§ Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith, North)I am grateful for the opportunity to put the case for Mr. B. P. Chandarana to join his family here. It is becoming increasingly, and perhaps sadly, necessary to do that in view of the reputation that the United Kingdom is gaining in relation to immigration and political asylum as a result of recent events. I am glad that I am able to put a specific case before the House. I ask the Minister to keep a totally open mind about the case, which has a long and complex history, until he has heard my remarks.
Before I explain the details of the case, I want to say a little about the philosophy involved. I hope that the Minister will view the case in the context of the letter and the spirit of both the United Nations declaration on human rights and the Helsinki final act, because they were undertaken in great seriousness by successive Governments and both say a great deal about the family.
The United Nations declaration states:
The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.The Helsinki final act states:The participating States will deal in a positive and humanitarian spirit with the applications of persons who wish to be reunited with members of their family … They will deal with applications in this field as expeditiously as possible.I want to put as forcibly as I can the case that it is unacceptable to keep one son away from the rest of his family. That is what has resulted from the decisions so far. This afternoon the Minister, on the Floor of the House, has the opportunity to put that right and to allow the one son who is not allowed to live with his family to join his family in the United Kingdom. do not think that that is asking too much of liberal and humane attitudes towards the problem.Mr. and Mrs. Chandarana arrived here on a quota voucher for settlement in August 1980 with their six children. One son, Bharatkumar, was not allowed to come and is still in Tanzania. He was refused entry clearance by the British high commission on 22 July 1980.
Mr. Chandarana senior applied for a quota voucher in 1972 in Dar-es-Salaam. He named all his dependants. There is no real doubt about the issue. Both Mr. and Mrs. Chandarana's passports, which are endorsed by the entry clearance officer, state:
Entry clearance applied for. Signed: R. Shaw, Dar-es-Salaam 22 June 1972.In the front of both passports is the list of the family names, including that of the son, Bharatkumar.The Home Office and the British high commission have not denied that, but say that there is no evidence of application. That is ambiguous. An examination of the letters between various hon. Members and Ministers reveal a slightly ambiguous attitude by the Government.
A letter dated 23 June 1981 from the then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs states:
They thus considered the voucher application he lodged in 1972 to have lapsed and invited him"—I emphasise that—to submit a fresh one when he wrote to them on 10 October 1979.A second letter from the predecessor of the present Minister of State, Home Office, dated 2 June 1981, states:I cannot comment on Mr. Martin's insistence"——509 Mr. Martin of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—that Mr. Chandarana did pursue his 1972 entry certificate application other than to say that the records of the British High Commission in Dar-es-Salaam do not show that application was either granted or refused. Therefore, as I said in my last letter, the application was apparently not pursued as it never seemed to be brought to a conclusion and was regarded by the entry clearance officer as lapsed.The key to this issue revolves round the fact that no one denies that Mr. Chandarana applied in 1972. While there is some ambiguity about the Government's position on this matter, no one has said, "We do not believe that he applied." If he had applied—we should take his word for this, as there is no evidence to the contrary—we would not be in this position today. These problems would not have developed but for the intervening years. No one can seriously argue that the boy, who was then 16 or 17 years old, would not have been seen as a dependent son of the family and not been admitted.The core of my appeal to the Minister today is that he should at least recognise that there is some ambiguity in this matter—I suggest that there is more than that—and considerable evidence to suggest that Mr. Chandarana's version of events in 1972 is correct. If so, we should give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Chandarana and his family and recognise that we would have admitted the son at that stage. That is extremely important.
No one doubts that Mr. Bharatkumar Chandarana was dependent at that time. Ministers at the Home Office have seen the secondary school document, dated 16 March 1982, from the Tabora school. They have also seen the document from the Gujarati higher secondary school in India dated 27 July 1982. The letter from the Minister's predecessor, dated 30 January 1981, states:
Although Mr. Chandarana had originally applied to come to this country in 1972, this application was aparently not pursued and it was not until 6 November 1979 that he applied for, and subsequently obtained, his special voucher.So it is recognised that the child was dependent at that time.On 27 February 1980 and on 7 March 1980, Mr. and Mrs. Chandarana and four of their children were given entry clearance, but two other children were refused. But on 1 July 1980 those two children were also given entry clearance. It says something about the way we handle these matters, particularly the way we handled them at that time, that we allowed more than two months to elapse before we agreed to let in another two children of the family. There is something dreadful about playing what is to all intents and purposes a cat and mouse game with members of a family to see whether they can come as a family. We are discussing here the children of the parents, not an extended family.
Mr. Chandarana, when asked about Bharatkumar, said initially that he was in Tabora. That was not correct. Later, on 1 Junly 1980, he said the Bharatkumar was in India and due back in Tabora at any time. Mr. Chandarana then flew to India to bring Bharatkumar back. In explaining that, it is important to understand that in Tanzania in 1971 the Government decided that students could no longer take foreign school certificates. As is well known, the eldest son in Asian communities holds an important position, and the education of that son is considered to be important. In that respect Mr. Chandarana saw the opportunity for education in India and sent his son there for that reason.
510 The Minister will recognise that there is considerable evidence of education in India. It is conceded—Mr. and Mrs. Chandarana would be the first to concede it—that the studies were not successful. Mr. Bharatkumar Chandarana was perhaps not the best of students, but, having said that, that is no reason to deny him the right to join his family in this country. It is not sufficient for the Home Office to assume that, because of contradictory answers, he was not a student, but was in some way supporting himself and wholly independent. The Home Office can offer no evidence to suggest that Bharatkumar was independent. However, there is evidence that he was dependent on Mr. Chandarana.
As Bharatkumar was in India, he would have needed a work permit to work there. The Minister will know—indeed, one of his colleagues acknowledged it in a letter—that currency regulations and the uncertainty of the position in Tanzania was likely to lead people into difficulties in financing such education. They were faced either with not letting their children be educated or with moving them outside the country and in some way trying to get around the currency restrictions. That is what happened. It may not be desirable, nor is it good, but the family were trying to improve themselves while trying to stay together. Therefore, their actions were not unreasonable, considering the circumstances. It is unreasonable to say that, because there is doubt whether the boy was dependent while he was in India, he should not be allowed to join his family.
A letter from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 14 May 1981 stated that the entry clearance officer had refused the application because he was not satisfied that Bharatkumar
had remained fully dependent upon his father as claimed.It is on such a statement that the Government shamefully justify a breach of the Helsinki final act. We are actually saying that a child cannot join his family because they cannot prove that the child was dependent on them. In the circumstances that I have described—the problem of education, the position of the eldest son in the family and the currency regulations—it is unreasonable to reach a decision that does not benefit the family and recognise the family's central role in society. That point is especially relevant in view of the Prime Minister's recent comments, and those of the Government, about the importance of the family unit.The Minister has claimed that Mr. Chandarana could have pursued his application after 1972 and before 1979. That is less than fair, given the state of affairs in Tanzania and the British high commission at that time. Mr. Chandarana, who was living in Tabora, 550 miles from Dar-es-Salaam, visited the British high commission from time to time and specifically on 18 August 1975 and in January 1976 when he renewed his own and his wife's passports, respectively.
The general policy of British high commissions in east Africa at that time—I think that it is still the same today—was to issue a standard form which, in effect, said "Do not call us; we will call you." On several occasions, although notes were taken of Mr. Chandarana's comments, he was told, "Your application is in and there is no more for you to do at this stage." Although those are verbal records, there has been no denial from either the British high commission or the Home Office that Mr. Chandarana applied in 1972 or that he made verbal inquiries.
511 To deny a family the right to live together simply on the basis of uncertainties is unacceptable. There is strong evidence, even in the letters from Ministers that I have quoted, that the 1972 application was made. It is wrong to assume that Mr. Chandarana must produce some written proof of his application and the follow-up to it. Surely the emphasis should be the other way round—either the British high commission or the Home Office should produce proof to the contrary. If they are unable to do so, they should allow that one remaining child to rejoin his family.
If the Minister takes the view that the application was made in 1972—as I think he must, in view of the statements in his colleagues' letters acknowledging that—it is surely unreasonable to assume that a boy of 16 or 17 years of age was not to be included in the application to come and live with the family in the United Kingdom, bearing in mind the role of the only son in the Asian family structure.
A further injustice arises in that Mr. Chandarana was interviewed and offered a voucher on 8 November 1979. Bharatkumar was still under the age of 25, his date of birth being 2 January 1955. It is normal practice to admit unmarried and dependent children. Not to do so simply because Bharatkumar was in India must be an excessively harsh and inflexible judgment. If he had been available for work, it is highly likely that he would have been working for his father in Tanzania, because again that is the normal role in the family. The blocking of educational opportunity for Asian children in Tanzania, combined with the problems of currency restrictions, complicated the problem and enabled the Home Office to doubt the original intentions of the family to remain united.
*** The Home Office asked why Bharatkumar did not appeal against the entry commissioner's refusal and go to the British high commission in India. First—and this is important—he was advised not to appeal by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, as there was no provision for admission within the immigration rules for a son over 18. We have that in writing from the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. We can argue whether that was good or bad advice, but, whichever it is, the blame can hardly be put on Mr. Chandarana for refusing to follow the advice of such a reputable and competent body.
Secondly, Bharatkumar could not purchase an airline ticket to the United Kingdom in India because of the currency regulations in Tanzania. That is why he was brought back to Tanzania. One sees the Catch 22 situation. Had he purchased the ticket himself in India, it would be obvious that either he had got round the currency restrictions or that he was independent. On the other hand, as the Government have said, he could have applied, but the evidence is that Mr. Chandarana had to go to India to get him because he was still supporting him. Mr. Chandarana and his family argue strongly—I think, convincingly—that the family were supporting their son in India. The evidence supports that view, and certainly there is no contrary evidence to that. Again, I ask the House to remember that on that assumption we are dividing a family.
Letters between the son and father and the rest of the family have been lost or destroyed. Again, it can be said, "Is that not proof of lack of a link with the family?" I do not think so. In view of the fact, again acknowledged by Ministers, that there were difficulties about currency 512 regulations and people trying to get round them, it is not surprising that letters were destroyed. The circumstances in east Africa in the early 1970s made it unlikely that people would keep letters implying the evasion of currency regulations. It would be suicidal to do that.
The British high commission was at fault, first, in failing to respond appropriately to Mr. Chandarana's verbal inquiries. Notes were made, but no action was taken. Secondly, it was wrong in advising him to submit a fresh application for a voucher instead of suggesting that he should restate his original 1972 application. As the Minister will know, some people in his Department consider that he should have acted in that way. However, the letter is very clear. It says that he was advised to re-apply. It does not say that he was advised to restate his claim. Thirdly, in spending the time from February 1982 to November 1983 writing to an address that it knew since July 1980 was no longer appropriate is a fault on the part of the British high commission, and one that cannot easily be overlooked. There is evidence of delay, and so on.
I ask the Minister to look deeply into his own heart on this issue. I know that he is concerned about these matters. I ask him to recognise that the family is divided. I ask him also to think of the United Kingdom's reputation, particularly in the light of the Helsinki final act, the United Nations declaration on human rights and pronouncements by the Prime Minister and the Government on the importance of the role of the family.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)This case has been given the most anxious and careful consideration by the Home Office. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), looked at it anxiously. He leant over backwards to help the applicant, giving him a chance to establish his entitlement, although strictly his case came without the rules. Therefore, for two years the matter has been looked at regularly by Ministers in the Home Office. I know that the decision must be disappointing to Mr. Chandarana. I am afraid that it is in the nature of our job of maintaining strict but fair immigration control that many are disappointed. I am sorry, but I still do not feel that we are able to find in Mr. Chandarana's favour.
The case has a long history and I apologise for going over some of it again. In 1972, Mr. Chandarana's father applied to the British high commission in Dar-es-Salaam for a special voucher for himself, his wife and their seven children, including Bharatkumar, to come to this country for settlement. Mr. Chandarana says that he received an acknowledgement of the application, but nothing further. He says that he inquired into the position on many occasions over the next few years, but his inquiries elicited no response. Not altogether surprisingly, the high commission case papers for 1972 have been destroyed, but I am advised that there is no record of inquiries by Mr. Chandarana after 1972 in spite of the fact that the outcome of inquiries about voucher applications normally is recorded.
In October 1979, Mr. Chandarana wrote to the high commission and he was advised to make a further application, which he did in November 1979. The whole family was then interviewed except for Bharatkumar, who, his father said, was studying and working in the family shop in Tanzania. The initial result of these applications was that the father, mother and four children 513 were granted clearance to travel to the United Kingdom and two children's applications were refused because they were over the age of 18.
Mr. Chandarana was advised that Bharatkumar's application should not be determined until Bharatkumar had been interviewed and it was only after this had been made clear that Mr. Chandarana admitted that he had been entirely untruthful and said that Bharatkumar was not working in the family shop, but was in India. The entry clearance officer suggested that Bharatkumar be interviewed in India, but this suggestion was apparently not acceptable and it was eight months later, in July 1980, that Bharatkumar attended for interview in Dar-es-Salaam. By this time, Mr. Chandarana senior had persuaded the entry clearance officer that the two children whose applications for entry clearance had been previously refused were dependent on him, and they had been granted entry certificates for settlement here.
At the interview in Dar-es-Salaam, Bharatkumar, who was by then 25, said that he had gone to India in 1973 and had remained there until a few days previously. He said that he had lived in Bombay as a paying guest, that he had been studying and that his father had been supporting him. There was no evidence of this and the entry clearance officer refused the application on 22 July 1980. No appeal against this decision was made. It was then that the case was taken up, first by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) and then by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley).
There are a number of points about this case that seem to me to be rather unfortunate. The first is that Mr. Chandarana senior should have tried to misrepresent his son's position. To say that Bharatkumar was working in the family shop in Tanzania when he had been in India for seven years was an extraordinary statement to make, and I am bound to say that it must reflect badly on the credibility of someone who is claiming a discretionary benefit for his son. The second point is that when the entry clearance officer suggested that Bharatkumar be interviewed in India, the offer was turned down and the family decided to wait another eight months before bringing Bharatkumar back to Tanzania for an interview. That does not seem like the picture of a family desperately anxious to be reunited and to proceed to a new life in the United Kingdom; and quite clearly one is bound to wonder why Mr. Chandarana was so anxious that his son should not be interviewed in India. Was it perhaps that an entry clearance officer in India might discover some information about Bharatkumar which might be fatal to his application? Anyhow, the upshot was that in August 1980 Mr. Chandarana and his family, apart from Bharatkumar, travelled to England.
Perhaps this is a convenient moment to consider the provisions of the immigration rules. In this instance those contained in HC 79 are the relevant ones. The rules provide that generally children aged 18 or over must qualify for admission in their own right but that in certain circumstances an unmarried and fully dependent son under 21 who formed part of the family unit overseas may be admitted if the whole family are being admitted for settlement. Bharatkumar was 25 when a decision was taken in his case and he clearly does not qualify under this rule.
514 There is also a provision in the rules allowing distressed relatives to come here for settlement, but to qualify as a distressed relative the person must be isolated—that is, living alone with no relatives in his own country to turn to—and distressed, that is, suffering a standard of living substantially below that of his own country. This concession, however, should not be extended to people below the age of 65 save in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances. Our information is that Bharatkumar lives with an uncle on whom he is dependent, so he clearly cannot qualify for entry under that head.
That leaves only the possibility of exercising the Home Secretary's discretion. As is fairly commonly known, we give sympathetic consideration to children aged 18 to 25 who are unmarried and fully dependent on a person who is granted a special voucher. Bharatkumar was aged 24 when his father's successful application was lodged and 25 when the decision was refused but the crucial consideration in the case is that of dependency. The hon. Gentleman discussed this point at length with my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury. The hon. Gentleman assured my right hon. Friend that Bharatkumar had been a student dependent on his father ever since 1972. My right hon. Friend—generously, I would say—told the hon. Member that if satisfactory documentary evidence of Bharatkumar's student status for the period from 1972 to 1980 were forthcoming, the matter might be resolved. The hon. Gentleman subsequently produced two documents dated July 1972 relating to secondary schooling in India, one receipt for fees paid to the Nancy college, Bombay, in 1973, another receipt from the same college in 1980 and a certificate of graduation in 1980.
That was hardly conclusive proof of Bharatkumar's student status from 1972 to 1980. In an effort to be helpful, it was decided to make independent inquiries of the college and then to interveiw Bharatkumar. Unfortunately, it took some months to trace Bharatkumar, who had changed his address, but he was seen in Dar-es-Salaam on 30 November 1982. He confirmed that he was in India from 1972 to 1980. He said that he was undergoing secondary education at Indore high school from 1972 to 1976 and then embarked on a computer course at the Nancy degree college until 1980. Our inquiries of Nancy degree college, however, purported to show that he was studying at the college from 1973 to 1980, first on a diploma course in commerce and then on a computer course. We thought it only fair and proper to give Bharatkumar the opportunity to explain these discrepancies and he was interviewed again. He confirmed everything that he had said in November 1982 and firmly denied ever undertaking a commerce course, as Nancy college said that he had.
In those circumstances, I wrote to the hon. Gentleman on 31 January 1983 declining to change our previous decision. I cannot see how I could have done otherwise. The hon. Gentleman provided documentary evidence to back up the case put forward by Bharatkumar who then proceeded to dissociate himself entirely from it.
Almost immediately afterwards, however, we received communications from Bharatkumar in which he changed his story. He now says that he studied at the Nancy degree college from 1973. He explained that his confusion was caused by two and a half years unbearable separation from his family. I am afraid that I cannot concede the case on the basis of such a statement. Bharatkumar was given every opportunity to collect his thoughts. Evidently the 515 past two and a half years separation has had a much greater effect on him than the previous eight years separation, and I am sorry for that. At the end of the day, however, I have to decide whether it is right to admit for settlement a 28-year-old man who has lived with his immediate family for only about one month during the past 11 years. He has not demonstrated his dependence on his father throughout that period, and I am afraid that he must look to his own country for his future.
I know from the hon. Gentleman's letter to me of 7 March that he feels strongly that delays by the high commission in Dar-es-Salaam have prejudiced Bharatkumar's case and I can only say that I would have been prepared to give way had I been able to satisfy myself of his dependence on his father. Mr. Chandarana has asked to have a personal interview with me about his son's case, but the House of Commons has now been apprised of his son's case and I do not think that much would be achieved by such a meeting. I am conscious that I have not yet replied to the hon. Gentleman's letter of 7 March, but I shall do so as soon as possible.
No impartial person could say that the handling of this case evidences a harsh attitude by the Home Office. Indeed, my predecessor leant over backwards to help. The United Nations declaration that the hon. Gentleman referred to does not mean that countries are not entitled to have immigration laws. Britain entered a reservation to make that abundantly plain.