Rashida Abedi (Hansard, 8 December 1983)

§ Mr. Humfrey Malins (Croydon, North-West)
The quality of compassion is a rare but very precious quality. Governments who exercise it endear themselves to the people, strengthen the ties between Government and the electorate, and reinforce the principle of Government by consent.
In this Adjournment debate, I ask the Government to exercise compassion in what I believe to be a truly exceptional immigration case. It is the case of Rashida Abedi, a 30-year-old deaf girl from Pakistan, who now lives in Croydon. Although her name may not be known in this House, I assure hon. Members that her case has fired the imagination of thousands of people in the Croydon area, who have taken it to their hearts, and who will follow this debate with great concern and interest.
I must tell the House the background. Rashida Abedi is currently living with her 47-year-old brother in Croydon but was brought up in a remote area of Pakistan. When she was 16 she contracted meningitis and was placed in hospital. She made a miraculous recovery but shortly afterwards lost the hearing ability in her left ear. Before becoming ill she had hoped to take her matriculation examinations. She tried to resume her studies, but unfortunately she could not do so. In 1973 she had another relapse in Pakistan. She was put into hospital again, and again recovered, but this time she lost her hearing in her right ear, rendering her totally deaf. Total deafness is a tragedy.
Prior to 1981, Rashida lived with her elderly widowed mother—her father had died when she was quite young—and her younger brother and sister who were aged about 18 and 17 respectively in 1981. They lived in a remote part of Pakistan. Ever since her father's death, her family had been, in effect, dependent on her elder brother Mr. Ali, who came to this country in 1968.
The family position in Pakistan was far from ideal. It gave the girl little or no hope for the future. Her elderly mother suffered badly from chronic heart disease and severe arthritis, and her health is not improving. Her younger brother and sister could not be expected to provide for her. The younger sister would almost certainly marry and have to lead her own life, and the brother had to finish his education. Marriage has not been an option open to Rashida herself.
Rashida and her family in Pakistan, pretty helpless, were supported for many years by Mr. Ali in this country. He has been here since 1968. He is a full-time British Telecom worker and is earning a substantial salary. He devoted himself to the care of Rashida while she was in Pakistan. He has remained a bachelor for the simple reason that Rashida, with her disabilities, needs his continuous help and support, both emotional and practical. She needs someone to care for her. He has made many sacrifices, and sent financial support to her in Pakistan over many years.
In the Asian family system, the elder brother has a responsibility to look after his less able brothers and sisters. Mr. Ali has courageously and without complaint undertaken that responsibility for many years.
That is the background. With the continued worsening of the family situation in Pakistan, and with nothing other 574 than a bleak future there both personally and medically—treatment there is quite inadequate—Rashida came to this country on 16 October 1981 to her brother's house in Croydon. She was admitted initially for six months. That period was subsequently extended until October 1982.
It may be said that, when she first arrived, her brother said that she would be here only for a short-term visit. That may be so, but we must accept that after she had been here for a while it became clear to Mr. Ali that his hopes of curing her deafness here would be disappointed. He also realised that to continue to support her in Pakistan—sending her money and visiting her often enough to give her the non-material support that she needed — was beyond his means. He realised that he could well continue to care for Rashida if she remained here with him. He saw that during her time in England she had made enormous strides in confidence, learning to live with her disability and her problems. Her way of life in this country enabled her to compensate for her deafness and be independent to a degree not possible in Pakistan. None of those things could have been known to him when he brought her here.
Rashida came for a visit, and her time was extended until October 1982. At about that time the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants argued that, on compasionate grounds, Rashida ought to be permitted to stay in the United Kingdom. That request was communicated to the Home Office and treated as an application to remain within the immigration rules. The application was for indefinite leave for Rashida to remain here as the dependant of her brother.
The Secretary of State noted that Rashida had a mother, brother and sister in Pakistan with whom she had been living, and he was not satisfied that she had no other close relations in her own country to turn to. Nor did he think that evidence had been produced to satisfy him that she was living alone in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances, including having a standard of living substantially below that of her own country. In November 1982 the Secretary of State refused her application.
Notice of appeal was given and the matter came before an adjudicator whose decision was published in June 1983. The adjudicator did not consider that Rashida circumstances, although unusual, were of an exceptionally compassionate nature. He believed that she had relatives to whom to turn in Pakistan and dismissed her appeal. I have tried to show that the position in Pakistan was such that she had no relatives to whom she could turn.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has powers to give consideration to Rashida's case outside the rules. He can justify the exercise of his discretion outside the rules in the most exceptional of circumstances. It is this discretion that I very much hope will be exercised tonight.
I said that Rashida's case had fired the imagination of countless people in Croydon. This is true. Thousands signed petitions. Literally dozens of worthy organisations have expressed concern about her case, including Croydon Council for Community Relations, Croydon Moslem Women's Association, many Croydon churches, the Moslem Assocation of Croydon, the Pakistan Welfare Association—the list is impressive and almost endless. One influential group said: Rashida has made successful attempts to learn English and is well on the way to becoming an independent member of society. She is of course handicapped by her deafness, but she seems to be overcoming this too. Has the Home Office given 575 sufficient weight to the Pakistan custom that after the father's death it is the elder brother's duty and privilege to take responsibility for unmarried women? In Pakistan there are no facilities for the deaf and no one capable of looking after Rashida". Since being in Croydon, Rashida has been a student in the English language scheme. Those responsible write of her that she is a woman of quite unusual courage. Despite her deafness, she has participated in every event that has taken place in association with the English classes that she attends. Although she has to lip read, she has managed in a short time to make consistent progress from the beginners to the upper intermediate level. She is quite determined to learn as much English as she can. She is not the sort of person to want to be dependent on others; she enjoys company and has a lot to contribute. They say that they are sure that if she is allowed to stay in Britain she will continue to progress and will go on to be an asset to the community as a whole, giving her energy towards helping others.
There are so many arguments in favour of letting her stay. In Pakistan there are no proper facilities to help her, and no relatives able to provide proper support. Here the contrary is the case. She has a brother who has devoted himself in accordance with Pakistan custom, and with support of the mother, to his younger sister's welfare. He wants to continue to do so. Rashida has never received financial support from the state and she has made extraordinarily rapid progress in learning, despite her handicap. She is truly dependent on her brother Mr. Ali and will continue to be. The nature of dependency is rather like that of father and child. His sense of responsibility and self-sacrifice are greatly to be admired.
Countless groups from welfare organisations and churches, and individuals have concerned themselves with the humanitarian aspects of Rashida's case. Quite simply, if she is allowed to stay she will continue to progress and to be an asset to the community as a whole. Send her back, and her future in Pakistan is bleak and full of misery. Here she has hope.
I very much hope that the Government will be magnanimous and will show compassion in what thousands believe to be an exceptional case, and I speak for those thousands when I say, "May Rashida Abedi stay?"

§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Matins) for raising this case, which has aroused considerable concern locally, because it gives me the opportunity to explain why the Home Office made the decision that it did, and why it is not right to say that the Home Office lacks compassion.
My hon. Friend has argued the case as strongly as anyone could, and no one present for this debate could fail to have considerable sympathy for Miss Abedi. However, I must tell him that, having considered the case with the utmost care, we do not believe that Miss Abedi should be granted settlement.
Mr Syed Jafer Ali is obviously concerned for his sister's welfare, and it is not surprising that he should want her to enjoy the facilities that are available in Britain to assist those who are unfortunate enough to suffer from deafness, but we cannot admit people because we look after disabled people better than some other countries do.
576 The case has a long history of which the House should be informed. Mr. Ali contacted the Home Office in 1977 asking for advice on how he might bring his sister to Britain, either as a visitor or for permanent settlement. Contrary to what is stated in a leaflet published by an organisation calling itself the Friends of Rashida Abedi, there was no suggestion of her coming here to receive treatment for deafness. It was made clear at that time that she was deaf, and irreversibly so. Be that as it may, the Home Office replied to Mr. Ali——

§ Mr. Allan Rogers (Rhondda)
Does the Minister accept that part of the treatment for deafness is not just restoring hearing but accommodating the deaf person in society? The basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Malins) was not that Rashida came here to receive treatment, but that she came here to be accommodated in society.

§ Mr. Waddington
I do not doubt for a moment that that was the argument advanced by my hon. Friend, but at present I am rehearsing the history of the case. There is no doubt that the literature issued by that organisation suggested that Miss Abedi came here for medical treatment, although that was not the case. She came here after her brother had made it clear that she was irreversibly deaf.
The Home Office replied to Mr. Ali giving Miss Abedi the sensible advice that she should seek an entry certificate before travelling to Britain. That advice was not followed, and in October 1981 Miss Abedi arrived at Heathrow with her brother and sought entry as a visitor. Mr. Ali told the immigration officer that his sister had had a hard life and that he wished to give her a break from looking after her mother. After assurances were given that she was coming only for a visit and that no extension of her stay would be sought, she was allowed into the country.
I am afraid that the case turned out to be one of those where assurances are given but not honoured. However, the Home Office—which is often painted as being hardhearted—was still prepared to be generous, and when an extension was sought, and it was pleaded that Miss Abedi would definitely return to Pakistan in October 1982 because some relatives were travelling then and she could accompany them, an extension was granted. Again, the assurance was broken, and in September 1982 we received an application on Miss Abedi's behalf from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, asking that she be allowed to stay in Britain indefinitely.
Parliament in its wisdom made provision in the Immigration Act 1971 that we should be guided by rules in our operation of immigration control. Parliament has as recently as February of this year approved rules designed to limit strictly the number of people accepted for settlement here. It is not for us in the Home Office to ignore those rules or interpret them to our own convenience. The rules, while relatively generous to mothers and fathers of people settled here, reflect the wish of Parliament that we simply cannot be equally generous to brothers and sisters and more remote relatives.
What the rules say is that to be accepted for settlement a dependent sister or brother must be living alone in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances, including having a standard of living substantially below that of his or her own country and that he or she must be mainly dependent on a relative settled in the United Kingdom.
577 We have never argued that Miss Abedi is not dependent financially upon her brother, but it is clear that she was not living alone in Pakistan. She was sharing a house with her mother, whom indeed, it was said, she was looking after. That house was also occupied by a younger brother and sister. She was not having to endure a particularly low standard of living. She did not, therefore, qualify under the rule; a rule which I should stress was in existence long before the present Government took office. As a result, her application was refused.
When Miss Abedi appealed to the adjudicator, as was her right, he upheld the decision, saying among other things, that her circumstances, although unusual, were not of an exceptionally compassionate nature, that he was unable to accept that there were no facilities for the deaf in Pakistan and that he also did not accept that the condition of Miss Abedi's mother was so bad that she could give no assistance to her daughter. He did not add what he might have done—that Miss Abedi's mother would no doubt be very glad to have her daughter back. The argument of compassion does not flow just in one direction.
578 I can assure those who have been campaigning for Miss Abedi that the immigration rules are applied regardless of race. I can also assure them that we recognise that there will always be cases when it is right to act outside the rules because of exceptional circumstances, but this rule about relatives goes a long way to spell out what are exceptional circumstances. As I have explained, such circumstances do not arise in this case.
Finally, I should emphasise that Miss Abedi is not applying to stay here for treatment for her handicap, and we do not admit people for settlement simply because the facilities available here to ameliorate the lot of those suffering from a particular handicap are better than elsewhere. How could we?
For the moment, therefore, I can see no case for allowing Miss Abedi to remain here. If after her return to Pakistan there occurred a material change in her circumstances it would, of course, always be open to her to make an application for entry clearance for settlement under the provisons that I have already mentioned. Any such application would be looked at carefully and with sympathy in the circumstances then prevailing.