§ Mr. Corbynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the dates and places since 1 March 1986 where (a) major joint immigration-police operations were carried out in the whole of the United Kingdom and (b) joint operations were carried out in the Metropolitan police area; how many police officers and immigration officers, and of what rank, were involved for each operation; how many people, and of what nationalities, were (a) interviewed and (b) detained in each operation. for how long and where; and with regard to what breaches of immigration law these people were interviewed and charged.
§ Mr. RentonThere have been five major joint immigration-police operations since 1 March 1986, all in the Metropolitan police area. They are as follows:
(1) At British Telecom, 81 Newgate Street, London. ECI, on 14 March 1986.
The number and ranks of police and immigration officers who visited the British Telecom building were:
Police
- 1 superintendent
- 1 inspector
- 1 sergeant
- 19 constables
Immigration Service
- 1 deputy chief inspector
- 1 inspector
- 2 chief immigration officers
- 10 immigration officers
One further chief immigration officer and five further immigration officers were subsequently used to pursue inquiries in relation to those arrested.
A total of 24 people were interviewed. Nineteen people were arrested with the following results:
Nine were judged to be illegal entrants (three Ghanaians, three Portuguese, two Nigerians and one Colombian), one (a Ghanaian) was charged as an overstayer, seven were charged with working in breach of 531W conditions (five Nigerians, one Ghanaian and one Portuguese), and two (both Ghanaians) were formerly cautioned for working in breach of conditions. Of the other five who were not arrested, one, a Nigerian, was an overstayer who was served with a notice of intention that he should be deported and with a restriction order, and four (two Ghanaians and two Nigerians) were found not to be in breach of the immigration laws.
Five of the illegal entrants detected at the British Telecom building were taken initially to Wood street police station but subsequently transferred to Latchmere house remand centre, pending removal from the United Kingdom. In the other cases the period spent in custody in Wood street police station were:
Number Four hours or less 4 Over four hours but under six hours 5 Over six hours but under nine hours 2 Over nine hours but under 14 hours 3 (2) At J. Paxton Ltd., South road, Wimbledon, on 6 June 1986. The available information is as follows:
The numbers and ranks of police and immigration officers who visited the factory were:
Police
- 1 chief superintendent
- 1 chief inspector
- 13 constables
Immigration service
- 1 deputy chief inspector
- 1 chief immigration officer
- 6 immigration officers
Thirteen people were arrested and taken to Wimbledon police station with the following results:
Nine were judged to be illegal entrants (all Ghanaians).One was charged with working in breach of his conditions. One cautioned for working in breach of conditions. One was found to be the subject of a deportation order. One released without charge. One further person was interviewed later at his home as a result of the operation and he was also found to be an illegal entrant.
(3) At the Celostyle factory, Dalston, London E8, on 11 June 1986. The available information is as follows:
The number and ranks of police and immigration officers who visited the factory were as follows:
Police
- 1 superintendent
- 2 inspectors
- 6 constables
Immigration service
- 1 deputy chief inspector
- 1 chief immigration officer
- 6 immigration officers
Thirty-nine people were interviewed (38 Turkish and one Yugoslav). Eleven people were arrested and taken to City road police station with the following results:
Six (all Turkish) were found to be illegal entrants. Two (one Turkish and one Yugoslav) were cautioned for working in breach of conditions. One (Turkish) was found to be a seaman deserter. One (Turkish) was charged as an overstayer. One (Turkish) was found to be a time-barred overstayer.
A further two people (both Turkish) came forward voluntarily after the operation. One was found to be an illegal entrant and one an overstayer who was not arrested.
532WTwo of the illegal entrants were detained. The seaman deserter was also detained. The total periods spent in detention were three and four days for the illegal entrants and eight days for the seaman deserter.
In the other cases the period spent in custody, all at city road police station, were:
- four hours or less—two
- over four hours but under six hours— one
- over six hours but under nine hours—six
(4) At the Intercontinental hotel, Hyde Park corner, London, W1, on 20 June 1986.
The available information is as follows:
The numbers and ranks of police and immigration officers who visited the hotel were:
Police
- 1 chief superintendent
- 1 sergeant
- 13 constables
Immigration Service
- 1 deputy chief inspector
- 1 inspector
- 1 chief immigration officer
- 7 immigration officers
A total of 27 people were interviewed (12 Ghanaians, nine Nigerians, two Ugandans, one Sri Lankan, one Bangladeshi, one French and one British). Seventeen people were arrested and taken to Vine street police station with the following results:
Seven were judged to be illegal entrants (three Ghanaians and four Nigerians); Four were charged with working in breach of conditions (two Ghanaians and two Nigerians); three were formally cautioned for working in breach of conditions (two Ghanaians and one Nigerian); and three were found not to be in breach of the immigration laws (one British citizen, one Ghanaian and one Nigerian).
The seven illegal entrants who had been detected at the hotel, and who were taken initially to the police station, were all transferred to the Harmondsworth detention centre during the evening of 20 June. Three remained there until their removal or voluntary departure from the United Kingdom, whilst the other four were transferred to Latchmere house remand centre on 22 June (in three cases transfer was via the Queens building detention). The total periods spent in detention in these cases were: 4, 8, 11, 12, 19, 26 and 32 days, respectively.
In the other cases the periods spent in custody, all at Vine street police station, were:
- Four hours or less—one
- Over four but under six hours—two
- Over six but under nine hours—two
- Over nine but under 15 hours—five
(5) At Abell house and Cleland house, John Islip street, London, SW1, on 12 December 1986.
The available information is as follows:
The numbers and ranks of police and immigration officers who visited Abell and Cleland house were as follows:
Police
- 1 chief superintendent
- 1 chief inspector
- 14 constables
Immigration Service
533W
- 1 deputy chief inspector
- 1 inspector
- 3 chief immigration officers
- 9 immigration officers
- 1 administrative officer
A total of 26 people employed by a contract cleaning company were interviewed, 25 Ghanaians and one Nigerian. Of these 14 were arrested and taken to Rochester row police station with the following results:
Five (including the one Nigerian) were charged with working in breach of conditions; three were judged to be illegal entrants; three were charged with overstaying; two were overstayers who were given notice of intention to deport them; and one, whose status was in doubt, was bailed to reappear the next day but failed to do so.
Following initial custody at Rochester row police station two of these people were transferred to Harmondsworth detention centre the following day, and two others to Latchmere house remand centre on 15 December, pending removal from the United Kingdom. The periods spent in detention in these cases were 1½, 14, 19 and 33 days.
In the other cases in which people were arrested the periods spent in custody, all at Rochester row police station, were:
- Four hours or less—one
- Over four but under six hours—three
- Over six but under nine hours—two
- Over nine but under 24 hours—four
Of the 12 people who were dealt with at their place of work two were judged to be illegal entrants (they were released temporarily pending removal from the United Kingdom); two were found to have been refused leave to enter and to be on temporary admission pending further
Husbands, wives and fiance(e)s in the Indian sub-continent refused entry clearance to the United Kingdom. Number of persons or percentages1 Husbands Fiances Wives Fiancees 1986 1987 1st quarter 1986 1987 1st quarter 1986 1987 1st quarter 1986 1987 1st quarter Number refused initially because primary purpose of the marriage was to obtain admission to United Kingdom: Solely for this reason 430 160 840 240 10 4— 10 4— Partly for this reason 20 20 120 50 3— 3— 10 10 Primary purpose refusals 2 as a percentage of all decisions: Solely on primary purpose grounds 35 ¨ 45 ¨ 4— ¨ 5 ¨ Partly on primary purpose grounds 2 ¨ 7 ¨ 3— ¨ 5 ¨ Primary purpose refusals as a percentage of all refusals2: Solely on primary purpose grounds 94 ¨ 83 ¨ 2 ¨ 15 ¨ Partly on primary purpose grounds 4 ¨ 13 ¨ — ¨ 17 ¨ 1 Refusal rate not calculated for a period of less than 12 months. 2 After taking account of successful appeals. 3 —nil. 4 5 or fewer/½ per cent, or less. ¨ not available.
§ Mr. Corbynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting in each of the four queues for entry clearance at each post in the Indian sub-continent on 31 March.
534Wconsideration of their cases; one was an overstayer. time-barred from prosecution, whose case merited further consideration; four were found to have no restrictions on their taking of employment in the United Kingdom; three were asked to produce evidence of their status, which could not be determined at the time. These inquiries are continuing.
§ Mr. Corbynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications from (a) husbands, (b) fiances, (c) wives and (d) fiancees have been (i) decided, (ii) granted and (iii) refused at each post in the Indian sub-continent for each quarter since January 1986; and how many such applications in each category and for each quarter were refused (1) wholly and (2) partly because of the primary purpose rule; what was the refusal rate in each instance; and what percentage of those refusals was (x) wholly and (y) partly on primary purpose grounds.
§ Mr. RentonInformation for the whole of the Indian sub-continent on husbands and fiance(e)s granted or refused entry clearance to the United Kingdom is given in table 9 of the quarterly Home Office statistical bulletin "Control of Immigration: Statistics — First Quarter 1987" (issue 14/87). Corresponding information on wives in 1986 is given in table 8 of "Control of Immigration: Statistics, United Kingdom, 1986" (Cm.166). Information for the whole of the sub-continent on persons refused on primary purpose grounds is given in the following table. With regard to the other information requested, I will write to the hon. Member.
§ Mr. RentonThe information requested is given in the following table.
535W
Applicants in the Indian sub-continent on 31 March 1987 awaiting their first interview for entry to the United Kingdom for settlement Number of Persons 1Category Post Queue 1 Queue 2 Queue 3 Queue 4 Dhaka 370 1,500 140 2,800 2 Bombay 200 480 570 100 New Delhi 70 210 530 140 Calcutta No queues Madras No queues Islamabad 800 820 2,100 770 2Karachi 70 80 60 — TOTAL INDIAN SUB-CONTINENT 1,500 3,100 3,400 3,800 1 Queue 1: Persons with a claim to the right to abode; dependent relatives over 70 years old; special compassionate cases (first-time applicants). Queue 2: Spouses; children under 18 years old (first-time applicants). Queue 3: Fiance(e)s; other applicants for settlement (first-time applicants). Queue 4: Re-applicants. 2 Data are estimates.
§ Mr. Corbynasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were waiting for special quota vouchers in (a) June 1987 and (b) December 1986; when those issued with vouchers on those dates had applied; when those now applying can expect to receive vouchers; and how many applicants there were for vouchers in 1986 and the first half of 1987.
§ Mr. RentonThe information which is currently available centrally is given in the following tables.
Table 1—Persons applying for a special voucher for entry to the United Kingdom Number of persons Applications Country Newly received Awaiting decision at end of month 1986 1987 1st quarter December 1986 March 1987 India 310 70 2,500 2,300 Kenya 380 100 440 470 Tanzanian 60 10 190 190 Malawi 40 10 10 30 Zambia 80 40 20 10 Elsewhere 30 1 10 1 Total 890 240 3,100 3,000 1 Five or fewer.
Table 2— Waiting times for persons applying for a special voucher Months Waiting time to main interview for Country Persons interviewed at end of month Person applying at end of month December 1986 March 1987 March 1987 India1 95.0 94.0 about 36.0 Kenya 1.5 1.5 1.5 Tanzania 0.75 1.0 1.0 Malawi 0.5 1.0 1.0 Zambia 1.0 1.0 1.0 1 Data relate to non-priority applicants. Priority applicants (i.e. widows with a child in the United Kingdom, heads of households aged 65 or over, and special compassionate cases) are interviewed usually within three months.