Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Kevin Brennan.]

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to raise in the House the case of James Bishop, and the issue of the deportation and removal of defendants during criminal proceedings. I am delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend Andy Burnham, at the Dispatch Box today. He is one of the most diligent and hard-working Ministers in the Government, and I am sure that he will have something positive to say as a result of this debate.

The Bishop and Payling families lost their son James in a tragic road accident in June last year. Robert and Angela Payling, James's stepfather and mother, are constituents of mine and, together with Paul Bishop, James's father, they have demonstrated enormous courage and determination in trying to find out the full facts of this case. Each step of the way, however, they appear to have been thwarted by bureaucracy.

The road accident took place in Manchester in June 2004. Shao Jie Yin, a Chinese citizen who was in Britain, was driving the vehicle. He was charged with driving without due care and attention. I should tell the House that, when he was last in the United Kingdom, he denied the charge. The case never reached trial. Before a trial could take place, the immigration authorities—on their own authority, and without consulting any other agency—deported Mr. Yin to China. James's family are, rightly, deeply frustrated and disappointed, as the perpetrator of their son's death has escaped trial. They—and I, in holding this debate—are motivated not by a desire to punish, because nothing can ever bring James back to them, but by a wish to ensure that the flawed process that they have encountered is dealt with, and that this kind of situation never recurs.

James's father, Paul Bishop, said that James was

"the life and soul of the party and having a great time up in Manchester".

He could still remember vividly, as could all his family, the last time he saw his son. Since James's death, however, his mother, father, stepfather and brother have been sent to three different agencies, made many calls, and attended many hearings and meetings in their quest for the truth. This shocking situation has placed a further strain on the family and, in my view, made their grieving more difficult.

The scenario that I am describing this afternoon is something that we might read about in a work of fiction, not something that should happen in a modern system of justice. This family have been badly let down. There has been a serious lack of communication between Departments and agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, which has prevented the man responsible for James's death from being brought to justice.

The United Kingdom has among the largest migrant, resident and naturalised populations in Europe, and has sought to expand deportation in response to sharply increased migration pressures. The pace of legal developments in asylum and immigration throughout the 1990s and in the new millennium has been phenomenal, with four major Acts of Parliament being passed in the last decade. Often, the term "deportation" is not used in favour of removal, of which there are two sorts—judicial and administrative.

Judicial removal occurs following a criminal court's decision that an applicant could be served a removal notice. Under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971, criminal offences subject to those removal provisions include failing to observe a condition attached to the leave to remain that is granted to all non-European Union citizens entering the United Kingdom—for example, working without permission.

More broadly, anyone over the age of 17 and "subject to immigration control" may be recommended by the court for deportation if convicted of an offence punishable through imprisonment. In other words, all non-citizens, if convicted of a crime, are potential subjects for deportation.

Administrative deportation is, however, far more common and targets individuals who are residing in the United Kingdom without permission. Such individuals are directly targeted by the removal branches of the Home Office. Under the normal process, individuals receive a standard letter advising that he or she has no right to remain. That letter might be followed by further correspondence and a formal order.

The bulk of the people deported from the United Kingdom is made up of those who have already been detained by the state. From the information I have received from the Solicitor-General's office, Mr. Yin was administratively removed as he may re-enter the United Kingdom at any time. Mr. Leigh, the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said:

"The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has a target to effect as many removals per month as there are new unfounded cases. Despite a massive increase in expenditure on immigration enforcement to £300 million a year, IND has not yet come close to meeting this target."

According to section 3 of the 1971 Act, people who are not British citizens may be deported from the United Kingdom in certain circumstances. The law states that any person can be deported if they have transgressed immigration rules. In all cases, the immigration rules require that the Secretary of State will take into account all relevant factors known to him before a decision to deport is taken.

It appears that the chaos of the asylum system, with a catalogue of failings including mismanagement and near-shambolic record keeping, has resulted in James's killer escaping justice and his family being left high and dry at the hands of the legal system. But we do not know, as no one bothered to tell the family precisely what has happened.

What we know is that, following irregularities in Mr. Yin's visa, he was deported to China. From information obtained from the Solicitor-General, we know that he was removed from the United Kingdom. As I have said, that is similar to deportation. As I have also said, he can re-enter the country. He may even be back in Britain, for all we know.

James Bishop's case was brought to my attention when James's step-father, Robert Payling, came to see me at my surgery. Mr. and Mrs. Payling both work locally in Leicester and they describe their son as

"a very loveable young man, friendly and enjoying life."

Mr. Payling has told me of the immense amount of work done by Mr. Bishop. They are a close-knit family who loved their son.

James, who was 29, worked as a flight attendant for Thomas Cook Airlines. He had been living in Manchester for seven years before the accident on 22 June last year. He was walking home at about 10.30 pm when the accident happened. When he tried to cross the road, he was hit by a pizza delivery car, causing injuries that proved fatal, and was pronounced dead about half an hour later. Subsequently, the family were informed about James's death. The police investigated and prepared a case, which was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service. As a result, Mr. Yin, who was in the United Kingdom apparently on a student visa from China, was charged with driving without due care and attention.

What makes the Payling case stand out are its implications. Recently, the Government proposed fresh legislation on immigration to tighten borders and protect citizens. This case is evidence that if Government Departments fail to work together, the law fails citizens, as it has done in this case. If the Home Office had made the necessary inquiries into Mr. Yin's criminal record and liaised with the Crown Prosecution Service, it would have been able to identify that Mr. Yin was in the midst of being tried. That failure poses grave concerns for our modern justice system, which is viewed as a model and has become a framework for other countries.

Since the beginning of the trial, there has been a catalogue of serious errors. As I mentioned previously, I have not yet received a reply from the Home Office as to what happened in this case and the exact reason why Mr. Yin was deported before the hearing on 4 July. I am not sure whether the Solicitor-General has received a reply to his letter to the Home Secretary, although yesterday in Solicitor-General's questions, in answer to me, he said that there had been a number of "mistakes". Between 28 January 2005, and 4 July 2005, the case was listed before Salford magistrates court on five occasions. When the matter first came before the court on 28 January, Mr. Yin was not represented. The case was linked with that of the company that owned the pizza delivery car, By the Slice Ltd., whose vehicle Mr. Yin had been driving at the time of the accident. An application was made at the first hearing by the Crown to amend the summons leading to an adjournment from 28 January 2005 to 18 February 2005.

On 18 February 2005, the court was made aware that Mr. Yin had just instructed solicitors, Kristina Harrison and Co. of Salford, but that they had not yet received full instructions, and no paperwork had been passed to them by their client. That application was therefore adjourned to obtain paperwork, and the application was granted by the court. The case was re-listed on 4 March 2005, when it was adjourned for legal arguments to be filed in relation to the case against the owners of the vehicle. On 11 April 2005, the case was re-listed. The solicitors acting for Mr. Yin asked for further information and, at that stage, indicated a possible guilty plea. The case was adjourned to 26 April 2005. On that date, a not guilty plea was entered and the defence indicated their intention to instruct an expert, although they said that they had not yet received authority from the Legal Aid Board to do that. The case was adjourned again to 23 May 2005. On 23 May 2005, the defence had not yet received their expert's report, and the court ordered that the report be obtained and served on the Crown for conclusions and consideration no later than 30 June 2005.

The Crown Prosecution Service was first made aware that Mr. Yin had been removed from the country when Mr. Bishop contacted the Salford CPS office on 21 June 2005 indicating that he had been informed that the defendant had apparently been deported for visa irregularities. As a result of that call, the CPS endeavoured to speak to the defendant's solicitors, not the Home Office, but was unable to do so and left a message on their answering machine. On 27 June 2005, a letter was received from Kristina Harrison solicitors stating that they had now learnt that Mr. Yin had been deported but had no further information. Let us imagine how the family had to hear this news—it was not from the Home Office or the CPS. We hear a lot about codes of practice on such matters, but none of them ensured that the victim's family were informed as to what had happened.

The CPS contacted the immigration department, which confirmed that Mr. Yin was indeed removed from the United Kingdom on 18 June 2005, nine days before, but the representative of the immigration department was only able to confirm that the defendant was removed with his passport, and unable to provide any further detail other than to give a reference number. Further details had been requested via the police, but no reply has been received.

Following my letter to the Solicitor-General, he made further inquiries to ascertain the exact position with regard to Mr. Yin's status. Unfortunately, the only information that could be obtained was that he had been removed from the country, which of course everyone already knew. On 4 July 2005, the case was adjourned for the Crown to ascertain the exact position with regard to Mr. Yin's status. The matter was relisted on 18 July, when the Crown made an application to adjourn sine die and the court granted such an order. The case was relisted on 18 July by the Crown, which applied for and was granted an order to preserve proceedings. If the case could ever be recommenced, it would try to do so.

The Solicitor-General and I have yet to receive a letter from the Home Office. A Home Office spokesman told the Leicester Mercury

"If the Immigration Service is informed of any outstanding criminal charges, these will be taken into consideration before a removal is enforced.

If, after being removed, it comes to light that there are outstanding charges, it is for the police and the CPS to consider making an extradition request to the country to which the person has been removed."

The fact of the matter is that the CPS had failed to inform the Home Office, and Mr. Yin has escaped his trial. We still do not know what is happening.

What a mess. What a catalogue of incompetence. What an indictment of our expensive and so-called modern system of justice. Deportation is the exclusion of an alien from a country by the act of a Government. Losing a child must be one of the most devastating things that can ever befall a parent. After all this time, numerous questions remain unanswered. I have given the Minister notice of them, and here they are.

Why was Mr. Yin deported before the hearing on 4 July? Why did the Home Office not inform the Crown Prosecution Service? Why did the Home Office not inform the courts? What was the cost to taxpayers of the debacle? What steps are being taken to ensure that such a lack of co-operation never happens again? When does the Home Office intend to reply to the Solicitor-General and me? What will it do about giving the family a detailed account of what happened? What steps have been taken by the Home Office and the Foreign Office to ensure that the First Secretary of Immigration in Beijing knows precisely what has happened, in case a reapplication is made? Do we know whether Mr. Yin is back in the United Kingdom? Is there a file on him anywhere in the Foreign Office? How many other people have been removed in similar circumstances? Those questions need to be answered before there can be closure for the family, the wider community and anyone who has to go through this again.

Our criminal justice system is full of good people operating well in what seems to be a bad organisational framework. We need those good people, and this Minister, to make the system work better.

I thank my hon. Friend Keith Vaz for initiating the debate. As he said, it deals with a terrible tragedy and some difficult issues. He spoke, however, in a characteristically measured and assiduous way, and I want to help him in whatever way I can to secure the full facts of the case.

I extend my sympathies and those of the Government to the Bishop and Payling families, who have suffered greatly from the loss of their son in terrible circumstances, but have not yet been able to see a legal resolution of the tragedy.

My hon. Friend focused my attention on this specific case, and I thank him for doing so. I know that he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 5 October, seeking answers to some of the questions that he has put before the House today. Work is ongoing in the Home Office to establish the full facts. I am afraid that I am not in a position today to answer all his questions in detail, but I assure him that we will conduct a full review of the circumstances that led to this situation. We will of course share the findings with my hon. Friend and the families concerned. I shall give some general information on the policy of removal and deportation where criminal charges are outstanding, and answer, where I can, some of the questions that my hon. Friend raised.

I should stress at the outset that, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, there is of course a difference between deportation and administrative removal of an overstayer by the immigration and nationality directorate. Since 2 October 2000, deportation has been reserved for more serious cases, with less serious cases—for example, overstayers who work in breach of their conditions, and those who seek, or gain leave, to remain by deception—being dealt with under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

Since October 2000, the use of deportation has been mostly confined to cases where a foreign national has been convicted of a criminal offence and their deportation is recommended by the court as a part of their sentence. It is also possible for someone to be deported if doing so is deemed conducive to the public good: if, among other things, he has been convicted of a serious offence or has a series of comparatively minor convictions, and where the court has for some reason not recommended deportation; or if he has been deemed to represent a threat to public policy, public health or public security.

Deportation is not an alternative to a prison sentence, and the person concerned is normally expected to serve his full term of imprisonment before being deported. To do otherwise could be seen as treating a criminal from abroad more leniently than a British citizen. The victim or the victim's family could also feel that the person had not been suitably punished for his crime.

Immigration offenders—illegal entrants, overstayers or people who breach the conditions of their leave by, for example, taking employment when the terms of their leave prohibit doing so—are not deported. Instead, they are subject to administrative removal by the immigration service under the provisions of the Immigration Act 1971 and the 1999 Act. It is important to distinguish between administrative removal and deportation. I believe that the case that my hon. Friend has brought before us today was an administrative removal, rather than a deportation, and for that reason different processes will apply.

I know that when a person is deported from this country, a cross is put on their passport by the immigration authorities. Is there any indication on the passport of a citizen of another country that they have been removed, rather than deported?

I shall make the position absolutely clear to my hon. Friend when we reply to him with the full facts of this case, but I want to assure him today that when somebody has been removed from this country, the immigration service retains for future immigration purposes a record that would of course form part of their immigration history, should it be inquired into. I shall also get back to my hon. Friend on the specific issue of the passport.

The key difference between deportation and other forms of removal is that a deportation order prohibits a person from returning to the UK, as my hon. Friend said, until such time as the order may be revoked. Administrative removal, however, includes no such provision, and a person may seek to return to the UK at any time, so long as they comply with the requirements of the immigration rules.

There might also be some ambiguity about precisely when criminal proceedings commence. Strictly speaking, they commence when the accused is charged, but of course, he may well be arrested before that. It is not the policy of the immigration service to seek to remove someone from the UK once it is aware that the person has been charged with a criminal offence until such time—I stress this point to my hon. Friend—as the criminal proceedings have been completed. That being the case, it would not normally be necessary to inform either the Crown Prosecution Service or the courts of the arrangement for the person's removal as there would no longer be any involvement in the case.

Where an illegal immigrant or an overstayer is arrested for a criminal offence, consideration is initially given to prosecution, and the suspect is interviewed at a police station in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. In those circumstances, if it is clear that the person concerned has no right to be in the UK and the arrest is for a criminal offence under the Immigration Acts or is considered to be relatively minor, the immigration service may decide administratively to remove the person from the UK rather than prosecute them. At that point, the person is taken out of police custody and detained or released, using non-criminal immigration powers.

I want to stress another point to my hon. Friend. Before a person is placed in immigration detention, it has been the normal procedure of the immigration and nationality directorate over the last two to three years—a recent change—to check the individual's details on the police national computer database. That now happens in all cases. It should show up whether or not there is an outstanding arrest warrant or any charges laid against the person concerned. In this particular case, we have to find the full facts of what exactly happened—whether such checks were made and what information came back to the IND. I can assure my hon. Friend that he will receive a full and clear answer.

I should also emphasise to my hon. Friend that removal action would not be appropriate where the person concerned is accused of an offence, particularly a serious offence. That is the policy of the IND today. In those circumstances, the Government's position is that, pending the completion of those proceedings, the individual would not be removed. That being the policy, those questions go to the heart of the matter and we must get to the bottom of what happened.

My hon. Friend said that if the Home Office had made the necessary inquiries into Mr. Yin's criminal record and liaised with the CPS, it would have been able to identify that he was in the midst of being tried. I was listening carefully to my hon. Friend when he made those remarks and I shall ensure that he receives satisfactory answers to those points when we respond to him in detail.

My hon. Friend set out before the House some nine or more questions that are germane to the issues before us. As I said earlier, the IND carries out checks on all people placed in detention and it is possible that, in this particular case, the immigration service was unaware of the ongoing charges against this particular individual. That is the nub of the matter and we will try to supply my hon. Friend with the fullest possible answer.

My hon. Friend asked what steps were being taken to ensure that the lack of co-ordination never happens again. If there are lessons to be learned, it is vital that we learn them. That is also crucial for the Bishop and Payling families: like any other family, they would accept nothing less and are determined to ensure that it does not happen to another family.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's remarks. I understand that he does not have all the facts today and that he will contact me, but may I have some timetable for that? I wrote to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in August and it is now nearly November. My hon. Friend will need to investigate before he can write to me with the information, but we need a timetable so that we can achieve closure on this matter; otherwise it could just go on for ever.

The case has only recently come to my attention as a result of this debate. I give my hon. Friend my personal guarantee that I will get back to him at the earliest opportunity to place the full facts before him. Once we have those full facts and we know the full circumstances of this sad and tragic case, and if lessons need to be learned and action taken to prevent it from happening again, I categorically guarantee that that will happen.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.