§ Mr. Tony LloydTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what instructions are given to immigration officers about providing receipts for personal property which is retained by such officers;
(2) what was the reason for the delay in responding to the letter from the hon. Member for Stretford about Mr. Majid Agha (HO Ref A429590);
(3) what were the nature and length of the avoidable delays in arriving at a decision in the case of Mr. Majid Agha; and what steps have been taken to avoid repetition;
(4) when the conclusion was arrived at that Mr. Majid Agha resides lawfully in Britain;
(5) when the passports of Mr. Majid Agha were returned to him by immigration officers following their seizure;
(6) why the visit to the home of Mr. Majid Agha by immigration officers took place without notice; why the immigration officers were accompanied by police officers on the visit to Mr. Majid Agha; and why Mr. Majid Agha's passports were taken by immigration officers.
707W
§ Mr. RentonThe case to which the hon. Member refers was the subject of a complaint about the conduct of the immigration officers involved in the particular inquiry. Following investigation I wrote to the hon. Member on 8 June. The answers to the additional specific questions are as follows:
The reason why an unannounced visit by immigration and police officers took place was because information was available about the possible commission of immigration and other criminal offences. In the course of the inquiry two passports were taken away, against receipt, and with the consent of the person who was the subject of that inquiry. Instructions to immigration officers are that documents or other items taken during this kind of inquiry should have been provided voluntarily and that a receipt should be provided for any items retained.
The visit took place on 31 January, the decision that the person in question was lawfully settled in the United Kingdom was made on 3 April and the passports returned on 20 April. There were two avoidable delays: one between 10 February and 21 March when the case received insufficient attention due to pressure of work, and one between 3 April and 17 April when the papers were temporarily mislaid in the immigration office at Manchester airport. Local procedures have been revised, aimed at avoiding a repetition of such delays.
The reason for the delay in responding to the letter from the hon. Member for Stretford was, as explained in my interim reply of 13 March to his letter of 1 February, that investigation of the complaint and other inquiries at Manchester airport took some time to conclude.