HC Deb 24 April 1986 vol 96 cc406-7
2. Mr. Proctor

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the last investigation took place where visitors to the United Kingdom were recorded as not having re-embarked; how many such visitors were investigated and what kind of evidence was accepted as proof that a particular visitor was no longer in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.

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

Very recently, since the investigation of apparent overstaying by persons subject to immigration control, including visitors, is a continuous but selective process. Acceptable evidence of departure, in the absence of a computer record, would vary from case to case.

Mr. Proctor

In view of the concern that visitors coming into this country are not checked out, despite the modern computer aids available, will my hon. and learned Friend reinvestigate the matter, because the crime of overstaying is important and serious and needs attention?

Mr. Waddington

I must correct my hon. Friend. It is not true to say that those who are admitted as visitors are not checked out. Three hundred thousand passengers who were landed last year were landed on check-out conditions. Our records confirm embarkation in 95 per cent. of cases. It is a great mistake to imagine that all the others have not left. Experience shows that all too often when the case of someone who is not recorded on computer is followed up it is discovered that he has left.

Mr. Madden

Will the Minister confirm that overstaying among visitors is not a problem? Indeed, his figures show that only 187 of the 18,000 people refused permission to enter last year absconded. Will he also confirm that the Home Office has taken over part of the Post House hotel at Heathrow to accommodate those who are awaiting interview, often for days, and that that problem would be greatly improved if more than eight interpreters were employed at Heathrow to interview visitors?

Mr. Waddington

I cannot answer the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. However, I shall write to him and give him what information I can. On the first part of the question, one must neither exaggerate the extent of the problem nor minimise it. I must point out that no fewer than 1,280 overstayers were investigated and indentified last year.

Mr. Watts

Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that without a complete check on re-embarkation it is impossible to know the size of the problem of overstaying? In view of his recent written answer to me, which showed that only 5 per cent. of visitors are so recorded, does he not think that it is time we took firmer measures to ensure the re-embarkation of those who enter as visitors?

Mr. Waddington

The number of people involved is the main problem. Six million people were admitted as visitors in 1984, and millions of people go through immigration control as they leave the country, and no matter how diligent the immigration officer is, he cannot always spot that someone who passes him was admitted to the country on check-out conditions. We have to be selective and follow up the cases where we have reason to believe that there has been a breach of the law and overstaying.

Mr. Meadowcroft

How many of those who were refused leave to enter but given temporary admission actually absconded?

Mr. Waddington

I do not have figures before me now, but they have been provided before when questions on that specific point were raised. I am prepared to write to the hon. Gentleman to give him the information that he requires.

Mr. Budgen

Will it ever be possible to deal with the problem of overstaying without introducing a system based upon identity cards?

Mr. Waddington

Many people in this country would be very reluctant to see the introduction of identity cards. The decision to abolish the use of identity cards was received with loud acclaim and we would have to be very careful before reintroducing them.