§ 2.47 p.m.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds Dharambhir Singh, a boy of fourteen, was refused admission to this country and sent back to India on May 6, 1967.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, Dharambhir Singh was refused 1579 admission because he did not qualify for admission under any head of policy. He was living with his parents, brothers and sisters in India, and no case was made out for admitting him on grounds of hardship. Moreover, no application had been made on Dharambhir Singh's behalf for an entry certificate before he set out. I cannot emphasise too strongly the desirability of would-be immigrants applying for certificates before undertaking such a journey.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I apologise to my noble friend for having in a supplementary question yesterday on a similar issue, used the conscriptive words "in detention." I did not mean more than the less emotive word "detain". I should like to take this opportunity of apologising to the Minister for using those particular words.
On this Question, I should like to ask, first, whether it is not the fact that this boy was coming to his sister in this country; and if this sister had been a Commonwealth immigrant would he not, under the present law, have been allowed in? Further, is it not an anomaly that he was not allowed to enter this country because his sister happened to be a British citizen married to a British resident?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, on behalf of the medical and nursing staff at Heathrow I would express my grateful thanks to my noble friend for withdrawing the word "detention". Certainly those concerned carry out their not easy duties in accordance with the highest standards of medical care and courtesy.
With regard to my noble friend's supplementary question, it is true that this boy made the journey in order to join his sister and brother-in-law in this country. But I do not think there is an anomaly here. Had the boy been coming with his parents, and had his father been a voucher holder, he would have been admitted. But none of these circumstances arose in this case. It was admitted that the boy was nearly 15 and that, after continuing his education for a short time, it was the intention that he should take up employment. I think that not only in accordance with every rule, but also in justice to other would-be immigrants, it was right 1580 that he should be excluded on this occasion.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that answer, may I ask him this? Could more thorough arrangements be made in the countries from which these children come, so that parents and the children are informed of the conditions of entry to this country? Is it not the case that an information slip is inserted in the passport, and that very often there is no opportunity for the parents or for the child to be aware of the conditions under which he may have to return to India?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I think that one would not expect a boy of 14 or 15 to be aware of all those conditions, but I cannot accept the implications of my noble friend's question. It is the case that the Indian passport authorities advise intending passengers to this country to check with the British High Commission before travelling to find out whether they are eligible for admission here. The proof that the duty was carried out on this occasion is the fact that a note to this effect was found in this boy's passport at Heathrow Airport. No inquiry of the British High Commission had been made on his behalf, and certainly he did not have an entry certificate. It may well be that the Indian passport authorities do not spell this out sufficiently—that I cannot say. But they accept the duty, and if one sees the slip in the boy's passport one is entitled to believe that proper steps had been taken to try to prevent an unnecessary and expensive journey.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us in the House think that these immigration regulations are working reasonably satisfactorily, and is it not the case that if these regulations are not carried out it would make the job of the immigration officer quite impossible and would be grossly unfair to other immigrants who want to come here?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I tried to point out, in answering my noble friend, the unfairness that would be involved had this boy been admitted, but that still does not take away the fact that the raising of questions such as that which my noble friend has raised is of considerable value, if only to the extent that it underlines 1581 what the regulations are and helps to ensure that these very expensive journeys, and these great disappointments to such people, are avoided.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, is it not likely that the slip is put into the passport at the airport as the boy is leaving? Would it not be possible to consider giving the information at the time when the ticket is purchased, so that there is a longer period in which those concerned can appreciate what the results may be?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, it is not as easy as all that. The fact that a boy comes from India, at a very expensive fare, may mean in many cases that the arrangements have been spread over a period of months. If the noble Lord, Lord Byers, were at the airport to see what happens when these young people arrive here he would realise that every effort is made by the immigration officers to explore every possibility of eligibility; and, if the children are in any way eligible, they are admitted. It is not for me to say whether or not the Indian passport authorities are carrying out their duties as explicitly as we should like them to—I believe that they are—but I do know that the fullest possible information is given to citizens in this country who intend to have their relatives come to them from overseas.
§ LORD MOYNIHANMy Lords, is there no way in which it would be possible to allow responsibility for these journeys to fall more heavily on the shoulders of the airline transporting the people? I feel that if this were done before the passengers were allowed to board the aircraft in the country of origin, particularly India or Pakistan. the airline would make sure that their papers and documents were in order and that they would be allowed into the country to which they were travelling.
§ LORD MOYNIHANI suggest that possibly the noble Lord might consider some way in which the airline would be required to take them back free of charge.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I would only remind the noble Lord that the airline authority have to carry the person back to the country of origin if he is refused entry here, with a very doubtful chance 1582 of recovering their fare, and I am sure that they do all they possibly can to avoid bringing people here on fruitless journeys.