§ 3.16 p.m.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, following the judgment of the Court of Appeal in the case of Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Mangoo Khan (in which it was held that an immigrant who was given an entry certificate as a dependent child was not an illegal entrant within 1343 the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 by reason of his omission to volunteer the fact that he had married since the award of the entry certificate to the immigration officer at the port of entry) they will now grant indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom to any other persons alleged to be illegal entrants on the spurious ground that they failed to disclose a change in their marital status which had not been the subject of questioning by an immigration officer; and whether they will now review the law so as to make it clear that a person seeking leave to enter is obliged to give only the information requested of him or her.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, the court held on the particular facts of the case to which the noble Lord refers that deceit was not employed to gain entry and that the appellant was therefore not an illegal entrant. It does not follow that the courts would take the same view in other cases where a change in status was not disclosed and where the facts were different. In cases where the validity of a leave to enter is in question the Home Office will continue to seek to follow the decisions of the courts in these matters, and in any future legislation most careful consideration would be given to any proposals for clarification of the law in this regard.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, does the Minister agree that the only difference between this case and that of Zamir was that the court held that no deceit was involved in the case under review? Did they not hold that a person who enters in breach of the immigration rules is not an illegal entrant, because Section 33 makes him so only if he is in breach of the law, as opposed to the rules; and, secondly, that a person who arrives at a port of entry with a valid entry certificate is not obliged to volunteer any information about himself but only to answer truthfully all questions that are put to him by an immigration officer? Therefore, would the Government accept that paragraph 3 of the new rules, which says that everybody arriving in the United Kingdom must furnish the immigration officer with such information as may be required, means such information as the immigration officer may require and that the passenger is not meant to find out, by 1344 extra-sensory perception, what questions the immigration officer might have liked to put to him but forgot to do so?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first question, as I understand the decisions of the Court of Appeal, as best I can, the difference between the cases of Mangoo Khan and Mohammed Zamir is that Mangoo Khan was over the age of 21 and was held to have entered this country outside the immigration rules, whereas Mohammed Zamir was aged under 21 and was held to have entered this country within the immigration rules. So far as the important second question which the noble Lord has asked me is concerned—namely, what is expected of an entrant arriving in this country?—may I draw the attention of the noble Lord to the White Paper of my honourable friend, where, in paragraph 14, the noble Lord will notice that it is permissive for an immigration officer to examine an entrant in order to determine whether any changes in circumstances have occurred since the entry clearance was issued abroad. if after that the entrance is in dispute, then it is a matter for the courts.
Lord MORRISMy Lords, would not my noble friend agree that it should never be forgotten that British firms and nationals are often at the mercy of the whims and greed of corrupt immigration ministries abroad? Furthermore, would not my noble friend agree that, other than the protestational neurotics, the people of this country believe that the privilege of living and working in this country should be vigilantly guarded?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I think my noble friend is going a little wide of the Question originally asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
§ Lord BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask the Minister this? Before a review is made of legislation, would it not be possible to make a statement in simple language so that the immigrants who are ignorant of their conditions and rights might learn? When they make an application in countries abroad, this simple statement can be made to them in order to compensate for the absence of knowledge from which they so often suffer when they come to this country.
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I did not actually say that a review of the legislation was taking place. We have undertaken a review of the immigration rules and these have been the subject of a long debate in your Lordships' House. I should like to draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said on the second point. I would not wish to appear unhelpful on that point.
§ Lord G1SBOROUGHMy Lords, can the noble Lord say whether this Question is in order and in accordance with the customs of the House, in that the word, "spurious", prejudices the Answer? Therefore, is this question not totally out of order?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I think the Question was a little long. It was certainly extremely difficult to understand, but, so far as I know, as always with the noble Lord, it is in order.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, is the Minister aware that the Question was rather longer than I intended because I felt it was necessary, in order that your Lordships might understand the Question, to put the basis of the judgment into parentheses rather than simply to ask a question about Mangoo Khan and leave it to your Lordships to look up the original judgment in The Times? But in reference to paragraph 14, which the noble Lord has mentioned, does that not merely say that the immigration officer may make any inquiries of the passenger which may seem to him to be necessary to determine whether any of the exceptions in the previous paragraph apply and that this right of an immigration officer to put questions to a passenger is even broader than is laid down in paragraph 14? It is a very general power given to him in paragraph 3. What I was asking was this: May I assume that if the immigration officer fails to ask a particular question, and the passenger does not disclose the information which would have led the immigration officer to refuse him entry, that does not mean that he will subsequently be treated as an illegal entrant because of the failure of the immigration officer to ask that question?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I have already answered the noble Lord on that point. Paragraph 14 is permissive; if afterwards the matter is in dispute, then it will be for the courts to decide.