HC Deb 31 March 1983 vol 40 cc516-23

2 pm

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a disturbing case of a young Romanian mechanic, Mr. Stancu Papasoiu, who entered Britain illegally on or about 15/16 April last year and was deported on 16 March-11 months later. I do so for two reasons. The first is that Mr. Papasoiu's case seems to have been handled from the start—long before my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State had anything to do with it—in a singularly inept and unfeeling way for which no adequate explanation has so far been given My second reason is that what has happened may have serious implications for other applicants for asylum which must be grasped now if Britain's hitherto high reputation for fair play is not to suffer.

The issue was raised earlier this week in another place in a moving speech by my noble Friend Lord Bethell'. The Minister who replied left a number of important questions unanswered and therefore strengthened the view that many of us hold that not only had the case been mishandled but there is something gravely wrong with Home Office procedures.

I shall set out first the facts about which there appears to be no dispute. Mr. Papasoiu arrived in Britain on 15/16 April. He had no relatives or friends here who could provide shelter. He could not speak a word of English. He had hitch-hiked to London because he thought, quite naturally, that this was the place where he would be able to apply for asylum. On arrival, Mr. Papasoiu went to Limehouse police station to explain his case. Three times he was asked to leave because no one understood him and, on the fourth, an Italian interpreter was called in. Although there are links between the Italian and Romanian languages, Mr. Papasoiu does not speak Italian. The following day he was interviewed in the presence of an immigration officer and the same Italian-speaking interpreter. It was on the strength of their conclusions that the police arrested him as an illegal immigrant.

My noble Friend Lord Elton did not mention that in the debate in the other place. Perhaps no one had told him, or he did not think it important. Instead he claimed that the first substantive interview with a Romanian interpreter took place at the police station on 21 April. Mr. Papasoiu was then sent to the Ashford remand centre where he was held for eight months. For the first four months, he was effectively cut off from the outside world. No contact was made by the Home Office with the British Romanian Association, which, I suppose, is the principal Romanian agency here, and it was not until August that the London office of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees was asked to make inquiries about the possibility of Mr. Papasoiu being accepted by France which was one of the countries through which he said that he had passed on his journey from Romania to Britain.

At least three more months were to pass before the Home Office was told that the French authorities had no record of Mr. Papasoiu entering of leaving their country—hardly surprising because he travelled in lorries, making his way through that country illegally in order to arrive here.

The British Romanian Society learnt of the unhappy Mr. Papasoiu only by accident. A Mr. Horia Georgescu was telephoned by a Home Office official on 25 August about the case of another Romanian who had entered the country illegally. I have a record of that conversation. The official asked why the association was doing nothing about Mr. Papasoiu. Mr. Georgescu replied that that was the first that the association had heard of him. The association then tried to persuade the Home Office to let Mr. Papasoiu stay for a limited period of six months—a concession given to refugees from Poland to enable them to apply for immigration to a third country. It was told that there were no grounds for letting him stay.

The association then approached me on 18 November and asked me to intervene. I wrote to my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State, Home Office asking him to heed the association's plea and to delay deportation proceedings. What was needed was a breathing space. I was not seeking to weaken our procedures for dealing with illegal immigrants. At that time I was completely unaware how unsatisfactory those procedures were.

On the day that letter was received Mr. Papasoiu went on hunger strike. That lasted four and a half days. On 26 November he was visited by two members of the association, who substantially believed his story of attempted flight from Romania followed by imprisonment until he finally made his successful escape and came here. Up to that point it had been the Home Office's contention that Mr. Papasoiu had not told a consistent story about his attempted escapes from Romania or about his motivation for coming here. Throughout, the Home Office's view has been that his story was confused and inconsistent.

On 10 February my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Waddington) wrote to me as follows: Eastern European countries, among others, have laws which make it an offence for their nationals to leave their own country without authority and to remain abroad beyond the validity of exit permits issued to them before departure which specify the length of time they may remain abroad. Such laws are in my view deplorable but they do not in themselves constitute persecution. Anyone who knows anything about conditions in eastern Europe will know well that Romania, like other Eastern bloc countries, is in constant contravention of the Helsinki accord on arrangements to allow people freely to leave their country. However, that was my hon. and learned Friend's view and the reason that he gave for not allowing Mr. Papasoiu to stay in Britain.

On 15 March I learnt that Mr. Papasoiu was to be deported on the following day. I telephoned the duty officer that evening. I was also shocked to learn that the deportation was being accelerated. I asked for a message to be passed to my hon. and learned Friend for consideration to be given to the matter being delayed for two or three days in order that the British Romanian Association should at any rate have the opportunity to find a place where this man might go. I telephoned again the following morning. I was completely ignored and Mr. Papasoiu was deported.

What was remarkable about my noble Friend Lord Elton's statement in another place was what it left out. It is here that inquiries must be pursued and lessons learnt for the sake of our reputation for dealing fairly with refugees, especially those who have fled from lion Curtain countries where so many people live in fear.

It is imperative that in cases where an applicant for asylum cannot speak English the arrangements should be such that he can be understood and can understand. The noble Lord said that the first substantive interview with the Romanian interpreter took place on 21 April. The second interview did not take place until 6 September—four and a half months later.

The British Romanian Association has written to me as follows: We are assured that the interviewer present at the substantive interviews was both born and educated in Romania. What Lord Elton fails to say is whether that person is also of Romanian origin. There are large Hungarian and German minority populations in Romania, and some of their members speak Romanian in a less than satisfactory way. Stancu Papasoiu formed the impression that the Romanian-speaking interpreter came from Transylvania where there are the largest Hungarian and German minorities who are not on the best of terms with the Romanian population and who in turn are not treated fairly or equally by the Romanian population". The association's letter then commented on the noble Lord's statement that Mr. Papasoiu claimed that he had been given his first sentence in Romania in either 1969 or 1970. It stated: No reason was given for the sentencing and it seems to have gone unnoticed that in 1969 or 1970 Papasoiu was a mere 15 or 16 year old boy. With such a serious offence behind him as a minor, Papasoiu could only have reached adulthood in legal terms at the age of 18 with a clearly established record of dissidence. If we are to consider President Ceausescu's public statements labelling people trying to leave Romania either legally or illegally as traitors, we must accept that Papasoiu's offence was one with serious anti-state connotations and therefore political". I have said that Mr. Papasoiu was held in custody for several months before the British Romanian Association was told of his existence. Not only was that inhumane, but it was stupid because it was bound to increase the man's feelings of isolation and fear and would lead to disorientation and confusion. That is precisely what happened. Here was a young, not well-educated man who fled from his country which has the reputation—as anyone who knows eastern Europe will confirm—of brutal repression. He came to a land which his father had told him was free, but he was arrested immediately on reporting to the police and spent many months in detention.

The second interview with the Romanian interpreter did not take place until months after the first. Ministers say that they carefully studied the records. My noble Friend Lord Elton said that Mr. Papasoiu never revealed any political motivation for his flight but instead said that he disliked working hard and that there was a shortage of food in Romania. That statement is incorrect. Ny noble Friend Lord Bethell has seen the record which makes it quite plain that Papasoiu said that life was unacceptable to him under Communism. That suggests, I should have thought, a political motivation. Whatever the truth, when a man's freedom, possibly his life, is at stake, why are such interviews not taped? Why are they not recorded in a way that cannot be open to misrepresentation?

Secondly, should there not have been some consultation by officials at an early stage with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, whose eastern European department at the very least understands the political situation in Romania? I doubt whether any such approach was made. We are told that the Home Office made inquiries of the Romanian Communist embassy, but as President Ceausescu regards people who leave his country as traitors it is easy to see that the Home Office would get very little help from that quarter.

Is it usual to consult the embassies of totalitarian countries on matters of this kind? Has anyone ever told Home Office officials that life for dissidents in Communist countries is positive hell? What of the confidentiality that is supposed to obtain whenever a refugee asks for political asylum?

The effect of all this was to send a shiver of fear through the east European communities in this country. Poles who have recently jumped ship and gone into hiding have had to be assured that they will be treated fairly. This follows the effort of a humane Home Secretary to ensure fair treatment for Polish refugees and visitors.

Finally, even if there were doubts about Mr. Papasoui's stay, there is no excuse for failing to deal with his case objectively and humanely. The law is not mandatory. Why, therefore, having regard to the nature of the regime in Romania, did not my hon. and learned Friend the Minister exercise his undoubted power of discretion and allow Mr. Papasoui exceptional leave to remain, perhaps only for six months, which would have provided an opportunity to steer him to a third country? Why was this power not used when members of both Houses, Amnesty International—which has an honourable reputation in such matters—and the British Romanian Association, whose representatives had at least spoken to the man sympathetically in his own language, had asked the Minister to do so? There must be an answer to these questions.

2.15 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)

With the leave of the House, I want to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) on his speech today. He has a fine record for helping the oppressed in the world, and, although we cannot agree about this case, I greatly admire the tenacity that he shows when he believes that a wrong has been done.

My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to firm immigration control; firm control applied fairly and even-handedly to the many people who want to come here from all over the world. They are also a Government who are determined to continue this country's long and honourable tradition in the granting of refugee status or asylum. In view of the point raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) during business questions, I should say that the two terms have long been treated as synonymous so far as the rights thereto are concerned, although the consequences are somewhat different when it comes to documentation.

It is a sad commentary on the world in which we live that the number of applications for refugee status or asylum is increasing steadily. The number that we received last year, for example, was far and away the highest that we have ever received. The Government's treatment of those applications has been in accordance with our long traditions, and last year the number of grants of refugee status and asylum was also higher—far higher—than in any previous year. The applicants come from many different parts of the world. Some of the greatest number come from the middle east, from southeast Asia and from Africa. But many other nationalities are involved, including, of course, eastern Europeans.

We must surely apply our refugee and asylum policy in the same even-handed manner as we apply our general immigration policy. We cannot give one part of the world preferential treatment which is not, and which cannot with our immigration policy, be afforded to other areas. In addition, we have to be careful lest in our wish to help individuals from, say, eastern Europe, we so strain the asylum system as to bring it into disrepute and use it in a way that is grossly unfair to those seeking legal settlement here, but who are turned away because of our firm immigration control.

We must also face the fact that the asylum system offers a way round a country's system of immigration control—have no doubt about that—and experience in other countries is illuminating. The Canadian authorities, for example, recently estimated that 50 per cent. of all asylum applications are manifestly ill-founded, lacking any element of political or religious persecution and based entirely on economic motives. In the Federal Republic of Germany, administrative steps were needed, including the withholding of state financial benefits for the first two years of an application or appeal, in order to stem the staggering flow of applications in 1979–80—no fewer than 150,000. This is a world-wide problem and from our point of view, if we fail to distinguish between the genuine refugee and other applicants, and do so for people from one part of the world alone, we shall end up by putting at a disadvantage those who may be equally deserving and who come from oppressive regimes elsewhere.

I shall not go over the whole history of the case of Mr. Papasoui again. It was spelt out by my noble Friend Lord Elton, but naturally I am saddened that a particular version of events was picked up and repeated, in spite of numerous attempts by myself and others to put the record straight. And of course the version proclaimed in such strident tones by the press—the stories of frog-marching, the failure to point out that it was months after he had arrived here that Mr. Papasoui first produced the story of nine years imprisonment, the completely unsubstantiated allegations of violence at Ashford remand centre—has caused great concern among the general public. I am not surprised. It is bound, inevitably, to have coloured the attitude of many people.

The basic facts are these. While in custody, Mr. Papasoiu was interviewed twice in the presence of a Romanian-born interpreter. I assure my hon. Friend that the interpreter is of Romanian origin and has been used by the Home Office on many occasions. I do not know whether he comes from Transylvania, but he at no time formed the impression that Mr. Papasoiu had any difficulty whatever in understanding him.

My hon. Friend referred to the fact that my noble Friend talked about the "first substantive interview". There is no mystery in that. On the night that Mr. Papasoiu went to Limehouse police station no Romanian interpreter was available, so he was seen by an Italian. We thought that it would be fair to get a Romanian interpreter as soon as possible, and the term "first substantive interview" has been used to describe the interview in the presence of the Romanian interpreter two days later.

The House knows that Mr. Papasoiu had two interviews in the presence of the Romanian interpreter. He gave strikingly different accounts of his previous attempts to leave Romania and of the periods that he spent in prison. I noted what my hon. Friend said about interviews being taped. I can see formidable objections. In any event, I have no doubt of the accuracy of the note taken at the time by the immigration officer and laboriously recorded by him on the file, which I have seen. On the first occasion, Mr. Papasoiu said that he had been to prison only once, for two months. Some months later he came out with the story of nine years' imprisonment. He was given every opportunity to explain the discrepancies but was unable to do so. I do not think that that can be explained by the circumstances or the length of his detention.

Hon. Members will appreciate that the credibility of the applicant is an important element in decisions of this kind, and is bound to be. More important, Mr. Papasoiu did not say that he was a dissident or that he had taken part in political activities. The main reason that he gave for wanting to leave Romania was that he disliked long working hours and the frequent shortages of food. That is understandable, but it does not make him a refugee—nor, I might say, has the United Nations High Commission for Refugees or the United Kingdom Immigration Advisory Service, both of which were aware of Mr. Papasoiu's case, claimed that he is a refugee.

I remind the House that it was first argued in the press that because Mr. Papasoiu would suffer a penalty on his return for having left Romania without the consent of the authorities, that in itself made him a refugee. That is nonsense. To the best of my knowledge, there is not a country in eastern Europe that does not make liable to penalty those who leave without such permission. As my noble Friend said in another place, acceptance of that argument means accepting the absurd proposition that the entire population of every country behind the Iron Curtain has a potential right of asylum here. That is why the United Nations High Commission for Refugees "Handbook on Procedures for Refugee Recognition" lays down that consideration of punishment for illegal immigration is relevant only if a person qualifies on other grounds as a refugee.

Sir Bernard Braine

rose—

Mr. Waddington

I do not think that I should give way to my hon. Friend, as I have a good deal of ground to cover. I shall try to have a word with him after the debate.

The real question is not whether Mr. Papasoiu was a refugee, but whether he should have been allowed to stay, even though he did not come within the terms of the convention, and had come here not to escape persecution for his political or religious beliefs but in the hope—who can blame him?—of a better life in the West. Those who would say yes must face the immigration consequences of what they are saying.

Those who have been so strident in support of Mr. Papasoiu must ask themselves how many more people would be acceptable, given the problems that we have in this country—the problem of finding jobs, the burden on the welfare state of those who cannot find work, the housing problem and the rest. It is no use saying, "It would have been only one more." Every case affected by immigration control is just one more. Common sense tells one that if one accedes to the argument, "He is only one more" in every case, there is no immigration control.

I recognise that a special responsibility is placed on those who examine applications by people such as Mr. Papasoiu. We must be scrupulously fair and, I believe, be prepared to exercise compassion. However, unless one's judgment in individual cases is to be entirely arbitrary, one must have criteria to go by and apply those criteria to the individual case. Parliament in fact has insisted that there should be such criteria in immigration control. That is what the immigration rules are all about. Of course there is room for exceptions, but one must be careful not to make such sweeping exceptions that one is making a complete mockery of the rules that Parliament laid down. The rules provide for admission for those entitled to refugee status. Mr. Papasoiu's claim to that status was considered earnestly, but it was not substantiated.

I should have been less than human had I not been troubled greatly by the storm of protest in this case. Clearly, when one faces such a storm one thinks deeply about the correctness of the decision. I have turned the matter over and over in my mind and I still believe that the correct decision was made. There are lessons to be learnt and that is why I am glad that my hon. Friend has come here and raised this matter on the Adjournment. I have noted in particular what my hon. Friend said about the gap between Mr. Papasoiu first being questioned and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees coming on the scene. There was a reason for this. My hon. Friend knows that there was an assumption that Mr. Papasoiu's case was linked with that of another Romanian and that the British Romanian Association had been taking a close interest in this other case and would eventually approach the Home Office. It was, as my hon. Friend said, a Home Office official—

Sir Bernard Braine

Why was the British Romanian Association not told until months following the man's arrest? It would have taken an interest in the case from the beginning. Why was he isolated?

Mr. Waddington

I shall investigate this matter. One has to be a little careful. There are many emigré bodies. One must be careful about the proper procedure to be followed. However, my hon. Friend need have no fear. I shall look into the matter most earnestly and perhaps he will allow me to have a word with him when we have reached a conclusion.

I believe that there is a strong case for formulating arrangements for the notification of asylum cases to an agency at an early stage when a negative decision is contemplated. The refugee unit at the Home Office will in future give formal notification to the UKIAS refugee councillors of all cases when no other agency or hon. Member has previously intervened and a negative decision has been proposed. I shall look into the suggestion of notifying bodies such as the British Romanian Association.

Plainly, my hon. Friend and I will not be able to agree on precisely what was said when he contacted the Home Office on, I believe, the day before Mr. Papasoiu was removed or what was said when my hon. Friend telephoned the Home Office again on the Wednesday morning. There seems to have been some misunderstanding on one side or the other.

I should never deny an hon. Member the opportunity of speaking to me, least of all my hon. Friend. I assure him that he must not hesitate to contact me if he is interested in any other cases. However, I must make it clear that it is plain from what my hon. Friend said that he could not have told me anything that I did not know about the background of the case when he did ring that would have affected my decision.

My hon. Friend also asked about the opportunities afforded to those interested in Mr. Papasoiu's case to find a third country for him to go to. It must be remembered that Mr. Papasoiu was at liberty from the beginning of December until March. By then, he was in contact with the British Romanian Association and the representative of the UNHCR. The UNHCR tried and failed to secure his entry to France, but getting a third country was known to be an almost impossible task because Mr. Papasoiu had no ties with any third country. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this important matter.