§ 11.19 a.m.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government in what circumstances the immigration authorities at Heathrow Airport attempted to cause Miss Vipha D. Patel to board a Qantas airliner against the wishes of the captain on Sunday, July 23, and what representations concerning this incident have been made by the Australian High Commission to Her Majesty's Government.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, Miss Patel, who is a United Kingdom passport holder subject to immigration control, arrived from India for settlement without a special voucher or entry certificate. She was refused admission and sent back to India on July 18, but returned straight away. Arrangements were made for her removal again on July 23. After she had boarded the aircraft, in company with others who had been refused admission on similar grounds, a spokesman for the group informed the commander of the aircraft that they did not wish to travel, whereupon the commander advised them to disembark. Miss Patel was removed from the United Kingdom two days later, again returned on July 26 and was then admitted for three months. No representations have been received from the Australian High Commission.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, is this not a vicious and immoral policy, contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights which speaks of "inhuman and degrading treatment", such as has been meted out to Miss Patel? Would the noble Viscount agree that many of us consider that such things would not have happened if the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had still been in charge of the Department? May I further ask the noble Viscount whether he agrees with the leading article in this morning's Daily Telegraph—a newspaper not normally unsympathetic to the Government—that this policy is doomed to failure. Will he therefore recommend to his right honourable friend that the number of special vouchers should be increased, so that the five-year waiting period for these people who come from India can be considerably reduced, if not eliminated?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, what my noble friend Lord Windlesham might or might not have done is something on which I really do not think I can comment. The difficulty about this sort of case is that if people will jump the queue they take the place—or they threaten the place—of those who have perfectly honourably and properly applied for entry permits. It is all very well to say that it is uncomfortable for them, but Miss Patel had (and there were others in the same group) no entry permit and no certificate. She said on arrival that she had come for settlement. She must have known that the scheme was in operation and I am not sure that she is entitled to any preference over those who have waited for some time, perfectly properly, in India and in other places for the limited number of vouchers.
As to the number of vouchers, I will certainly pass on what the noble Lord has said. But, as he knows, the number was increased quite recently and the point is that if we increase it beyond a certain amount the number of people arriving will be beyond that which the communities to which they will go can possibly assimilate in a reasonable time and manner. That is why we have to exercise some control over the numbers.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that this queue was created not by the people concerned 621 but by the vicious and immoral Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that a ruling of the European Court may shortly find to this effect, in which case that legislation will have to be repealed? In view of these facts, will the noble Viscount represent most strongly to his right honourable, friend that we should adopt a more liberal policy in future than exists in the case of Miss Patel and many other citizens of the United Kingdom who have been shuffled ceaselessly around the world, in some cases for periods of over a week?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I told the noble Lord the other day what was the situation about the European Commission. There is no final decision at the moment, and I really think it would be unwise to work on the hypothesis of what they might or might not say. As to the rest of what the noble Lord said, I will certainly pass it on but, in the first place, this Government are not responsible for the exact details of the 1968 Act. If it has to be reviewed, then no doubt it will be reviewed. But there are practical difficulties which I have just explained to the noble Lord, about increasing very substantially the numbers of those who come to this country, even if they are United Kingdom passport holders.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, the Minister used the phrase that Miss Patel had "returned from India". Can he say whether she had been asked to return by the Indian authorities?