confirmation that any steps had been taken.

At that time, the story took a bizarre turn. Mr. Bouaziz arrived at my constituent's home and demanded divorce papers as a matter of urgency. Indeed, such was the problem that he created that the police were called. He wanted the divorce papers because he claimed to be engaged to another girl. I therefore telephoned the Home Office and received confirmation that Mr. Bouaziz had applied to remain in this country on the grounds that he had become engaged again and the deportation order was not being acted upon because he "had his rights".

To summarise, this young man arrived here in 1974. He was permitted to come here as a student. I was informed earlier in my correspondence that he was not an altogether satisfactory student. He was permitted to be here for 12 months. He was told that he was not able to undertake any form of employment. I believe that in addition to the Pye employment he has had two jobs since, from one of which he was dismissed because of phoning Algeria on the company telephone and in company time.

In my view, this establishes probably the clearest case of a marriage of convenience under our present immigration laws. But if it is seriously believed that a young man who has been proved to have entered into a marriage of convenience can have a second bite at the cake 1571 and contract a further marriage, it makes a mockery of our immigration laws. He could remain in this country continually on such a basis.

Therefore, I hope to hear from the Minister that firm action will be taken immediately in this case. In asking for her reply, I would like to express my apologies to her for keeping here here until this late hour. I realise that she has a very busy Department over which she presides. Certainly I find myself writing at least three or four letters to her each week. I apologise to the hon. Lady and thank her for her presence.

§ The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill)

I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) for his sympathy in our predicament at this late hour. As he has said, he has corresponded with me and telephoned for several months about this case, and he has restated some of the main facts.

Mr. Bouaziz came to the United Kingdom in 1974 and was given leave to enter as a student for 12 months on conditions prohibiting employment. He did not come to further notice until late in 1976, when it was learned that he was still in the country and working at Pye Telecommunications Ltd., in Croydon. He subsequently applied for leave to remain in anticipation of his marriage to Miss George, and they were both seen in the Immigration and Nationality Department in March 1977. It appeared that a stable relationship existed and had done for a considerable time, but, as there were no firm plans for early marriage, Mr. Bouaziz's application to remain was refused.

Mr. Bouaziz and Miss George went abroad on 6th April 1977 and on their return on 8th April Mr. Bouaziz produced evidence of their marriage on 5th April. The immigration officer granted him leave to enter for two months. On 17th May they were interviewed, both separately and together, and it appeared that, although there were stresses in the marriage, both wanted it to succeed. In view of this and the length of the relationship, and in accordance with normal practice under the immigration rules, Mr. Bouaziz was given leave to remain for 12 months, that is, until May 1978—next month.

1572 Miss George's parents, who had expressed some concern about the marriage before it took place, as the hon. Gentleman said, had approached the Home Office in May 1977 about Mr. Bouaziz's conduct toward their daughter, including one violent assault, but Miss George herself said she still wished the marriage to work, and she thought the problems might revolve around her husband not having permission to work. In accordance with her wishes, Mr. Bouaziz was then given his present permission to remain until next month and to take work. I should point out that if after next month we wish to impose an employment restriction on Mr. Bouaziz he will have a right of appeal against that restriction.

The next the Home Office knew about the case was when, in October last year, Mr. George and his daughter came to the Home Office and the hon. Gentleman wrote to me asking that Mr. Bouaziz's leave to remain should be terminated because of Miss George's ill-treatment by her husband. After careful consideration I decided that it should be and so informed the hon. Member on 16 December last.

On 28th December 1977 notice of variation of leave to remain giving leave to remain only until 21st January was accordingly sent to Mr. Bouaziz's last known address. The order carries a right of appeal which must be entered within 14 days. As the hon. Member is aware from a subsequent letter I sent him, no reply was received within the 14 days and steps were taken to see whether he had complied with the order.

In his letter to me on 22nd February the hon. Member kindly sent me Mr. Bouaziz's home address. Consequently, the police went there on two occasions but failed to find him. Eventually, on 9th March, he was traced to his place of work and interviewed by the police who were informed that he had moved address some time before the variation order was sent to him.

As there was no firm evidence that he had received the variation order, a copy was served on him on 10th March. Against the re-served order Mr. Bouaziz entered an appeal the same day and accompanied it with a letter saying that he is living with another girl whom he wishes to marry immediately he is divorced from his wife. This letter has been 1573 treated as an application to stay pending his proposed second marriage. As Miss George has not instituted divorce proceedings so far, there are no immediate prospects of marriage and the application has been refused.

A refusal of an application for an extension of leave to remain gives rise to the same appeal rights as does a variation order curtailing leave to remain. Further information has been provided by Miss George about the case, some of which provides grounds for believing that on Mr. Bouaziz's but not necessarily Miss George's part the marriage may have been one of convenience.

In view of other information provided by Mr George and Miss George since 10th March, it was decided that Mr Bouaziz's continued residence here was not conducive to the public good. A notice of intention to deport was served on Mr. Bouaziz on 24th April. This also gives rise to appeal rights. Mr. Bouaziz is still within the time to appeal under both heads. He has 14 days from 24th April to do this.

The House will appreciate that as the Home Office will be party to any appeal hearings I may not discuss the merits of 1574 the case pending the outcome of the appeal that has been entered and others that may be associated with it. The House may wish to know, however, that the effect of entering an appeal is to prevent a person being removed from the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act until the appeal has been determined. The appeal rights were written into the Immigration Act to prevent oppressive behaviour by the Executive. Inevitably cases will arise from time to time when residents will feel concern about the continued presence here of people who have been required to leave but have appealed—Mr. Duke was a recent example—but this is part of the price we must pay for the freedom we enjoy.

I hope that I have explained the rather complex procedures to which this case has given rise. The hon. Member will appreciate that there is one appeal pending and possibly two others which Mr. Bouaziz may wish to enter. That is why there is a delay in proceeding any further at present.