You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Commons Debates by date > Commons Debates - previous sessions > Bound Volume Hansard - Westminster Hall

 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 243WH
 

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 20 October 2004

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

UK Citizens Detained by US Immigration Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Derek Twigg.]

9.30 am

Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk) (Con): I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the important subject of United Kingdom citizens who have been detained by the United States immigration service. I shall address some general points before moving on to a specific constituency case.

At one level, foreign travel is relatively straightforward these days. Obtaining a UK passport is reasonably straightforward, and travelling for pleasure and business is common and often not too expensive. However, today's travellers must make certain that, before visiting a foreign country, they are aware of any visa requirements and any restrictions on articles and substances that they may want to take into that country. They should also familiarise themselves with its laws and customs and be aware that its legal and policing methods may not be the same as those in the UK. It would, in fact, be na-ve to assume that a country's laws and customs were necessarily the same as those in the UK, and people must be made aware of the fact that similarities in language, history, law, custom and perceptions of friendship may be no more than superficial.

There are, for example, fundamental differences between the UK and the United States of America. Superficially, we have a lot in common: we have a common history and a common language; the US legal framework is very much based on that of the UK; and we have strong economic, political, military and friendship ties. However, the unwary traveller can get into serious trouble in the United States, either out of ignorance or because of the operating procedures used by the immigration service.

In the case of the United States, we must be sensitive to the impact of 9/11 and of the international terrorist attacks that preceded it or which have taken place since. One can only imagine what would be the impact on our political system if an incident like 9/11 were to take place here. There would be an immediate desire for a massive strengthening of security, far beyond what we face now. There would also be a change in the balance between the emphasis on personal liberty and the rights of the individual and the belief that collective security was paramount.

Following 9/11, as the Minister knows, the US Government established the Department of Homeland Security to co-ordinate 22 Cabinet-level agencies connected with that important subject. President Bush signed into law the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act 2001, or the
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 244WH
 
USA PATRIOT ACT, to use the acronym. Obviously, some smart Alec spent a lot of time working out that acronym, and if we can find out who they are, one of our political parties might want to employ them before the general election.

The Act contains numerous provisions that affect immigrants as much as terrorist suspects. They broaden the definitions of terrorism, terrorist activity and terrorist organisations for the purposes of deportability and inadmissibility, create additional mechanisms to enable the Attorney General to detain and deport a non-citizen as a terrorist, and establish a new ground of inadmissibility for the spouses and children of those inadmissible on terrorist grounds.

Historically, the immigration and naturalisation service had responsibility for determining who could be admitted to the United States and for enforcing immigration laws. Following the reorganisation of 1 March 2003 under the Department of Homeland Security, however, two main bureaus were formed in the DHS to handle enforcement: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection and the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Apart from policing immigration and checking for the illegal entry of peoples and materials, the various agencies that make up the DHS have a primary duty to prevent terrorism. That task is truly considerable, both physically and psychologically, as the United States has to secure 8,000 miles of land and border entries as well as more than 300 designated ports of entry: a massive security problem.

Since 9/11, the United States has tightened its border and immigration procedures, with the understandable built-in suspicion that terrorists may be trying to gain access to the USA under the cover of legitimate names, backgrounds and occupations. However, since the new procedures were put in place, given the understandable psychological atmosphere of fear and suspicion after 9/11, many innocent foreign citizens, including those of the UK, have received unnecessarily harsh, arbitrary and at times totally inappropriate treatment.

Furthermore, it is difficult for either such individuals or the Foreign Office to get information from the US authorities or, at times, to obtain either an apology or redress. There have been a number of incidents involving ordinary citizens, as well as one or two high-profile ones. Hon. Members may recall that the well-known British writer, Ian McEwan, attempted to enter the USA via Canada to give a lecture. He is a writer who is much admired by Cherie Blair, the wife of our Prime Minister, and also by Laura Bush, the wife of President Bush. He was stopped at passport control and, for a reason that we do not know, he was refused entry. His passport was then stamped to show that he had been refused entry to the United States.

Following the natural furore over the incident, the United States Government investigated it and apologised to Mr. McEwan. They have now given him a letter to keep in his passport to say that a mistake was made. Once one's passport has a stamp, of course, it is there until the passport is replaced. That was a high-profile case, and I am perfectly prepared to accept that in any large organisation mistakes are made. However, mistakes have been made and incidents have occurred with people who do not have Mr. McEwan's high profile.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 245WH
 

I would also like to consider the fact that a number of individuals now appear on the Department of Homeland Security's preventive lists. The DHS obviously has a whole series of these lists, such as the no-fly list. They can be based on erroneous information. The individuals concerned, and others, can be detained or expelled for minor infringements, and they face the prospect that their passport will bear a stamp advising them that they have been refused entry to the USA or that their name will remain on some computer listing that can be activated by other countries. That is a serious point, which should worry all of us.

There is an understandable desire to use information technology to prevent terrorism, to screen out suspects and to make reaction time very quick indeed. However, we all know only too well from our own experiences with computers, involving either our family interests or business, and from the Government's record on computers—I use the word "Government" to refer to a 20-year period—that a name can get on to a computer by mistake, by the use of the wrong surname, the wrong set of initials, the wrong address or just the wrong biog.

Not only does that person face the prospect of being detained; the greater fear is that once the mistake has been recognised, their name might still appear not only on the main computer list but on those of allied countries. Once that has happened to an individual or their family, not only are they fearful of returning to the United States, but they fear that by travelling elsewhere in the world they could be picked up again—in Berlin, Johannesburg, Rome or wherever—because their name has triggered a whole series of reactions on other computers.

Given 9/11 and the threat from terrorism, it may be that the US Government, their agencies and US public opinion are quite prepared to see individual foreigners discomfited, detained and expelled for the greater good of security. If one believes one is fighting a war, one at times will face those options and difficulties. It is not for me to moralise on that. In 1940 a British Government, largely under pressure from public opinion, rounded up tens of thousands of aliens in this country because they were of German or Italian background. The fact that many of them were Jewish or had fled from fascism was not considered a reason not to detain them. Indeed, in the USA, a similar thing happened after the attack on Pearl harbour, when the Japanese-American community was regarded as a threat.

I accept that there is a balance to be struck, but such procedure is wrong in principle as well as in practice. The United States is likely to suffer further alienation from many of its natural friends unless it rectifies its procedures and the mental attitude that it has instilled in the people in the immigration service, who naturally assume that many foreigners are potential terrorists. I know from the experience of my own family and friends who have recently visited the USA that it is bad enough for those who look roughly like the average American, but the likelihood is that those who, in their deportment or dress, look as though they come from the middle east will psychologically already be regarded as a suspect.

Since 9/11, foreigners have been denied entry to, or expelled from, US ports of entry for a variety of reasons, including on the suspicion of their being active in or
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 246WH
 
supporting terrorist organisations or their political allies, on the suspicion of their being an illegal immigrant, for visa violations, for a failure to notify a previous criminal record and, at times, for just bad luck. Can the Minister give the Chamber any indication of how many UK citizens have been denied entry to the USA since 9/11? How many complaints has the Foreign Office received from UK citizens about unfair or erroneous denial? How many have complained that the treatment that they received ranged from verbal and physical abuse to being handcuffed and shackled at those ports of entry?

On the latter point, the US Government have recognised that there is a problem, not least in public relations, with the visit to London last month of Commissioner Robert Bonner of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. He came to London effectively to say that he recognised that the bureau had received complaints from many travellers from the UK and found that

He said that he had launched a "professionalism initiative" that incorporated a new code of conduct for staff which

He also said that he realised that the treatment meted out to travellers who had committed

had been

He concluded:

To be fair, only a month ago the United States recognised that it has a problem that is serious enough for the man who effectively runs the immigration service to come here to London to issue a public apology. That is a good start. However, the problem is not so much Commissioner Bonner recognising that there is a problem, but how to train and advise the people doing the checks at points of entry to the US. If their approach is to view foreigners as potential terrorists, they will probably continue to take a fairly robust approach to any citizen who may mistakenly have done something that affects their entry. Certainly, the fact that such people are no longer to be shackled and handcuffed is an improvement.

I shall now move from the general to the particular, and the case of two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. David Pattison of Beeston in Norfolk. Mr. and Mrs. Pattison flew to the United States on Sunday 25 April 2004, arriving at JFK in New York at 4.50 pm, US time. They were planning to stay in New York for a few days before going to Dallas to stay with Mr. Pattison's former boss, a US citizen. At passport control, on presentation of their passports, they were led to an office after their passports had been swiped. Mr. Pattison was informed that he would be denied entry to the United States and deported because there was an Interpol
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 247WH
 
notification on US records that he owed moneys to the state of Qatar, where he had worked as a finance officer. He denied the allegations but that made no difference. Since then, he has acquired written confirmation from Qatar that he was not wanted for any moneys owed and, some days later, the Qatar embassy in London said that it had no knowledge of any Interpol notification on him.

At the time, Mr. Pattison exercised his right to call the British consulate in New York, but was told that it was unable to help him. Since then, the Foreign Office has said that that procedure was wrong, and it has apologised for what appeared to be a lack of help and sympathy at the time. Mr. Pattison was then informed that he would be taken to a detention centre, while his wife was told that she had to make her own arrangements. Eventually, she went to a hotel. She was, understandably, greatly disturbed, but that appeared to have no effect on the US authorities—simpatico they were not.

After Mrs. Pattison had left, Mr. Pattison was taken to another room with seven other people already inside, where, in his own words:

Eventually, Mr. and Mrs. Pattison were reunited and put on board a return flight to the UK at 6.50 pm on Monday 26 April.

Since then, the commissioner has said that, in such cases, that procedure will no longer apply. I accept that in the USA, people who are regarded as criminals are often shackled and manacled; that takes place at the state level in certain cases. However, we would regard it as an overreaction to say the least. Generally, we do not do that to violent criminals unless they are continually trying to assault the police.

Obviously, Mr. and Mrs. Pattison were shocked and traumatised by what they had endured, but they were also angry and frustrated. That anger and frustration is still with them six months later. On arriving home, Mr. Pattison contacted the Foreign Office seeking an explanation for what had happened. He said that he received little in the way of explanation at the time. Indeed, when Ian Clarke, the senior reporter for our local newspaper, the Dereham and Fakenham Times, contacted the Foreign Office at the beginning of May, he was told:

Since then, Mr. Pattison and I, as his Member of Parliament, have attempted to gain both redress for what he and his wife endured and answers to questions. I have corresponded with Ministers and arranged a meeting with the Minister's colleague, Baroness Symons, so that she could hear directly from Mr. and Mrs. Pattison. That meeting took place in the House of Lords on 15 June, when Baroness Symons gave us about an hour of her time. She was sympathetic and agreed to follow up a number of points, in particular the alleged arrest warrant issued by Qatar through Interpol and the way in which Mr. and Mrs. Pattison were treated in New York, which she undertook to raise with the US embassy in London.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 248WH
 

Sadly, Mr. and Mrs. Pattison believe that now, on 20 October, they are no nearer achieving their objective of obtaining an explanation and an apology from the US Government for their treatment, or an explanation from Interpol about the arrest warrant. In fact, it seems almost impossible for anybody to get an answer. Mr. and Mrs. Pattison cannot; I, as an ordinary Member of Parliament cannot; even the Foreign Office appears to be unable to get an answer from Interpol. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Pattison case, it is incredibly frustrating that even a major British Government Department cannot get an answer out of Interpol, an organisation that acts as a clearing house through which member states can issue such warrants. That is a major problem.

In reviewing the correspondence between the Foreign Office and Mr. Pattison and myself, I note that Baroness Symons genuinely believes that she and her officials are trying to get answers for Mr. Pattison. I think that they are. Unfortunately, as they make clear, the Foreign Office is in no position to force the US authorities to explain what happens to UK citizens or to apologise for it. Foreign Office officials and Ministers have had numerous meetings, both in London and in Washington, to attempt to persuade the United States that they might have the wrong procedures and that they treat UK citizens and others unfairly. It seems that they have had limited success to date. I am not blaming the Foreign Office; it is a problem for the United States.

We are going through a period of considerable strain in British-American relations, mainly over the war with Iraq. There is a substantial amount of anti-President Bush feeling and, superficially at least, a lot of anti-American feeling. I regret that. I make these points as a convinced friend of the USA and the American people, and I speak more in sorrow than in anger. I hope that the US Government and the Department of Homeland Security will, at least, take note of the fact that British people, and a Member of Parliament such as myself, are feeling frustrated and angry. It will help to explain to them the alienation that they face from many others who will not even give them the benefit of the doubt.

There is also the problem of getting an explanation from Interpol. It seems that the Foreign Office sees itself as no more than an interlocutor between Interpol and individual UK citizens who have fallen foul of an Interpol arrest warrant.

Six months after the traumatic incident, my constituents still feel traumatised, frustrated and angry. They are not alone. Other British citizens have had similar experiences. Mr. Pattison still seeks an explanation and an apology from the US Government. I ask the Minister once again: is there any way in which the Foreign Office can facilitate that for Mr. and Mrs. Pattison? They still seek an explanation from Interpol, and indeed an answer to letters and phone calls. Is there any way in which either the Foreign Office or the Home Office can give Mr. and Mrs. Pattison practical help?

Finally, Mr. and Mrs. Pattison want closure on the experience. They feel very nervous indeed about foreign travel, certainly to the USA, which it is almost impossible for them to enter at the moment, but also elsewhere. Mr. Pattison feels that his passport has literally been marked. What guarantee has he that his
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 249WH
 
name is not included on various suspect lists that are not only held by the United States, but copied out to friendly Governments? We know that that is the procedure.

The citizen is at his most vulnerable. I remind the Chamber of what is printed on the front of all our passports:

Obviously, that was written when few people had passports, but it puts an onus on a friendly allied nation to treat our citizens in a reasonably civilised way, at least, and to accept that it may genuinely make mistakes. Finally, the Foreign Office has a duty of care to its citizens because they are taxpayers, and because it is right.

9.56 am

Mr. Iain Luke (Dundee, East) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing the debate and allowing us to discuss and deliberate on the plight of British citizens who have fallen foul of the American immigration authorities. I have listened carefully to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, and to the circumstances he related as to how his constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Pattison, were treated and, to some extent, humiliated by the agency.

In support of the hon. Gentleman's case, I will highlight the experiences of my constituent, Mrs. Maureen Mordente, a 63-year-old grandmother from Dundee. She suffered at the hands of the American immigration agency when she attempted to enter the USA at Los Angeles airport on 12 February 2003. Mrs. Mordente, who is an extremely pleasant, caring and warm individual, had made a lengthy, long-awaited and eagerly anticipated trip of 11 and a half hours from London to visit her daughter, son-in-law and seven-year-old granddaughter, having not seen them since 2000. Her visit, however, was brutally cut short, as she made it no further into America than the immigration control desk and detention centre at LA airport.

Mrs. Mordente's excitement on arrival soon turned to anxiety when, after a long wait to have her passport and visa waiver form checked, the officials at the desk subjected her documents to lengthy scrutiny. After some sharp and tense discussion, she was asked to accompany immigration officials to a side room for a lengthy, tense and eventually tearful investigation. During that intimidating process, it became clear that on a visit to the United States over the festive season of 1997–98, Mrs. Mordente had inadvertently breached the conditions of her 90-day visa waiver by staying in the US for 103 days—13 days over the limit—primarily because of her daughter's illness. At that time, she was not aware of the breach of visa requirements, nor was it picked up or pointed out as she left the country in 1998, or when she re-entered and left in 2000 during a holiday with her daughter.

It is obvious that the visa infringement was logged due to the heightened attention to security after 11 September 2001—which I do not dispute is
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 250WH
 
necessary— and that it caught up with Mrs. Mordente on that fateful trip, much to her cost and distress. Her treatment during the questioning, which went on for six consecutive hours, was brusque and intimidating. She knew that things were going wrong, but she believed that she would eventually be allowed to enter the United States and meet her family, who were still waiting on the other side of the immigration barriers, in the land of the free. She was allowed one telephone call, but her hopes were soon dashed as, after the questioning, she was rushed into another room, where she was fingerprinted and several photographs were taken, the last of which, it was explained, was a mugshot for her criminal record, which was to be retained in the United States. She was advised that she would be detained over night and deported back to the UK the very next day.

As hon. Members can imagine, the night that Mrs. Mordente passed in a cage in the LA airport detention centre was the most hellish experience that had ever been inflicted on her. That Dundee granny had lived a fairly quiet life but, after crying most of the night, she was deported straight back to London the next day, without her or her family having any chance to make a legal challenge to such an abrupt, arbitrary detention in and eviction from a country that prides itself on its legal system and which has a long, honoured history of seeking and promoting liberty. Nor, I believe, did the British consular service become involved in the sorry tale, despite the call that Mrs. Mordente's family made to the British consulate in Los Angeles.

The one glimmer of hope was that when Mrs. Mordente was taken from her cage to the departure lounge, after that shocking, searing sequence of events, the US immigration officer who escorted her left her with these parting words: "You're not banned from the USA, Mrs. Mordente; all you have to do is get right on down to the American embassy when you get back to the UK and get your visa sorted out. You're always welcome here in the USA, Mrs. Mordente." It seems that customer care was evident in Los Angeles.

On returning to the UK, Mrs. Mordente apprised me of her troubles. However shocked and upset as she undoubtedly was, with those friendly parting words ringing in her ears, she contacted the American consular service and doggedly attempted to obtain a visa to allow her to return to the USA. She pointed out that her husband, who in 1997–98 had also infringed the 90-day limit in the visa waiver rules but did not accompany her on the fateful trip to Los Angeles in February 2003, also applied for a visa at the same time, now starkly aware of what awaited him if he attempted to enter the United States using a visa waiver form.

Just to ensure that things would be done properly, I wrote to the then American ambassador, Mr. William Farish, whom I had met at a lunch that he hosted for the all-party parliamentary British-American group, of which I was a member. Indeed, the previous year, in 2002, I had been a guest of the American State Department and was given a card asking the American people to help me, an honoured guest in the United States, in any activity or with any problems that I might have during my two-week stay as a member of a group visiting the United States. Mr. Farish's response, which was polite and civil, as was his manner at the dinner, voiced regret that Mrs. Mordente felt that she had been unfairly treated during her short stay in the USA and recommended that she apply for a visa.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 251WH
 

The visa application progressed. Mrs. Mordente was interviewed on 15 July 2003, but was still awaiting news of whether she would be given a visa for entry to the United States again, hopefully to revisit her family there, in September that year. The disturbing thing was that her husband had already received the news that he would be given a 10-year visa, despite his breach of the waiver conditions in 1997–98. Not until November, following my further intervention, did she receive the long-awaited news. Unfortunately it was not good: as a result of her deportation, she was ineligible to enter the United States for 10 years.

Given the success of Mrs. Mordente's husband, she, her family and everyone involved, including me, was devastated at the news. For an overstay of 13 days, this quiet, peace-loving grandmother was given a sentence of 10 years without appeal. In a further letter from the United States embassy following my approach in December, it was also made clear to me that it was very unlikely that she would be allowed a further visa entry to the United States for a further 10 years. That is 10 years of exile from her daughter and granddaughter—her loved ones—who are now settled and applying for American citizenship on the other side of the world; her daughter is married to an American citizen.

As with the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, the local press had picked up the case and there was a story on 23 December 2003 in the Evening Telegraph—called "The Tele" in Dundee—under the banner headline "Banned in the USA", a parody of Bruce Springsteen's song "Born in the USA".

On 6 January this year, at the end of my tether, I wrote as a constituency MP to the Foreign Secretary. Baroness Symons responded to my request for Government intervention on 3 February, in similar terms to the reply that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk received:

To describe the situation as frustrating was an understatement; it was horrendous. She continued:

It is disgrace that the USA, a country in which the constitution enshrines a Bill of Rights guaranteeing basic freedoms for its own citizens, can treat honest, ordinary, hard-working, decent British citizens in such a way. I am not advocating that America should lower its guard against terrorism; nor am I anti-American because, as is the case for many Scots, lots of my relatives emigrated to the United States and I still have close contacts there. My mother goes out every year to visit family and I am glad to say that she has never fallen foul of the immigration service. I studied American politics and history at university and I am a close observer of the political scene in the USA, but given the nature of American society and its creditable role in the world, I believe that with that power comes responsibilities. A country that is at the forefront in size, technology and industry should at least be able to devise a system that can check whether cases are genuine, perhaps in conjunction with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British police. It should show a little sense and sensitivity.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 252WH
 

I am also disappointed by the FCO response. First, there appeared to be no involvement by the British consular service in Los Angeles; secondly, it is apparent that nothing can be done through diplomatic channels to ensure that cases such as those that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk and I have raised can be reviewed or go to appeal to secure some form of satisfactory conclusion.

It may be apt to point out that earlier this week in the matter of deploying the Black Watch, Dundee's local regiment, in support of America, the British Government are clearly all too happy to do everything they can to assist our oldest ally. It is a pity that that sentiment appears not to be reciprocated. When there are genuine cases of unfair treatment of British citizens, there seems to be no redress and no understanding between our two countries. I hope that the debate secured by the hon. Gentleman brings about a change in attitudes and that the FCO, even at this late stage, can do something. The hon. Gentleman, the Pattisons, Mrs. Mordente and I will be grateful if it can.

10.10 am

Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson), not only on securing the debate but on the exceptionally assiduous manner in which he has pursued his constituents' interests. I thank him for raising the matter in this House; it gives us an opportunity to examine the human cost of decisions that are taken—sometimes at a very senior level in the Government, as has clearly been the case in the United States—and the impact that they can have.

I also commend The Daily Telegraph. In preparation for this debate I have had cause to review some cuttings from that newspaper, and it seems to me that it has done a great deal to bring to light the problems experienced not only by Mr. Pattison but by other UK citizens in travelling to the United States.

I will listen with great interest to what the Minister has to say. Many of the legitimate concerns expressed by the hon. Members for Mid-Norfolk and for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) are matters for the US Government; they are essentially internal matters. We can, of course, express our concerns and hope that that will have an influence but, beyond that, if our colleagues on the other side of the pond choose not to act on our expressions of concern, we as individuals must make our own decisions.

At the start of his speech, the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk appropriately reminded us of the importance of our relationship with the United States. As with all close friends, it is important that we should be seen as being not uncritical. It is therefore appropriate that we highlight the concerns of our constituents in this public way today. It is also to the hon. Gentleman's credit that he reminded us of our own wartime conduct in interning people whom we perceived at that time to be some sort of threat. We should remind ourselves that, in the past, we have not been immune to that sort of attitude.

On the wider front, the greatest value of today's debate will be in examining our own procedures and questioning whether some of the things that we are doing in response to 9/11 could threaten some of the freedoms that we seek to protect.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 253WH
 

I have considered some of the most recent measures taken by the United States in the name of security, and I wonder how effective they will be. One can see the point of photographing and finger-scanning tourists who enter the country, but I question the effectiveness of the suggestion that every tourist should provide a complete record of their whereabouts in the United States before they can board the plane in the UK. For that to be effective, it would require a massive checking exercise, and it is difficult to imagine how the matter would be pursued if the person in question were to depart from the itinerary in any way. Perhaps it is not surprising that, since 9/11, there has been a 30 per cent. drop in the number of overseas tourists entering the United States. I hope that that may also serve as a salutary reminder to our Government about the possible impact of any unnecessarily draconian measures.

The hurt, anxiety and upset felt by Mr. Pattison is pretty clear. Indeed, the case was brought very graphically to the attention of the House today by the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult not to sympathise with someone in that situation. What concerned me most, however, was the withholding of information by Interpol which purported to relate to what was, in essence, a civil debt. I might have had some sympathy for Interpol if Mr. Pattison was alleged to have been involved in criminal activity in some way, but I must ask why on earth Interpol is holding information about people's civil debts. Surely all Members have experience of constituency cases in which people have fallen into dispute over the payment of a debt in the course of normal business activity. There can be any number of reasons why that could happen, but surely Interpol has better things to do with its time and resources than to hold and disseminate information of that sort.

I understand that the alleged debt, which, as the hon. Gentleman explained, was disputed and is now accepted to have neither truth nor substance, was about £6,000, or $10,000. Why on earth does Interpol have to hold such information, and what possible interest can member states have in sharing it for the sake of security?

The Daily Telegraph also highlighted the case of Marie Casafina. I do not want to go into the details of her case, but what was significant was the comment made by Richard Morris of the consular directorate of the FCO and reported in that newspaper on 22 May. He said:

The FCO should, quite properly, pursue this matter as vigorously as possible. Although my own experience of dealing with the criminal justice system in the United States is very small, it led me to realise that there is a culture there that accepts manacling and shackling in a way that I, as someone who made his living in the criminal justice system as a solicitor, find bemusing and barbaric. It is not for us to try to change the culture in America, but it is legitimate for us to ask that our citizens be treated with the concern and respect that they would be entitled to expect in this country.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 254WH
 

The experiences that have been related to the Chamber today should give us a small amount of satisfaction that officers of our own immigration and nationality directorate, although certainly not blameless, have, in my experience as a constituency Member, shown flexibility and compassion. That experience may not have been shared by all, but their behaviour certainly compares very favourably with that of US immigration officials about which we have heard today.

Another concern relates to the holding of information by Governments, which is greater post-11 September that it has ever been. Information is not only held by Governments, but shared between them. The accountability of organisations such as Interpol must be given serious consideration. If Mr. Pattison's case highlights anything, it highlights for us all the fallibility of Governments in gathering, holding and sharing information.

That is one reason that my party and I believe that Government plans for the introduction of identity tags are dangerous in the extreme and should be approached with the greatest caution.

10.20 am

Mr. Gary Streeter (South-West Devon) (Con): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing this important debate. He has a reputation in the House as a tireless worker on behalf of his constituents; we have seen more evidence of that today in the way that he has pursued the case and in his not being prepared to let it go. I also commend the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke) for raising another important case. I hope that we get some answers from the Minister on both cases—and some action.

I found the treatment of Mr. and Mrs. Pattison absolutely appalling and unacceptable. I feel for them, and I hope that today's debate shows them that we are on their side. What happened to them is unfair; it should not have happened and it must be put right. I am disappointed to learn about the wide use of shackles and manacles by US officials. I am also disappointed to learn about the role of the British consulate in America and its non-assistance in both cases. It has been suggested that that policy may now have changed. I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that. When British citizens travel abroad, they are entitled to expect more support from consular officials.

Although we have a close working relationship with the USA, I am concerned that representations from the Government do not seem to have achieved much in obtaining justice for those who have suffered. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk for fighting so hard on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Pattison. I hope that the Minister makes an appropriate response to the debate.

As my hon. Friend stated, it is important to put the Americans' reaction in context. We recognise and understand that 9/11 changed their world. It was the first time since Pearl harbour that the world's only superpower had experienced an attack on its mainland. It is no wonder that the country reacted in such a way and declared war on terror. If we are fully to understand world events, we must not underestimate the true impact of that frightful moment on the corporate psyche of the most powerful nation in the world.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 255WH
 

When the twin towers came down, they brought with them an appalling loss of innocent life. It subsequently transpired that it was caused by hijackers, some of whom had entered the United States using various ports of entry. It is no wonder that the country has responded so vigorously by putting up defensive shields and trying to stop foreigners entering the country if it is suspected that they are entering America to commit terrorist acts. We understand America's new determination to secure the country; the American Government, like all Governments, have a primary duty to protect the country's citizens.

We understand also that America needed to fix shortcomings at some of its border controls. America, a country that the hon. Member for Dundee, East described as at the cutting edge of technology, has for a number of years used low-grade technology in some of its border control systems, which often used to cause mistakes. No wonder it is trying to correct that.

Although I understand those reasons, it is none the less perfectly legitimate for us to question some of the measures that have been taken, and to question whether the treatment suffered by innocent visitors to the United States is justified in every case. In a world of great mobility and liberal global markets, it is vital that every nation, especially one as powerful as the USA, strikes the right balance between robust security and allowing access to its markets for business people, tourists and legitimate visitors. The USA needs friends—in its own country and around the world—and the treatment of tourists in America has further alienated public opinion at a time when such alienation is not needed.

The relationship between Britain and the United States has rarely been closer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, the Conservative party treasures the special relationship; I believe in it passionately. We are close allies, and we are co-operating in the struggle against terrorism. That is right and proper. The Home Office and the Department of Homeland Security share enormous quantities of information in their joint enterprise to detect terrorists and prevent them from launching attacks. We understand and support that.

However, although we have a special relationship, which we treasure, friendships and relationships work both ways. This must be a two-way street. If we are co-operating so closely with the United States, as we should be, we are entitled to expect a greater response from the Americans, particularly when cases are raised with them at a high level by Foreign Office Ministers. I should like to know why better channels of communication are not in place between the Foreign Office and its US counterparts and why there is not more of a two-way street in dealing with cases that are raised properly by Members of Parliament.

We remain concerned at the indiscriminate and bureaucratic way in which some rules of entry to the United States have been applied. My hon. Friend raised a case involving a constituent in which US immigration officials clearly overstepped the mark. The hon. Member for Dundee, East raised another case.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 256WH
 
Scanning some of the press cuttings about this situation in recent weeks and even in the last few days, one can see that there are many other cases.

Those travelling without a visa when an immigration officer deems that one is needed are at risk of being incarcerated and sent home on the first available flight. That is what happened to Mrs. Mordente and, as we have heard, when US officials incarcerate someone, they do not mess around. Some people have complained that they were shackled to the floor during questioning. Why is it necessary in this day and age to shackle or manacle people? Such action is completely disproportionate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk said, Robert Bonner, the US Commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, has admitted that some treatment of British visitors has been "grossly disproportionate".

Last year, two Britons who were frequent travellers to the United States were detained for several hours in a detention room at Miami airport. They were questioned for several more hours about why they had visited America five times in a year. Others have had immigration officials delving into their credit card details and telephone numbers. Kevin McKay, a UK citizen, had to go through a six-week process before being allowed to fly to the United States in January 2004, because of speeding tickets that he accumulated in this country eight years ago. Such a response is disproportionate. In applying the anti-terrorism Act, under which travellers have to list any criminal offences that they have committed, US immigration officials have decided to include minor motoring offences. That might prevent me, with two speeding tickets in the last five years, from getting in—but at least I do not wear red socks. There must be a balance.

Under the normal rules, citizens of 27 countries, including the UK, are entitled to enter the United States for business or pleasure for up to 90 days without a visa. Sometimes, however, through no fault of their own—often because they have fallen ill—people are unable to leave within that time. Following 9/11 and until recently, if such people were caught while trying to leave the USA, they were arrested and detained for a number of hours, until they could be found a place on a flight home; generally, they would have missed the flight that they were trying to catch. Since August, the authorities have relaxed that policy. They no longer detain people but simply require them to apply for a visa for future travel to the USA. We welcome that change of policy towards travellers who, for entirely innocent reasons, may have overstayed their 90-day residence period in the United States.

I shall, however, raise one other specific concern. In 1952, at the height of the cold war, which my hon. Friend remembers well, the United States created a separate classification of visa, called type I, for journalists, who were no longer allowed to travel as normal business people. When the hysteria of the 1950s died down, the immigration authorities stopped applying that rule, and journalists—most of whom, I think, are normal people—travelled under the same conditions as other business travellers. They made the same use of visa waiver programmes as the rest of us.

Since 9/11, however, officials have reactivated the type I requirement, although they have not publicised the fact. Journalists now have to apply for a visa, and that process is no longer easy. They have to pay a fee of
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 257WH
 
£60, dial a premium-rate telephone number to arrange a compulsory interview and, if they are from Syria, Iran or North Korea, or if they are male and between 16 and 45, complete a supplementary form listing every country that they have visited in the last 10 years. They may have to wait weeks, if not months, for the application to be processed. As a result, journalists have been detained.

A well-known case involved Elena Lappin, a British citizen married to an American, who had previously entered the United States telling officials that she was visiting as a journalist without a visa. At Los Angeles airport last April—Los Angeles seems to come up from time to time in these discussions—she was arrested for not having a type I visa. She was interrogated for four hours, body searched, fingerprinted, photographed, handcuffed and forced to spend the night in a cell in a detention facility in central Los Angeles. We can see from television programmes that that is apparently not a pleasant experience. She spent another day as a detainee at the airport before flying back to London. We have already heard about Ian McEwan's experience of trying to enter the United States.

Is not it odd that a country whose Congress is constitutionally forbidden to abridge freedom of speech should so restrict travel by foreign journalists? A US Congresswoman, Zoe Lofgren, is currently sponsoring a Bill to reclassify journalists as ordinary business people, making them eligible for the visa waiver programme and putting an end to the current shambles. Perhaps the Minister is making representations about that; we should like to hear from him if so.

We are keen to hear from the Minister about all that he has been doing and will do, particularly about the two constituency cases in question. It is worth saying again that I recognise the difficulty of these matters. We must understand the shock caused by 9/11 and we recognise the duty of every nation to defend its borders and citizens, but we live in a globalizing world, and the free movement of people, goods and services plays an important part in the global economy. Although the issues are primarily a matter for the US Government, given the strength of our relationship with the USA and the impact of the policies on UK citizens, we are entitled to expect that our Government will be active and robust in dealing with these concerns.

It would be good to receive answers from the Minister to the questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk and the hon. Member for Dundee, East have put to him today. I hope that he will intervene more effectively in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Pattison. They are entitled to an explanation from the US Government and from Interpol. They are also entitled to an apology and to closure.

I hope that the Minister will also intervene more effectively in the case of Mrs. Mordente. It seems to me that she should be able to visit her grandchildren in the United States and obtain a visa from the US authorities. What will the Minister do to establish better channels of communication with his US counterparts? Will he make the most robust representations to help the US Government to get the balance right, to make more friends around the world and to treat UK citizens more fairly?
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 258WH
 

10.33 am

The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane) : I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) on securing the debate, and on the measured way in which he and other hon. Members made their points.

One reflection needs to be made before I go on with the main part of my speech: we all, as constituency MPs, deal with distressing cases of British citizens who find that they cannot secure easy entry into the UK for relatives—spouses, cousins, brothers, uncles and aunts—because of our fairly strict immigration controls. I expect that we might take it amiss if a foreign Government, through their Parliament or Ministers, criticised our immigration controls, the measures that we had decided were necessary to control people's means of entering this country.

Many hon. Members have rightly praised our long-standing and close relationship with the United States, and I think that I am safe in saying that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk is a staunch supporter of the transatlantic alliance. Hon. Members are right to raise individual constituency cases, but we should not let the debate become a generalised criticism of America, for we should not be comfortable if other countries criticised our mechanisms because their citizens were not given swift access to the UK or were turned back at points of entry.

The individual cases raised are of deep concern to the Government. I would be happy if an American reporter were sitting in the Chamber, reporting the debate for The New York Times or the Washington Post. As a former president of the National Union of Journalists, I am delighted that an American Congresswoman is promoting a Bill declaring that journalists are human beings and should be allowed to travel freely.

However, we must set these cases in the context of the great concern that the United States has felt since 9/11. It was not analogous to the attack on Pearl harbour: it was far worse in terms of loss of life, and the attack did not take place on an island possession thousands of miles from the American coastline but was at the heart of the United States. It was an act of aggression by what Joschka Fischer described yesterday, at a lecture that I heard him give at the London School of Economics, as those promoting the new totalitarianism of jihadi terrorism. We must have regard not only to the extraordinary new sensitivity in the United States after that single act of aggression perpetrated by people who were able to enter America because of lax immigration controls, but to the necessity of forging a permanent alliance along many fronts with the United States and the democracies of the world against what Joschka Fischer rightly calls new totalitarianism.

In the case of Mr. Pattison, which I shall return to, there may have been a distinct and separate problem with Interpol. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) raised the question whether allegations involving a relatively small sum—it is good to hear a Scottish Member describe £6,000 as a small sum—should feature permanently on Interpol computers. Like the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), I have three points on my driving licence for a speeding fine, and it is frightening to think that that could prevent me from travelling around the world.
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 259WH
 

The United Kingdom enjoys a particularly close relationship with the United States. Bilateral relations are generally excellent and we are able to speak frankly to the US Administration whenever a problem such as that raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk arises. He asked me how many complaints we have received from British nationals about problems entering the United States since 9/11, and the answer is that we have had 30 since June 2003. We have not received many complaints about physical and verbal abuse, but I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a written reply to his question and place it in the Library of the House so that hon. Members are aware of it. Like other hon. Members, I congratulate those newspapers that have drawn attention to the problem.

I find the idea of manacling and shackling citizens of a country in alliance with the United States in Iraq and NATO wholly unacceptable. Were we to do that to any American citizen whom we decided to deport for whatever reason, there would be an absolute outcry. I hope that there would, because the idea of shackling and manacling anyone accused of anything but the most grievous or heinous crimes or acts of terrorism is wholly unacceptable, and I am happy to place that on the record on behalf of the Government.

The US Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration matters, has implemented tough, enhanced immigration policies. Those measures extend to all those who travel to the United States and affect all nationalities including British citizens. Immigration procedures are a matter for individual countries. We have no locus to intervene in the immigration affairs of other countries, just as I would not accept foreign interference in our immigration procedures. It is for the US authorities to decide whom they admit to their country. However, the Government have, of course, a duty to take an interest when cases of unacceptable treatment of our nationals by foreign immigration authorities are brought to our attention.

Some 3.8 million British nationals visit the United States every year. Most of them travel on the US visa waiver programme, which allows nationals of certain countries to travel visa-free to the USA for private or business visits of 90 days or less. The vast majority pass through US immigration without trouble. However, over the past 18 months or so, we have received complaints from a small but significant number of British nationals—about 30 since June last year, as I said—who have been subjected to sometimes aggressive treatment, including manacling and shackling, by US immigration officials.

Most complainants had committed relatively minor US visa infringements. The manner in which they had been treated seemed to bear little relation to the so-called errors that they had committed. We have raised individual complaints with the US authorities and encouraged complainants to write to the US embassy and the Department of Homeland Security. The US authorities have apologised for the handling of some cases, but not for their detention policy as a whole. That is why the Government decided that we should take direct action, at senior level, with the US authorities.

In early July, the Minister with responsibility for consular matters, my right hon. Friend Baroness Symons, summoned the chargé d'affaires at the US embassy to the Foreign Office to highlight our concerns
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 260WH
 
about the treatment of our nationals at US ports of entry. Obliging a foreign ambassador or his representative to come to the Foreign Office is a serious statement under the normal terms of diplomatic protocol. I stress that to underline our concern about what is happening to UK nationals going to the United States.

Baroness Symons spoke at length about the problem in general and about individual cases. She said that the matter was of great concern to the Government and asked that the United States take action to improve the manner in which our nationals were treated at US ports of entry when there was a question about their immigration status, and the conditions in which they were held in the event that they were detained. The chargé d'affaires undertook to convey our concerns to the relevant US authorities.

In late August, my right hon. Friend received a letter from the US embassy referring to the action that the US authorities had taken since her meeting with the chargé d'affaires. Our concerns had been investigated personally by Robert Bonner, the Commissioner for Customs and Border Protection, whose bureau has 35,000 employees and is part of the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS undertook to implement measures to improve conditions for what it called "immigration violators", those who are guilty of minor US visa infractions.

Those measures include the granting of greater discretion at ports of entry, to allow the admission of individuals who do not pose a terrorist or criminal threat to the United States. I only hope that a case such as that of Mrs. Mordente, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), could not happen again if sensible discretion were exercised by officials at ports of entry who were confronted with a granny who had stayed in the United States for 13 days longer than she should have done to be with her family.

In addition, three things have been established. The first is a unit to evaluate decisions made by officials on the ground at ports of entry. People responsible for apparently inappropriate decisions or behaviour will be held accountable and required to justify their actions. The second is a working group to tackle issues of courtesy and to institute a training programme for all employees on maintaining professional and courteous standards while enforcing the law. The third is a system whereby each complaint will be tracked and reviewed at national level to ensure that appropriate action is taken.

I hope that those changes will directly affect the vast majority of the British nationals who, on arrival at US ports and airports, are considered by the authorities to be immigration violators. However, it is not just British nationals who will benefit; the measures will apply to citizens of all nations who travel to the US under its visa waiver programme. The new US detention measures will not affect those who are detained for reasons such as terrorism, criminal activity or possible illegal immigration.

During a visit to the UK in late September, Robert Bonner told journalists that his bureau had received complaints from all over the world about US immigration methods, but he was particularly struck by the number from the UK. He added that the reputation of the United States would be at stake if changes were
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 261WH
 
not made to improve detention and deportation methods for visitors and to give his officers discretionary powers to allow entry to visitors who had committed only minor visa violations. I have sometimes described the United States as the world's greatest self-correcting democracy, and I hope that the points raised by hon. Members, which are being taken very seriously by Baroness Symons, have been put forcefully to the US authorities and will have some impact.

I do want to go into great personal detail about the case of Mr. and Mrs. Pattison, which the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk raised. There is clearly a problem as regards Interpol and the Government of Qatar, and we have received no documentation of any sort from the authorities in Qatar to clarify their position on the matter. I shall ask officials to write to the Qatari embassy in this country for a clear and definitive statement of their position on Mr. Pattison and for clarification whether any documentation relating to his case has been sent to Interpol.

Hon. Members must forgive me if I sound as though I am passing the ball to another Department, but, technically, relationships with Interpol fall under the aegis of the Home Office and, in particular, the National Criminal Intelligence Service. I assure the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk and the House that I shall write personally to Mr. David Lock, the chairman of NCIS and a former colleague of ours. I shall send him a copy of the Hansard report of this debate and ask him to communicate directly with Interpol so that we can find out what is going on. If it would be helpful, I shall also ask him to meet Mr. Pattison. Once we have all the documents and facts in front of us, we can then at least seek to clear up that part of the problem.

I hope that hon. Members accept that the Government have been active, and successfully so, in improving the detention conditions for British nationals who have travelled to the United States on the visa waiver programme. Indeed, in achieving better treatment for our own citizens and making the robust interventions that I have reported to hon. Members, we have succeeded in achieving the same for nationals of other countries.

I am also happy to write to the National Union of Journalists and the International Federation of Journalists to seek their views on the new I visa, which the hon. Member for South-West Devon raised on behalf of the Opposition. Our US colleagues have indicated that our efforts have brought about much-needed change in that regard. We are pleased about that, but we are not complacent. We shall carefully monitor the implementation of the new US measures, and we shall not hesitate to raise with the US Administration any problems that we observe or which are reported to us.

Mr. Keith Simpson : I welcome the Minister's broad comments and thank him for offering to use his good offices with Interpol. I seek his advice on the case of my constituent and that raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke). I accept that the Foreign Office can intervene and advise the American Government of its dissatisfaction, although it cannot tell them what to do, but how can I obtain from the
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 262WH
 
American Government some recognition of the fact that my constituent was treated arbitrarily and unfairly, and some assurance that his name will not appear on the Department of Homeland Security computer, which would cause him problems if he ever wanted to return to America or, indeed, visit allied countries? Similarly, speaking on behalf of the hon. Gentleman, how can his constituent receive redress for what is effectively a 10-year bar?

Mr. MacShane : I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall ask officials to contact the American embassy over the case of Mrs. Mordente. A Dundee granny who loves America and wants to visit should not have to wait until 2012, and for another two or three American presidents to come to office—although I am sure that we will still have a Labour Government—to see her grandchildren again. However, I stress that the decision must be for the American authorities. On Mr. Pattison, Interpol has told my officials that the warrant is still active, so the problem has to be between Qatar, Mr. Pattison and Interpol. However, I assure the Chamber and the hon. Gentleman that we will do our best for Mr. Pattison.

I make two general points in closing. First, it would be helpful if the travel pages of our newspapers highlighted the necessity for all of us to look carefully at our visas and passports and at the new requirements, particularly for those travelling to the United States.

Throughout British history famous writers have been barred from entering America. For example, Graham Greene was stopped back in the 1950s at the height of the cold war because it was alleged that he had a loose connection with the Communist party. The case of Ian McEwan has been raised, and the case of the singer formerly known as Cat Stevens caused a great fuss here. The Foreign Secretary raised the issue directly with the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell. My message is that we shall vigorously take up all the questions and problems that have been raised. However, there is a duty on us all not only to criticise the United States, but to understand that new rules are in place and to ensure that we comply, just as we expect everyone coming to our country to comply with our rules.

My second point is that we now live in a globalised economy. British business men roam all over the world, rightly, working professionally and getting involved in investments and financial transactions. Sometimes allegations are made, however. I do not refer in any way to Mr. Pattison, but I know of cases involving allegations to do with financial transactions that one party or another does not consider appropriate. Governments can step in on behalf of their nationals and accuse British citizens of improper behaviour over what would be a civil matter rather than a criminal matter, to do with contractual obligations, payments honoured or otherwise, and so on.

Once people's names are on a computer somewhere, it is, I accept, difficult to have them removed. Both as a constituency MP and as a Foreign Office Minister, therefore, I advise people to be purer almost than Caesar's wife. People should be extraordinarily careful not to become involved in any business activity that would not be the norm in UK business, but which they might feel they could get away with because they were dealing with a far-away Government, well beyond the
 
20 Oct 2004 : Column 263WH
 
jurisdiction of British courts. I try to put the matter as delicately as possible and I in no way refer to the hon. Gentleman's constituent. However, as a Foreign Office Minister, I find that the issue is one of the most troublesome that I have to deal with.

My message to American journalists is please to report such cases on the front page, to show the concern of the House of Commons about manacling and shackling, and the treatment meted out to the Pattisons, Mrs. Mordente and other British nationals. My message to the editors of travel pages is please to highlight the fact that America is a wonderful place. I love taking my family there on holiday, but new rules are in place and we have to respect them.

My message to the editors of the business pages is to warn business men that a wrongly signed contract, a dishonoured cheque or an investment that is not made according to the rules and with complete transparency that could be defended in a British court, may mean that their names end up on lists that could cause them trouble. Until we have defeated what Joschka Fischer described as the new totalitarianism—the onslaught of organised jihadi terrorists against western values and all countries that are committed to democracy and the rule of law—these problems will continue to plague us. However, I assure the House that the FCO will defend British citizens and be robust with American and other authorities whom we think are not treating them properly. I hope that hon. Members accept that we have obtained some redress from the United States and new ways of operating. I am grateful to hon. Members who have spoken in this important debate.

Next Section IndexHome Page