NAZIM AKHTAR (IMMIGRATION PROCEDURE) (Hansard, 25 June 1979)

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, the removal of Nazim Akhtar, and the refusal of the Home Secretary to listen to representations from the hon. Member for York before her removal". The merits of the case are sufficient in themselves to argue the case for this Adjournment, but there is also an issue to be examined relating to the way in which the Home Office dealt with my representations on this subject which the House should consider.

This matter arises because a Pakistani lady appeared at London airport last week with the intention of coming into England as the fiancée of a man who is already married but who is in the course of obtaining a divorce. That man is a constituent of the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker), the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Because that lady is a female fiancée she does not need an entry certificate and therefore she could have been admitted to the country there and then. Nevertheless, the immigration service at Heathrow took the view that she would not be allowed to come into the country until she had gone back to Pakistan and applied for an entry certificate. The authorities took that decision because the man whom the lady intended to marry had not yet got a divorce and would take another couple of months to get it. However, that man, within the rules, could have married the lady within three months.

The man in question, having arranged the marriage, returned from Pakistan earlier this year, but the lady came to this country on her own because she had become pregnant—indeed, she was already some months pregnant. It was clear that there were good grounds for her to be admitted on purely compassionate considerations. Therefore, the decision to send the lady back to Pakistan meant a considerable toll on that woman who was so far advanced in pregnancy.

Nevertheless, I would not have detained the House with a case which I am 31 afraid is too common in immigration practice to bring before the House on a Standing Order No. 9 application if it had not been for the reception I received from the office of the Minister of State, Home Office, who is now present on the Government Front Bench.

I was told that because the right hon. Member for Worcester had telephoned his ministerial colleague's office and had been reassured by what he had learned, and therefore was not proposing to make representations, I was not entitled to make representations, and indeed that, if I were to do so, those representations would not be considered and the lady would be removed before my representations were heard.

In this House we have a practice in which hon. Members do not intervene in matters affecting fellow hon. Members. One recognises that that practice applies in most cases, but throughout the years in the Home Office there has been a long tradition as a result of which people have been entitled to raise immigration issues, largely because the subject attached to no particular Member of Parliament. Therefore, in the Home Office cases are heard on behalf of Members from various areas of the country and frequently the same case is heard several times over. It has always been the practice in the Home Office that it never removes anybody while representations are pending from a Member of the House.

I wish to ensure that there is no change in that practice. I am chairman of the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service and I often consider cases which have been brought to the attention of other hon. Members. I rarely intervene, because of our agreement as fellow Members of the House, but sometimes, if, as in this case, there is an issue of principle which seems to have been overlooked, I feel that it is right to take up that matter on behalf of the individual member of Parliament. I know from my experience as a former Minister that other hon. Members also adopt that course.

32 I hope that there will not be any repetition of Ministers seeking to remove a person without an hon. Member's representations having been considered. You, Mr. Speaker, carried out my job long before I did, and you will know that in your time that was always the procedure followed by the Home Office. I recognise that this matter may not necessarily be debatable under Standing Order No. 9 procedure, but I hope that I have made my point.