Yoko Sibthorp (Hansard, 10 December 2001)

§ Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)
According to the House of Commons Library, there have, over the last four and a half years, been four Adjournment debates on specific aspects of immigration cases and a further 12 Adjournment debates on immigration policy more generally. I refer to those statistics for the benefit of the House and to underline the fact that right hon. and hon. Members do not lightly raise particular immigration cases in the House. I do so, I think, for good reason tonight.
Yoko Sibthorp, on whose behalf I speak, was born on 31 July 1969. Andrew Sibthorp, to whom, until her divorce, she remains married, was born on 21 May 1973. Mr. Andrew Sibthorp is the son of my constituents, David and Angela Sibthorp of Blakes cottage, Horn street, Winslow, in the Buckingham constituency. Yoko first met Andrew in May 1992, so they have now known each other for approximately nine and a half years. They went out together for some time and eventually, on 27 February 1995, their marriage was registered in Japan. There they lived as man and wife for over five years. They then decided, early in 2000, to come to the United Kingdom, with the specific purpose of settling here and starting a family. They came to Britain on 17 April 2000, Andrew on the basis that he was a British citizen and Yoko on the strength of a 12-month permit to stay in this country. At that point, she was already pregnant.
After a couple of false starts, in July 2000 Andrew managed to secure a job at the Japan centre, in London's Piccadilly. In September, they got their own property in South Norwood, and on 29 October 2000 came the happy news for both of them of the birth of their first child, Nesta. Yoko testifies, and I have no reason to doubt her veracity, that Andrew had always given the impression in all the time they knew one each other that he would be a willing father, that on no account would he be separated from his son, and that he looked forward to the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood.
For the first few days, Yoko testifies, as do her parents-in-law, Andrew enthusiastically changed nappies and partook of other domestic responsibilities. Sadly, however, all went badly wrong and turned sour, to the great detriment of the family, and to Yoko and her son Nesta in particular. Twenty days after the birth of the child, on 18 November 2000, Andrew, after a row with his wife, suddenly left the family home—for ever, as it later transpired. He said that he wanted to lead a Rastafarian existence and conceded that he had returned to the use of drugs, which had bedevilled him in his youth, but which he now felt were useful to him and made him feel better. He left the home; occasionally he came back unannounced for short periods, but he never returned permanently.
The day after Andrew left Yoko, in understandable shock and trauma at the most ghastly experience that could be visited on anyone, she asked her parents-in-law, David and Angela Sibthorp, whether, for a period, she could come and live with them in Horn street in Winslow, to which they readily agreed. On 17 April 2001 Yoko, conscious that her marriage had not survived for the 690 12 months in this country required under immigration law, applied for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. She did so, aware of the strength of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which has been transposed into British law in the form of the Human Rights Act 1998. As you will undoubtedly be aware, Mr. Speaker, article 8 underlines the important right of every individual to have his or her private and family life respected. At the end of April, Yoko managed to secure a job at Fujitsu, in Hayes. Only four months ago, in August, her estranged husband sadly lost his job in Piccadilly. In September, in what proved to be his final communication to his father, he said that he wished to have no further contact whatsoever with his parents, whom he had known for 27 years, or with his wife and his child, who was born on 29 October 2000. Sadly, the ghastly and unimaginably appalling sequence of events that has afflicted Yoko Sibthorp culminated on 31 October 2001—in the Home Office's refusal of her application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
Following that refusal, Lord Rooker of Perry Barr, for whom I have a high regard, wrote to me on 13 November to say: The application was refused on 31st October as we were not satisfied that the variation of leave to remain was being sought for a purpose covered by the immigration rules. He went on: The case was also considered exceptionally outside the rules but we were not prepared to exercise our discretion in her favour. That seemed a dismal and lamentable state of affairs, and has certainly caused great heartache, as I am sure the Minister will understand, to Yoko and her devoted parents-in-law.
It is relevant at this point to refer to the views of Yoko and of her parents-in-law as regards the changed character and behaviour of Andrew Sibthorp. All three of the individuals concerned—Yoko and her parents-in-law, David and Angela—have good reason to feel affection and love for Andrew, for they are all inextricably bound up with his life.
Yoko concluded that there had been a dramatic and unaccountable change in her husband's behaviour. Previously devoted, unselfish, loving and willing to partake of domestic and family responsibilities, he had, she concluded, started to behave oddly. She has recounted a particular case in which Andrew Sibthorp, for reasons unknown to her, to me and to the House, broke the back window of a car by bashing his head repeatedly against it. David Sibthorp, devoted father of Andrew for 27 years, testifies with sadness that his son has undergone an extraordinary personality change. He tells me that the man has become self-centred, unpredictable and paranoid.
I emphasise that that is the account that has been given to me. I have every faith in the integrity of the individuals concerned. I have not spoken to Andrew Sibthorp; I am not interested in besmirching his name. I am seeking to give an account of events as they have been related to me, and as they pertain to the attempt of Yoko Sibthorp to secure indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.
Yoko decided that she would appeal against the rejection of her application. She is doing so, as the hon. Lady is aware, under section 61 of the Immigration and 691 Asylum Act 1999. Specifically, she is doing so with an emphasis and reliance on article 8 of the human rights convention, which states: Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. The article continues: There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. In that context, because I feel passionately about the case, I want to make a simple but—as it seems to me, and I hope it might strike the Minister as—a compelling point. The presence in this country of Yoko and her son Nesta does not threaten national security. Their presence does not threaten public safety. Their presence does not threaten the economic well-being of the country. Their presence does not threaten the prevention of disorder and crime. Their presence does not threaten the protection of health or morals. Their presence assuredly does not threaten the rights or freedoms of others.
I have attended closely, as the hon. Lady no doubt has done, to the wording of the article upon which Yoko is reliant in her appeal against the initial judgment of the Home Office. That seems to me to be one ground on which she can credibly base a humanitarian plea to be granted indefinite leave to remain in this country, but there are others, to which I shall briefly refer.
First, it ought to be understood and it will be readily apparent from the facts, that the marriage was not one of convenience. It was not undertaken for an ulterior purpose which, once achieved, caused the marriage to be dissolved or to wither on the vine. It was a loving relationship that was conducted over a period of several years. Yoko and her husband were married happily for five and a half years. It is a pure technicality that the marriage did not subsist in this country for the requisite period of 12 months to qualify Yoko for success in her application for indefinite leave to remain in the UK.
I consider the case compelling, but I am determined to persuade others, including your good self, Mr. Speaker, at this late hour, that there is an additional argument in Yoko's support—that is, that she enjoys the love, devotion and support, both emotional and financial, of her parents-in-law. They have been absolute bricks in a ghastly situation. They love their son, of course, but they are horrified by what has happened, by the extraordinary metamorphosis in his character and behaviour that appears to have taken place, and by the residual but massive damage that has been done to her life, which could impact upon that of her son and their beloved grandson.
In communications to me in October and November this year, David Sibthorp stated: Nesta continues to grow into a super little boy and gives much pleasure to my wife and me as grandparents. All I can say is that he is the light in this sorry mess and compensates a lot for the hurt and anger our son has inflicted on everybody. Significantly, and worryingly from the point of view of the integrity and repute of the democratic process, he adds: As British citizens, we believed that this country was just and fair; that it could not and would not treat Yoko like this. It makes us both ashamed to be British. 692 I know these two parents-in-law. They are decent, reasonable and level headed. They are model citizens, well respected in their community. They are not hotheads and are not excitable or extremist in any way, but that is how they feel. Even if the Minister cannot give me the news that I seek, I ask her to empathise with their plight. I think that she will do so as a humanitarian.
There is a final argument in Yoko's support: she is not dependent on public funds. She has a good job, works hard and is industrious. She wants to succeed and is conscious of her responsibilities and willing to fulfil them. She is also fortunate in having superb parents-in-law who are willing to do everything that they can—emotionally, practically and financially. I think that I am right in saying—the Minister will tell me if I am wrong—that the Home Office refers to or has consciously in mind no fewer than seven forms of public funding that someone could be receiving and that might count against an individual in pursuit of an application for indefinite leave to remain, on the grounds of their being a drain on the public purse: child benefit, disability allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit, housing or homelessness assistance, income support and jobseeker's allowance, social fund payments or the working families tax credit. To the best of my knowledge and belief, Yoko does not receive and currently has no intention of receiving any of those payments. She wants to be self-supporting and wants the wonderful relationship with her parents-in-law to continue. She wishes to bring up her lad, her little boy Nesta, as she and her husband had always intended: as a British boy who speaks English and is integrated into our society and who understands, accepts and enjoys the mores of this community. She does not want to have to take him back to Japan, which is not quite the melting pot that she judges this society to be and where she fears that he may be subject to teasing, ridicule or possibly even discrimination.
I think that Yoko has a compelling case. Of course, there must be rules and there has to be a public policy, and the general principle must be of compliance with those rules and that policy. However, there must also be exceptions to every rule. I say to the Minister—I repeat that I believe that she is a humanitarian—that Yoko is not a statistic but a human being. Nesta, too, is not a statistic, but a human being. David and Angela Sibthorp, Yoko's parents-in-law and my constituents, are not statistics, but human beings. They are genuinely shaken by their first experience of immigration law and what they believe to be a defiance and violation of the rights of their daughter-in-law and the grandson whom they love so dearly. They want him and Yoko to stay here. They want that relationship to develop and become more fruitful, and to see the boy grow up into an adult citizen of this country.
I appeal to the Minister further to reflect on this matter. She and I have jousted many a time and oft in this House and doubtless we shall do so in future.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle)
I hope so.

§ Mr. Bercow
Indeed, I certainly hope that we shall. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her sedentary confirmation of that point.
I emphasise that, because I feel so strongly about this case, I have not the slightest intention, now or at any time in the foreseeable future, of letting it drop. Indeed, to coin 693 a phrase, I intend to go on and on and on about it, because I believe that denying the rights of Yoko and her child would be callous, cruel and contemptible.
I appeal to the Minister to offer me some hope in her reply.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing the Adjournment debate and setting out the issues that pertain to the case. I understand, sympathise and empathise with the distressing circumstances that he has outlined and the emotional effects on all those involved. I agree that no immigration case is a mere statistic; all have emotional and difficult aspects, and all involve human responses and circumstances. All those with whom we deal are human beings. I am conscious of that, as are the caseworkers who apply the rules, although sometimes that may not seem to be the case.
The hon. Gentleman set out the way in which Mrs. Sibthorp came to the United Kingdom in April 2000 with her husband, Andrew. The couple have known each other since 1992; they met while Mrs. Sibthorp was studying. They spent some time together in Japan before marrying there in 1995. In April last year, they returned to this country to settle and await the birth of their child. In accordance with the immigration rules, Mrs. Sibthorp was granted 12 months leave to enter the United Kingdom because of that marriage.
Upon his return to the UK, Mr. Sibthorp got a job in Scotland but, unfortunately, the firm that employed him went into liquidation. Following that, he and his wife lived with his parents for a short while. As the hon. Gentleman said, Mr. Sibthorp successfully obtained a job in London and the couple bought a flat in south London. Shortly after moving into their flat, Mrs. Sibthorp gave birth to their son, Nesta. As the hon. Gentleman explained, two weeks after Nesta's birth the marriage broke down.
In April, shortly before her leave to remain expired, Mrs. Sibthorp applied for indefinite leave to remain here. Her representatives asked for consideration to be given to the application outside the immigration rules on compassionate grounds, so that Mrs. Sibthorp can bring up her son in this country and maintain the undoubtedly close family ties that she has formed with Mr. Sibthorp's family.
The immigration rules provide that a person may be granted indefinite leave to remain here if he or she has completed 12 months leave to remain on the basis of marriage, provided that the marriage subsists and the couple intend to live together permanently. Unfortunately, in the case that we are considering, the marriage has not subsisted and indefinite leave to remain on the basis of marriage cannot be granted to Mrs. Sibthorp.
Mrs. Sibthorp's application for indefinite leave to remain was therefore refused on 31 October. She has exercised her right of appeal against the decision. The next step in the process is the preparation of an 694 explanatory statement, which sets out the Home Office's position and the reasons for the refusal. It will be sent to the appellate authorities, and the appeal will be heard before an independent adjudicator. Mrs. Sibthorp and her parents-in-law will have the opportunity to put forward their views fully at the hearing and the adjudicator will, of course, fully consider them before he makes his decision.
I cannot intervene in cases when appeals are outstanding unless there are "exceptional compelling" reasons for doing so. That is the phrase in the rules. It does not appear to me that there are exceptional compassionate circumstances. We must take account of the word "exceptional". I am not saying that there are no compassionate circumstances or that there is not a great deal of emotion and anxiety about the case. However, there have to be exceptional circumstances for a Minister to intervene.

§ Mr. Bercow
I understand the Minister's vantage point, but can she tell me of another case of which she is aware whereby a couple have been married for more than five years, a child is born and one partner leaves the other less than three weeks afterwards?

§ Angela Eagle
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I assure him that there are similar cases. They are not all in my head, but such circumstances are unfortunately not as rare as he may think.
I would like to take this opportunity to draw to the hon. Gentleman's attention that it is open to Mrs. Sibthorp's employers to apply for a work permit on her behalf. If the application were approved by Work Permits (UK), Mrs. Sibthorp would normally be granted five years' leave to remain in the United Kingdom, at the end of which she would be eligible for permanent settlement.
Under normal conditions, a person wishing to remain in the UK in approved employment must hold the necessary work permit before entering the country, but, in certain circumstances, Work Permits (UK) will issue a permit to a person already here if the criteria are satisfied. The immigration and nationality directorate would then consider whether to permit the person to remain here.
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot speculate tonight on the outcome of any work permit application by Mrs. Sibthorp's employers in advance of it being made; nor, in the light of what I have said, can any guarantees be provided at the Dispatch Box tonight that Mrs. Sibthorp would be allowed to remain in the UK by the immigration and nationality directorate, even if a work permit were granted. However, that may be a course of action that she wishes to consider.
I am sorry not to be more helpful on this delicate issue at this stage but, with an appeal outstanding, it would be inappropriate for me to intervene. I am sorry that I have to give the hon. Gentleman this reply tonight. I am aware of the case, and I will keep an eye on it for him. I hope that he will understand that that is all that I can say at this juncture.