§ Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response has been received from those hon. Members referred to in his statement on Tuesday 29 October about representations made by right hon. and hon. Members in immigration cases; and if he will make a statement.
§ Mr. HurdMy hon. and learned Friend wrote to 23 hon. Members. Only two have replied giving express consent to make the correspondence public. In these circumstances, I do not believe that it would be right to name any of the hon. Members or publish any of the correspondence.
Individual replies have been received from 12 hon. Members out of the 23. Four of these have objected to publication; one has written but has not made his position clear; and one has asked for further information. Four hon. Members have agreed to their names being published—but not the correspondence—in the context of a debate. Three of these hon. Members have drawn attention to a statement issued following a meeting of hon. Members of the Parliamentary Labour party concerned with immigration and entry procedures making the same point. A letter in similar terms has been received from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) in his rapacity as chairman of the Parliamentary Labour party s home affairs group.
I think it would now be sensible to proceed to hold discussions referred to in my statement to the House on 29 October. The aim of these discussions should be to agree upon a code of practice which can be applied to the general run of immigration cases and which achieves a sensible balance between the rights and privileges of hon. Members to make representations on behalf of their constituents and the need to maintain an efficient and effective immigration control in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971 and the immigration rules, which have been endorsed by Parliament.