Immigration Service (Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya) (Hansard, 29 November 1984)

§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)
I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the results of his investigation into a complaint made by my constituent, Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya.
The report, published today, is extremely critical of senior officers in the immigration service and the Home Office. After they made a mistake in attempting to remove Mrs. Mundiya's husband from the United Kingdom, an attempt was made to cover up the mistake by claiming that her marriage was one of convenience. That is utterly false.
Two immigration officers, each with many years of service, asked for an explanation from the immigration service and the Home Office. Those officers refused to acquiesce or collude in what they saw as a cover-up of a serious mistake by senior officers of the immigration service and senior officials of the Home Office. Both officers have suffered personal and professional victimisation as a result of the stand that they took: one has been dismissed, and the second resigned from the immigration service.
The case demonstrates vividly that senior officers in the immigration service and the Home Office view immigration as a political battlefield where to admit a mistake, even one that has caused deep personal and family distress, is to hand a political victory to a political enemy.
The debate would be important because it would allow the Home Secretary to tell the public and the House what action he will take to ensure that the personal hurt and distress suffered by Mrs. Mundiya and her family is not suffered by others; to enable him to tell the public and Parliament what action he will take to ensure that his Department will never again try to conceal mistakes by deception; and, finally, to tell the public and the House what action he will take to ensure that public servants who are unwilling to acquiesce or collude in deception of the public and of public representatives are not victimised personally or professionally.
Such a debate would be most important because of the great anxiety about the way in which immigration policies are implemented by the immigration service and the Home Office. A debate based on this extremely critical and important report would be a public service and would be welcomed by many hon. Members.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely, a report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the results of his investigation into a complaint made by Mrs. Mundiya of Bradford.
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter 1118 which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.

§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I completely accept your ruling on the application by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The matter that my hon. Friend raised in seeking a debate under Standing Order No.10 is not, as he will agree, simply one between him and a constituent and the Ombudsman. My hon. Friend deserves the greatest praise for the way in which he pursued this matter with the Ombudsman. This is also a matter for the House of Commons, which has rights in relation to the answerability of Ministers for what happens in their Departments. However much the Ombudsman may have criticised with great severity the actions of civil servants, and whatever apology may have been received from the permanent secretary, what happens in Departments is the responsibility of the Ministers.
The appalling acts that my hon. Friend outlined to the House stem from policies laid down by Ministers— policies which many of us regard as racist. After such a serious report from the Ombudsman, Ministers should tell the House what measures they intend to take to prevent acts such as my hon. Friend described from happening again. We ask for your assistance and advice on how to bring Ministers to the Dispatch Box to make the statement that the House has the right to expect.

§ Mr. Speaker
I do not deny the importance of the matter, but I am bound by the criteria laid down in Standing Order No.10. I have nothing to add to what I said to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). There are other ways in which this matter can be brought before the House.