HC Deb 12 July 1995 vol 263 cc1062-70

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Wells.]

10.30 pm
Mr. Brian Sedgemore (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)

Hackney has had its share of troubles in the past, but in recent years it has become a well-managed council, which attracts large amounts of Government money. It has more than 11,000 employees, the overwhelming majority of whom are loyal and hard-working public servants.

When there is fraud, Hackney tries to root it out seriously. Since 1990, 110 council staff have been sacked or have left when disciplinary action loomed. The council has helped the police successfully to prosecute 24 of those. The council's approach to combating fraud has been praised by the district auditor for four years, and by the police, with whom the council has an excellent relationship. It co-operated with outside bodies, but only within the rule of law. That is where the trouble starts— operations outside the rule of law.

The council was shocked to discover that, earlier this year, a Ms Jill Arnfield of the immigration and nationality department of the immigration service had in her possession a list of 600 Hackney council employees. The information was not supplied by Hackney council but was removed without authorisation from the council's payroll records. Ms Arnfield used the stolen list to run systematic checks on people of whom there was no suspicion of wrongdoing. She then passed the list to a Ms Jenny Gray of the Benefits Agency to run further blanket checks.

When Ms Arnfield handed over the list, she said, according to Jenny Gray, that she had got it officially from Hackney council. That was a lie. She asked Jenny Gray not to tell her line manager that she had the list. However, Jenny Gray told a David Carroll, her line manager, who reported the matter to Hackney council.

The list contained 600 African names, and gave their payroll numbers and their start and leaving dates. It is clear as clear can be from the list—I have here one of the pages from that list—that it has come off a computer, and that its use was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1984. It is my belief that the IND has colluded in a criminal act and has been an accessory after the fact of a crime, which in itself is a crime.

It is clear that whoever supplied the information to the IND did so with the sole aim of encouraging it to investigate all of Hackney council's African employees. That is a gross and despicable violation of the civil liberties of the individuals concerned. They should be investigated only where the IND has grounds for reasonable suspicion against them as individuals, and not because their name appears on a general list. It is a nasty form of racism, which has caused deep offence in Hackney council.

One remembers that, in Germany in the inter-war years, the secret police checked up on Jews merely by virtue of the fact that they were Jews. In Hackney in 1995, a secret police has been checking up on Africans who work for Hackney council merely by virtue of the fact that they are of African descent.

On 10 March, Robert Barr, the assistant chief finance officer, met members of the Immigration and Nationality Department to complain. His confidential minute of the same date records: Following the revelation of the list of names the IND officers appeared to be very uncomfortable. The meeting came to an abrupt end. Now, two Government Departments are refusing to co-operate in an inquiry into crime and one of them—bizarrely—is the Home Office, which is responsible for law and order.

On 11 May 1995, David Wilson, a Home Office official from the IND, wrote to Hackney council: On balance we feel that it would be inappropriate for Ms Arnfield to be drawn into your enquiry and that she should not be directly interviewed as part of your investigation. However, should you wish to direct any written enquiries to me at the above address, we will do our best to provide you with answers. That is a slippery way out of a difficult situation.

On 2 June 1995, P. Gisbey from the Benefits Agency wrote to Hackney council saying: In your letter you asked to the Agency's agreement for our officer, … Jenny Gray, to be interviewed by you concerning this matter. I have sought advice from our Personnel Command concerning this, and they inform me that it would be inappropriate for this to happen unless it were part of court proceedings and a subpoena issued. I am a barrister, but perhaps the Minister can tell me and the House how there can be court proceedings and a subpoena issued when the chief witness in the case will not make a statement to the people inquiring into the case—wrap your mind around that, Minister.

I seek three assurances from the Minister. First, will he assure me that Ms Arnfield will co-operate with the inquiry that has now been set up by the Data Protection Registrar, Elizabeth France; secondly, that Ms Arnfield will, with the Home Office's permission, co-operate with any police inquiry; and thirdly, that there will be no issue of public immunity certificates or other devices to protect the staff of the IND?

Moreover, we are not dealing with only one list—there have been others. I have here a copy of a letter dated 17 February 1995 and signed by a Mr. Barrett, assistant director of the IND of the immigration service. It states: It is not possible at this stage for my staff to recall which member of Hackney Council's Tenancy Audit Team asked for the checks to be carried out about 18 months ago and I understand that none of the lists"— in the plural— were retained after the checks were completed. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the other lists of people being investigated.

Shortly before the story broke in The Observer, a journalist went to see Hackney's disgraced and sacked director of housing, Mr. Bernard Crofton, because it was his tenancy audit team and he who had released the information. Mr. Crofton admitted to the journalist that he personally had supplied a list of 300 Hackney council employees to the IND.

He then made the following bizarre suggestion about the list of the 600 African names: he said that Robert Barr, the assistant chief finance officer, had made available to the Benefits Agency details of all 11,000 of Hackney council's employees, that the Benefits Agency had passed them to the IND, and that the IND had then extracted the 600 African names and passed the list back to the Benefits Agency. It is a wonderful story, but it is wholly untrue.

The House will remember that it was Mr. Robert Barr who, on 10 March, went to the Home Office to complain about the original list, but he is now being accused of being the person who provided it. Thanks to me, it is being made known to Mr. Barr what Mr. Crofton has said. If Mr. Crofton makes a statement in public, he will receive a libel writ. However, Mr. Crofton seems to have dropped this particular potty story and gone in another direction.

We have been able to catch Mr. Crofton out in this particular case because he could not have known that I would be told by the journalist exactly what he said. I can hear daft mutterings from above me even as I speak.

A couple of weeks ago, I was going through a long list of documents, and suddenly I was gobsmacked. I found that the suspended director of housing had had a meeting with the Immigration and Nationality Department on 31 October 1994. I wondered why. The Under-Secretary of State who is to reply to this debate, said in answer to my question: Following the suspension of Mr. Crofton from his post of director of housing at Hackney council, Mr. Ostler"— the head of the tenancy audit team— sought a meeting."— [Official Report, 3 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 27. ] I can tell the Minister that his answer is not true. How can I be certain that his answer is not true? It is because I have a letter from Mr. Barrett, the assistant director of the IND, written to the chief executive of Hackney council, dated 20 December 1994, which says: Turning to the meeting on the 31 October at Becket House, I understand"— presumably referring to the civil servant who briefed the Minister on his untrue answer— that this was arranged at Mr. Crofton's request and was purely a general discussion, with no record of the meeting having taken place. We have to give accurate answers to parliamentary questions, yet the Home Office civil servant tells me in this letter that we have been given an inaccurate answer. No doubt the Minister will wish to make a statement on that tomorrow.

The plot thickens, because Mr. Crofton has a third account of this meeting. He issued a press release, or a press release was issued on his behalf, last week, which said: However, the facts are that the Home Office requested the meeting because of its concerns about publicity following Mr. Crofton's suspension by Hackney council. First Mr. Ostler was supposed to have sought a meeting, then Mr. Crofton, and then the Home Office.

I discovered over the weekend that, when Mr. Crofton was questioned about the matter, he said that he was telephoned by the immigration service at his home—when he was suspended—and told about the meeting. What a wonderful intimate relationship! The suspended director of housing on Hackney council was telephoned at his home for a meeting of which no minute was taken.

Mr. Crofton goes on: The meeting was informal but not secret or unauthorised. Mr. Crofton informed former Chief Executive, Jerry White, of the meeting, and also submitted correspondence to a Council committee confirming the discussion which took place at the meeting. That is fine—a perfectly rational explanation. Mr. Crofton is in the clear. The only problem is that, when one cross-checks the document and talks to the witnesses, one discovers a web, a tissue, of lies. Every statement that I have just read out is a blatant and deliberate lie.

The chief executive that we are talking about is now a local government ombudsman—not somebody that one can slag off with impunity. He has confirmed to me that he knew nothing about this meeting, it was totally unauthorised, and he found out about it three weeks later via a third person who refused to attend the meeting precisely because Mr. Crofton was unauthorised and should not have attended the meeting. As for that nonsense about Mr. Crofton reporting it to a committee, Mr. Crofton simply had to report it to the disciplinary panel that was hearing his case. This is the close and intimate friend of the Home Office who is trampling on the civil rights of Hackney's workers.

Then, as if that is not enough for the Minister to answer, the Immigration and Nationality Department has run a dirty tricks campaign, leaking information and misinformation to various journalists supplied by—guess who? First, there is the case of Tim Kelsey of The Independent. He leaked some stuff which was given to him by the IND, and there was a row over whether he should say that the investigation was understood to be based on evidence produced by Bernard Crofton. But Mr. Kelsey stuck to his guns and put it in the paper, and that upset Mr. Crofton.

Then, there was a most recent case. One journalist was given the names of two teachers by the IND and told that they were going to be picked up and deported before their interview with the asylum section on 31 May 1995. There are people in this country who believe that it is not natural justice for the IND to announce that somebody is going to be deported before they have even had their hearing. That does not sound right to me, as a barrister.

The journalist insists that the story, which appeared in the Daily Mail, came from the Home Office. The Home Office does not want to comment on it. The Minister gave me some facts in a parliamentary answer, but I read about them in The Guardian the day before the Minister gave them to me. They had been leaked by the Immigration and Nationality Department.

I could name case after case in which, for whatever reason, the department has sought to destroy the reputation of Hackney council in a disgraceful fashion. Why did someone in Hackney housing department appear to be an arm of the Immigration and Nationality Department? I shall tell you why, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There have been two small groups that constitute two little secret police forces. One—the tenancy audit team, led by Mr. Crofton—comes from Hackney council. Those people have gone potty. If I were to sum up Mr. Crofton, I should say that he is a highly sophisticated liar, that he is deluded, and that, using words in their ordinary and natural meaning, he is a racist. Secondly, for whatever reason, a small group of people in the IND have been using Mr. Crofton.

Mr. Crofton has constructed a world in which "west African" equals "illegal immigrant" equals "fraudster". That equation has buzzed around in his mind until he has blown it, because the equation is not true, and he has not been able to make it stack up. Now, hardly any decent people I know support him—apart from a poisonous little fat boy called Keith Vaness, who is out of his depth, and a few oddballs who have backed Mr. Crofton down the years. [Interruption.]

I hear the derisive cheers from the anti-civil libertarians on the Government Benches, but I tell the Minister that the whole business has constituted a disgraceful and shameful act. Hackney council should dissociate itself from the IND immediately, and re-establish a completely new line.

10.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker)

The hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore) has been most persistent in his attempts to suggest to the House that there is something sinister or improper in the way in which the Immigration and Nationality Department has conducted its affairs with the London borough of Hackney. He has now tabled eight parliamentary questions and three notices of motions.

The hon. Gentleman has also levelled accusations against officials from the Immigration and Nationality Department that are absurd and have absolutely no basis in fact—in fact, I challenge the hon. Gentleman to repeat some of what he has said this evening outside the House—so I especially welcome the opportunity to reject the accusations and to put the record straight.

I am also pleased to have the opportunity to set out serious concerns about three factors. The first is the recruitment policies of Hackney council; the second is the lack of proper checks, which has led to an unsatisfactory situation in which a high number of immigration offenders are thought to be employed by the council; and the third is the lack of co-operation by the council with the immigration service in dealing with apparent abuse of the immigration laws.

The hon. Gentleman has accused the Home Office of a witch hunt. There is none; nor has there ever been a witch hunt by Home Office officials against employees of Hackney council. But where there are apparent abuses of the immigration laws, the immigration service has a duty to investigate them. Eight employees of Hackney council have already been identified as immigration offenders, and served either with papers as illegal entrants or with notices of intention to deport.

The hon. Gentleman accuses Home Office officials of complicity in the theft of a computer disk. I say clearly that the Home Office is not, and never has been, in possession of a computer disk containing details of employees of Hackney council.

He accuses the Home Office of collusion in unlawful and criminal acts. There has been no such collusion. If the council's security procedures have been breached, it is for council officials to pursue the matter with the police, and with the Data Protection Registrar, if appropriate.

The evidence I shall lay before the House tonight will show conclusively that the immigration service has acted properly and with considerable restraint. It has operated in an open manner, offering to co-operate with the council to resolve the matters—an offer which the council has not accepted.

The hon. Gentleman must surely realise that all is not well in the "House of Hackney", and that the lawful activities of the immigration service cannot be used by Hackney council as a smokescreen to cover its own internal difficulties. It is time for the council to stop name-calling—and time for the hon. Gentleman to do the same—and to wake up to its responsibilities. These wild allegations can only serve to lessen the electorate's view of local government in London, and reflect poorly on the Labour party.

For some time now, the immigration service has received a stream of allegations from different sources alleging that illegal entrants were being employed by Hackney council. Not all the allegations were researched, but only those where there was evidence to suggest that the information was accurate.

The immigration service enforcement directorate is required to investigate allegations and information from whatever source about persons who may be working and/or residing in this country illegally. Such inquiries are not limited to cases of people of African origin or who are black. They are carried out irrespective of the nationality or race of the person concerned, and are based only on the question whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that offences under the immigration laws are being committed.

I have said that a number of immigration offenders working for the council have already been identified. Allow me to give some examples of the lax procedures of the council which enabled these offenders to obtain employment. The hon. Gentleman may then care to reflect on whether he wishes to see the law enforced or not.

On 2 September 1994, the immigration service detained a 35-year-old female who was employed by the London borough of Hackney as a cook. She had overstayed her leave to enter the United Kingdom since 23 October 1992. She had no permission to live or work in this country.

On 1 December 1994, a 33-year-old male was detained by the immigration service for working in breach of his conditions of entry. He had been employed on a full-time basis by the London borough of Hackney since June 1990, most recently as an estate manager for the housing department. [Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Gentleman that all his hon. Friends are leaving him, and he is becoming increasingly isolated.

In February 1995, a 36-year-old male was served with a notice of illegal entry. He had entered the United Kingdom using a false British passport. He was employed by the London borough of Hackney as a full-time personnel officer in the chief executive's office. He had been using a false identity, that of a teenage girl. He had been employed using the girl's national insurance number, which gave her true date of birth. He gave a different date of birth to the council, and used the girl's name to obtain employment. These discrepancies went unnoticed. He was removed from the United Kingdom on 20 February this year.

On 26 February 1995, a 24-year-old female was served with a notice of illegal entry. She had entered the United Kingdom on 27 November 1992. She had claimed to be coming for a visit of three days. She concealed the existence of her husband, who was already in the United Kingdom, and obtained employment with the London borough of Hackney as a full-time finance officer.

The list goes on, but I shall abbreviate it. All those cases give clear cause for concern and raise serious questions about the procedures employed by Hackney council in the recruitment of its staff. There are other cases.

The immigration service wrote to the chief executive of Hackney council on 25 January asking for a check to be made on two employees. The chief executive admitted in his reply, dated 13 February 1995, that the two employees had not confirmed in their application forms that they required a work permit to work in the United Kingdom, or that they were prohibited from taking employment by the conditions of their stay here. The two individuals were dismissed before the immigration service was given the opportunity to establish their status in this country, and as yet they have not been found.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned a list of 600 employees, which he believes was obtained by the immigration service unlawfully. The immigration service received two manuscript lists containing what appeared to be details of persons employed by Hackney council. They were unsolicited. One was received in December 1994, the other in February 1995.

They were not extracts from a computer payroll record, and contained no sign that they had originated from within the council. The immigration service cannot be held responsible for the fact that they contained names almost exclusively of African origin; nor is it for me to comment on the motives of the person or persons who supplied the lists.

The hon. Gentleman has accused the Home Office of refusing to co-operate fully in an investigation to establish whether the Data Protection Act 1988 had been breached. He has also suggested that the information was unlawfully provided to the Home Office by the supporters of Mr. Bernard Crofton, the housing director of Hackney council, who is currently under suspension.

He notes that the associates of Mr. Crofton have now shown themselves in their true colours. In the motion dated 22 June 1995 the hon. Gentleman says that they have shown themselves to be barmy, racist and criminal in character".

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I am very short of time. I have many points that I wish to put to the hon. Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch, and I am sorry that, on this occasion, I cannot give way as I would normally like to do.

I understand that the data protection registrar has been asked to conduct an inquiry into possible breaches of the Data Protection Act. It would therefore be wrong for me to comment in further detail, but the Home Office will, of course, co-operate fully with any such inquiry. What I shall say is that all information alleging breaches of the immigration laws is thoroughly researched, both within the Department and with other agencies, where an abuse of public funds is suspected.

The Government are committed to firm but fair immigration control, and will continue to welcome genuine visitors to our shores. But when overseas nationals abuse the immigration laws, they must expect to be dealt with firmly and returned to their own countries. Those who flout the immigration laws cannot expect to evade investigation simply by the status of their employer or the nature of their employment.

The immigration service receives denunciatory information from many sources. It would be inappropriate to reveal publicly the source of the information. The London borough of Hackney requested an interview with the immigration officer involved in many of the investigations that I have outlined today, in order—the hon. Gentleman will confirm this—to ask her from whom or where her information was coming.

The general question of such disclosure is a matter for the Home Office, not for individual immigration officers. For that reason, the Home Office offered to respond to any written inquiries but not to allow individual immigration officers to be interviewed about matters that go beyond their responsibilities. The council has not taken up that offer of co-operation.

The Home Office has never received information from Mr. Crofton. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in 1993, Mr. Crofton established his tenancy audit team, consisting of members recruited from outside the authority, to investigate allegations of widespread corruption in the housing department of Hackney council. The council's own appointed team found evidence that many council properties were inhabited by people who had no right to live in them and who in some cases had no right to be in the United Kingdom.

The team asked the immigration service to co-operate with its investigation into the misuse of council property, which has led to the apprehension of a number of immigration offenders and the return of several properties to the council—properties that it was then able to reallocate to genuine applicants. The immigration service will continue to investigate any breaches of the immigration laws if asked to do so by the tenancy team.

The immigration service has sought the council's co-operation to try to resolve this matter sensibly. It has pointed out the judgment in the Court of Appeal case of the Queen v. the Secretary of State for the Environment, ex parte London borough of Tower Hamlets, which concerned the duties of local housing authorities under the homelessness provisions. I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to that case.

That judgment confirmed that not only was there no bar to local authorities telling the Immigration and Nationality Department if they came across a suspected immigration offender; rather, it was their duty to do so.

Guidance following the judgment issued by the Department of the Environment in February 1994 recommended that local authorities should register a point of contact with the Immigration and Nationality Department for the handling of all inquiries by an authority. Although Hackney council has registered its benefit staff for the purposes of exchanging information on persons claiming housing benefit or council tax benefit, it has yet to register a contact point in accordance with that guidance.

The immigration service has also met council officials to discuss improvements in its recruitment procedures. It can surely only be to the benefit of people who are legally here that those who are not should be readily identifiable if they seek work.

The evidence that I have laid before the House tonight should give the hon. Gentleman cause to cease his bluff and think again. I urge him to retract his baseless allegations. I am satisfied that the immigration service has acted reasonably and with considerable restraint in its dealings with the London borough of Hackney. The council does not appear to have acted in a spirit of true co-operation—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Eleven o 'clock.