§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
11.45 pm§ Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge)I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise on the Adjournment of the House the case of Aura Sabadus. I am grateful to the Minister for replying to the debate I am sure that that courtesy will be appreciated by those concerned. I usually prefer not to raise specific cases on the Floor of the House in this way, but sometimes the circumstances of a particular case leave us with no alternative.
Aura Sabadus is currently living in the west country. She is 23 years of age. She came to this country from Romania about nine months ago and works at a Christian charity in Torquay. She is not only a committed Christian, but is here to improve her English. She has been an English scholar for many years. She obtained a first-class degree in journalism from the university of Bucharest. It was obviously entirely appropriate for her to come to this country to improve her English, while working in accordance with the terms of her visa.
Given the sort of young woman that Aura is, perhaps it is not surprising that she realised that opportunities would exist in this country to develop her English skills further. She did several things, one of which was to find out whether, in the light of the degree that she had obtained in her own country, it would be possible to study for a degree in this country. Indeed, she has been offered a place to study for an MA in media relations at Goldsmith's college, part of the university of London. She also took the opportunity of writing to Lord Rothermere, saying that she was in the country and was interested in journalism, to find out where that might take her.
Aura's problem is that if she followed any of those lines of inquiry so that she continue her English studies, she would be in breach of the terms of the permit by which she is here at present. I wrote to the Minister, setting out several circumstances—about which I shall briefly tell the House in a moment—that seemed to make hers a suitable case for the exercise of ministerial discretion. The Minister wrote to me on 21 November; the most relevant part of her letter states:
Under the Immigration Rules a person who is a visa national and who wishes to study in the United Kingdom must obtain an entry clearance for this purpose before travelling to the United Kingdom. An application to remain in the United Kingdom from a visa national already here in another capacity will be refused.That is a general statement of the law and, obviously, the law must be applied. There is no doubt that switching—the jargon for coming here under one guise and then trying to switch to another—is open to abuse. Both Aura and I accept that, but equally, she is no ordinary young woman.After Aura wrote to Lord Rothermere, she was contacted by the editor of The Western Morning News, Barrie Williams. I think that Mr. Williams would take it as a compliment if I say that he is a hard-bitten journalist; he is not the sort of person who would go along with a beguiling story. He said:
I met Aura today and she is a great kid with a real passion for journalism such as you only rarely see these days. Ideally, she should be getting enrolled on a journalism course in the UK or 776 starting work immediately and training on the job. However, the terms of her visa are so strict that I cannot even offer her unpaid work experience or freelance assignments. As things stand, she must go back to Romania in March—where she has little or no chance of fulfilling her ambitions.It will be obvious from the way I am introducing this debate that I understand why the law has to be as it is and why it must usually be enforced in all its rigour, but it is not inflexible; Ministers enjoy discretion. I know from previous correspondence with the Minister that she assiduously considers individual cases to find out whether discretion should be exercised. I shall give two examples, chosen virtually at random, to show how the rigour of the law can occasionally be mitigated.Perhaps I should mention in passing that there is one way in which Aura Sabadus could have ensured that her path was a great deal smoother. The position might have been very different indeed if she had said that she was an asylum seeker. I understand that there were 6,790 applications in October 2000—even more than there had been a year previously. There is a backlog of 74,000 undecided cases, and the queue for appeals is growing. I understand that, in 1998, Britain received more than 1,000 asylum applications from Romania, which is the fifth highest number in Europe. None of that is the Minister of State's fault, but it is ironic that, had Aura Sabadus been one of those Romanians in the queue of 1,000—had she said, "I am an asylum seeker"—her situation today might be very different.
This young woman came here, albeit on a visa, and then looked around for opportunities that might be available to her—at her own expense, let me say. However, because she has done things in a proper manner, she finds herself disadvantaged in a way that she would not have been had she acted in a more underhand fashion.
As I say, there are cases in which Ministers have exercised their discretion: we have read in recent days that two nurses from Zimbabwe are to be admitted to this country to work in the national health service in Wolverhampton, even though both are HIV-positive. On a lighter note, one has in mind the footballer Juninho, whose work permit obliged him to play a certain number of matches for his club, Middlesbrough. He did not play a sufficient number of matches, which put him in breach of his application for a work permit—I appreciate that that case involves a permit for work rather than for study, but it illustrates that discretion is available to Ministers. In the first instance, Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment turned down his application, so he did as anyone would—he wrote to his Member of Parliament who, in turn, wrote a letter. Ultimately, the Minister concerned was able to change his mind.
Coincidence matters in such cases: the Member of Parliament whom Juninho approached is the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair)—the Prime Minister. I am not yet Prime Minister, and Aura Sabadus is unlikely to become an international footballer, but Juninho's case makes the point that discretion is available. Tonight's debate revolves around whether Ministers might, even now, exercise their discretion in respect of Aura Sabadus.
Barrie Williams has said:
This lass is a gem, with a perfect grasp of English and I would love to be able to help her. She will be an asset to this profession and to this country.He might have gone on to say more—that she will be an asset to her own country. I believe that I am right in saying that no less a figure than the Prime Minister is 777 on record as saying that he wants to encourage overseas students, because he wants those who are students today but who will be leaders of their countries in 15 or 20 years' time to have a positive idea about Britain. Surely he is right. This is not merely a case of saying in a charitable and outgoing way that we should exercise discretion because Aura Sabadus is a most worthwhile young woman; in a practical way, we should recognise that it is people like Aura Sabadus who, in due course, will be major players in their own country. Given the opportunity to do so, it would be better if, when they return to their country, they carried with them a positive experience of this country.I have outlined the facts as briefly as I can. The hour is late and the Minister, to her credit, knows the facts, as I have written to her about them. It strikes me that what I am asking for tonight is not unreasonable. To put it at its most neutral, there is a clear case to be made for Aura Sabadus. She has backers—people who are not easily taken in and who are able to vouch for her bona fides. That must be taken into consideration. Equally, it is clear that we are not dealing with an application of the law in which discretion is not possible.
I only hope that the Minister, without giving any commitment about her final conclusion, will be able to go so far tonight as to acknowledge that the case is an interesting one that appears to go beyond the norm. Although all I have said this evening will have to be checked out, I believe that it is clear that Aura Sabadus is a young person who could be encouraged. If, in the end, she can show that she has backers and a place to study in this country, and that she can do that not at the state's expense, it should be possible for her to be given a chance. One can easily imagine all sorts of ways in which this young woman could have swung the lead dramatically and so not been in the position she is in tonight; instead, in her own way, she is trying to play it by the book. I hope that the Minister, who has taken the trouble to come along to reply to the debate personally, will able to see her way clear to offering Aura Sabadus some encouragement.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche)I thank the hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he introduced this short but important debate. I am grateful for his kind remarks, and I appreciate that hon. Members do not introduce Adjournment debates, especially on such a subject, unless they feel particularly strongly about the case in question. I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman on a number of similar matters, and I know that he feels strongly about them. I know from the correspondence that he initiated that he has pursued the case of Miss Sabadus with considerable interest.
As the hon. Gentleman explained, his ambition for Miss Sabadus and for the people who clearly feel that she is a person of exceptional ability is for her to be allowed to start working as a journalist in the United Kingdom or to be enrolled as a student on a journalism course. It is clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that she has a distinguished background in her studies in that area. I entirely understand her desire to come to the United Kingdom for a worthwhile career.
However, the immigration rules, which are the same as those that pertained under the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member, are clear. A person who 778 is a visa national, as is Miss Sabadus, and who wishes to come to the United kingdom for any purpose must hold the appropriate entry clearance when he or she enters the country.
The hon. Gentleman is right about the purpose of those rules. When Miss Sabadus applied for and was issued with an entry clearance, she came under the Home Office concession for voluntary workers. She advised the entry clearance officer in Bucharest that she had recently obtained her degree in journalism and wished to come to the UK in order to gain experience of the English language. That has been confirmed by the hon. Gentleman this evening.
Had Miss Sabadus informed the entry clearance officer that she intended to study or gain work experience in her chosen profession while in the UK, it is likely that her application for entry clearance as a voluntary worker would have been refused. As the hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in government, as well as from his constituency experience, consideration is given to the purpose for which the application is made.
If Miss Sabadus had mentioned that she wanted to become a student, she would have been advised how to apply for the correct entry clearance as a student; had she wanted to work, she would have been informed about the work permit system. It would have been for her to satisfy the requirements of the immigration rules in that respect.
As the House knows, a person who wants to take employment in the United Kingdom must hold the necessary work permit issued by the Department for Education and Employment before arriving in the country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has been modernising the work permit arrangements to ensure that procedures for employers are simplified and that the system reflects the United Kingdom and global labour markets. We are in a period where capital is extremely mobile, and skilled labour, too, is increasingly mobile. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would agree that work permit arrangements should reflect the desire of employers for flexibility.
Miss Sabadus arrived in the UK as a voluntary worker and has leave to remain in the country until 31 March. A condition of her leave to enter is that she may not take any other form of employment, paid or unpaid, during her stay. If she does so, she will be in breach of her conditions of stay and will be expected to leave the country. She clearly wants to do things properly, which we appreciate. At present, she has not made a formal application for further leave to remain.
The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the no-switching rule. He was right to outline the reasons why the rule is there. Unfortunately, it is there because, on a number of occasions the system has been open to abuse by people who have switched from one category to another so that they could prolong their stay when they had no basis for doing so.
In this particular case, there do not appear to be any compelling circumstances that would justify the granting of leave to remain exceptionally outside the immigration rules. Nor, on the evidence provided, do there appear to be any compassionate reasons why Miss Sabadus cannot return home when she has completed her time here as a voluntary worker. That is not to say that she is not a lady of considerable potential and ability, as the hon. Gentleman made clear. That has been recognised by 779 numbers of people in the United Kingdom, and Miss Sabadus clearly has impressive qualifications in her own country. However, the tests for Ministers and officials are those compelling and compassionate grounds. Saying that they are not present in this particular case is no reflection on the applicant's abilities.
If Miss Sabadus has found a prospective employer, he or she should apply for a work permit on her behalf, but Miss Sabadus will be expected to leave the United Kingdom by 31 March, when her stay as a voluntary worker expires. If an employer wants to do that and makes an application, Miss Sabadus will then need to obtain an entry clearance from the entry clearance officer in Bucharest, and she will be expected to meet the requirements of the immigration rules. She may also want to study in the UK. Again, she will have to show the entry clearance officer in Romania that she has been accepted for a full-time course of study and has sufficient funds to maintain and accommodate herself.
The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the Prime Minister's initiative on overseas students. The whole House would agree that it is in the great interests of the UK that as many bona fide students as possible should come to the UK to study. That is because, first, we expect them to receive a first-class education here and, secondly, 780 it is important for economic and cultural ties. As the hon. Gentleman outlined in his helpful remarks, it is very important indeed for people to go away with a positive impression of the UK. It is important for people, who, one day, may be extremely distinguished in their own countries, to have a favourable view of the time that they may have spent as students in the UK.
All those options are open to Miss Sabadus. However, in these particular circumstances, she must obey the rules, which are waived very exceptionally in the most compelling and compassionate circumstances. She must return to her country and make an appropriate application for entry clearance. I am sure that people who follow our deliberations will read the remarks that the hon. Gentleman and I have made. Of course, as I have said, the rules and requirements must be met and bona fides have to be examined. However, there is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman and those who have backed this applicant feel strongly and sincerely about her case, which they have pursued vigorously. I am sure that all those factors will be taken into consideration by an entry clearance officer, should any application be made in future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Twelve midnight.