§ Mr. Winnick(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make a statement on the public statement made by immigration officers about coloured immigrants to the United Kingdom.
§ Sir C. OsborneOn a point of order. Is this permitted, Mr. Speaker, since I have two Questions on the Order Paper on this very issue?
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. I appreciate the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's question, which is a legitimate one. The matter is covered by the recent Report of the Select Committee on Procedure.
§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Ennals)My right hon. Friend has set in hand an immediate investigation. The purpose of the investigation is to discover the full facts, and to determine whether there are grounds for disciplinary proceedings. Pending completion of the investigation, one officer has been suspended from duty.
Immigration officers, like all other civil servants of their rank, are required to abstain from expressing views in public on matters of political controversy.
§ Mr. WinnickWould my hon. Friend agree that it is absolutely vital that immigration officers should be seen on all occasions to be impartial in the important duties which they carry out? Is not some appeals machinery for immigrants even more important now? Would my right hon. Friend further agree that the various forms of negro baiting that we have seen in recent days has been due entirely to the notorious speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in trying to make racialism respectable in Britain?
§ Mr. EnnalsI will not reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's question. It is important that immigration officers should refrain from saying anything which might cast doubt on their ability to discharge their official duties impartially.
The Government have accepted in principle the recommendation made by the Wilson Committee for the introduction of an immigration appeals system. My right hon. Friend informed the House on 28th March that an immigration appeals Bill was high on the list of Bills being considered for next Session.
§ Mr. MaudlingWhile it is clear that the rules of the Civil Service must be maintained—we do not doubt that for a moment—does not the hon. Gentleman realise that his Answer is totally inadequate in relation to this extremely important question? Is he aware that there is a great deal of public concern about this whole problem, arising from a genuine belief that the immigration controls are being widely mishandled—[An HON. MEMBER: "Scoundrel."]—that a great deal of the present problem, which is of such seriousness, depends on 495 the controls being properly run—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."]—and that the public will feel that there is clear evidence—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We want to hear both sides of any question.
§ Mr. MaudlingAs the public will feel that this is evidence that the immigration controls are not being properly run, will the Minister make a statement on this vitally important point?
§ Sir G. NabarroOn a point of order. Four times I have heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) shout "Scoundrel" at my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
§ Mr. Heffer rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. If the hon. Gentleman did use the word "scoundrel" he must withdraw it.
§ Mr. HefferIf you so direct me, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw it in the interests of the House, but I have no intention of accepting a position in which right hon. Members can say things which inflame a situation which is already difficult enough.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member has rights to his opinion, but all I am concerned about is his withdrawal. It has been made. Mr. Shinwell.
§ Sir C. TaylorFurther to that point of order. I think that it has been ruled by a number of your predecessors that a withdrawal must be unreserved. This was a withdrawal, with the greatest respect—
§ Mr. SpeakerWhen a withdrawal is made it should be accepted. The Chair has accepted it and I think that the House will accept it.
§ Mr. EnnalsI was surprised at the tone of the question by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling). We are concerned here with the long-standing traditions of impartiality of the Civil Service. That is the issue.
§ Mr. Maudling rose—
496§ Mr. Shinwell rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerMr. Maudling.
§ Mr. MaudlingI made it quite clear in my opening words that the rights of the Civil Service must be supported. Of this, there is no doubt. [Interruption.]
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. FauldsWhat a sad decline.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We discussed this question for hours earlier in the week with dignity and decorum. We ought to be able to do so now.
§ Mr. MaudlingWhat people concerned with race relations are concerned about, as we on both sides of the House are concerned about, is that the public are told that the immigration controls are not properly run. This is a very serious point. I ask the Minister to make sure that public concern about this should be allayed.
§ Mr. EnnalsIt is a very serious question. One of the reasons why there is public concern is statements which have misrepresented the situation. This must be recognised. Immigration officers have a difficult job to do; this we must recognise, but it must also be recognised that there have been significant changes, which were debated in the House on the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, which dealt with a number of problems concerning dependent children, aged parents and clandestine evasions. Action has been taken by this House to deal with these. The sort of statements sometimes made, that in this country we are facing mass immigration when, in fact, the numbers coming for employment have been strictly reduced, lead to, and sometimes I think are designed to lead to, misunderstandings.
§ Mr. Heath rose—
§ Mr. Shinwell rose—
§ Mr SpeakerOrder. The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) will be called in turn. Mr. Heath.
§ Mr. HeathThe Under-Secretary said, quite rightly, that he has arranged for an inquiry to be made into the disciplinary aspects of this matter. What my right hon. Friend and my colleagues 497 are asking is that if immigration officers feel that they have grievances or complaints about the operation of controls for which they are responsible, he will make sure that inquiry is made into these and a report is made in the usual way.
§ Mr. EnnalsThe immigration officers, naturally, have their channels—as any civil servants have—for expressing grievances. There has been substantial contact between Ministers and immigration officers on problems which they face. On 2nd November I spent several hours at London Airport discussing with immigration officers the problems they were facing. As recently as 16th January a number of representatives came and discussed these problems with us, before the 1968 Act. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the means of expressing concern are amply met both by the meetings I have spoken of and the proper procedures applied to the Civil Service.
§ Mr. ShinwellIf there is a channel available to these immigration officers, who are regular civil servants, to make known to the Home Office that corruption exists and there are illegal practices in operation, may I ask whether recently these officers have taken advantage of that opportunity and made such representations? If they have made representations, can my hon. Friend say what the Home Office have done about it?
§ Mr. EnnalsThe only reference I have seen to corruption was a quoted statement in the Press from an unnamed person. My impression was that the references to corruption were the difficulties that are sometimes experienced when immigrants seek to gain entry by illegal means. Certainly, the fact that there have been evasions is something which is well understood in this House and in the Home Office, and it has been dealt with in the controls provided by the 1968 Act.
§ Miss LestorDoes not my hon. Friend agree that one of the tragedies of this situation is that this House and people in the country, when talking of immigrants, automatically thinks of colour. The word "coloured" becomes synonymous with "immigrant". Does he not consider that a great service would be 498 done in the whole field of race relations if we began to discuss immigration in the context of white immigration as well as coloured immigration, bearing in mind that there are far more white than coloured immigrants?
§ Mr. EnnalsIt should be realised that control in immigration offices at both No. 1 and No. 3 buildings at London Airport are dealing with aliens from all over the world as well as with coloured immigrants. My hon. Friend is quite right.
§ Mr. ThorpeIs the Under-Secretary aware that one of the most priceless assets in the public administration of this country from which successive Administrations have benefited is the record of utter integrity of our public service? Is he aware that one aspect is that, whatever political views they hold and are entitled to hold in private, they are not allowed to influence or to be extended to the proper discharge of their professional duties? Can he tell us by what precedent civil servants have been justified, when feeling dissatisfaction with their own Department, to express that dissatisfaction in public, and further, that when the precedent was established the Opposition were seen to give that practice support?
§ Mr. EnnalsI do not think that the House, at this stage, ought to go too far in drawing its conclusions. My right hon. Friend is making a searching inquiry into the allegations. I think that it would be wrong for me to presume what would be the outcome of that inquiry or to prejudice the position of those who are involved in the inquiry.
In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's final question, I was surprised at the attitude of a principal spokesman of the Opposition, which did not seem to recognise that we are dealing here with a matter of great importance concerning the impartiality of servants of the State.
§ Mr. HeathIn view of what the Leader of the Liberal Party has just said, may I make absolutely plain to the Under-Secretary, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), that we consider the Government to be absolutely right in having an inquiry into the disciplinary matters 499 which have been raised? [An HON. MEMBER: "He did not say so."] My right hon. Friend also made it clear that it is, of course, the Government's responsibility to do so and to come to a decision and take the necessary action if justified by the inquiry. There is absolutely no support for the statement made by the Leader of the Liberal Party, which was quite unworthy of him.
§ Mr. EnnalsI am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made the position clear. This is not a matter that ought for a moment to be an issue of party controversy.
§ Mr. C. PannellIs the Minister aware that these matters have been associated with a Press reference to interference by an M.P. and that presumably it is our duty sometimes to make representations of this sort? Is he further aware that he ought not to take too much notice of the inept handling of this question by the Leader of the Opposition and hon. Members opposite, which gives the impression to which the Leader of the Liberal Party has alluded?
§ Mr. EnnalsThere have been a number of reported statements in the Press. I should make clear that the investigation will also cover steps taken to publicise the incident and other statements attributed to immigration officers in the Press. That is one thing which is being inquired into.
§ Mr. MendelsonWith reference to the urgent need to set up appeals machinery, does the Minister recall that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, during the Committee stage of the recent Commonwealth Immigrants Act, in reply to an intervention by me, gave the House an assurance that he would try to persuade his Cabinet colleagues to bring in legislation setting up this appeals machinery later this summer? Is he, therefore, now going back on that in the statement he has made today, when it has become all the more obvious that appeals machinery is needed?
§ Mr. EnnalsI am not going back on anything said by my right hon. Friend. As I have said, he made it clear that an immigration appeals Bill is high on the list of Bills being considered for next 500 Session. But it would not be possible now to introduce a Bill, which would be a very complicated one to cover the kind of appeals system recommended by the Wilson Committee; and it is not the kind of legislation which should be rushed through the House.
§ Sir C. OsborneWould not the hon. Gentleman agree that these immigration officers are responsible and experienced men, dealing with a very difficult problem and that they must have been driven to extremes to make a statement that there was widespread corruption and evasion of the law? This, therefore, would justify them as ordinary citizens in doing so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I thought that this House believed in free speech, Mr. Speaker. These men must have been driven to extremes by experience which they alone have had in seeking to bring this corruption to the public notice. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with that?
§ Mr. EnnalsI do not think it appropriate for me to make any comment on the question of the hon. Gentleman. These are precisely the matters being inquired into and it is not helpful for the hon. Gentleman to seek to put more words into the mouths of immigration officers.
§ Mr. WhitakerWould my hon. Friend agree that while these officers are as entitled to their opinion as anybody else, public confidence in their impartiality is now destroyed by the tone of their statement yesterday? Therefore, would he recognise that appeals machinery is already long overdue and will he say why it cannot be introduced with the expedition with which the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was rushed through the House recently?
§ Mr. EnnalsI would not agree at all with the initial conclusion of my hon. Friend. I do not think that the House ought to draw its conclusions until the outcome of the inquiry which my right hon. Friend has instituted is made known. But it is right to make clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that none of the immigration officers who, it was alleged, have signed this letter have a right to refuse anyone entry at the port at which they are serving. Officers of the basic grade of immigration officer have no 501 power to refuse entry. That power is vested in the higher ranks of chief immigration officer and immigration inspector. Only officers of the basic grade of immigration officer have signed the letter.
§ Several Hon. Members rose—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. We must move on. We have a lot of business.
§ Mr. FauldsOn a point of order. I should be very grateful, Mr. Speaker, if you could enlighten me on a certain matter. I need a much lesser degree of enlightenment that most of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have always understood from older Members of the House that if an hon. Member put in a Private Notice Question and—unfortunately, from his point of view—someone else had done so before him, he was normally likely to be called when questions on that subject came up.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. Gentleman is right, though it is not an absolute rule. It is true that the hon. Gentleman this morning put in an identical Private Notice Question. I had forgotten for the moment, I should have called him for a question. Mr. Faulds.
§ Mr. FauldsMr. Speaker, you restore both my faith and my spirit. In view of the fact that the claim of these men to impartiality has been invalidated by their actions, is it not quite inconceivable that they can possibly be allowed to continue in their present duties?
§ Mr. EnnalsAs I have said, I believe that it would be quite wrong to draw precise conclusions of this kind from a situation which has just blown into the Press and which is now being searchingly examined by my right hon. Friend. This would be quite the wrong time to do so. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why suspend them?"] An hon. Gentleman asked why they should be suspended. No disciplinary charges have been preferred. There are appropriate safeguards in the Civil Service disciplinary procedure, as agreed with the Whitley Council.