HL Deb 26 October 1976 vol 376 cc271-4

2.56 p.m.

Lord BROCKWAY

My 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 whether an inquiry is to be held into the circumstances of the birth of a baby (who subsequently died), at Heathrow Airport just prior to the mother's intended transference to an aeroplane to be returned to India.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)

My Lords, I have studied a full report on this unhappy incident. The mother, who was about eight months pregnant, was brought to this country on 20th October in breach of the immigration laws. At that stage there was no sign of an imminent birth and medical advice was that she was fit to return to Bombay. The baby was born prematurely the following day and mother and child were immediately removed to hospital where the child died. I understand that it could not have survived.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, the Minister has not answered my Question as to whether there will be an inquiry. How is it that a married woman, the wife of a legal resident of this country, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy was put on a plane to be returned to India, the delivery of her baby taking place without any medical assistance? Should not such an inquiry extend not only to those conditions but also to the alleged behaviour of some of the personnel who were present?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, the Government do not consider that in this case an inquiry is appropriate. I have indicated that I have studied the papers and so has my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The fact is that entry clearance is required for dependants seeking to enter this country. That is the situation quite clearly laid down by the law. Entry clearances are essential because experience has demonstrated that efforts are made to brine in women who are not the wives they are claimed to be. This in no way under-estimates the tragic nature of this episode, but I must make it clear that in my view there was no impropriety on the part of any member of the Immigration Service and that the Government see no cause for an inquiry.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, while deploring the fact that anybody should present themselves for entry without complying with the regulations, is it not the case that airlines in general never carry passengers who are more than six months pregnant? How, then, was this woman, who was apparently eight months pregnant, accepted for carriage?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, that is one question which I am afraid I am unable to answer.

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, is not that a further cause for inquiry? Is it not the case that, while there was a medical examination at the detention home, there was no medical attendance at all as this woman, who was in an advanced state of pregnancy, was being put on to a plane in a condition which airlines generally refuse to accept?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, it is certainly true that I am unable to answer the question as to why a carrier accepted this woman on to the plane, but that is not a decision for Her Majesty's Government. The Government have in fact a responsibility for answering questions on the subject of whether the Immigration Service behaved with propriety in this particular case. I must make it quite clear that any suggestion that there was calculated inhumanity, or even inadvertent inhumanity, is not a reading of this situation which, having studied the papers, I would accept.

Lord TREFGARNE

My Lords, will the noble Lord inquire further as to why the woman was accepted for carriage out of the United Kingdom, and can he give an absolute assurance that no pressure was brought to bear by the immigration authorities on the airline to carry the woman?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, the question why this woman was brought into this country and accepted by the foreign carrier is not one, as I have indicated, that am in a position to answer this afternoon. The essential feature of this case, which has received a substantial amount of publicity, is the suggestion that there was at best some lack of humanity by members of the Immigration Service at London Airport. What I am indicating this afternoon quite clearly is that, having studied these papers, I do not accept that those allegations have any justification whatsoever. I am also saying that there is a clear legal requirement on dependants to obtain entry clearance before they arrive in the United Kingdom. This matter has been debated over a substantial period of time. It is quite clearly the law and it is highly desirable that everybody concerned should attempt to abide by it.

Lord THOMAS

My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that probably the root cause of this tragic affair was the non-declaration by the passenger concerned of her state of pregnancy?

Lord BROCKWAY

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am not making any suggestion of calculated inhumanity? I am asking whether there is any suggestion that the woman was not in fact married to this man. Is there an allegation to that effect?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, the position is that the woman arrived in this country, as we now know, eight months pregnant, without t an entry certificate. The Immigration Service behaved in exactly the same NN ay as they would do to any other person who had attempted to enter this country without an entry certificate. There is one other point which I must make quite clear in view of the fact that it has been touched on. It is quite clear that medical advice was taken by the Immigration Service throughout this incident.