§ Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton)On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to raise a point of order which arises out of a case involving a constituent, which affects the rights of every right hon. and hon. Member.
Earlier this week the Home Secretary ruled that a relative of one of my constituents should be removed from the country under the Immigration Act 1981. New evidence was provided to me by that person's wife and father-in-law. As a result, I today notified the Home Office that further representations were on their way within the time scale laid down by paragraph 9 of the guidelines that have been debated in the House.
This afternoon, my secretary notified the Home Secretary's Private Office that such representations were on their way. A civil servant in the Home Secretary's Private Office, Miss Pelham, said that she could not accept the representations, nor could she agree to stop the removal of the person, which is timed for Sunday, and so today is the last day on which I can take action.
I spoke to this person and told her that it was not for her, a civil servant, to make a decision which the Secretary of State must make both under the Act and within the guidelines which the Government put before the House for approval. However, this lady was adamant that she would not accept my representations and that she did not regard as "compelling"—the word used in the guidelines—the evidence that I presented on behalf of my constituent. I made it clear to her that I did not regard it as the function of the Minister's Private Office to make adjudications upon the merits of material which the Secretary of State should consider. She refused to budge and said that she would not do that which is required under the guidelines in such circumstances—to put a stop on the removal of the person. I had to advise the lady that my only recourse, because of the time, was to advise the person to ignore the 672 notice for removal, since the procedures laid down by the House had not been observed. I also said that I intended to bring the matter before the House.
The case to which I refer involves a constituent, but the guidelines operate for every hon. Member. If constituents are to be penalised when hon. Members are alleged not to have observed the guidelines, and at the same time civil servants, without consultation with Ministers and without accepting representations from Members, ride roughshod over the guidelines, what on earth are the rights of Members of Parliament?
Mr. SpeakerThat is not a matter for me, but I have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to make his point.
§ Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West)Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that I have drawn similar matters to your attention in the past and you have said that they are not matters for you. Our rights to prevent the removal of our constituents are some of the most important rights held by hon. Members. Knowing your constituency, Mr. Speaker, I imagine that you have exercised your rights in this respect. Under the new guidelines, further representations are accepted only if the evidence is new and compelling, and made within four days. If they are not, the person is removed.
On the basis of the case put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), and of many others, and because the number of people refused entry into the country has increased by more than one third in the last year, I appeal to you to reflect on the matter. We are talking about one of the most important rights of Members of Parliament. The Home Office clearly wishes to remove those rights entirely. I ask you to reconsider the matter, to ensure that our rights are fully protected.
Mr. SpeakerI thank the hon. Gentleman, but I do not have an option to reconsider, because this is not a matter for the Chair. I have allowed these important points to be made, but we must move on.