HC Deb 22 February 1968 vol 759 cc659-67
The Secretary of State for Home Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan)

I wish to make a statement on a number of matters in the field of Commonwealth immigration.

The Government have watched with great concern the rapid departure from East Africa of holders of United Kingdom passports and their arrival in this country.

As the House knows, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald has recently visited Kenya, where he had full discussions about this problem with President Kenyatta and the Kenya authorities. Her Majesty's Government have also been closely in touch with the Governments of India and Pakistan. During the last three months, over 7,000 have arrived, which is more than for the whole of 1966. The signs are that, if no action were taken, the flow would increase at an even faster rate. This sudden arrival of large numbers of people is placing a serious strain upon the services of those areas where they decide to settle. Whilst the Government are extremely reluctant to interfere with the arrival of persons holding United Kingdom passports, nevertheless it is necessary for the inflow to be brought under control.

A Bill will be presented tomorrow bringing under immigration control citizens of the United Kingdom holding United Kingdom passports who have no substantial connection with this country, for example, by birth or paternal parentage. This legislation will not only apply a control to the present rush of immigrants from East Africa; it will also extend to persons in other parts of the world who have hitherto been similarly exempt from United Kingdom immigration control.

There will be a special allocation of 1,500 vouchers a year for such persons. Voucher holders will of course, be entitled to be accompanied or joined later by their dependants. In this way it will be more possible for immigrants from East Africa to arrive here at a rate at which they can be absorbed into the community. The effect will be that those wishing to come will have to wait their turn.

The Government have also reviewed the existing scheme of employment vouchers, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be announcing changes that are being introduced. These will be designed to reduce the present long waiting lists, to adapt the scheme more closely to this country's economic and social needs, and see that as far as possible immigrants with special qualifications do not find themselves unable to secure jobs appropriate for those qualifications.

The Bill will also contain provisions for dealing with the problem of clandestine immigration by Commonwealth citizens. It will make clandestine entry an offence, and there will be provisions for substantial penalties for those convicted of smuggling in immigrants unlawfully. The period of 24 hours after landing within which an immigrant can be required to submit to examination by an immigration officer will be extended to 28 days.

The Bill will curtail the right of dependent children, up to the age of 16, to join a single parent in this country. The original provision was intended to ensure the unity of the family, but the Government have been concerned by the great increase in arrivals of children at or about school-leaving age seeking work and often coming to live in an all-male household. The existing right of dependent children to join both parents in this country remains unaltered. Next week I shall lay before the House as a White Paper a draft of instructions to immigration officers setting out how they are to exercise discretion to admit children to join a single parent. It will also include instructions that they are not in future to admit dependent fathers below the age of 65. The present minimum age for admission is 60. Enforcement has been difficult, and some men enter at younger ages in order to take employment here.

Finally, the legislation will give power to require that dependants can be asked to undergo medical examination at the ports of entry, and subsequently to report to the medical officer of health for treatment.

The Government are satisfied that these measures are necessary in fairness to the people of this country and in the interests of equitable treatment for the citizens of the Commonwealth as a whole. The Government's purpose is to create a climate in which good community relations in this country can be fostered.

Mr. Hogg

The right hon. Gentleman will realise that I have had a copy of his statement in my hands for a relatively short period of time and that I have not seen the terms of the proposed Bill. At this stage, may I content myself with asking two rather short questions? The first is about the 1,500 vouchers referred in to the fourth paragraph of his statement. Is that a new allocation outside the existing A and B vouchers which are at present current, or will it be contained within the maximum of the existing vouchers? Secondly, with regard to the charges to be announced by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, can we be quite sure that they will be available by the time we debate the Second Reading of the Bill? I am sure that this decision has caused the right hon. Gentleman grave anxiety, as it has to us on this side of the House, but I do not want to say more at the moment.

Mr. Callaghan

As regards the right hon. and learned Gentleman's two questions, it seemed proper to the Government that the 1,500 vouchers should be additional to those already in existence for Commonwealth citizens. This group must be regarded as a special category with exceptional claims, and the number of vouchers that will be issued to them is greater, and in my view rightly greater, than the proportion of population to which it may be thought to be applicable.

As regards the special changes that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be making, I will certainly make further inquiries, but I have been acting on the assumption that they will be available by the Second Reading.

Sir Dingle Foot

Do the Government not appreciate that it is a very grave matter to interfere with the legal rights of Her Majesty's subjects who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who are holders of United Kingdom passports? Have not the people concerned relied upon these rights ever since 1963?

Mr. Callaghan

Yes, Sir. I think that this is a very grave matter. It is for that reason that the Government have not rushed legislation on it. We have been watching the situation which has been building up very steadily for a number of months. I agree with what my right hon. and learned Friend says and what the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) says. This is a matter for very grave and earnest consideration. But the Government believe on balance that, whatever the difficulties of legislating, it would be less in the national interest not to legislate. I fear that it is on the basis of that consideration that we have reached our conclusions.

Mr. Sandys

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that his decision to tackle this urgent problem will be received with profound relief all over the country?

Mr. Callaghan

I believe that the citizens of this country recognise their responsibilities in respect of obligations which have been entered into by either the present or previous Administrations. I have no wish to debate the matter now. Whether it will be received with relief, the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to his own opinion. I very much regret that it is not possible for this country to absorb these persons, to whom we have given the most solemn pledges, at a pace. If we did, I fear that it would cause racial disharmony and explosions.

Mr. Whitaker

Will the Bill provide for a proper system whereby entry permits are issued abroad to save distress to people who arrive here and have to be returned home? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance that any such new restrictions will apply to all immigrants, irrespective of race, colour, or country of origin?

Mr. Callaghan

Yes, Sir. Taking my hon. Friend's first question, the entry certificate procedure will be encouraged, and we shall certainly ask and try to organise the administration in other countries to ensure that people do not arrive here without an entry certificate and find themselves in a very difficult position.

As regards his second question, the answer is yes. Some would think that it is a singular fact that an Australian may not come here at the moment without a particular voucher, whereas these citizens can. I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of it. But, in this legislation, the control will apply to all Commonwealth citizens, no matter what their race or colour.

Mr. David Steel

Does the Home Secretary recognise that we have some sympathy for him in making this statement in this disagreeable situation? May I ask him whether in the new controls which he envisages there will be introduced a proper, impartial appeal procedure against the decisions made by immigration officials?

Mr. Callaghan

I am aware of the recommendations of the Wilson Committee, and it is something that could be regarded as desirable, but I am reinforced by the fact that the Wilson Committee found that there were very few mistakes made by Home Office officials in the administration of this control and they wanted it introduced in order to give an appearance of fairness. I regret to say that at the moment I have neither funds nor staff available for this purpose.

Mr. Rose

In accepting the need for planning, not merely in immigration, would my right hon. Friend make it clear that although there are to be limits on entry these people will not ultimately be deprived of British nationality? This would be against Conventions which this country has entered into.

Mr. Callaghan

There is no intention to deprive these persons of British nationality. It will be a question, as it were, of forming a queue under which they may enter this country.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

In regard to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal for remedying the defects which have shown themselves in the 1962 legislation in respect of clandestine entry, can the right hon. Gentleman say what his proposals are in respect of people who come without permits and so, somewhat unfairly to other people who have applied for them, if they are apprehended, are there to be powers to secure that they do not remain here, and if so, where are they to be sent?

Mr. Callaghan

This is a matter which needs to be debated. It has given us a good deal of concern and I do not want to give an immediate answer in a sentence this afternoon.

Mr. James Griffiths

I appreciate the steps my right hon. Friend and the Government are taking—I think that they are right—but I hope he will also bear in mind that the Indians are in East Africa because we as a country brought them there and have profited from their work. After the conversations which Mr. Macdonald has had with the Kenya Government, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us, as he has already, that they will keep British citizenship and that they will be encouraged and welcomed to become citizens of Kenya to further its economic development.

Mr. Callaghan

I think this is probably a question for my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary, but as I understand the matter these persons are still free to apply for citizenship of Kenya, and it will be for the Kenya Government to show by their actions how much they value their services, skill and ability.

Sir C. Osborne

Since it is difficult to ask a question on a Bill we have not seen, may I for my sake say to the Home Secretary that I wish him well in dealing with this highly difficult and emotional problem?

Mr. Callaghan

There has been a good deal of emotion, not all of it of the purest kind, expressed about that problem, and I can only say that the statement that was issued by the Conservative Party yesterday, and which I read with very great care, in many ways goes along with the statement I have made today. We have both been thinking no doubt on similar lines. I have had a great deal of time to think about that and I would hope—and I address this particularly to the hon. Gentleman—that we would not get into a party controversy about this and that there will be no inflammatory statements made.

Miss Lestor

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the agitation and the racialist statements which have been made by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) and the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) over the last few years have produced what they wanted—the acceleration of immigrants from Kenya and other parts of the world which has forced us into a position that is abhorrent to many of us on this side of the House?

Mr. Callaghan

This is asking me for an opinion. If I am asked for it, I will give it. It seems to me that three factors have contributed to the situation over the last few months. The first is the action of the Kenya Government in relation to employment; the second the action of the Kenya Government in relation to trading facilities for these people, and, thirdly, the speeches of some right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Hogg

Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is extremely important to keep the temperature down about this kind of thing and that attacks on individuals in this House on either side do not necessarily help to do so?

Mr. Callaghan

I follow that, but I think we ought to understand that a great deal of agitation among East Asians has been caused by suggestions here that there is going to be closure of the immigration controls, and that this has precipitated a flow which would not otherwise have been as great as it will now be.

Mr. Macdonald

Is there any precedent for restricting the right of holders of British passports to enter this country, and are we to understand that holders of British passports are to be restricted whereas residents of Eire will be able to enter quite unrestricted?

Mr. Callaghan

This is a unique situation. There has been no precedent for it, as far as I know. This will be the first occasion on which legislation of this sort has been proposed. The position of Eire citizens is different.

Mr. Thorpe

Could I press the Home Secretary a little further on the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel)? The right hon. Gentleman has said that this is the first time that holders of United Kingdom passports may be excluded from coming into the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend asked whether this was to be a matter which would be subject to an independent appeal? The Home Secretary said that he had not funds to do that and that the Wilson Report had not recommended it. Surely the right hon. Gentleman should have independent and impartial machinery for judging the claims of United Kingdom passport holders who are excluded from coming to this country? Is it not a reasonable request?

Mr. Callaghan

If the implication of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North's (Mr. Thorpe) question is that they are to be excluded for ever, I did not say that. It is a matter of taking their turn in a line of people waiting to enter. Therefore, they are not quite in the same position as other Commonwealth citizens who would be excluded and never allowed to enter.

As regards the Wilson Committee's recommendations, I have been under great pressure for economies in many directions. I have not got a Vote for these funds, and I am asked to keep down staff. There would be substantial machinery required for this purpose. I hope the House will feel that in present circumstances—I emphasise that it is in present circumstances—the discretion which has been vested in the Home Secretary, and which the Wilston Committee said had been pretty fairly carried out, will continue to be as fairly carried out in future. As for legislation on the Wilson Report, as the Lord President indicated, there cannot be legislation this Session.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are going to debate this on Tuesday.

Mr. Sandys

In view of the fact that I was personally attacked by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor)—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. We should be able to proceed.

Mr. Sandys

I wonder whether I might be allowed an additional supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

I do not see why not, in the circumstances.

Mr. Sandys

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the remarks made by the hon. Lady the Member for Eton and Slough and possibly by implication, although I do not know, by the Home Secretary about my speeches recently, may I ask the Home Secretary whether he realises that, at the request of his predecessor, I remained silent on this question for over a year and that it was only when the flood of immigrants from East Africa started that I felt it necessary to speak out?

Mr. Speaker

Order. We shall debate this issue on Tuesday.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

On a point of order. Unless you, Mr. Speaker, were referring to the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone as "Mr. St. John-Hogg", did I not hear you call my name?

Mr. Speaker

It sometimes happens that half a back-bencher's name is called and then his being called is pre-empted by a Front Bench Member. This is most unfortunate. I called half the hon. Gentleman's name.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Could I ask half my supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker

I knew that it was not an innocent point of order.