IMMIGRATION OFFICERS AND HEATHROW CONTROLS (Hansard, 22 May 1968)

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)
My Lords, the action of these officers was in breach of a long-standing rule against taking any active part in any matter which is of public or political controversy. An inquiry made in accordance with the normal Civil Service disciplinary procedure has now been completed. This took account of all the circumstances, including representations made by the officers about their difficulties in dealing with would-be evaders of the immigration control. As a result, one officer has been transferred away from the Immigration Service, and 37 others have received a formal reprimand.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, are we to take it from that reply that the inquiry has been confined to the disciplinary aspect of the matter? Because it is clear from The Times report on April 25 that there is a good deal more to it than that. Should there not be an independent inquiry into what is behind the move made by these officers, who may have been up against the Home Office itself in endeavouring to combat illegal immigration? Surely that aspect of the matter should be inquired into independently.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I made it perfectly clear that the Home Office inquiry into the action of these officers included consideration of the representations they made about their difficulties. The central feature of this matter is that on this occasion civil servants went outside the general disciplinary rules applying to them, which state that: 682 Civil servants who advise Ministers and carry out Ministers' policies, and thus come within the politically restricted group, are bound to retain a proper reticence in matrers of public and political controversy, so that their impartiality is beyond suspicion. The rules also say that if they feel that they must give expresssion to their private feelings, then, they must first consult their official superiors and should, if necessary, seek an interview with the Permanent Head of the Department. This they did not do, and this is the matter with which we are concerned.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, does not the matter go rather wider than this? One of these officials is reported to have said: There is perpetual corruption and countless numbers of ways are used to get illegal immigrants into the country. The letter itself is said to have stated that: On occasions the Home Office would cave in to pressure to allow in a man who in all probability is not entitled to enter. Has that been investigated?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I reject at once, and I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, would have been the last to suggest that the Home Office would "cave in" to pressure from outside. It is a suggestion quite unworthy of him, although he was repeating something alleged to have been said by an immigration officer. The facts are quite otherwise. The number of refusals of admission rose from 1,339 in 1966 to 2,218 in 1967, an increase of 65 per cent. In the first quarter of this year, as compared with the first quarter of 1967, there has been a further increase of 65 per cent. in the number of refusals of admission.
When Parliament decides, properly and unanimously, that there must be further restrictions on the entry of immigrants, this adds to the pressure, for, contrary to what some people say, countless millions throughout the world regard British citizenship and the right to live here as one of the most prized possessions they could get. All this adds to the pressure to evade the control, which in turn adds to the work of the immigration officers. But this is something which Parliament has decided.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, there is also a good Home Office 683 rule that not only must justice be done, it must be seen to be done. Would it not be to the interest of the Home Office to hold an independent inquiry into some of these allegations that have been made?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, it is difficult to understand why the noble Lord wants an inquiry. As he is perfectly well aware, these officers acted wrongly. They have been dealt with entirely in accordance with the rules to which they subscribe and of which they are well aware. As for the allegations of corruption, which the noble Lord mentioned, we are aware of the wide variety of attempts at evasion—to say that you are the child or the wife of a man with whom you have no relationship; to say that you are over 65 when you are under 65, or to have a false passport or false claims. All these things we are aware of, and the matter is constantly under consideration. Not only these basic grade officers but the whole of the Immigration Department is constantly in touch with the Home Office informing us of any new development. There is nothing further to inquire into.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, did not the statement made indicate that in the view of these officers a great many people may be getting in by some means or other who should not get admission to this country? Is it not worthwhile to have an investigation to find out whether that suggestion is true? I am not entering into the field of controversy in the Home Office, but if I understood it aright, these officers suggested that large numbers were getting in who ought not to get in. Ought not that to be investigated?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, if it were true that large numbers were getting in who should not be allowed in, then it is an allegation that immigration officers are failing in their duty. On behalf of all immigration officers, who have done a very difficult job for a long time and done it extremely well, I completely reject that allegation.

§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORD
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government are prepared to publish the results of the investigations which were made into the causes which led these officers to take the steps which they did take?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I am surprised that the noble Viscount should make that suggestion and that he is apparently unaware of the procedure. What happens in cases of an offence of this kind against the disciplinary rules is that the person is given a written statement defining the charge and setting out the facts. He is then required to send a written statement in reply, and is given an opportunity to make an oral statement thereafter if he so wishes. None of these officers availed themselves of any of those opportunities. I make no complaint about what the Press have said, but there are no allegations to investigate.

§ LORD GIFFORD
My Lords, while I approve most warmly of the stand which my noble friend and the Government have taken on this matter, does not the whole discussion show clearly the need for the implementation of the Wilson Committee proposals as to the rights of the human individual as a matter of the highest priority?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend, and the Government have this in mind. However, as he will appreciate, that is another question.

§ LORD GRIDLEY
My Lords, would not the noble Lord consider that because 39 officers were involved in this complaint this, in itself, would give ground to fear that these officers had something with which they found it extremely difficult to contend? Secondly, could he tell the House who it was who carried out the inquiry into this affair?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, there were 38 officers, not 39, involved. The inquiry was carried out within the Home Office under the normal Civil Service conditions which are laid down and are never varied. So far as the conduct of these officers is concerned, it is no secret that they have a very difficult job to do, but there is no question that they or any other immigration officers ever carried out their duties other than with strict impartiality.

§ LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has not answered my question? I 685 take it that there will be no report. But does the noble Lord realise that from what he has said he will leave the suspicion with a large number of people that the refusal of the Home Office to have an independent inquiry into this matter indicates that there is something to hide?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I have completely answered the noble Lord's question, and, indeed, I have answered questions which have nothing to do with the Question on the Order Paper, as I always try to do. I can only repeat—and I leave it to the public—that there is nothing to report. We have dealt properly with an offence against discipline, and that ought to be the end of it in the minds of all responsible people.

§ LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is one thought that is bound to remain in people's minds, and that is how 38 loyal civil servants could feel so strongly about a matter as to break the disciplinary code?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, let us hope that this is an aberration from which they have now fully recovered.

§ LORD MITCHISON
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is another thought which will remain, at any rate in my mind, and it is this: how comes it that people who have held responsible posts as Ministers of State can make allegations of this sort, and can think that this is the right or the wrong way for civil servants to behave? I find it utterly incomprehensible, whatever the inducements of Party politics may be.

§ LORD CONESFORD
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, shows that he has completely missed the point? There are twe perfectly distinct questions. One is the disciplinary action that has been taken, on which, if I may respectfully say so, I appreciate the Answer given by the Minister; but the further question raised by various noble Lords, including my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, is on the investigation into this matter.

§ LORD CONESFORD
On that question the Minister says that he does not think there is anything to be inquired into.

§ LORD CONESFORD
Did the noble Lord not say in his original Answer that this had been investigated? Does he not now say that there is nothing to investigate?

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for putting us on the right road, not for the first time, but I would ask him to be so kind as to look at my first Answer in Hansard, and he will then find that I dealt with this matter completely.