HC Deb 15 March 1989 vol 149 cc232-3W
Mr. Corbyn

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the criteria that the immigration service is instructed to use in order to determine whether a Member of Parliament is putting forward compelling reasons when requesting a deferral of removal in order to make representations;

(2) what checks are made of the consistency with which the immigration service is applying the criteria to determine whether or not a Member of Parliament shall be allowed to intervene in a port refusal case;

(3) how many individuals have been refused entry to Britain since the new guidelines on Members' representations became effective; and in how many of these refusals an hon. Member, lawyer or advice agency, sought to intervene;

(4) how many times hon. Members have sought to intervene in port refusals since the introduction of new guidelines for hon. Members' representations; and in how many cases removal directions have been delayed in order that representations could be made.

Mr. Renton

The criteria are exemplified in paragraph 10 of the guidelines introduced on 3 January and sent to right hon. and hon. Members under cover of my letter of 14 December. Instructions to immigration officers emphasise that the examples of circumstances given in the guidelines are not exclusive but are illustrative of the sort of circumstances which would justify deferment of removal. Under the guidelines a right hon. or hon. Member may contact my Private Office (or, out of working hours, the Home Office duty officer) after speaking to the relevant port, in any case where he believes that the immigration service has wrongly refused to defer removal on the basis of exceptional and compelling circumstances. In the first two months of 1989 some 2,700 persons were initially refused entry at the major ports and airports. Comprehensive figures for interventions are not centrally available, but during the first eight weeks of operation of the new guidelines, I understand that at the major ports and airports some 160 calls were received asking for deferments, and removal was deferred in about 14 cases.

Forward to