HC Deb 21 February 1996 vol 272 cc426-31

'.—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section—

  1. (a) in section 15 of the 1971 Act (appeals in respect of deportation orders), subsection (3) shall be omitted; and
  2. (b) in paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act (appeals to special adjudicators: exception for national security), for the words "(3)(a) and (b)" there shall be substituted the words "(3)(b)".

(2) This section shall, from its coming into effect, apply in relation to entrants or others arriving in the United Kingdom at any date whether before or after it comes into effect.

(3) After the coming into effect of this section, anything done under the relevant provisions of the 1971 Act or the 1993 Act shall be treated as if done under those provisions as they are amended by this section.'.—[Mr. Madden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Madden

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 56, in schedule 3, page 12, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert 'Section 15(3).'

Mr. Madden

I understand that my hon. Friends the Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) want to contribute to this short debate.

The new clause deals with the situation in which the authorities seek to deport individuals lawfully from the United Kingdom on grounds of national security, of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for other reasons of a political nature. It does not prevent the authorities from deporting such individuals for national security reasons, but it would give those individuals a full right of appeal before the immigration appeals authority.

At present, individuals who are proceeded against on national security grounds do not have an appeal or anything like it. Instead, there is a procedure before an advisory panel—the so-called three wise men—and individuals are not entitled to legal representation or to cross-examine witnesses against them. The decision of the panel is not disclosed to those facing deportation and it is not binding on the Home Secretary.

It is not surprising that that procedure has been widely criticised, not least during the Gulf crisis when many students were taken into custody only to be released on the ending of hostilities, at a time when it might have been thought that Iraq would be most keen to secure vengeance. No other allied country took such measures.

When the Immigration Act 1971 was first introduced, there was a procedure for dealing with security cases before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Although it lacked certain procedural safeguards, it had a good deal to commend it. The present situation does not. Even so, that procedure attracted considerable criticism from those concerned with the rights of the individual. Perversely, that concern was met by the introduction of the present procedure, which is modelled on that applicable to civil servants whose loyalty is in doubt.

The private reasoning of Ministers in immigration cases is under criticism at present, particularly in two cases—that of the Saudi dissident Dr. al-Masari, in which Ministers' private reasoning has become public knowledge, and that of Karamjit Singh Chahal, a Sikh who has now been detained for a period equal to that for a sentence of murder, although he is held without conviction, charge or any detailed knowledge of the allegations against him.

Mr. Chahal's case is set out in early-day motion 377 and I am sure that hon. Members will be dismayed to know that he has been detained in Bedford prison for more than 2,000 days. His case is to come before the European Court of Human Rights next month. I hope that, if the court finds in his favour—I am cautiously optimistic that it will—the Home Secretary will act promptly and positively. I also hope that the Home Secretary will release Mr. Chahal temporarily, so that he can rejoin his wife and two children before the findings of the courts are made known.

The proposals in new clause 6 are by no means unusual. Acceptable procedures that meet the concerns that I outlined are employed by a number of countries in national security cases. For example, the Canadian system has been found to be extremely satisfactory by the Government and those representing detainees. I very much hope that the Home Office will seriously consider the suggestions that I have proposed in the new clause.

Mr. Winnick

I support the new clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) made a powerful case for it.

I have a constituency interest. My constituent, Mr. Raghbir Singh, has been held in prison in Birmingham for a year. As in all such cases, as my hon. Friend said, the difficulty arises because no charges of any kind are made. The Home Secretary—obviously, I accept that he was acting on advice—made an order that Mr. Singh's presence in the United Kingdom was not conducive to the public good on grounds of security. The reason for the order was that Mr. Singh was involved in terrorism. I cannot possibly know whether that is so. My constituent strongly denies any involvement and says that the journal that he edited in the Sikh community argued against terrorism.

I do not have to emphasise any more than my hon. Friends my strenuous opposition to all forms of terrorism—not only the curse of terrorism that we have suffered for 25 years, which has tragically been resumed, conducted by the IRA in Northern Ireland and at the moment on the mainland, but other forms of terrorism, wherever they are—in the middle east or on the Indian sub-continent.

I am not here to act as an apologist for terrorism, nor do I want to do so—neither do my hon. Friends—and I see that the Minister accepts that, but let us work on the possible assumption that Mr. Singh is telling the truth. It is just possible that, whatever advice was given to the Home Secretary, admittedly in good faith—we live in a democracy—information was given for malicious reasons. Clearly, of course, the Home Secretary's advisers would not have done so, but they might have been given false and misleading information.

Therefore, if one works for the moment on that assumption, one can imagine the injustice that is done to someone such as Raghbir Singh. He maintains that the information is not correct and that he is not, and never has been, involved in terrorism. He has been taken away from his home, his wife and his children; he has been locked up in prison without any charges; and he cannot put his case in a court of law. That is a glaring injustice and, inevitably, there are strong feelings about that case.

Raghbir Singh has been in the United Kingdom lawfully since 1980, he is married and he has two young children. His wife came to the United Kingdom when she was three, and she is also a United Kingdom citizen. I took a number of my hon. Friends to see the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who was good enough to see us about this case. There was a press conference after the meeting, and the two children thought that their father was going to be released from prison—which is understandable considering their ages.

If it is said, "Well, someone is bound to deny it. How many people deny the charges against them when charged or even convicted?", I will have to accept it. I have already stated that the advice given to the Home Secretary may be right, but I bear in mind my constituent's strenuous denial. In addition, the case has aroused strong feelings in the Sikh community. It is difficult to believe that those strong feelings—which have been expressed to a number of Members of Parliament on both sides—arise because of any sympathy towards terrorism.

I accept that some in the Sikh community may be protesting because they believe in acts of violence to create a separate state in India, but the overwhelming majority of that community is opposed to terrorism—whatever views they may have about a separate state—and they do not believe in violence or in killing to achieve that objective. They are protesting very loudly on behalf of Raghbir Singh, as I am sure the Home Office is aware.

If the new clause were accepted, my constituent would have an opportunity to put his case in a proper manner, through lawyers, to demonstrate his innocence. The judicial authorities would then decide one way or the other. Raghbir Singh has a right of appeal at the moment, but it is restricted—it is to a panel which decides purely and simply on grounds of security; it is not like a court of law, nor is it meant to be.

I have raised this case a number of times over the past 12 months because I feel that if Raghbir Singh is not guilty of any form of terrorism—as I understand it, he has not been accused of any form of terrorism in the United Kingdom—a great injustice has been done to him. If he is guilty or has been involved in some way, despite his denial, then all the more reason for him to put his case to a court of law and to let the matter be decided as it should be in a democracy.

Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

I support the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) on the case of Mr. Raghbir Singh. I say to the Minister of State in all sincerity that my constituents know my views about using violence to achieve political ends. They do not bother to lobby me because they know that my views have been consistent over the years. Many of my constituents have worked with Raghbir Singh—my constituency is close to the constituency of Walsall, North—and I have difficulty explaining to them the system of British justice: that he is in prison without a charge that he knows about and that he is able to answer.

I remember when the previous Labour Government used legislation such as this—although, even then, questions were raised. Such legislation does not seem to be used in many other countries. I fully accept that one has to be careful when bringing the politics of the sub-continent into this country. I do not know whether Raghbir Singh is guilty or innocent, nor does my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North.

Our cause is slightly different—we want justice to be done openly. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West has said that the appeal process requires more openness than exists at present. I accept that security cases cannot be completely open, such as in a magistrates court—and I am not so stupid as to ask for that—but they require more openness than exists at present.

If such cases were more open, people such as me could answer the questions of the family, friends and supporters of a person such as Raghbir Singh and say that the British justice system is fair. Some people have told me that they are in this country because it is supposed to be fairer than the one that they left. We have difficulty in justifying that cause. I hope that the Minister, while probably not wishing to accept the clause, will respond to the spirit of it and give the families and those incarcerated—without a genuine right to put their case openly—some kind of hope that they will not be locked up for ever and forgotten, without any form of redress or even knowing the charges against them.

7.45 pm
Miss Widdecombe

I endorse the remarks of the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who disclaimed any interest in terrorism and said that their support for the constituent in question did not indicate any support for his alleged activities. That is accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I understand the concerns of the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) in proposing the new clause, but I am afraid that I must vigorously resist it.

The present system—whereby an individual subject to deportation action on national security grounds is entitled to make representations against that decision to the three advisers—allows for the protection of delicate sources of intelligence in a way that an open appeal to the independent appellate authorities would not. The hon. Member for Perry Barr acknowledged that it would be impossible for an ordinary system to determine appeals of this magnitude.

The Home Secretary's power to deport is used sparingly and decisions are taken only after careful scrutiny of all the circumstances of an individual's case. A person subject to deportation at the personal direction of the Home Secretary is already entitled to make representations to the independent panel of advisers. That provides a full opportunity for the person concerned to state his case. No deportation order is signed until the panel's advice has been received and properly considered.

In cases involving national security, there is often a need to protect delicate sources of intelligence and to consider and to analyse information that it would not be appropriate to disclose at an immigration appeal hearing. The new clause would remove this necessary protection of a carefully selected panel to receive and consider such information. I cannot find a justification for amending the legislation along those lines. Indeed, the need for such a procedure was accepted by the Court of Appeal in the case of Cheblak, in which Lord Donaldson said: That a prospective detainee is not entitled to be given the fullest particulars of what is alleged against him would, in other circumstances, undoubtedly be objectionable as constituting a denial of natural justice. But natural justice has to take account of realities and something which would otherwise constitute a breach is not to be so considered if it is unavoidable. Two cases have been mentioned—I do not want to go into details because, as hon. Members will be aware, one of the cases is before the courts and the other could be. Mr. Chahal's deportation has been ordered because of his involvement in terrorism in the United Kingdom and abroad. The Home Secretary is fully satisfied that Mr. Chahal's deportation would be in the interests of national security and would contribute to the fight against international terrorism. Mr. Chahal has been refused asylum in the United Kingdom. It is not considered that he has demonstrated a well-founded fear of persecution in India under the terms of the United Nations convention. The important legal issues raised in last year's report on Mr. Chahal's case by the European Commission of Human Rights have been carefully considered, and the Government will now argue their case robustly at the European Court of Human Rights. But Mr. Chahal will not be removed from the United Kingdom until a decision has been received from the European Court. In the meantime, he will remain in detention for the reasons that I have given. Against that background, it would not be right to order his release.

The case has already had protracted proceedings before the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The Government have referred the case to the European Court of Human Rights following the finding, on points of issue, by the European Commission of Human Rights.

We are fully satisfied that Raghbir Singh's deportation would be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security. We believe that it would contribute to the fight against international terrorism. The decision to initiate deportation action against Mr. Singh was taken only after the most detailed consideration of all the circumstances of his case.

I can assure the House that Mr. Singh is being deported not because of views that he may have expressed as a newspaper editor but because of his involvement in terrorism. He is not a prisoner of conscience. He is detained under powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971. Given the reasons for his proposed deportation, we cannot order his release. He has been served with notice of intention to deport. He has claimed asylum and the application must be considered. For reasons that I have explained, it would not be right to release him while the application is being considered. He is fully entitled to make representations against his proposed deportation to the independent advisory panel, which has been appointed for that purpose.

Mr. Winnick

So that there should not be any misunderstanding, may I say that it was not part of my argument to claim that the order was made to deport Mr. Singh because he argues for a separate state in India? The essence of my argument is that the order was made because of his alleged involvement in terrorism, which he strenuously denies. I do not know whether he is guilty, but I think that his case should, in a democracy, go to a court of law to be decided.

Miss Widdecombe

I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman is not prejudging Mr. Singh's case, but he has the right to go to the independent panel, where his case will be fully considered and properly analysed. I have given the reasons why I do not think that his case can go to a normal court and why similar cases should not go to a normal court. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Bradford, West to withdraw his new clause. Otherwise, I shall have to urge the House to resist it.

Mr. Madden

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to