§ Mr. Kaufmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, pursuant to his answer of 12 June to the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Whitfield) Official Report, column 270 in which it was stated that the guidelines on immigration cases appear to be working satisfactorily, he will inquire into why the immigration service breached these guidelines on 13 June by informing Mr. Shahed Saleem at Ringway airport that he must return to Pakistan by 15 June, although at the time of this instruction Mr. Saleem's case was still under consideration by his Department and no decision on it had been communicated to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton.
541W
§ Mr. HurdThe right hon. Member expressed his first interest in this case on the evening of 10 May, the day of the passenger's arrival. He asked that Mr. Saleem, who had not at that stage been refused entry, should be interviewed quickly, but that if further inquiries were needed these should be conducted at Manchester airport. The case was transferred to Manchester airport and the passenger was refused entry on 13 June. The chief immigration officer at Manchester was aware of the right hon. Member's earlier interest, but assumed, mistakenly, that this was confined to the initial delay in interviewing Mr. Saleem. Removal directions were accordingly set for 15 June. These were cancelled when the right hon. Member confirmed that he wished to make representations on the case. The chief immigration officer should have realised from the right hon. Member's earlier intervention that representations were likely to be submitted in the event of refusal of entry.
The action taken was not in my view a breach of the guidelines, but directions should not have been set without a check first being made about the right hon. Gentleman's possible wish to make representations, given his earlier involvement in the case.