§ 9. Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further steps he proposes to take to prevent visitors to the United Kingdom overstaying their period of leave; and if he will make a statement.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)We have no proposals for major changes in our present arrangements which place the weight of identifying likely overstayers on the judgment of immigration officers at the ports of entry. My right hon. Friend announced to the House on 26 March that he has authorised increased resources for this year. I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to pursue with vigour our selective investigations into apparent overstaying after entry.
§ Mr. ProctorWill my hon. and learned Friend confirm that in a recent letter to me he indicated that 5 per cent. of the visitors from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan who were checked into the country were not subsequently checked out? If that percentage were spread over the millions of visitors from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan last year, it would lead to the number of overstayers being about 50,000. What further action will my hon. and learned Friend take in yew of that figure?
§ Mr. WaddingtonI do not think that my hon. Friend is explaining correctly the purport of my letter. What I was saying in the letter was that we put on to the computer people who enter and who are in certain categories. Certain categories of people who enter are supposed to be checked out. As no fewer than 40 million people go through our embarkation controls every year, it is not surprising that often people who have left the country have not been registered as having left. That is a very different kettle of fish.
§ Mr. Tony LloydI am grateful to the Minister for putting his hon. Friend in his place, but will he accept that the real problem with immigration control is that far too high a number of people who are refused visas would be perfectly legitimate visitors to Britain?
§ Mr. WaddingtonMost visitors to Britain, and certainly visitors from the Indian subcontinent, do not require visas anyhow. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is the fact that some people are refused entry when they present themselves at our ports of entry. The truth is that the whole system of control depends on the skill of immigration officers and on their ability to distinguish in the great majority of cases between bona fide visitors, who can be relied upon to leave when they say they are going, and others who cannot be relied upon to leave. All the evidence tends to prove that our immigration officers are very skilful in identifying those who cannot be trusted to leave.
§ Mr. BudgenWhen my hon. and learned Friend next makes a statement on the subject, will he please comment on the recent report of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which shows that very substantial fraud is still being perpetrated by those who attempt to enter the country from both India and Bangladesh?
§ Mr. WaddingtonI have read the report, and its conclusions are very important. I hope that all hon. 525 Members will pay heed to what is said. There is, or course, no doubt that there is a great deal of fraud. It is right that that should be reflected in the report.
§ Mr. JannerDoes the Minister accept that the real problem at Heathrow is not those who are let in who should not be, but to those who are held up who should not be? These are genuine, decent visitors coming to see their families and friends, many of them in my constituency? Does the Minister accept that many of them are still harassed, persecuted, held up and treated with a lack of decency or compassion instead of being given the proper welcome that they should have?
§ Mr. WaddingtonI am sorry that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have put his question in that way. He should be emphasising that 99.8 per cent. of those who present themselves at our controls at Heathrow are admitted with no trouble and that 99 per cent. of all visitors from the Indian subcontinent who present themselves at the controls are admitted without any trouble. The hon. and learned Gentleman does no service to anyone by trying to paint a picture of genuine visitors to Britain having trouble entering our country. That is not the true picture.
§ Mr. MarlowDoes my hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the greatest civil liberties is the civil liberty of the vast majority of the population of this country who do not want visitors to come to this country to abuse our systems and take advantage of our generosity when they have no right to do so?
§ Mr. WaddingtonI am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there should be a sensible, humane and efficient system of control. We have always taken the view in this country that it is better to have firm control at ports of entry than to have an all-pervasive system of after-entry control. I do not think that Opposition Members should cavil at people being questioned at Heathrow. If we have a softer line at Heathrow, we shall finish up with a much fiercer system of after-entry controls, which people will not like.
§ Mr. DubsA few minutes ago the Minister said that there was a "great deal of fraud" at the points of entry to this country. That is an unwarranted slur on the many honest people who come here. What evidence does the Minister have for that claim?
§ Mr. WaddingtonI did not say anything of the kind. My recollection is that the Select Committee report relates to control in the Indian subcontinent. The report concludes that there is a great deal of fraud, and that has been demonstrated on many occasions. The hon. Gentleman has been to the Indian subcontinent and knows that many people come along every year—and this is one of the strange phenomena involved in the matter—who admit that they have not told the truth on a previous application and who wish to make a new application in which they intend to come clean.