Engagements

HC Deb 22 March 1983 vol 39 cc717-22

Q1. Mr. Winnick

asked the Prime Minister if she will state her official engagements for 22 March.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw)

I have been asked to reply.

My right hon. Friend is attending the European Council meeting in Brussels. This evening she will be attending a banquet in honour of President Kaunda at Buckingham Palace.

Mr. Winnick

Is the Home Secretary aware of the concern at the way in which a Romanian was sent back to his own country last week without having much opportunity to see whether another country would take him in? Is it not the case that that person served many years in a Romanian prison for offences that would not be considered criminal in a democracy? Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that the concern of the Opposition at least would be the same if we were dealing with a Chilean or a South African who was opposed to the apartheid regime?

Mr. Whitelaw

I accept at once what the hon. Gentleman said in his final remarks. I think that it is appropriate, in view of the press comments that have been made over the weekend, to say clearly what the position is. I hope that the House will allow me to do so. This country has a proud record under all Governments of providing refuge for people from many different parts of the world who are in danger of persecution for their beliefs. I shall continue to uphold our traditional policy in that area. However, we cannot grant every application that we receive. It would be quite wrong to grant applications without the most careful examination of each case on its merits in accordance with the established principles that apply to political asylum. In 1982 we granted 2,368 applications for political asylum out of 4,167 Mr. Papasoiu's case was examined with the utmost care, but, having considered all the circumstances, we came to the conclusion that he did not qualify for political asylum.

Mr. Roy Jenkins

Was not Mr. Papasoiu in this country for several months without any direct reference to the Home Secretary? What is the explanation of his apparently disgraceful treatment at the end of that period without the Home Secretary being consulted?

Mr. Whitelaw

This man was the subject of many representations, as was proper, from Members of Parliament. That is why his case was considered for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that when there are representations cases have to be considered over a reasonable period. That was done. We considered very carefully all the circumstances that were put to us. We, in the final event—I say "we" because I want to make it perfectly clear that I am totally associated with this decision—decided that in this case this man was not a genuine political refugee. That was a perfectly reasonable decision. Such decisions were made by the right hon. Gentleman as Home Secretary and by every other Home Secretary. Either they or their Ministers of State have always decided every case on its merits. That is the correct way for it to be done.

Mr. Mark Carlisle

In view of the widely reported allegations that the Romanian in question has spent nine out of the past 10 years in prison in Romania, will my right hon. Friend say when he arrived, when he was first seen, what he said about his previous record on that occasion and when he first suggested that he had spent nine out of the past 10 years in prison?

Mr. Whitelaw

I understand that he came in April 1982, was examined on various occasions after then and gave different accounts of what had happened during his time in Romania. All that he said was taken carefully into account. We have granted many applications, but we decided that he did not fall within genuine refugee status. That was a reasonable decision for us to take.

Mr. Foot

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is widespread disturbance in the House and throughout the country about this case. Will he undertake to make a further statement to the House about it? I do not believe that the matter can be left where it is now.

Perhaps I may raise another issue that concerns his reputation and that of the Government with regard to the protection of our freedoms. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his Police and Criminal Evidence Bill involves so many infringements of civil liberty and elementary freedoms that the only possible course now open to the Government is to withdraw it?

Mr. Whitelaw

With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's first point, if the House decided that, on the basis of a strict and fair policy, every person who came from an eastern European country was automatically to be accepted as a political refugee, that would be a serious matter that would affect all of our immigration policy. No Home Secretary has done that. It would not be right. I have stood by what I believe to have been the practice of all of my predecessors. I have already given the number of applications for political asylum that have been granted. We face difficult circumstances and we have been generous. I ask the House to appreciate that, when it comes to granting political refugee status, extremely difficult decisions have to be made. I and my Ministers, like all Home Office Ministers in the past, have examined the circumstances carefully. We could not let everyone into Britain.

I shall now deal with the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It is right for the right hon. Gentleman to ask me about it. There are two clauses in that Bill that give rise to considerable anxiety. The right hon. Gentleman, who clearly has not read the Bill or anything to do with it, has said that because of two difficult clauses the entire Bill should be withdrawn. He should remember that the Bill, which is being debated properly in Committee, is intended, on the basis of the report of the Royal Commission on criminal procedure, to enable the police to bring criminals to justice more effectively. I should have thought that the whole House would want just that. The question is whether the safeguards of individual liberties are satisfactory.— [Interruption.]

If I am attacked, as the right hon. Gentleman has attacked me, I am entitled to reply. Oh yes, I am. The extra safeguards that we have provided are not understood in the House or in the country. They allow everyone the right to have his case argued before a circuit judge. If they are not sufficient, I am prepared to consider further safeguards at a later stage of the Bill. The onus is on those who dislike the Bill to admit honestly that they want to see criminals brought to justice.

Mr. Foot

When the right hon. Gentleman describes those who are not properly qualified to understand the Bill, does he include Lord Salmon, who described the intrusions into freedom that are involved in the Bill as "shocking and monstrous"? As he says that there are two clauses to which he objects, let those two be withdrawn for a start. The Opposition and the country are determined to protect the right of asylum. The Opposition have never said that everyone should be let in, but the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly have judged the matter correctly if he was in the type of mood then that he has come to the House in today.

Mr. Whitelaw

Perhaps I may ask both the right hon. Gentleman and Lord Salmon to read the Bill carefully. I have never said that I wanted to withdraw those clauses. I have said that the safeguards in those clauses should be examined carefully. I am prepared to do that.

As to my mood and the question of asylum, I have been bitterly attacked for what I believe to be a decision—which was made after careful investigation—which fully accords with everything that we have previously done with refugees. I yield to no one in being fair and generous towards refugees during my time as Home Secretary. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that.

Mr. Foot

We still hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. If he does not, we shall repeal it.

Mr. Whitelaw

That proves to me that, if the right hon. Gentleman ever has a chance to repeal the measure, he had better read it first, because his right hon. and hon. Friends who are discussing it would greatly dislike it if all of its provisions were withdrawn. He must answer the question "Do the Opposition want the police to be enabled to pursue criminals and bring them to the courts and justice?" If they do, they should examine the Bill.

Q3. Mr. Myles

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 22 March.

Mr. Whitelaw

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Myles

Is my right hon. Friend aware that since agreement on a common fisheries policy was reached, employment in the fishing boat building and the fish processing industries in my constituency has been greatly enhanced?

Mr. Whitelaw

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for supporting what my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has done.

Q4. Mr. Straw

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 March.

Mr. Whitelaw

I have been asked to reply.

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Straw

Is the Home Secretary aware that the report of the Court of Auditors of the Common Market institutions reveals long-standing rackets among members of staff whereby messengers and secretarial assistants receive entertainment allowances of £180 a month, other staff have access to holiday camp accounts and the control of the payment to staff in subsidiary offices is so lax that the Common Market simply does not know whether the salaries being paid relate to the people who are employed? Is he further aware that those practices went on undisturbed throughout the time when the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) was in charge of the Common Market? Is he aware that they came to light only when the right hon. Member for Hillhead left the Common Market and became leader of the Social Democratic party?

In view of the serious allegations of financial mismanagement in the Common Market, what attitude do the Government take about the lack of control of Common Market institutions?

Mr. Whitelaw

I understand that the issue was discussed last night. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) would like to get together and argue about it all again. I undertake to look into the points that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Q5. Mr. Neubert

asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 March.

Mr. Whitelaw

I have been asked to reply.

I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Neubert

Has my right hon. Friend had an opportunity today to study the Young Socialists' conference agenda, which calls for Army officers to be elected by their troops, for the abolition of the monarchy and the police force, and for the conferring of political status on the so-called IRA prisoners of war? Is this not evidence of increasing extremism within the Labour party, and will my right hon. Friend take the earliest opportunity to condemn views that are repugnant to the great majority of British people?

Mr. Whitelaw

If the Young Socialists spoke for the majority of the Labour party it would be a serious flatter, but, as I am a very kindly person, I still hope that they do not.