HC Deb 15 April 1965 vol 710 cc1665-7
Q9. Mr. Channon

asked the Prime Minister if the public speech of the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, on Saturday, 27th March at Sheffield about Commonwealth immigration represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Bowden

I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State on 8th April to a Question by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke).

Mr. Channon

All of us regret that the First Secretary of State is unable to be here, for reasons which we all understand, but does not the Leader of the House think it most unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have said in his speech in Sheffield that it was madness to consider the limitation of immigration, and was it not particularly unfortunate in view of the remarks of the Leader of the House himself and the Home Secretary in the extremely valuable debate in the House on 23rd March? Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that what the Home Secretary said in winding up that debate, that there should be effective control of numbers, expressed Government policy and the remarks of the First Secretary did not?

Mr. Bowden

On 8th April my right hon. Friend the First Secretary explained in the House that he had been quoted out of context. He was not dealing with the problem of Commonwealth immigration at all, but was dealing with the question of mobility of labour. I confirm that the speeches made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself expressed the Government's view.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the Answer which I received last week seemed to contain an extraordinary paraphrase of what the First Secretary really said as reported in the Sunday papers? Is it not true that he did say that it would be madness to have further control of immigration, and, if so, is not that contrary to Government policy?

Mr. Bowden

I have already explained, as my right hon. Friend the First Secretary has, that lie was not talking about Commonwealth immigration. He was dealing with the movement of immigrants generally. I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman himself has from time to time been misquoted in the Press.

Mr. Rose

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ugly undertones of so many questions from the Opposition are damaging the name of Britain in the eyes of the Commonwealth, and will he say what the effect would be on our transport system and our hospitals if these people were to return?

Mr. Bowden

That is another question. This is not a question of immigration at all.

Mr. Maudling

The right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between immigration and the movement of immigrants. Can he explain that?

Mr. Bowden

In his speech my right hon. Friend the First Secretary was dealing with the importance of the movement of labour in the country from one area to another, and the point he made, I may paraphrase it—I cannot actually quote it—was that, whether people were black, white or grey, or whatever the colour of the individuals' skins might be, if there were no housing available there would probably be two or three people going for one house. That was actually contained within the speech.

Mr. Maudling

Surely, he used the term "immigration"? How can that possibly refer to the movement of labour within the country?

Mr. Bowden

As far as I am aware, the reference was to immigrants coming in from any quarter.

Mr. Blaker

On the question of mobility of labour, would not the best way to provide the extra workers which some of our industries need be not so much by further immigration as by eliminating feather-bedding within this country?

Mr. Bowden

That hardly arises out of the Question.

Mr. Channon

In view of the most unsatisfactory nature of the replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Forward to