HC Deb 08 February 1967 vol 740 cc1786-96

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

9.31 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant (Harrow, Central)

My first and pleasant task is to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department to what, though not his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, is his first appearance there as a Home Office Minister. I recall that two years ago we went to Sweden together and I know of the liberal and compassionate way with which he looks on problems and indeed on life, and I know that these are qualities which he will bring to bear in the office which he now adorns. It is to the qualities of liberality and compassion that I appeal tonight.

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act is now accepted by all sides in Britain as being necessary in the interests of our country and the people of the Commonwealth. Some accept that with a heavier heart than others. The Act limits persons who can come to this country to those who have obtained Ministry of Labour vouchers, which are restricted to two categories, those who have a job to come to and those with particular skills such as doctors, but there is also rightly a discretion which is vested in the Home Secretary in cases of hardship whereby he can waive the requirement that a Commonwealth citizen desiring to come here must get a Ministry of Labour voucher.

All of us throughout the country would agree that a discretion of this nature must be vested in the Home Secretary in what is a very delicate and potentially explosive issue such as Commonwealth immigration. There is repeated criticism of the way in which the Act is evaded and dodged by some Commonwealth citizens and one is always receiving complaints as a constituency Member of certain people who seem to have got here all too easily, or to have wangled their way around the requirements of the Act. Many a doubtful hardship case appears to creep in, much to the irritation of not only the citizens of this country, but of citizens of the Commonwealth themselves who would like to come here. That is all the more reason why genuine sad cases of hardship should be treated with sympathy and humanity.

It is in connection with a very genuine and touching case that I am fortunate enough to have secured the Adjournment debate tonight. I have two constituents, a Mr. and Mrs. D'Brass—I trust I pronounce their name correctly. They are 82 and 71 years of age respectively. They are both Anglo-Indians, from India. Mr. D'Brass is an ex-Service man who won two medals for his service in the First World War. He is deeply patriotic, and both he and his wife love this country dearly. I understand that three of their sons also served in the Second World War.

Mr. and Mrs. D'Brass are distinguished because they have no less than 14 children. It is only right that I should say that a number of them, I think six, are already, under their own auspices, in this country. As so often happens in families, and it is not for us to criticise, there is often one particular favourite son who is dearly loved by his parents, and that is the case here. The particular son whom this couple would like to see is named Benjamin, and he is in India. My constituents say that this son has always been particularly good to them, a kind son who has given them very great love, and who desires to come here. They would like him to be here in order that he may spend with his mother and father what must be their relatively few declining years. Benjamin has sufficient money to come and is a most respectable man.

Like his parents he is a great patriot of this country and is a skilled motor mechanic, who would have no difficulty in obtaining employment here. Not only would he be able to contribute to the happiness of a very fine old couple, but also to our country. I have had correspondence with the Home Office on this issue, and with the Ministry of Labour, who have told me that Benjamin does not qualify for the voucher scheme, because he does not come within the categories that I have described, and that the list of Commonwealth immigrants who have a job waiting for them is very long indeed.

The list might be too long for this old couple ever to see their son. I appeal to the Home Office to treat this matter compassionately. The correspondence which I have had with the Home Office has been most courteous, but I have been told very bluntly that it cannot see its way to relenting on this issue. I believe that it has looked at the problem too superficially and rigidly. The Ministry should not underestimate the bitterness which could be caused on this delicate issue by undue rigidity. We all agree that there must be control of immigrants, but the Government must not interpret the rules too rigidly in such delicate circumstances. They must give the utmost consideration to the cases which come before them, and I would ask the Minister to tell us, if he is minded, as I hope he is not, to reject my sincere appeal, the criterion by which the Home Office assesses these hardship cases. If he is to tell us that he will accede to my rather poor oratory, then we will spare him that task.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

It is doubtless within my hon. Friend's recollection that when the Under-Secretary of State was not a Minister this was precisely the sort of case with which he used to have the greatest sympathy.

Mr. Grant

That is why I look with hope and optimism to the Under-Secretary of State. He will remember the time when, as my hon. Friend said, he was in the same position as I am.

My constituents look upon Britain as their home. They call it home, and they want their son to come home to them. Many Commonwealth citizens take the same view. This is part of the strength of the Commonwealth. This case, which is to enable a fine old couple to be reunited with their beloved son before their death, which cannot be far away, is about as compassionate as one could imagine. I cannot believe that the Minister will say that a case such as this would open the floodgates of immigration. Rather will it pour a little warm water on the rather chilly lives of an old couple.

The best way in which I can describe their plight is to quote a letter from their medical practitioner in my constituency: These two elderly folk are patients of mine. I have know them now for two years. They are both in their eighties"— one is in the seventies, in fact— and are very frail and often ill. I do not suppose they will live very much longer. It would be a joy to them to see their son before they die. It would seem compassionate to allow their son to come home to this country to stay with them in their declining years. I sincerely beg the Under-Secretary of State to confirm the high opinion which I have always had of him and the Home Secretary as being humane and compassionate men who interpret rules liberally and not too rigidly. I beg him to bring joy and happiness to a fine old couple in the twilight of their days by waiving the requirements of the Ministry of Labour.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

I endorse, the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant), not only because he happens to be my Whip, but because I have considerable experience of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act.

We have in this country a number of Commonwealth people whom the Home Office shows a certain unwillingness to deport although they are thoroughly undesirable. If the Department were a little more active in enforcing the provisions of the Act it might easily get rid of some of the people from Commonwealth countries whom we do not want and allow in people with aged parents here who have skills and are completely respectable.

I do not know the details of this case to which I have listened with interest. The Anglo-Indians who served us very well when India was part of the Empire should be received with sympathy and consideration. If there is any reason why this man should not be allowed to come here, I shall be delighted to hear it. But I ask the Home Office to consider carefully the powers in the Com- monwealth Immigrants Act to deport and get rid of undesirable Commonwealth immigrants and to permit, where it is right to do so, the entry of those who can assist the employment situation in this country. I know that the Under-Secretary of State's time is limited and, therefore, I confine my remarks to what I have said.

9.44 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals)

I thank the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) for the kind remarks he made about me. I agree with him that mine is a task which requires compassion, because many times every day my right hon. Friend and I are required to take decisions in which human judgments are involved and which inevitably affect the future of human beings, whether they be in this country, or those who wish to come here, or, as in this case, both. It is also a job in which the qualities of firmness are required. If we had always to accede to a request when someone wished to come and when there were people who wished him to come, although I would not necessarily say that the flood-gates would be open, the whole principle of control—there has to be an element of control, as the hon. Gentleman said—would be undermined.

In replying to the points made by the hon. Gentleman and by the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) I should like, not just to deal with the particular point, but to put it in the perspective of immigration control as it affects Commonwealth citizens. There are certain categories of Commonwealth citizens who have an unquestioned legal right to be admitted to the United Kingdom. There are others who have not this right but who nevertheless are admitted by my right hon. Friend the Home Secre-in the exercise of his discretion. The remainder are, in general, refused admission.

Of those admitted, some enter on condition that they leave the United Kingdom within a specified period. To some of these cases may be added a condition restricting the Commonwealth citizen's freedom to take work. All this is set out in the Home Secretary's "Instructions to Immigration Officers" published in August, 1966, as Cmnd. Paper 3064. My impression is that these revised instructions have been widely welcomed. They have added some clarity to the task of immigration officers, but yet they reflect my right hon. Friend's compassion and his anxiety not to separate families.

I do not need to go over the whole ground. There are some who want to come here only temporarily—for example, as students or visitors. They are readily admitted for the period of their visit. We never wish to stand in the way of those who want to come here for a limited period. They can come in also in unlimited numbers. That is not relevant to this debate.

Here we are dealing with an application from someone—a man with a wife and five children—who is subject to the immigration control and who wishes to settle in this country permanently. He is not coming here as a visitor or as a student. He wants to make his life here.

This is a category of Commonwealth citizen, one who wants to come here and work and to stay here permanently, whose numbers the Government consider it essential to regulate. Although there may be individual hon. Members, perhaps on both sides of the House, who have questioned whether they should be regulated, there is no doubt that there is the view of the vast majority of Members of the House that it was necessary for the Government to regulate matters. Like our predecessors from the time when the Commonwealth immigration control was first imposed in 1962, we regulate the in take of these Commonwealth workers, those who wish to come here to work and stay here, by requiring each to obtain a Ministry of Labour voucher before coming. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour issues vouchers at a rate fixed by the Government from time to time. At present the rate is 8,500 a year. The demand greatly exceeds the supply. If it did not, we would not need to have this control. Those who apply to come in under vouchers must wait a considerable time. It may be sometimes not months, but years.

The result is that we are constantly under pressure from people who want to settle in employment here to be absolved from the requirement of obtaining a labour voucher. They want to enter this country without waiting for their vouchers. The House will appreciate that it would frustrate the whole voucher scheme if we were to grant such applications too readily. For instance, if someone who comes here as a visitor and who is admitted here for a limited period then says, "I do not want to go back. I now want to settle here and take a job", we reluctantly have to say, "This would be unfair. This would mean that you would be getting ahead of the queue of those who are waiting their turn from the Commonwealth and who want to come here."

If we are to have regulations, we have to be strict both in our enforcement of the normal requirement and, no less important, in granting dispensation from it in a fair and consistent way.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned that there are evasions, and that is true. The immigration officers have been co-operating splendidly in our efforts, by every means we know, to reduce the number of evasions, and the number has reduced substantially in the course of the past year.

All sorts of devices are sought to frustrate the regulations by those who want to come here. There are those who come with forged passports, and those with bogus identifications, pretending that they are quite different from those whom they really are. But, again, this is not relevant to the case that is raised this evening.

The case raised by the hon. Gentleman is one in which we have been asked to grant a dispensation from the normal rules. Let me remind the House of the circumstances as we know them. They are not really in conflict with what was said by the hon. Gentleman. His constituent, Mr. P. J. D'Brass, and his wife are elderly people. They came here from India in 1960 with one of their sons and his wife. As the hon. Gentleman has said, they have made a notable contribution not only to this country but to their own, and, they have made their home here. Part of my job is not only to see that the immigration rules are respected, but that those who come here are anxious to make this country their home. That, to me, is the most vital part of the job which I have been asked to do. I am happy that they feel that this is their home and that others of their family who have joined them also feel that this is their home. But, as the hon. Gentleman has said, this is a very large family.

The D'Brass family, apart from Mr. and Mrs. D'Brass senior, who are elderly folk, comprises 14 sons and daughters. Apparently six of them are in the United Kingdom, so that it cannot be said that they are alone here, having left their 14 children in India. Six of their children are here, some are married, and certainly there are grandchildren. There are many families in this country who cannot claim to have six children here, let alone grandchildren.

However, eight are still in India, and it is one of the eight, Mr. Benjamin D'Brass, who now wishes to come to settle in the United Kingdom. He is aged about 36. He has a wife and five children who would want to come with him, and it is not suggested that he is ill, incapacitated or himself suffering any hardship. There is no doubt, either, about his integrity or his ability to work.

The hon. Gentleman asked what were the circumstances of compassion. Certainly if Mr. Benjamin D'Brass were on his own, incapacitated or dependent in some way upon his family here, that compassionate element would weigh powerfully with my right hon. Friend in reaching his decision. But that is not the case with which we are dealing this evening.

There is, of course, nothing to prevent Mr. Benjamin D'Brass from applying for a Ministry of Labour voucher in the usual way, as every other Indian, Pakistani or Commonwealth citizen would who wishes to come to this country. However, there is a long waiting list, and it would be a very long time before his turn came. Naturally, because his parents are aged and he would like to see them before they die, he is reluctant to wait and would like to come now without waiting for a voucher.

We are always ready to consider making an exception to our normal rules in exceptional circumstances. I fully appreciate and sympathise with the wish of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, who are getting on in years, to have another of their sons near them now, rather than wait a year or two or however long it may be. I have to consider whether that very natural desire for greater family unity on the part of someone whom we have accepted as a resident in the United Kingdom is enough, of itself, to warrant a breach of the rule which we have to apply consistently and, I am afraid, strictly.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that immigration control ought perhaps not to be administered in such a way as to sever families. On this I feel bound to say that as a rule it is not the immigration control that severs families. It is due to the fact that a family has decided to come to this country, and of course there are families who are separated. Nevertheless, both the Statute and the instructions given to immigration officers by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recognise the claim of a family to be together.

The rules to which I have referred concern both the young and the old, and if young people want to see their parents who are over 60, they can be given the opportunity of doing so. The Act gives a Commonwealth citizen a legal right to have his wife and children under 16 with him, and in the exercise of his discretion, my right hon. Friend is prepared to admit other young—the emphasis being on the word "young"—sons and daughters to join parents here.

The hon. Gentleman probably knows the regulations as they affect children aged 16 and under 18. They can be freely admitted if they are coming to join both parents, or even only one surviving parent. The hon. Gentleman probably knows, too, that even after the age of 21 if someone is in a difficult situation, or is dependent on a parent here, he can, in discretion, be admitted. The spirit of these instructions is generous and compassionate, and I believe that the application of them is also generous and compassionate, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. As I am certain the hon. Gentleman will agree, there must come a stage at which a son or daughter becomes independent and ceases to be a member of the family for the purpose of immigration control. If we say that families must always be reunited, the flood gates will be opened.

A son or daughter who is fully independent must qualify for admission under the immigration control in his or her own right, and not simply because he or she has a parent or other relative living here. This is a practical matter about which we must have some rules, and my right hon. Friend, like his predecessors from the time that control was introduced, has made the age of 18 the normal dividing line. This means that a Commonwealth citizen who has attained the age of 18 must normally qualify in his own right to be admitted through the immigration control. However, there is a concession. Those who have reached the age of 18, but are still under 21, and are members of the family in the real sense, are fully dependent, can be admitted. There is room for debate on whether 18 is the right age. Some say it should be a little higher, some say it should be a little lower, and some say none at all. I would not say this, and neither would my right hon. Friend.

I do not think that anyone could reasonably suggest that any Commonwealth citizen of mature years—and Mr. Benjamin D'Brass is 36, and has a wife and five children—should be entitled to pass through immigration control and settle in the United Kingdom simply because he has a parent living here. To do this would be to enlarge the concept of the family beyond reasonable bounds, and I must ask the hon. Gentleman to consider what it would mean.

The hon. Gentleman's constituents have eight sons and daughters overseas. No doubt all or some of them are married and have families of their own. There may be 50 or more members of this family overseas who would like to join the hon. Gentleman's constituents. The hon. Gentleman says that the person concerned here is a chosen son. It may be that the other seven feel that they have as much of a desire, and perhaps a right, to join their family as has this chosen son. Who are we to decide out of the eight who are there who is the chosen son and who is not?

Mr. Grant

The parents can decide that.

Mr. Ennals

Unfortunately, it cannot be just the parents who decide how to administer the immigration regulations, this has to be left to my right hon. Friend.

I have looked with great care at the circumstances of the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, and he will realise that it is not just a question of this family. If we were to agree to a concession in this case thousands of other families here might ask for the same concession. This is not a superficial judgment. We looked at this request with sympathy and with care, but I am afraid that there was nothing in the circumstances of the case—and the hon. Gentleman has added nothing new—which made the claim for exceptional treatment any different from the thousands of others which come our way, and I regretfully come to the conclusion that I could not recommend my right hon. Friend to waive the normal rules, sympathetic though we were with this middle-aged couple and with the desire of their son to join them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Ten o'clock.