House of Commons Hansard Debates for 24 Jul 1991

Mr. Speaker : Order. The House has heard that this is a consultation document. No doubt we shall come back to it when the House resumes in the autumn.

BILL PRESENTED

Registered Homes (Amendment) (No. 2)

Mr. David Hinchliffe, supported by Mr. Tom Clarke, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Gerry Steinberg, Mr. Keith Bradley, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse, Mr. Max Madden, Mr. Mike Watson and Mr. Michael Welsh, presented a Bill to make further provision with regard to accommodation and conditions provided in residential care homes and in nursing homes, and to residential security in such homes ; and for connected purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 October and to be printed. [Bill 219.]

Column 1175

Points of Order

4.20 pm

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will realise, the Secretary of State's announcement is a precursor to legislation--a highly controversial piece of legislation. Can you confirm that Conservative Members who are employed, as most of them are, by employers' organisations or certain employers and have a direct pecuniary interest which is used to line their pockets, unlike any Labour Member in respect of the trade union movement, will not be allowed to vote on this heinous, damaging and penal legislation?

Mr. Speaker : This is a hypothetical matter, as we have not yet seen the legislation. The House knows that every hon. Member is entitled to vote on matters of public policy.

Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on 18 June I raised a point of order about the failure of the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) to present a ten-minute Bill. Such a failure also occurred on 14 May. You will also know, Mr. Speaker, how disappointing it is for Back-Bench Members to wait to hear about the Labour party policy on immigration and to find that ten-minute Bills are not presented.

Mr. Speaker : We have such a Bill today.

Mr. Ashby : That is my point. The failure to present ten-minute Bills deprives other hon. Members of the opportunity to present them. The same Bill is to be presented for the third time today by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes). I ask your protection, Mr. Speaker, and ask you to instruct the hon. Member to apologise most abjectly to the House for his disgraceful behaviour.

Mr. Speaker : That is pretty bogus stuff, but it is July.

Mr. Max Madden (Bradford, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will probably know that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Health issued a letter saying that there is incontrovertible evidence that the draft report of his Committee was leaked to the Department of Health before it had been finally considered, and had been seen by Ministers and officials in that Department. Moreover, you will also be aware of allegations that a member of the Committee came to that Committee with more than 30 amendments which were clearly ghost-written by the Department of Health and which had the effect of rigging the Committee's report. Furthermore, the Member involved said that he had had discussions with the Government Chief Whip about the amendments and that he was under a four- line Whip to ensure that they were accepted. They were accepted at a sitting lasting more than eight hours.

It is clear that the effect of those shenanigans has been to undermine the principle of independent Select Committees. I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give the House your advice about what can be done, because clearly, this is a matter of collusion and conspiracy involving a member of a Select Committee, Ministers and officials of a Department and the Government Chief

Column 1176

Whip. Therefore, I seek your advice about what action can be taken to protect the independence of Select Committees.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. I have been asked a question and I shall rule upon it.

I have been informed that the Secretary of State for Health confirms that a copy of a draft report was received by his Department. The House decided in 1985 that such matters should be investigated in the first instance by the Select Committee involved. If that Committee considers that there has been substantial interference with its work, the matter will automatically stand referred to the Select Committee on Privileges. I have no role in the matter, and it should be pursued on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Robin Cook (Livingston) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House--

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. Hon. Members should contain themselves.

Mr. Cook : As a result of your statement, Mr. Speaker, the House is in the extraordinary position of hearing that the Secretary of State has today admitted that his Department received the contents of a draft report and, after that draft report had been seen, every paragraph relating to national health service trusts was dropped. Many of them were critical of the Secretary of State and stated, in particular, that his decision to grant trust status to Bradford hospitals had made their financial position worse. There has, according to your statement, been a leak

Mr. Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must not go into the detail. I got up when I did because-- [Interruption.] It is a serious breach. I have given my ruling, and it is now a matter for the Select Committee involved. If it so decides, the matter will automatically be referred to the Select Committee on Privileges, and I cannot hear questions of privilege on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Cook : The difficulty that the House is in is that, because it will rise-- [Interruption.] It is a grave matter that affects every hon. Member--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I cannot allow even Front-Bench spokesmen to go beyond my ruling, and I have made a ruling on this matter. Several hon. Members rose --

Mr. Speaker : Order. To the other hon. Members who intend to raise the matter, I say that they must not do so either.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have, correctly, ruled on the subject of the leak that led to a copy of the document going to the Secretary of State, but that is not the matter that I wish to raise. I wish to raise the matter of a further leak concerning the same document. The only leak that I have heard was the Chairman of the Select Committee wrongly talking about the document on the radio. That was the leak.

Column 1177

Mr. Speaker : I have already made my ruling on the matter, and I am not prepared to take any further detail. If what the hon. Gentleman alleges is true, it is a matter for the Select Committee and then for the Select Committee on Privileges.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim (Amber Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is not about the leak. Surely it is in order for the majority of members of a Select Committee to disagree with a report that was written by the Chairman and his unelected advisers and by no one else. Surely the abuse is for the Chairman to expect the majority of the Committee to agree with him.

Mr. Speaker : This is not a matter for debate on the Floor of the House. I have already said that I have received information from the Secretary of State for Health, who confirms that a copy of the draft report was received in his Department.

Ms. Mildred Gordon (Bow and Poplar) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you received any representations requesting the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House regarding the Bank of Credit and Commerce International documents lost in a fatal blaze in a warehouse in my constituency two weeks ago? Officials of the FBU--the Fire Brigades Union-- have sent to the police today evidence that the BCCI files were in the warehouse, although the police forensic department investigating the cause of the fire has said nothing so far. Furthermore, there was a fire in another warehouse containing archives a few weeks ago. Rumours are rife in my constituency, and it is imperative that information is given to the House.

Mr. Speaker : I have received no request for a statement on that matter.

Mr. Frank Cook (Stockton, North) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If circumstances had been different, I would have raised this issue under Standing Order No. 20, but it has emerged within the past hour that there is a possible conflict of interest concerning Professor John Knill, the chairman of RAWMAC--the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee-- and his involvement with Sir Alexander Gibb and Partners, a firm of management consultants under contract to Nirex--the United Kingdom Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive. RAWMAC has a responsibility to the Secretary of State for the Environment on major issues relating to the development and implementation of overall policy on radioactive waste management. It has to be independent. Nirex has the responsibility for making proposals. [Interruption.]

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if Conservative Members are not interested in the concerns of communities threatened by the deposition of radioactive waste. The point of order for you is that, as Professor Knill is involved with Nirex but is also the chairman of RAWMAC, his independence is in question. May I call for a statement from the Secretary of State tomorrow, as the choice of Sellafield has been announced this week and the House rises for a 12-week summer recess tomorrow?

Hon. Members : This is out of order.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I understand that the matter arose after 12 o'clock, and as the House will rise tomorrow I could not hear an application under Standing Order No.

Column 1178

20. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has said will have been heard by those on the Government Front Bench, and that they will consider the matter.

Mr. Robin Cook : Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I shall not take further points of order on the former matter. I have already ruled on it.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a second important point arising from the deliberations of the Health Select Committee.

Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman serves on that Committee, but I have already given a firm ruling on the matter. It is for the Select Committee to consider, and then for the Select Committee on Privileges. It it not a matter for me, and we do not discuss privilege on the Floor of the House. So what is it?

Mr. Clarke : With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker--and you know I have enormous respect for you--it is an entirely fresh point. [Interruption.] It is profoundly unfair that hon. Members who were not even on the Committee are seeking to restrict the ability of those of us who were to draw to your attention a very important point. Given that you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled--and rightly ruled--that what has taken place is a matter for the Select Committee on Privileges, there is another document to which I wish to draw your attention. It is the document in which the Secretary of State said, in response to the Chairman :

"No public comment was made on it."

Given the role of the Secretary of State, and given that the Secretary of State will be taking decisions on applications for trust status by the end of August, should not the Secretary of State make a statement? That is a serious point.

Mr. Speaker : I have already made my ruling on this.

Dr. John Cunningham (Copeland) : I am not questioning what you have said, Mr. Speaker-- [Laughter] --and I am not raising a point of order. [ Hon. Members :--"Sit down then."] I simply want to ask--if the rabble on the Conservative Benches will allow me to speak--whether you, Sir, will at least hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has to say before ruling it out of order. You did not allow my hon. Friend to finish his point, and I am simply asking you to do so.

Mr. Speaker : I will say this to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Provided that he does not in any way--and I say this to him as a matter of honour--breach the ruling that I have given, which is quite clear, I will hear him. As a Front-Bench spokesman, he must not breach that ruling.

Mr. Robin Cook : I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak. I was stopped last time not by you, Sir, but by Conservative Members. Let me make two points to you. [ Hon. Members : -- "He's raising it again."] I have been invited to speak by Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker is in charge of our proceedings. If those on the Conservative Back Benches will allow another hon. Member to speak, Mr. Speaker, I will put two points to you. First, on the question of referral to the Committee of Privileges, I seek your guidance on whether there is any

Column 1179

way in which we can seek to put the matter before that Committee before the House rises for three months, during which time it will be impossible for anyone to take further procedural action on what is a grave situation. [Laughter.] If hon. Members do not understand that it is a grave situation, they do not deserve to be Members of the House of Commons.

Secondly, I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that the House has today been placed in the odd position of hearing through you a statement from the Secretary of State to the effect that he received the draft document. In those circumstances, would it not be better for the House--and a courtesy for the House--for the House, and not just you--to be given a statement from the Secretary of State on why he received the draft report and what he did once he received it?

Mr. Speaker : The Select Committee will consider those matters and, as far as I am aware, it is perfectly in order for a Select Committee to meet during a recess. [Interruption.] I understand that I may be in error, if the hon. Member is referring to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking) : Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have given the House a clear and precise ruling, which should be helpful to us all. You have clearly explained that this matter is now back with the Select Committee and is for that Committee to resolve and that the House will have nothing more to do with it unless and until the time comes. May I appeal to you, Sir, to enforce your ruling and allow us to proceed?

Mr. Speaker : As ever, that was very helpful.

Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not seek to say anything about the leaked report being referred to the Committee of Privileges, but I want some advice--

Mr. Speaker : Order. I will hear the hon. Lady if her point of order is about another matter, but I remind her that this is an Opposition supply day. I will not hear the hon. Lady's point of order if it is about the Select Committee. Is it about the Select Committee?

Mrs. Mahon : I am a Back Bencher--

Mr. Speaker : And I am Mr. Speaker. Is the hon. Lady's point of order about the Select Committee?

Mrs. Mahon : It is about procedure. Can the Procedure Committee conduct an inquiry into why the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) moved 34 amendments at the last minute--

Mr. Speaker : Order. That is exactly what the Select Committee on Privileges--if the matter reaches that Select Committee--would want to consider.

Column 1180

Immigration (Dependent Children)

4.40 pm

Mr. John Hughes (Coventry, North-East) : I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to permit, in certain circumstances, the immigration into the United Kingdom of dependent children of parents settled in the United Kingdom ; and for connected purposes.

If the basic right to love and to marry and the important right to live with one's family are so highly valued by hon. Members, is it not ironic that the Berlin wall, which divided a country, a nation, families and loved ones should have enraged us, yet knowledge of the barriers that exist within the immigration legislation, which are just as divisive, should leave the House unmoved? Surely the celebrations at the destruction of the Berlin wall and the act of erasing that obscenity should have reminded the law-makers in this country that there can be no grounds for complacency or smug satisfaction while this country continues to operate inhumane immigration laws that divide families and discriminate largely unfairly against black people and predominantly against those from Bangladesh and India.

Anyone who was proud to posture at the bulldozed Berlin wall for the photographers should take a long look at the immigration laws and the practices that they endorse. If that person does not see a contradiction, he is guilty of the greatest hypocrisy in support of the implementation of the Immigration Act 1988 which I look forward to the next Labour Government repealing.

The race barriers at each British embassy, every British port and every British airport are the product of racist prejudice and bigotry embedded in immigration legislation. The effects of those barriers are just as cruel to parents settled in this country as were the distress and pain experienced by German families who were separated from their loved ones by the watch towers, concrete and barbed wire of the Berlin wall.

I want to concentrate today on one relatively small part of the immigration laws and will attempt to right an enormous wrong that has been perpetrated on many families and which could now be corrected, due to the introduction of new DNA technology which has exposed the Government's unfair discrimination against Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Indian children. The Home Secretary has been forced to concede that that technology is the most accurate method to determine parentage in immigration cases. Technology and my Bill would give the House the opportunity to erase from the Immigration Act 1988 a particularly cruel clause and allow the entry of children under the age of 18 to be dealt with in a just way.

Those children have the right to join their parents who have obtained British citizenship, but the parentage of those children has often been challenged and their applications refused. The argument has been used most often against children from the Indian subcontinent and particularly from Bangladesh and Pakistan. Entry clearance officers can take advantage of the fact that the registration of births of children in those countries is not compulsory. The absence of a birth certificate gives scope to say that a child's relationship is not as claimed, and permission to join parents is refused.

That discrimination really applies only to children from the subcontinent. In cases where children have been refused permission to join their families who have settled

Column 1181

here, DNA tests have shown beyond a shadow of doubt that their claims were true. A Home Office survey of those cases has shown that in more than 80 per cent. of cases the immigration officers had been wrong and the individuals were parents and children, exactly as they claimed.

However, the passage of time between the original applications and the DNA tests means that many of those children have now reached the age of 18 and are therefore no longer covered by the rule which allows them to join their parents. In other words, those families told the truth in the first place when their children were eligible to join their families. They were wrongly refused and now that their claims can be proven, the children are too old. That is a cruel and callous Catch-22. It is an inhuman anomaly in the Immigration Act. Consequently, a substantial number of young people in countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan can now prove a claimed relationship, but they were denied the right to join their parents in Britain because of the alarming number of erroneous decisions in the past. However, they are now over 18--the upper limit to qualify as a dependant of a United Kingdom settler.

Some 800 young people resident in Bangladesh have applied for entry on the basis of the stringent conditions imposed by the Home Secretary. Of that 800, decisions on 500 have been taken and less than one third have been allowed to come here. It is believed that the Home Office finds even that number to be too high.

An example of that miserable state of affairs is illustrated in the recent case taken to the European Court of Justice by Mr. R. De Mello under the instructions of the Birmingham-based solicitors Rust McKie. The case concerned Mr. Rahim, a British citizen of Bangladeshi origin and his son Angur Miah. The story began in 1976 when Mr. Rahim sponsored his wife and children, including 12-year-old Angur, to come to Britain to join him. The application applying to the whole family was refused because the immigration authorities did not believe that all the children, and in particular Angur, were Mr. Rahim's children.

In 1981 when Angur was 17, another application was made and was refused for the same reason. In 1984, another two applications were made, but they failed. The second application omitted Angur due to a clerical error. I should point out that the father is illiterate and the form was completed on his behalf.

After a lapse of 13 years in 1989--13 long years since the original application in 1976--a DNA test established that Mr. Rahim was in fact related to all his family. They were all allowed in with the exception of Angur Miah who, even after a further application in January of last year, was once again refused--this time because he had become too old. So, 14 years after the original application, Angur Miah the rightful son, cannot join his mother, father, brothers and sisters. He is exiled from his family because the Home Secretary refused to waive the conditions of the Act, or rule 53 as it has become known.

4.49 pm

Sir Marcus Fox (Shipley) : The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Hughes) has been the invisible man since 14 May. This is the third attempt to bring in his ten-minute Bill. It must be the longest running ten -minute Bill in history. The wording of his present Bill differs strongly from that of his first, but the purpose is the same.

Column 1182

Anyone who listened to what he has said must understand that his Bill represents unrestricted immigration. If it were to be allowed, the loopholes would be enormous.

We thought that, when the hon. Gentleman disappeared the first and second times, he was being got at by his Whips because they did not want the debate to be brought out into the open. He has been nobbled because his Bill now states "under certain circumstances". That is not the original wording. Never mind the Berlin wall, everything else that the hon. Gentleman said is contrary to the purposes in which Conservative Members believe--straight and fair immigration control. If Opposition Members support the hon. Gentleman in the Division Lobby, I hope that everybody in the country will read carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said.

I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Immigration Act 1971. We introduced immigration rules to try to restrict the immigration that was concerning the whole nation. What did we do? We made provision for Commonwealth citizens who were here to ensure that we could abide by the commitment to bring in their wives and dependent children. But what happened? The courts found it very difficult to implement. What made us change the position in 1988? The European Court of Human Rights decided that what we had done was sexist. If Opposition Members want to be accused of being sexist, they had better go into the Ayes Lobby. That would be interesting. All the wrong signals would be given outside the House if we were to vote for the Bill. When thousands of people are seeking political asylum here--many for bogus reasons--there is wide-scale abuse in immigration in this country. Opposition Members have been chuntering on today about unemployment and other matters. We are concerned as well. If we were to pass the Bill, we would make a mockery of immigration controls. Conservative Members are not prepared to do that. Opposition Members have always believed in easy immigration. They have opposed every major measure that we have introduced. The best thing that we can do this afternoon is to send the hon. Gentleman to Coventry where he belongs.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business) :--

The House divided : Ayes 98, Noes 124.

Division No. 224] [4.52 pm

AYES

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)

Allen, Graham

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)

Barron, Kevin

Beith, A. J.

Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n & R'dish)

Benton, Joseph

Bradley, Keith

Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Caborn, Richard

Callaghan, Jim

Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)

Canavan, Dennis

Cartwright, John

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Cousins, Jim

Cryer, Bob

Cummings, John

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Eadie, Alexander

Eastham, Ken

Edwards, Huw

Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)

Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)

Fatchett, Derek

Faulds, Andrew

Flannery, Martin

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Godman, Dr Norman A.

Golding, Mrs Llin

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Hardy, Peter

Harman, Ms Harriet

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Hood, Jimmy

Hoyle, Doug

Hughes, John (Coventry NE)

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Lamond, James

Next Section

Home Page