HC Deb 15 November 1967 vol 754 cc567-93

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed.

Mr. Iremonger

Fourthly, we must maintain absolute insistence on equality of rights and opportunity and of equality before the law for all the inhabitants of the country and subjects of the Queen, and we must ensure that the law before which equality is maintained is right, just and fair and is seen to be so by all sections of the community. At the risk of being momentarily out of order, I would say that that will be a very special responsibility upon us when we consider the right hon. Gentleman's Race Relations Bill.

It is a condition of decent relations that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act should remain in force, and, indeed, be operated more strictly, and, therefore, I oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Ennals

This has on the whole been a very constructive debate, from both sides of the Committee. The tone for it was set by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) in a speech which was not only very moving but extremely constructive. On a subject like this it is extremely helpful that we should both start and end, whatever disagreement there may be among individual hon. Members, with fundamental agreement between the two Front Benches. This has been so.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that our two basic theses were, first, that there must be a fair and reasonable restriction on the entry of immigrants, and, secondly, that there must be complete equality for all our citizens, whatever their colour or race. It is from this point of view that I start.

I and the Government utterly reject the argument put forward by some hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), who has apologised to me for his absence at this moment. Their thesis was that all immigration should cease. This would be monstrous. I believe that it would be so because it would bring great hardship among those who have already settled here.

While I can understand certain hon. Gentlemen opposite saying that we should look at the question of dependants or voucher holders—I understand these points of view; whether or not I accept them I shall come to later—to suggest that there should not be the opportunity for a wife and children to join the husband who has come here—who came here perhaps years ago, got himself a job, worked hard an saved his money knowing that he would have family reunification here—is an inhuman and immoral thing to suggest. I was glad that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone dissociated himself from that request.

I wonder whether hon. Gentlemen who have put forward this proposal have really thought of the effect it would have on immigrants in this country. They have been talking about the importance of equality for all citizens, but one of the most important needs of citizens is some security. If they are threatened with the prospect of their wives and children not being able to join them, this produces an element of insecurity which makes it more difficult for them to settle down in our community.

It would be helpful if we got the question of numbers in some proportion because it has been out of proportion in the contributions of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) referred to aliens and gave the figure, which was not far wrong, of the gross annual addition to our population. The figure is actually 17,407. He gave the figure of 17,585. His arithmetic is, therefore, very good. This is the average addition to the population from alien sources.

The figure I am giving is the gross figure and makes no allowance for wastage due to outward emigration and death. It is due to workers arriving here and qualifying, after four years in approved employment, to settle here. The figure of 17,407 includes those who come here to join them, usually husbands and wipes, the children who join them, in addition in some cases to elderly parents.

Sir D. Renton

The hon. Gentleman described it as a gross figure while I described it as a net figure. I did so because if one calls it a gross figure it gives the impression that it relates to arrivals only. The figure which the hon. Gentleman and I have arrived at as an annual average is arrived at by taking, first, those who come in and, secondly, by then deducting those who go out or are naturalised. Perhaps one should then deduct those who die; and that may be the reason for the difference between the figure which I gave and that given by the Minister.

Mr. Ennals

I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is in error. As I understand the position, this is the gross annual addition including—and it therefore takes into consideration the factors to which he referred—those who might leave. We are talking about aliens who arrive and leave; but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to consider the matter further, we can do so by correspondence.

The figure I have given is substantially less than the number of Commonwealth citizens who come here for settlement. If we put together Commonwealth immigrants and aliens—and even those coming from East Africa—we get a total of something over 100,000 a year. This is if we reckon on between 15,000 and 20,000 aliens a year, Commonwealth citizens—voucher holders and dependants—numbering 50,000 a year, and 10,000 a year from East Africa—which is higher than the average.

If we then consider the number of emigrants who go from this country to other countries, we see that the annual average in the last few years has been about 300,000. Thus, between two and three times as many people leave and go to other parts of the world as come in.

The hon. Member for Harow, West (Mr. John Page) asked me to give a normal balance. It is difficult to say what a normal balance is because immigrants from many parts of the world—aliens and Commonwealth citizens—have been coming to this country for many years and there has also been an outward flow. I do not believe that it is unhelpful for people to move from one country to another. As the world gets smaller and as contacts get easier, this will become an even more natural thing to do. However, in view of the emphasis given by the hon. Member for Harrow, West to the importance of reducing immigration, I am sure that he will not mind me quoting a sentence from the last letter which he wrote to me and which caused me some amusement. The hon. Gentleman said: "I am one of the firmest supporters of any action that can be taken to stop immigration, but this appears to be a genuine case. Then he raised the case of his own constituent. I do this not in criticism of him. It shows a warmth in his approach which we need in these matters. We are talking of human beings and their families. If we are talking of figures I must touch upon the projections made by the hon. Member for Louth which took him into the mystical future. Reference was made to a Question that he had put to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health. This gave some projections of the size of the coloured population for 1985.

These were based on broad assumptions which were postulated by the hon. Gentleman. These two assumptions were that the flow of new immigrants would continue unchanged and that the level of fertility revealed in the 1961 Census would also be unchanged. On the basis of these assumptions the figure of 3½ million coloured people here in 1985 was arrived at. There are great difficulties in making these projects. To begin with it is most unlikely, as the immigrants settle into our community, that the fertility rates will persist at the level which they had been when they were in India or whatever country they came from.

Secondly, the rate of immigration allowed at any given time must reflect all the relevant circumstances. The Government have no immediate intention of increasing the number of labour vouchers. It is inevitable—certainly it is clear and obvious—that having greatly reduced the number admitted with labour vouchers, and since the flow of people coming in is made up of dependants, the dependants will tail off. This has been the inevitable consequences of the control since it was imposed in 1962.

If one looks at it in this light and challenges both the two assumptions, as I do, then the number of coloured people here in 1985 would certainly be a very great deal less than 3½ million. In these circumstances that figure could be reduced by as much as 1 million but even if the hon. Gentleman's figures were correct, which they are not, there is no conceivable justification for arguing that we are faced with a rate of growth which would ever result in coloured people outnumbering whites in this country.

Sir C. Osborne

I am delighted to hear that the Government intend to reduce drastically the number of immigrants coming into this country.

Mr. Ennals

The hon. Gentleman sets out to misinterpret and misunderstand what I have said. I made quite clear that the Government have already reduced very substantially the number who are admitted on vouchers. He knows that this is so. I made it clear that, having reduced the number of men coming in for employment, the dependants are certain to be reduced, because the majority of dependants coming in are the dependants of those who entered before 1962—before there was any control.

When we come to look at the figures, as I want to do, we shall see just what the picture has been. We have to look at the figure of those admitted for settlement. As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman in another intervention, to use gross figures and pretend that all those who arrive stay is to totally misunderstand the situation. In 1966 only 5,461 labour voucher holders arrived. In the first nine months of 1967 only 3,703 had arrived, compared with 4,285 in the first nine months of last year.

Admissions for settlement by other means, mainly dependants, was, in 1965, 44,182, and in 1966, 45,004. So we see that for the first time since the 1962 Act, the number of dependants remained stable in 1966. As the Home Secretary has already said it seems likely that this year the figure will be somewhat larger. There was an increase of 8,188 dependants from the new Commonwealth in the first nine months of 1967.

The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon said that he was surprised that the figure for women was going down. This in fact is not so during 1967. The number of children has gone up markedly from 17,900 to 24,600. The number of women has gone up from 9,100 to 9,700. The fact that the admission of men has been going on and the number of children has been going up is not surprising, because wives have come over to join husbands and children have come with them.

10.15 p.m.

The greater part of this increase in dependants is due to the number of children under 16 being admitted, especially from Pakistan. More than half this year's increase in the number of dependent children is in boys from Pakistan. What one cannot say is what proportion of these is represented by boys aged 14 or 15 as opposed to any other age below 16. Pakistani children are arriving at the rate of 1,100 a month, most of them because they have a right of admission to join both parents. But there has been an increase in those seeking to join a single parent.

We have been aware of attempts to evade the regulations by youngsters pretending to be younger than they are. A number of my son's schoolfriends have beards, but the fact that a man has a beard does not mean he is 36. But there have been attempts to evade the regulations, and this explains why there has been an increased number of refusals this year. Unfortunately, more children have been refused entry at the airport and have had to go back to their country of origin.

Apart from the fact that many of those young Pakistanis are males and near employable age, circumstances have come to light which give us considerable cause for concern about their welfare, particularly those who join an all-male household. These were problems which were sharply brought to our attention by International Social Service, which has been making a study of this matter and which recently let my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have its report.

Sir D. Glover

I do not quite understand how dependent children can join an all-male household over here. The father must, presumably, have had a wife, otherwise there would not be any dependent children.

Mr. Ennals

A child up to 16 can arrive to join a single parent. Between 16 and 18 they can join both parents. But there is an entitlement to join a single parent.

This poses great problems for the immigration officers who have to determine whether the person is who he says he is and whether he is of the age he says he is. They can refer the child to a medical officer. They can sometimes arrange for an X-ray test, and often they can get a rough idea of the age of the child. But this imposes a very considerable strain on the immigration officers.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we were very concerned about this problem. We are considering very seriously how best it can be dealt with. This is not the time to give any indications as to how it might be dealt with.

Mr. Buck

Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the first step which should be insisted on is that there should be a certificate of entry so that investigations can be made in the country of origin?

Mr. Ennals

I am coming to the question of entry certificates.

Another significant area of attempted evasion is of Indians claiming to be over 60 and to be dependent parents. There has been enough evidence of this sort of evasion of those who may seem to be substantially less than 60 for it to be necessary often for the immigration officer to conduct detailed inquiries into age and relationship when a man looks much younger than the age he claims to be. In this category there has also been an increase in the number of those who have been refused admission.

That brings me to the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone—entry certificates. A great deal of the interrogation which is necessary at ports of arrival would be unnecessary if intending immigrants were to use entry certificates. The use of these certificates would greatly reduce the number of persons refused admission, because they would discover in advance whether they were entitled to admission and would save the cost and inconvenience of a wasted journey. It would greatly relieve the burden on the hard-pressed immigration officers, to whom I should like to pay a tribute. They have a very hard job to do and they do it with great patience and great care.

The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire asked about some question of misrepresentations. There is no question of deputations being sent to Ministers, but I had the opportunity two or three weeks ago of spending some hours at London Airport having discussions with two very large groups of immigration officers. We discussed some of the problems with which they were faced. It was a very useful opportunity to get a reappraisal of the problems as they see them.

The possession of an entry certificate almost guarantees admission, and though it is not our intention to make entry certificates a requirement for those Commonwealth citizens who have a right to admission, the non-possession of an entry certificate in cases in which age or relationship may be in doubt will obviously be to the disadvantage of the would-be immigrant. We believe that every opportunity must be taken to urge the use of the entry certificate system in line with the recommendations of the Wilson Committee.

There was some fear expressed that the imposition of control on the entry of Commonwealth citizens would affect the flow of Commonwealth visitors to Britain. Happily that is not so. From the whole of the Commonwealth the number of visitors increased from 214,000 in 1964 to 230,000 in 1965 and 244,000 in 1966. There is some indication, however, that the number admitted as students has stabilised. In 1964, over 20,000 students were admitted, and there can be no doubt that for many study was not the main purpose of coming here. In a sense it was a form of evasion. The number dropped to 14,017 in 1965 and 13,831 in 1966, and the signs are that there will be a further slight drop this year. Of course, the Government welcome genuine students, and immigration control is not designed to hinder them, but there has been substantial reduction of evasion in that field.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), whom I do not see in his place, raised the question of one of his constituents who was held in prison while he was waiting. This is a case of which I have not the full details here. The hon. Member did not give me notice of it. But my impression is that this was a case which was awaiting legal proceedings. Normally an immigrant who is awaiting a decision whether he will be admitted or refused finds that the matter is settled within 48 hours or 72 hours. After five days we can no longer detain him and prison is the only alternative. But the case to which the hon. Member referred is very unusual and exceptional.

We have talked about evasions, and a number of hon. Members have asked whether we could give some figure for the number of evasions. I have tried to explain how difficult it is to give a figure. There is no way of establishing what number successfully make false claims in order to secure admission. The immigration officers are very careful and thorough men, and naturally they seek to see that there are no evasions. If there are evasions, they are the cases about which we do not know. As for clandestine entry, again, naturally, there are no records, but we do not think that there is any substantial evasion by these means.

We thought at one stage that it might be possible to obtain some estimates of evasion by comparing the number of people admitted for settlement with the net balance in any one year, the net balance being obtained by subtracting total departures from total admissions. But this produced wild results. We discovered that there were certain years in which the figure was a minus figure, and to have minus no evasion was telling us nothing. The figure for excess inward movement is not a reliable indication because it is only in terms of flow of movement rather than of those who are in the country at any one moment.

The question of clandestine immigrants was raised by one or two hon. Members, and the legal situation was also questioned. It is, of course, true that an immigrant who arrives other than by a port is not in fact an illegal immigrant because the Act only requires that he should obtain a permit from an immigration officer to land. This is a clear loophole. It is not a loophole through which many have slipped, but it is a clear loophole, and it is precisely this loophole which my right hon. Friend is looking at in considering whether there should be additional legislation together with the implementation of the Wilson Committee. The question of deportation also comes under the same sort of heading.

Some reference has been made during the debate to labour vouchers.

Sir C. Osborne

The Home Secretary said that there were quite a number who came in on temporary permits and who did not honour their bond and stayed longer than was agreed. Has the hon. Member got the number of those cases?

Mr. Ennals

No. It is not possible to give any figures. In many cases on those who may be admitted for a limited period of time there are checks on whether they have gone, and if they have not gone there are sometimes charges brought against them, and if a court, on the basis of those charges, recommends deportation, then deportation can follow, but we cannot give any figures as to what extent there is evasion in that field.

Returning to the subject of labour vouchers, of the 7,500 issued last year, for immigrants other than from Malta, which, as the Committee will know, has 1,000, roughly 2,000, as I said, were A vouchers for people with jobs offered by employers, and about 5,500 were B vouchers, that is, for those with special skills. Of these vouchers last year 37 per cent. went to doctors and 8 per cent. to nurses. I think that in an intervention I said 12 per cent., but I was wrong. Of those vouchers 17 per cent. were for teachers, 12 per cent. for science graduates, 17 per cent. for technical graduates and 5 per cent. for other professions.

There are quite a number of aspects of the labour voucher scheme which have been causing us some concern. For example, the excessively long waiting period for A voucher holders—and also B voucher holders, but especially A voucher holders—a long delay is obviously highly unsatisfactory and we are very anxious to reduce the waiting period.

There is also concern that immigrants particularly from India and Pakistan have special skills which may not be as readily accepted in this country as those skills are in their own countries—people who came in as teachers but who have found it difficult to find employment, not for any reason of colour, but sometimes because of language, sometimes because of inexperience. We are now giving very serious consideration to these and other aspects of the voucher system and it may be that there may be changes that we may with to report to the House before long. These are matters, of course, for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.

I want to make it clear that there is no intention as was suggested—I think by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Huntingdonshire—of ending these vouchers. That would be unfortunate. After all, the figure is small, but there are many useful jobs which are fulfilled by those within the small range of A voucher holders and it is not our intention to reduce it. I was glad that one of my hon. Friends referred to the contribution which is made by this very limited number of voucher holders who come to this country, and the suggestion that they are adding to the pool of unemployment was dismissed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. One can imagine what life would be like in our hospitals or on the bus services without some of these people. Certainly, if my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health were here he would emphasise that 41 per cent. of the junior doctor appointments our hospitals are from those of Commonwealth origin.

The right hon. Member for Streatham and other hon. Members asked about the repatriation of immigrants. There was pressure for immigrants to be repatriated at public expense. Perhaps I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the Supplementary Benefits Commission of the Ministry of Social Security can pay the fare of a Commonwealth immigrant who wishes to return home and cannot pay it himself, raise it from other sources or earn it from employment here. Each case is decided on its merits. The purpose is to help those who cannot settle down here and might remain a charge on public funds. About 100 cases a year are dealt with in this way.

There appears to be no need to change the system. It seems to be working satisfactorily, and it would be unfortunate if we launched a major project which appeared to suggest that we wished immigrants to return to their countries of origin, or presented the opportunity for exploitation by some who wished to have a cheap trip home for a holiday. We are satisfied that the scheme is working satisfactorily and does not need to be changed.

Hon. Members also referred to the registration of dependants. This is not as easy it looks. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone will recall the sentence in the 1965 White Paper (Command 2739) which said that an entry certificate would not be issued unless the head of the household, whether resident in this country or intending to come in in future, had furnished particulars of his dependants in time to enable the information he had given to be confirmed before the entry certificate was needed.

The purpose of this arrangement for the registration of dependants was to discourage evasion by people falsely claiming to be entitled to admission to the United Kingdom as dependants of Commonwealth citizens resident here, and, incidentally, to give some idea of the number of entitled dependants remaining overseas.

10.30 p.m.

The plan got into difficulties immediately as a requirement, because the people being registered, by definition, are entitled to come here, unless the Act is to be amended. In addition, it was applicable only to those who applied for entry certificates and, since there are so many who do not apply, again this information cannot be required of them.

The scheme still operates in the sense that people are requested to supply the information, though it is not now a requirement, and we are getting in a great deal of information which will provide a useful check when entry certificate holders provide us with the information. However, to make it a requirement would be extremely difficult.

Reference was made to health checks. Quite apart from checks at our own airports, we are now making progress, as promised in the White Paper, and have set in train arrangements for the medical examination of Commonwealth citizens before they set out from their own countries. There have been a number of difficulties, but many Governments have established such a system. Others have not yet done so, but we are making progress on that proposal.

The right hon. Member for Streatham and others referred to Asians from Kenya and other parts of East Africa. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made a statement about the position—

The Chairman

Order. I cannot see how this possibly arises under the proposal to continue for another year the two Acts which are expiring. Asians from Africa are neither Commonwealth immigrants nor aliens.

Mr. Ennals

I bow to your Ruling, Sir Eric.

Sir D. Glover

On a point of order, Sir Eric. In fact, the so-called Asians from East Africa have British passports.

The Chairman

Exactly. They are neither Commonwealth immigrants nor aliens. Therefore, no question with regard to them arises under this Amendment.

Mr. Rose

Further to that point of order, Sir Eric. During the course of the debate, this matter has been widely discussed by hon. Members. In view of that, I ask that an opportunity be given to my hon. Friend to reply.

The Chairman

I think that it has been adequately discussed. It may well have been that one has been too tolerant in allowing speeches on it, but it does not arise under this Amendment.

Mr. Ennals

I readily bow to your ruling, Sir Eric. I only raised it because it had been mentioned earlier.

In the time left to me I would like to move from the problems of control to some of the problems of integration of Commonwealth citizens within our society. This matter was dealt with, I thought, with some courage by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Robert Howarth) and with some warmth and enthusiasm, typical of him, by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I think that it was the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) who said that he did not want to be integrated. I do not know whether this is semantics. I am certain that he does not want to be assimilated. We do not want to make him look like all the rest of us and most of us do not wish to look like him. This applies to our Commonwealth immigrants. We are not seeking to push everyone into a common mould. Integration surely means living together as part of a common society and sharing its basic tenets with the tolerance that goes with understanding that others have different philosophies, but which they can bring to the enrichment of our society.

I am often sad that in this House and elsewhere we spend so much time talking about the problems of Commonwealth immigrants when, if we look not just over our history but over what I believe will be our future, if we will only seize it, there is a tremendous benefit to be gained from the influx of people from so many different parts of the world who bring a different culture with different music and cultural patterns.

We are a very homogeneous society and I believe that it would be wrong if we looked upon these million people as our problem children. Many of them are making a great contribution to British society, as hon. Members from both sides of the House have said. Some of them are integrated; they are involved in us. Some are standing as candidates for local elections, some are policemen, some are magistrates, and I hope that more of them will become so.

I do not accept the concept which was first raised by the hon. Member for Louth about an alien race. This is a hard, crude term that is not applicable to those of Commonwealth origin, who have come here.

Sir C. Osborne

It is true.

Mr. Ennals

The hon. Gentleman says that it is true. Does he use these same terms about those of British origin now living in India who are making their contribution to the life of that country, or, for that matter, those of British origin now living in East Africa?

Sir C. Osborne

Yes.

Mr. Ennals

He does, does he?

Sir C. Osborne

I understand that the people of India regard our people there as an alien race.

Mr. Ennals

That is not my impression.

Sir C. Osborne

I have lived there.

Mr. Ennals

I have been on a number of visits to India and I would have thought that Britons in India are a very vital part of Indian society. They certainly are in different parts of Africa where one will find them as the elected Members of Parliament and Ministers, and I hope that we will find, as others have said, that the same will happen here. Most immigrants are hard working, peace loving people who try to make their contribution to our society, but there are, as has been said, huge problems that we cannot burke.

Reference has been made to problems within the field of education: the difficulties of teachers in primary and secondary schools with a substantial proportion of their pupils who come in not knowing a word of English. Those who have visited these schools and talked with these teachers have found the dedication and commitment and excitement with which these teachers are tackling the problem. They have admired the work of the Schools Council, which is planning precisely the sort of material that can be used to teach English as a second language. This is not a problem we have to push aside; it is a problem that we have to tackle and learn about in the course of doing it.

I think that the courses being arranged by the Department of Education and Science and by local authorities, not just for teachers in training, but for all in service teachers, are a great help, not only in dealing with the problems, but in knowing something of the cultural background of the children, so that they can make these multiracial schools into a living community and teach much to the children from Britain whose minds may be very blinkered until they have had the opportunity of seeing something of the outside world from the presence of coloured children on either side of them.

The Department of Education and Science is increasingly tackling the problems of these Indian and Pakistani teachers to whom I referred. There have been four courses, of four terms, during which teachers have been preparing themselves to teach in English schools. I am glad to tell the Committee that as a result of these first four courses the numbers are being stepped up so that there will be twice as many teachers who will be able to take these courses during the forthcoming year.

There are problems in housing, and reference has been made to the great concentration of Commonwealth people in certain cities. This problem has to be tackled. The process at the moment is increasingly towards greater concentration, and it cannot be tackled in one fell swoop. It can be tackled in time, because many of the areas in which these people live are scheduled for redevelopment, and as this takes place, and as the councils take over responsibility for re-housing, so will these people find their place on the new council estates.

As local authorities increasingly bring down their residential qualifications, Commonwealth immigrants will in any case come on to their housing lists. The development of housing associations, with additional assistance from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, is another way in which this problem can be dealt with, but it means a great deal of effort and concentration by local authorities.

The employment problem is the special responsibility of the Ministry of Labour, and I would like to pay my tribute to the work done by the employment exchanges, managers, youth employment officers, and regional officers of the Ministry. In their quiet way they are trying to break through some of the barriers which exist in employment.

The hon. Member for Ilford, North raised the question of half-caste children. I think that he recognised, when the point was put to him by one of my hon. Friends, that the problem was not that they were half-caste, but that they came of parents who had separated, or who were not able to look after them. I recognise that there are many coloured children in care, but I know of many children of mixed marriages who are no worse physically, mentally, socially, or in any other way, than other children, and the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) should not have cast the aspersion that there is something wrong or distasteful about a mixed marriage, and that it produces illness because that is untrue.

Reference has also been made to the task of public education. This task does not fall on education authorities. It falls on all men who are in the public eye, and I believe that all of us in this House, on both sides, should watch our words with care because, whether we like it or not, and whether we want it or not, we are listened to, and it is important that we should be part of the effort to educate the public. In this sense I pay tribute to the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants which, with Governmental assistance, plays an important rôle in this respect.

10.45 p.m.

I must bring my remarks to a close. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I knew that that would bring support from all those who had taken no part in he debate. I am glad that a warm welcome has been given to my right hon. Friend's announcement that we are going to introduce legislation with reference to the Race Relations Act. I think that it is fair to pay tribute to those who have done a great deal of thinking and preparation for this. I think that the value of the Street Report should be recognised. I think that we should recognise, too, the value of the P.E.P. Report which drew up some of the facts which, inevitably, have coloured the Government's decision.

Sir D. Renton

There is a danger of a misunderstanding unless the hon. Member will answer two questions. First, he indicated, by nodding when I was speaking, that he would tell us to how many Pakistani boys the Home Secretary referred. It makes a difference whether the number is 100, or 1,000, or 10,000. Can he give us a rough idea? Secondly, he referred to the annual emigration of between 200,000 and 300,000, but I think that is not accurate. In any event, it is a gross figure, and he should bear in mind that some will come back.

Mr. Ennals

In relation to the second question, I can only act on figures that I have been given. I am prepared to look into the question again and write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman about it. I will do the same in the case of the Pakistani boys. I gave some figures, and if they are not to the right hon. and learned Member's satisfaction I will write to him about them. I think that the Committee would now expect me to bring my remarks to a close.

Some reference was made to racialism. I do not want to go out of order by dealing with this. It is right that we should recognise that there are racialists of different colours, and our condemnation of black racialism should be as sharp and clear as of white racialism. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] In reverse, our condemnation of white racialism should be as sharp and clear as our condemnation of black racialism. I hope I get the "Hear, hears" of hon. Members opposite equally for that proposition.

Any action designed to stir up hatred between races is illegal, but this is not enough of a response. Our response to the advocates of black racialism cannot be—we cannot afford it to be—a negative one. The way in which we can defeat their cause is to disprove the thesis on which it is based, namely, that a predominantly white society is not prepared to share power and influence economically, politically or socially, with a coloured minority. If that were true there would be some strength in their case, and we must disprove it.

This means that the door must be wide open to all sections of the community, regardless of race or colour, to play their part in the life of the nation. It is a challenge to political parties, trade union leaders and social and sporting organisations. It is a challenge to citizens, and a challenge to Parliament itself, for whenever the door is closed on coloured people the argument of the racialists is strengthened. Our response to the chal- lenge may determine the pattern of community relations in Britain for years to come, and I am hopeful that we shall respond to that challenge. I am not pessimistic about the future. So many people are now involved in this that I believe that we cannot but succeed.

Mr. Brian Harrison

As one of the few Commonwealth migrants in the House who still travels on a Commonwealth passport, I am grateful to have the opportunity to intervene in this important debate, albeit at this late hour. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) leaves the Chamber, I want to take issue with him on one point that he raised with regard to students and the cutting down of all Commonwealth immigration. It would be an absolute tragedy if Britain were to refuse to take the large number of students that she takes at present.

Through these students not only is the influence of Britain extended throughout the world, in the countries to which the immigrants return, but, in a purely sordid and commercial way, if people have been trained with British equipment and goods in the United Kingdom, it is that equipment and those goods which they will work with in their own countries.

Mr. Iremonger

I am obliged to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that point. My remarks about dependants were also meant to refer to students. If I had thought of it I would have mentioned it.

Mr. Harrison

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that explanation.

The other point to which I want to refer was the tribute paid by the Under-Secretary and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to the wonderful work done in hospitals, on the Underground, on buses, and so one, by coloured workers—Commonwealth immigrants. I am very conscious of the work done in the hospital with which I am associated. I wonder whether, on reflection, this does not highlight one of the great problems that confront us, not in assimilating but in integrating Commonwealth immigrants, because there is a tendency not only for them to live in communities but to work in communities and to go into special jobs. I wonder whether this is not a particular problem that ought to be considered at some stage to see whether we cannot spread the type of job to which these people go.

The form of discrimination that I want to mention is the discrimination between the application of the two Acts which we are discussing under the two Amendments. There is a danger that the Commonwealth Immigrants Act discriminates now more harshly against Commonwealth migrants than it does against aliens coming into this country. We have had some examples of some of the things that can happen, and I too should like to quote two cases. I must be careful how far I go with one case, because I realise that it is still within the jurisdiction of the courts. There are, however, certain matters which occurred prior to the case that are worth discussing.

A perfectly innocent young man, an Australian migrant who had committed no crime and had a perfectly clean record, was injured. He fell over on a skating rink and was knocked unconscious. He was taken to hospital. After he had been away for two nights from the place where he had been living—apparently, it is all right to be away for one night—some of his flat mates reported the matter to the police. The police came along and asked for details of this young person, and then they took his passport.

When the young man came out of hospital he went to the police station to claim his passport, and, to his great surprise, he was charged with being in the United Kingdom after the expiration of the period of six months for which his entry permit was made out. He was kept in a remand centre for 36 days. It was not made clear to him whether he could get legal aid, nor that he could get bail. He was a 20 year old boy, naturally in a rather confused state, straight out of hospital.

There are two or three matters here which frighten me. One lot of magistrates told him that he would be deprived of his liberty until the Home Office had decided what action to take. This seems to me an odd sort of arrangement. I had no idea that under this Act it was possible to hold people at the pleasure of the Home Secretary. Eventually—and I understand on advice that it is permissible for me to refer to the fact that he has been in prison—he obtained advice and subsequently a judge in chambers granted him bail. His appeal is pending, and therefore I must not refer to the sentence or to anything else that happened.

It seems to be an extremely odd situation in which a young Commonwealth boy can be thrown into prison and treated like this. I do not think that the same thing is meted out to aliens. The reason why I say that is because of a case, of which the Under-Secretary is well aware, with which I was recently associated.

A young girl from Eastern Europe wanted to stay in this country. She was refused permission and I made representations on several occasions. She was interviewed but it was said that there was no case for her staying here. The case was taken up by another hon. Member who was an ex-Minister in the present Government. On the date that she had to return home, when her permit to reside here had expired, she moved to another constituency. She had been warned that she had to go back, but she appeared on television, in the newspapers and created a lot of publicity. But she was not arrested, although she said clearly what was going on and that she was in breach of her permit. She was not arrested in the same way as the Australian who went down to the police station to collect his passport. There was a completely different type of treatment under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Subsequent to her appeal on television for political asylum and the denunciation of her country, the other hon. Member took up her case and she has been allowed to stay here subject to finding a job.

Here there was completely different treatment to the disadvantage of the Commonwealth immigrant compared with the alien. A Commonwealth immigrant can hardly appeal for political asylum whereas all aliens have to do, apparently, is to get themselves on television and some press attention, denounce their country and the benevolent Home Office allows them to stay.

The harshness of the application of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in certain cases is something which we must watch. I hope that the case to which I have referred will be looked at critically after the appeal to see whether there has been a wrong interpretation of the Act as it was applied to this boy.

The other thing which seems to be quite crazy is that if a man smuggles himself into the country illegally and stays here for 24 hours he is all right. So far as I can see, under the Act he cannot be sent back, whereas if a man comes in perfectly legitimately through the ports and over-stays the time on his passport, not for 24 hours but for any period, the authorities can pick him up and deport him or throw him into prison.

We ought not to have deliberate discrimination against Commonwealth immigrants. I hope that the Home Office, when drafting the new Bill foreshadowed by the Home Secretary today, will consider the points which I have made. There must be fair application of our laws to both types of people.

11.0 p.m.

Sir D. Glover

I hope that the Committee will forgive me for intervening in the debate because, although the problem which we are discussing is not a constituency one for me, I feel that, perhaps, those of us who have no direct constituency worries should intervene from time to time when these matters are discussed, believing that we may be able to look at them in slightly broader perspective than is possible for those who are grinding away at them from day to day.

I am chairman of what is, perhaps, the oldest society dealing with human rights in this country, the Anti-Slavery Society, and I want to say a word, first, to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) in order to give him a little encouragement from our history. In 1765, it was realised that, quite illegally under the law at that time, there were about 50,000 negro slaves in this country. When the matter was raised in the courts and it was shown that no person could, under the law, be kept in slavery, all the slaves were liberated.

That happened 200 years ago, and I have no surety in my mind that I have not at least a strain of black blood in my system. The total of 50,000 liberated all those years ago was equivalent to 350,000 today, the population then being only about 8 million. Perhaps some of the great aristocratic families may have been immune from the taint, but I imagine that what I say applies to people living in the tight communities of Liverpool, Manchester and the like. I certainly would not like to gamble that there was no such strain in my blood or even in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth.

Next, I remind my hon. Friend that there was a man named Hitler, who had a great campaign for racial purity; he wanted his great nation to consist only of Aryans. But nearly all Pakistanis are Aryans, exactly the same race as we are. The basic racial stock is the same as the one inhabiting these islands, but the Pakistanis, having lived in a different and hotter climate for thousands of years, have somewhat different complexions.

The Chairman

Order. I find it difficult to see what relevance that has to the Amendment before the Committee.

Sir D. Glover

With respect, Sir Eric, I am leading up my point, and this is what I may call my opening preamble. I thought it necessary to make those observations to show how one's thinking goes on the subject of these laws. I support strong restriction of immigration for the reasons which have been given already, that a society ethnically tightly knit as ours accepts the interloper, be he Scots or Welsh, into his community with a certain degree of reserve. I am certain that this country has accepted just about as many as it can absorb for a long time.

I do not regard the West Indians as nearly so difficult to absorb over a period of years. Immigrants from India and Pakistan, on the other hand, are people from a proud nation with a history as long and as proud as our own. The problem we have to face is that they do not want to be "integrated". There is a lot of talk today about integration, but they do not want to be integrated in the way that so many of us think it should be done. They want to remain a proud separate community with their own racial habits, customs and traditions and religions. When we talk about integrating them we are using the wrong word.

I thought that the Under-Secretary of State made a very good winding up speech—and I do not often pay compliments across the Floor of the House. I suggest that he should bring his hon. Friend the "Minister of Sport" into this matter. If the Pakistanis in Bradford could take over Bradford City and win the First Division championship within 10 years there would then be no question about integration; they would be cock of the walk.

The idea of aid and assistance inevitably means, however carefully we dress it up, that we are thinking of the immigrants as slightly inferior. But if, for example, the M.C.C. played the British Pakistanis before leaving for a tour of Pakistan and were beaten, that would do far more for the prestige of Pakistanis in this country than any law restricting immigration and so on. They would have justified themselves in the field in which the British people make their judgments.

It is inevitable that there must be some cushioning of the immigrant communities, but it would do them a great deal of good if we challenged them to show us that they can play hockey and cricket better than anyone in Britain. If they played the M.C.C. or Yorkshire at cricket and won it would remove a great deal of the antagonism that makes the legislation necessary, because they would be doing the things that we admire.

The question of housing and so on is old hat, but we must take into account that, whether we like it or not, prejudice exists here. Perhaps I have spent my savings on a house and hope that with inflation I may be able to sell it when I retire in 10 years for £5,000, £2,000 more than I paid for it, buy a little cottage in Cornwall and invest the £2,000 so that my wife and I will be all right. Then coloured people come into the street and suddenly my house is worth only £3,000 instead of £5,000. That cannot be laughed off. I am not anti-anybody. I am "anti" because something has happened as a result of which my wife and I will suffer.

The Government will have to examine this problem, because we cannot expect individual citizens to go along with anti-racial legislation when they and their wives are adversely affected by it. Nothing makes more racial antagonism than the discovery by the individual that he is suffering because something has happened over which he has no control. It is very difficult for a Government to deal with this, but I am not at all certain that a great wall of antagonism will not be built up, and the Government may have to do something for a period of time to alleviate the problem. It is inevitable that people will feel antagonistic and suspicious of integrating with new arrivals to this country if they feel that they have been unfairly treated.

All hon. Members have supported these further provisions, but the Government must realise that antagonism can work both ways; that there is a hot and a cold tap. It must not be thought that by taking steps to overcome racial discrimination against somebody who has a dark skin, provisions can be introduced which are detrimental to somebody with a white skin. In other words, we must ensure that, as a result of this legislative process, the white population is not harmed, for nothing will make racial tension harsher than for the white population, the natives of this country, to feel that Parliament has legislated to their disadvantage.

I do not wish to be hostile in these remarks to our new Indian, Pakistani or other citizens. As I said at the outset, I have no hostility. However, hostility will be aroused if the white population feel that they are being discriminated against; for example, if the owner of a house who wishes to sell may have to sell to a coloured purchaser. If, as a result, the rest of the houses in the street drop in value, the residents there will not feel like integrating with the coloured community. Before introducing legislation of that kind, the Government must think hard to avoid that state of affairs from arising. These difficulties could be overcome, but at this hour I will not delay the Committee by detailing the answers.

Mr. Hogg

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.