Illegal Immigrants (Hansard, 20 July 1978)

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees

I shall continue to deal firmly with illegal entrants. They represent a real threat to good community relations, a serious abuse of our immigration laws, and an affront to those (mainly dependants) who may have had to wait a considerable time overseas to come here lawfully.

The Immigration Act 1971 vests the administrative power to detain and 307W remove someone who is found to be an illegal entrant in the Immigration Service (as opposed to the power vested in the courts and the Secretary of State to recommend and order the deportation of someone convicted of a criminal offence). These powers have been exercised on an increasing scale in recent years; the number removed annually under these powers rose from 139 in 1974 to 496 in 1977; and on 31st May 1978 the number detained solely under these administrative powers, pending the giving of directions for their removal, was 80. I attribute this to two factors: a series of judgments in the courts which have declared these powers to be applicable in a wider range of circumstances than was previously thought; and an increase in the scale and effectiveness of enforcement action.

I have had representations from a number of organisations and individuals, including hon. Members, that the wider use of these powers to detain and remove illegal entrants has created anxiety in the immigrant community. Suggestions have been put to me that, particularly in view of the fact that the right of appeal against the exercise of these powers may only be exercised from overseas after removal, I should restrict their use.

I have given these suggestions careful consideration since, although the present powers were enacted when the main problem was seen as clandestine entry, they are now increasingly affecting those who gained leave to enter by deception as to their identity or entitlement. I see no difference of principle, but in any future legislation I should wish to examine afresh the best means of combining effective enforcement with statutory review procedures.

In the meantime, I am not prepared to dispense with the use of the existing powers, nor to resort to less effective or less appropriate alternatives (such as exclusive reliance on prosecutions, or on the Home Secretary's power to order someone's deportation on the grounds that this would be conducive to the public good). However, I accept that the exercise of these necessarily wide powers should continue to be tempered with discretion and that their limits should be clearly understood. The Immigration Service does not detain, still less remove, someone merely on suspicion but only when there 308W are sufficient grounds to conclude that he is an illegal entrant.

Someone so detained will be released temporarily whenever the risk of absconding is not high. Currently, about 20 per cent. of those detained are given temporary admission. No one is detained longer than absolutely necessary to enable his representations, or further evidence, to be properly investigated, and for removal arrangements to be made. I know of no case where someone removed under these powers has been found in a subsequent appeal to have been lawfully settled here after all.

None the less, I think it right that these wide powers should be exercised only under close Ministerial supervision. It would not be practicable for Ministers to give prior authority for the exercise of these powers personally in every case, but I have made arrangements under which Ministers are informed rapidly of every exercise of the power of detention of an illegal entrant, and for all cases of illegal entrants detained pending removal to be monitored each week by a Home Office Minister. Last year, 81 people found to be illegal entrants were none the less allowed to stay.

There are, moreover, certain circumstances in which I have thought it right that removal should not take place save on a Minister's personal authority. These already include illegal entrants with a spouse or children in this country, and unsuccessful amnesty applicants. And now, in response to many representations I have had, they will also include cases where a Commonwealth or Pakistan citizen cam' here illegally before 1973, and so might have qualified under the present amnesty arrangements, but subsequently left the country and re-entered illegally, typically by deception as to entitlement, on or after 1st January 1973.

As to the general position regarding the amnesty, I announced on 29th November 1977 that when the amnesty arrangements draw to a close at the end of this year (and there can be no question of widening, or extending the life of the present amnesty arrangements) those who would have qualified under them, had they applied in time, will likewise be removed only on the personal authorisation of a Minister.

I intend to keep the exercise of the powers of detention and removal of 309W illegal entrants under close and continuing scrutiny. Members of the immigrant communities, lawfully settled here, and those who represent them, who, I know, understand the view that illegal entry must be dealt with in the interests of good community relations, need have no anxiety that these powers will be exercised arbitrarily, or without regard for humanitarian and compassionate considerations.