§ 1 pm
§ Mr. Peter Hardy (Wentworth)The two cases involving my constituents that I shall present in the debate justify my extremely serious concern or anger and illustrate remarkable or serious official inadequacy. I regret that the Government seem willing to he entirely disdainful of the constituency responsibilities and involvements of hon. Members. That cause for regret is clearly demonstrated by these cases, which persuaded me that I should delay my return home. I was drawn to Yorkshire before the weather broke, so the Minister will understand I did not enter this debate lightly, but the cases are sufficiently serious to justify my detention here today.
My attention was drawn to the outrageous experience of Mrs. Janette Caglar more than a year ago. The Minister will be aware of the enormous volume of correspondence which has flowed between my desk and his office. Mrs. Caglar lives in Wath upon Dearn in my constituency. She met her husband, Mr. Ondir Caglar of Izmir, some time ago. They married on 18 February last year, and Mr. and Mrs. Caglar sought to live together in Britain. That determined young lady had made sure that there were jobs and accommodation for them. Mr. Caglar's entry was refused, and their marriage was dismissed as one of convenience. That view has been maintained since they married in February 1988. It was still maintained when Mrs. Caglar became pregnant several months after the marriage and when their baby daughter was born on 20 July. The Home Office appear to disregard such biological demonstrations quite happily.
The baby girl was born in Yorkshire, while Mr. Caglar remains in Turkey. They are separated by more than 1,000 miles and Mr. Caglar, had to learn the news of the birth of his daughter by telephone from his mother-in-law in Wath upon Dearn. My constituent has been saddened and enormously distressed by her experience. She has also been caused indescribable frustration and anguish. At one time, she spent hour after hour trying to speak to the relevant office of the Home Office without being able to get through. While the official view may be that that does not happen, many Members of Parliament must be aware that British citizens and taxpayers frequently find it difficult to get through to public offices. It becomes particularly distressing when a constituent feels that Government Departments are insulated from human contact, especially when individuals feel anxious or despairing.
Mrs. Caglar decided to return to Britain to have her baby and to be with her mother in Wath upon Dearn. She hoped that the visit would be possible and that she could be accompanied by her husband; after all, she was to have her first baby. I felt that it was reasonable for Mrs. Caglar to want her husband to be with her in those circumstances. I contacted a Home Office official, who appeared to be extremely helpful. He thought that such a visit was possible and asked me if I could help by telling the Home Office on what date and at which airport Mr. Caglar would be arriving as a visitor. I immediately obtained that information from Mrs. Caglar's family, passed it on, only then to receive a message from the Home Office that a mistake had been made and that Mr. Caglar could not come in. The Home Office then knew, however, on what date he proposed to come and at what airport he would 1468 arrive. That was a distasteful and irritating experience. Perhaps a genuine mistake had been made, but it justified further consideration, but none was forthcoming.
On behalf of her husband, Mrs. Caglar then launched an appeal. The time passed and the hearing was set for May. Mrs. Caglar went to the hearing full of hope, but she was distressed and her hopes were dashed when, as soon as the hearing began, the Home Office representative asked for an adjournment to have more time for the investigation. More time—when months and months had elapsed since the case started, and months and months had elapsed since I first made representations to the Minister. That was a cruel blow to my constituent, and I shared her anger and frustration.
That young couple continue to live apart and they maintain contact by letter and telephone as they did during their courtship, when Mr. Caglar learned English in order to maintain communication with his future wife. Perhaps the Home Office feels entitled to be awkward as I believe that the Home Office suspects that one of Mr. Caglar's brothers may have acted a little improperly in the past. I know little about that, but I do not see how Mr. Caglar can be held responsible for the actions of a brother who is a good deal older than him and with whom he has little or no contact. It is not consistent with my regard for justice that a man should be punished for the offences of his brother. The Home Office should not pursue such an attitude.
The second case concerns Miss Tannanum Nawaz—I hope that my pronunciation is reasonably accurate. Miss Tannanum Nawaz is the neice of Mr. Tareen Farouk, a respected resident of Swinton in my constituency. He is a successful, well regarded, intelligent and responsible business man. His wife, a local lady, is employed in a position of considerable trust, and both are of excellent character.
Mr. Tareen has lived in England for a long time, but he had a sister in Pakistan with whom he enjoyed an extremely close relationship. Mr. Tareen was particularly attached to his sister and to her daughter, his niece, Miss Nawaz. Mr. and Mrs. Tareen regularly visited his sister and their niece in Pakistan.
Sadly, Mr. Tareen's sister died, and he immediately visited Pakistan once again. The purpose of that visit was, partly, to spend some time with his niece, but also to help her to arrange to come to Britain for a holiday. Miss. Nawaz is due to be married in a few months' time and the Minister will understand that in that situation, the planned holiday must have taken place before the marriage.
Miss Nawaz has a job and has arranged to take leave for the holiday and to return to her job once that holiday is over. Mr. Tareen is an intelligent, honourable and successful man. He went with his niece to the appropriate office in Pakistan to seek to arrange her entry to Britain. He had to pay a fee. The interview was not completed, so Mr. Tareen had to return the next day and pay a second fee. The Minister knows that I find that surprising. Miss Nawaz sought to provide the information that was requested at the two interviews and was asked how much money she had and would be bringing with her for her holiday. She said that she had $3,000. Mr. Tareen, who as I said is an experienced and honourable man, tells me that he believes that that is the reason for the application being rejected.
I suppose that they were in a catch-22 situation: if she had nothing, clearly she could not be accepted; as she was 1469 bringing a reasonably substantial sum, the officials suspected that it was her intention to stay. As I pointed out, the family is not impoverished. It is not the poorest in the land. Miss Nawaz was coming for a holiday before her marriage. She would have intended going shopping with her uncle and aunt. I believe that no regard was given to the circumstances of that case.
Miss Nawaz inherited her mother's property. No doubt, she would have enjoyed being with her uncle and aunt in my constituency. I know that the uncle and aunt were greatly looking forward to having their beloved niece visit before she entered matrimony which, as the Minister knows, is a relatively binding and substantial arrangement for Pakistani ladies.
Mr. and Mrs. Tareen fear that their beloved niece will never be able to visit them. I think that they have cause for bitterness at their treatment. They see the approaching solemnisation of Miss Nawaz's marriage as obviously cause for rejoicing but also cause for permanent regret, in that it could mean a disruption of the close relationship which they have enjoyed and which has always been strengthened by the frequent holidays that Mr. and Mrs. Tareen have been able to spend.
I find the whole experience of my constituents utterly unacceptable, partly because it seems to assume that responsible people like Mr. and Mrs. Tareen should have their record and character brought under little better than nasty suspicion. The Home Office disregarded the realities. If the Minister searches the record, he will know that I gave my assurance in the case of Miss Nawaz. I have given my confirmation as to the character of Mrs. Caglar, who lives in the same small town in which I live.
The Minister might also recall that, some years ago, I gave an assurance to the Home Office in a case where one constituent asked me to assist when a friend of his family was coming on holiday and had been detained at Heathrow. He gave me a clear assurance that the purpose of the visit was a holiday. The Home Office accepted my assurance and let that young man go to my area. A few days later, my constituent contacted me and said, "We have got over the first hurdle, Mr. Hardy. Now we want to arrange for him to stay." I said, "Your word may be worthless, but mine is not." I informed the Home Office that my assurance was then qualified and that I had no objection to the law taking its course. That is the view that most hon. Members would take, yet there seems to be no appreciation in the Home Office that hon. Members value their word. That word seems to be regarded as worthless or scarcely worth recognising. That case is on the record, although I have not taken the trouble to look up the necessary reference and date.
Mr. Tareen knows that I took that action. He knows that if Miss Nawaz should break her word to her employers who have given her leave of absence, disregard the marriage contract into which she has entered and seek to stay permanently in my constituency, I could not possibly accept that such a change of arrangement was possible. I would be the first to inform the Home Office that the assurances which I had given had been broken. I have no doubt that Mr. Tareen would want to keep his word, as I would want to keep mine. I regret that this ridiculous affair has taken place.
1470 I know that the Minister says that the rules are important and that he can intervene only in the most exceptional circumstances. The two cases that I have presented are exceptional. If the Minister thinks that they justify inaction, we do not need a Minister—all we need is a computer terminal regurgitating interpretations of the regulations, with the Minister passing on to Members of Parliament whatever it suggests. The Minister has his job to exercise a degree of discretion and to insist that Home Office officials—they are paid handsomely by the taxpayer—answer the telephone. His job is to ensure that, when someone appeals against a decision, and a lot of time has elapsed since the case was presented, Home Office officials do not go to the tribunal to ask for an adjournment for more time.
I have written to the Home Office time and time again about these two cases, and they should have received rather more consideration. We have no racial tension in my constituency. The younger members of a political party with which the Minister is familiar attempted to bring in a racist headmaster from Bradford to stir things up, but fortunately that went off like a damp squib. In the Rotherham area, partly because of the good will and common sense of the people, and partly because of the work of the community relations structure, the local authority and the police, we have avoided racial tension. I do not want it to develop, but the official suspicions and niggardliness evidenced in this case were scarcely helpful.
I shall not say much more; I look forward to hearing the Minister's views. It would be nice if, when I get home this afternoon—or evening, if the traffic is as bad as I fear it may be—I could call on Mr. and Mrs. Tareen, and on Mrs. Caglar and her new baby, and tell them that common sense and compassion have not entirely disappeared from the establishment in Britain.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton)I have listened carefully to the points raised by the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) and I fully understand that, with the parliamentary recess an hour or two away, he would rather spend today enjoying the sunshine in his home or constituency than coming to the House to make these points. I take his point that the reason why he applied for an Adjournment debate was the seriousness that he attaches to these two cases.
As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the issues that he has raised involve matters which are also the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, because he and his Department are responsible for the operation of the entry clearance system in overseas posts. These matters are also the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor, as it is he, as well as the Home Office, who has administrative responsibility for the immigration appellate authorities.
I realise that the large increase in the number of appeals lodged with the immigration appeal system has led to an increased backlog of cases in the appellate system. In our office, that has placed extra demands on available resources and has led, to my regret, to an increase in the preparation time for appeals explanatory statements. We are now considering urgently with the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office what steps need to be taken to arrest the increasing 1471 backlog of appeals and subsequently to maintain that backlog at an acceptable level. Some resources have already been provided for additional appeal hearing rooms and for listing more heavily in the present rooms. I hope in the months ahead that that will have some success in reducing the backlog.
I say that against a background which I am sure the hon. Member for Wentworth understands. The two cases that he raises involve decisions to refuse entry clearance, against which Parliament has provided a right of appeal to an independent adjudicator. The system of independent adjudicators—and above them an independent appellate tribunal—has been in place for a number of years. Adjudicators are now appointed by the Lord Chancellor, which ensures that they are wholly independent of the Home Office. They are present to act as an independent check on the decisions reached by the immigration service, entry clearance officers or the Home Office.
Against that background, I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept the independence of the appellate system. It has an important role to play, which has often been ratified by Parliament. I must direct to that system both the cases that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned today.
Mr. Caglar has appealed against a decision taken by the entry clearance officer in Istanbul to refuse him entry clearance for settlement in the United Kingdom. I understand that the appeal is now listed for hearing in Leeds on 3 October. Despite the hon. Gentleman's strong plea to me in his closing remarks, it would be wrong in principle for me to make any comment today on the substance of a case, or to go into the immigration history or details of Mr. Caglar's appeal, when the case has yet to be considered by the adjudicator. If I did that, it might prejudice the fair hearing of the appeal.
§ Mr. HardyMy constituent, Mrs. Caglar, attended the hearing in May when she was eight months pregnant after being separated from her husband for a long time. The officials immediately asked for an adjournment to provide time for an investigation. That was not a reasonable experience for my constituent. Why was she not told that she would face an official request for an adjournment as soon as she arrived at the hearing? Would the Minister care to imagine a lady in his family who was eight months pregnant being forced to go through such an ordeal?
§ Mr. RentonI am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point with me again. I have been told clearly—and I have checked this with my officials while the hon. Gentleman was speaking—that the adjournment was granted at the hearing on 12 May at the request of both parties, not just at the request of the Home Office. Documentary evidence of certain points in the entry clearance officer's statement had not been produced and the adjournment was requested by both parties. The documents required were produced as quickly as possible and the appeal was listed for 11 July, but had to be adjourned again because Mrs. Caglar was then expecting her baby. As I have just said, it is now listed for hearing in Leeds on 3 October.
With regard to the complaints about the difficulties experienced by Mrs. Caglar in contacting the immigration department by telephone, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I fully recognise that, in the early part of 1988, the level of service provided by the telephone inquiry bureau at the headquarters in Lunar house in Croydon was not 1472 acceptable. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that many measures have since been taken to improve the efficiency of the telephone inquiry bureau. I will visit Lunar house next Thursday and will visit the telephone inquiry bureau to check on the progress. A fully satisfactory quality of service is now provided. If the hon. Gentleman would like to visit Lunar house after the holidays, I would welcome him there and he can reassure himself about the better quality of service provided for his constituents and others.
Referring to the case of Miss Nawaz, she applied for entry clearance as a visitor in Karachi on 9 April 1989. That application was refused after interview because the entry clearance officer was not satisfied as to her intention to leave the United Kingdom at the end of her visit. I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the first interview on 9 April was complete in itself. The decision to make a second application the following day was, I am sure, entirely her own. It was not required by the entry clearance officer. The second application was also refused after a further interview. Miss Nawaz was then notified of her right of appeal against both decisions. The proper way for persons who are dissatified with decisions of the entry clearance officer to seek to have their cases resolved is through the appeals system estabished for that purpose, as I have said. Although I have listened to the points made by the hon. Gentleman on behalf of Miss Nawaz, I have to say that, in my judgment, these matters should be raised on appeal.
Despite the hon. Gentleman's eloquence and passion, I have heard nothing today which persuades me that the most exceptional circumstances exist which would justify my intervening in either case.
In the remaining few minutes, I shall outline the background of hon. Members' representations and the new guidelines against which I have made my remarks.
The guidelines for representations by right hon. and hon. Members in immigration cases make it clear that Ministers will not normally intervene to take the initial decision on an application, to pre-empt consideration of a disputed decision by the independent appellate authorities, or to reverse a decision where the appeal process has been exhausted and no new and compelling evidence has become available. The revised guidelines came into effect on 3 January. Following circulation in draft form, they were debated in the House. The final version reflects points that were made by hon. Members during that debate. Experience of the operation of the revised guidelines over the past six months has proved beyond doubt that they are fair and reasonable and, despite Labour Members' original doubts, are working well in practice.
The hon. Gentleman said that they remove the necessity for a Minister and that all that a Minister is doing is getting reactions from a computer. However, I make the contrary point: that they have put hon. Members in direct touch with immigration officers and chief immigration officers at ports and airports for the discussion of special circumstances. There is great advantage to both sides in that—certainly there is to the immigration service and to hon. Members in being able to go directly over the special circumstances of cases with those members of the immigration service who are charged with taking a decision. If it is felt that there are special circumstances that the immigration service has not properly taken into account, there is always discretion to go back to the Minister. I have not yet been turned wholly into a computer, even though, at times, I might like to be.
§ Mr. HardyOn the Minister's last point, my contact with the authorities led them to find out on what date and at what airport Mr. Caglar planned to accompany his pregnant wife.
The Minister will appreciate that, if Miss Nawaz is to visit her uncle and aunt in my constituency before her marriage, there is some urgency. Would he, in his ministerial role, have the capacity or the inclination to ask for the timetable of delay to be reduced so that, if Miss Nawaz is to be able to come into this country, permission can be given before the date of her planned and impending marriage?
§ Mr. RentonI assure the hon. Gentleman that I will certainly pass on that comment directly to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The decision about who is interviewed and in what order of priority lies with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which is responsible for entry clearance officers.
I am informed that three months have passed since Miss Nawaz made her second application. Since then, she has made no application at all. We tried to check that point before the debate—I do not think that we have received final information, but that is my impression. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will persuade her to take the necessary steps as soon as possible in Karachi.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman today. I stress to him that the various steps that we have taken over the past two years have speeded up the treatment of the many thousands of immigration cases that come before us every year, but the Labour party has always voted against them. I hope that the hon. Member for Wentworth, given his seniority in the Labour party, will persuade it in the next Session to vote for future changes that will further speed up the process.
The hon. Gentleman should suggest to his constituents that the right course for them is to pursue their case through the appeals system as endorsed by Parliament.