HC Deb 02 August 1972 vol 842 cc852-71

6.33 a.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

I am pleased to have this opportunity, even at this extraordinary hour of the day, to raise the important question of the administration of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, particularly as it applies to United Kingdom citizens of Asian origin, mainly from East Africa, usually known, somewhat inaccurately as Kenya Asians. At the outset I should say that I remain as opposed to the provisions of the 1968 Act, confirmed in recent legislation, as I was at the time it was passed and as was a large majority of hon. Members in all parts of the House.

I still maintain that the terms of the legislation were pernicious. I agree with the late lain Macleod who argued that when we granted citizenship to those persons at the time of granting independence to Kenya it was a deliberate act of the British Government. Even if one does not accept his argument the fact is that it happened. Whether or not it was right is a matter widely debated inside and outside the House. It happened and the fact is that we have an inescapable responsibility in international law and morality to that section of the population which was granted our citizenship, even though they did not originate in these islands.

I am reinforced in that view by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides that Everyone has the right … to return to his country"; by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provides No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country"; and by protocol No. 4 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, which we have signed, which provides that No one shall be deprived of the right to enter the teritory of the State of which he is a national". Therefore, I hope we shall not hear from the Minister the old argument that this legislation was necessary because we must be spared an influx of too many people at any given moment. I accept the validity of that argument on administrative grounds, but we must remember throughout that we have an overriding responsibility to these people.

Because this is a pernicious piece of legislation, and because the demand for entry to this country by those citizens is greater than the number of vouchers which we are able to grant in any year, it is an extremely difficult piece of legislation to administer. Therefore, I genuinely have considerable sympathy not simply for the Minister who has overall responsibility for this matter but for those in the Home Office and in posts overseas faced with the practical and individual problems to which this legislation has naturally given rise. It is only fair that I should say that on the occasions when I have had to raise individual cases with the Home Office it has usually been extremely generous and swift in dealing with them and often very sympathetic.

But it is only a very small minority of United Kingdom citizens who have access to or the ear of a sympathetic Member of Parliament, and it is those who never have the opportunity to make contact with a Member of Parliament whose cases go by default and who send me, and I am sure other hon. Members, pathetic letters from the countries in which they are staying.

I hope therefore that the Government will welcome, as I do, this opportunity to review how the legislation has been working in practice in recent times and what has been happening, particularly since the last occasion on which we discussed this matter when the voucher level was increased under the present Administration.

I asked a number of Written Questions about this subject recently but, because there were no newspapers and because we are still lacking HANSARD for some days, very few of them have seen the light of day. However, they produced some interesting information. For example, the number of vouchers issued has been declining quarter by quarter over the last 18 months or so. I shall be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State will comment on that.

The second interesting reply which I received contained a table outlining the number of United Kingdom citizens waiting in different countries for entry to this country. Governments like those of Kenya and Uganda share with us a general responsibility for these people. By and large they have lived in those countries for many years. They have contributed to the economies of those countries, and it is right that their Governments should be reasonable in their attitude towards those who are not their citizens but who have earned a livelihood in their countries.

I do not think that the same general responsibility extends to other countries. The largest single number of United Kingdom citizens outside the countries in which they had their upbringing and earned their livelihood exists in India. That is partly because of the arrangement made at the time between the British Government and the Indian Government and partly because some of them at least had before gone to India.

and many of them went there rather than wait in a penniless situation in East Africa. In recent months pressure has been growing for them to leave India and to go to the country of which they are citizens—namely, this country—and the difficulty has arisen that there has grown in India a greater demand for vouchers than the number we normally allocate there. Again, I think it must be said that the Government of India have no general responsibility to accept in their country indefinitely a large number of our citizens. It seems to me, therefore, that if people who are our citizens abroad find themselves without jobs or means of support and then attempt to come to this country, that is perfectly natural and understandable.

However, in recent months a growing number of those people have popped up in different parts of the world, particularly in Italy and France. In a Question last week I inquired whether it was possible for United Kingdom citizens to apply for entry certificates in some country other than the country in which they originated—in other words, France or Italy. The answer I got was "Yes". If this is the case I cannot quite understand why so many of these individuals who were in France and Italy found they had to return to India before they could be considered for an entry certificate here. I shall be grateful if the Minister can clear up this point.

It seems to me that these people have no greater right of residence in India than they have in France or Italy. They are very often in a state of extreme poverty; they have no right to work in those countries and they are dependent upon charity, both that given there and that which is sent from this country. Altogether it is surely an unsatisfactory situation which, as I said at the start, originates from the nature of the legislation itself. What has happened even more recently and what I particularly deplore is that in the case of some people who have come to this country without an entry certificate the Government have attempted to shuffle them back to somewhere else. Precisely where is never very clear.

There was the case, which because the Press was not printing, did not receive as much publicity as normally it would have done, of the six United Kingdom citizens who were dispatched twice to India—or, indeed, it may have been three times; I lost track of them after a certain time. However, they came back on the first occasion. There appears to have been no consultation with the Indian Government. This was another Question I asked last week. I was told that the Indian Government were informed that they were being sent to India, but that is not the same thing as securing the agreement of the Indian Government that they would be received. As I have already indicated, the Indian Government do not have any particular responsibility for receiving people who are our citizens. The six, having gone once to India and come back again, were bundled into a Qantas aircraft at Heathrow. I am told that one of the girls in the group was in a state of considerable distress and that the pilot of the aircraft refused to carry them. I commend his action entirely. Despite that, they were then put into another aircraft and were sent to India again, and were returned again. As I say, I am not quite clear whether they were sent out a third time.

There was the other case, reported yesterday in one newspaper, of two United Kingdom citizens from Uganda who have been on a complete round-the-world flight, apparently stopping at various destinations and being refused entry and coming back to this country.

This action by the British Government is indefensible. Whenever there is a case of animals, whether they be squirrels, monkeys or whatever, arriving at a British airport in bad condition there is an immediate banner headline and, quite rightly, a public outcry. There should be a similar public outcry about uncivilised treatment of human beings who are expected to endure endless air journeys. And at whose expense are these flights—are they at the airline's or at the taxpayer's expense? Certainly the effect on the unfortunate travellers is disastrous.

It may be that the Government find it necessary to stop queue jumping and to have the deterrent of detention, but there should be no attempt by the Government to turn away from our shores people for whom at the end of the day we have sole responsibility. That is the aspect of the situation about which I am most unhappy and which I believe deserves greater scrutiny by the House.

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis (Hackney, Central)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) on making such a powerful case on the grounds of humanity, a case in which he spelt out the essential facts. I shall not enlarge to a great extent on the facts he outlined and on his indictment of the Government, but I wish to make plain at the outset that neither the hon. Gentleman nor I seeks to make party political points on this topic. Conduct of this kind by any Government would be repellent to ordinary standards of decent and civilised behaviour. That it is being practised by our Government is a direct consequence of legislation which the present Government and their Labour predecessors sought to invoke to deal with these matters.

The hon. Gentleman said that in the final analysis responsibility for dealing with the plight of these people resides with our Government. We know that the Government have tried to shuffle off their responsibilities on to the shoulders of the Indian Government. That is a sad reflection on the Government's attitude because the Indian Government have not the same measure of responsibility as we have. The Indian Government are faced with difficulties which make our own economic problems pale into insignificance and they have shown a far greater measure of responsibility towards these people than we have done.

If the Government say that the fault lies in East Africa, perhaps it does, but we have a problem with which we must deal here and now. These people are either United Kingdom passport holders or they are British protected persons. When the Government also say, as they have done to explain their appalling attitude, that we have to accept that when people jump the queue and are given preference this will be intolerable to those who are ahead of them in the queue, the answer surely is that the number of United Kingdom passport holders who are permitted entry here is wholly inadequate and that the numbers should be substantially increased for heads of families.

That does not in any way deal with the British protected persons. They cannot even enter the queue. Surely we have a responsibility towards them. The number of people who have applied for entry vouchers is quite considerable. But they have had to go through the most inordinate delays. Some applied four years ago, some three years ago and some two years ago. The delays are quite intolerable. People who are deprived of any financial support in India, for example, people who are living in total poverty, cannot await the Government's decisions for that period of time.

The Government are tied by their own regulations. They increased the allocation of 500 vouchers earlier this year, but that is still woefully inadequate when one realises that the problem is extremely serious and that it has been growing because of the pressure of rules, regulations and legislation in East Africa which has made the plight of these people very much worse in recent months.

I turn now to another feature of the hon. Gentleman's case concerning the way in which these people are shuttled around. There are today about 21 of these people in Boulogne. They are living there as a result of the charity of citizens of that town. Their upkeep costs £35 a month per person. They are totally dependent on the good will of people living in Boulogne, and probably a very small number of people at that. At present they are being housed in a school. They have been told by the British Consul in Lille that they must return to India. There is no question of whether they want to return to India or whether the Indian Government are prepared to have them; they must return to India. The British Consul said that their applications would be favourably received by that country. On 28th July he delivered forms to these people.

The intolerable position concerning this matter is that those people cannot honestly, complying with the law, complete those forms, because they are required to complete questions about the purpose of their visit and to give undertakings about their length of stay. If they are honest in completing those forms, it is quite clear that the Indian Government would not be obliged to take them.

There are 56 of these people in Turin. There are at present a large number of these people in Pentonville prison. These are not people who have committed offences. They are decent people who have got completely fed up with the poverty with which they have been faced and they have had to take drastic action. They are United Kingdom passport holders and British protected persons.

Let us consider for a moment the situation of those people who are kept in Pentonville prison. I doubt whether any of them have suffered the indignity and shame of being in prison before. It is not a pleasant place to be in, even as a civil debtor. It is a gruesome, repellent building. When its great doors are shut behind someone, it must be a fearful experience.

These people are required to undergo the regime of the prison. I do not suppose they are required to wear the uniform, the denims or the dungarees that other prisoners wear. I know not. Perhaps the Minister will enlighten us about that. But that these people have to suffer this shame and the infinite boredom and the fact that they are incarcerated in this place for very long periods, most of them without visitors, is also a blot upon this country.

Eight people have been held in detention since 25th May, nine since 29th May, 24 since 3rd June, eight since 22nd June, five since 24th June, and so it goes on.

As the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles said, this is not the end of the story. Some of these people are required to fly in aeroplanes for intolerable periods. We know this has an appalling effect on people from a medical point of view. Those of us who have undergone flights of about 21 hours know how exhausted we are at the end of that time. However, the periods of flying to which these people have been subjected is infinitely worse than that.

I cannot help likening the position to that which arose before the war. I am Jewish. A number of my relatives who were in Europe died in concentration camps. In those days a large number of people applied to be admitted to the United Kingdom, the United States and elsewhere but Governments adduced all kinds of reasons which, on the face of them, appeared to be sound and logical, though perhaps not very compassionate, for refusing admittance. Although this country and the United States took a large number of Jewish people, more could have come to both countries. More could have been admitted to other Commonwealth countries and, indeed, to other countries which are regarded as democracies in the world. But they were not admitted. As a result they died or were savagely tortured.

I am not suggesting that the position is totally analogous. There is not the direct physical persecution in the same way, but there is a form of persecution here. There is a form of intolerance, of relying upon rules and regulations and of ignoring the common humanity of the position. Nobody wants these people. Because nobody wants them, they are totally rejected and subjected to a form of persecution.

The Government must be concerned about the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. This sort of case has already been regarded as admissible by the court. Therefore, it is a matter for argument, regarding these people's rights, whether the Government in their legislation, and operation of the legislation, are in breach of that convention. However, notwithstanding the fact that the matter is arguably sub judice, the Government persist in their policies regardless of what the decision of the court may or may not be. I should have thought that was in itself an offensive attitude for the United Kingdom Government to take.

I support the view which has been put forward that whatever pressure can be brought to bear on the Government, such as influencing the pilots of the International Airline Pilots Association to follow the example of the Qantas pilot to whom reference was made in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, is something which all Members of Parliament and others should try to exert. No doubt it will be said that we are seeking to break the law and that we are urging other people to do so. I suggest, if the Under-Secretary of State puts forward that argument, which I hope he does not, that that is a lot of nonsense. It is the Government that are breaking the accepted mores of civilised behaviour. If such action were to constitute a breach of the law, it is one of those absolutes which we do not have to obey which we debated the other day. It is a good example of where one does not have to comply with the absolute law as distinct from the rule of law.

I urge the Government to increase the number of vouchers. We cannot ask that the Government immediately increase them by 25,000, but this is a growing problem and they must do something about it. I hope we will not hear from the Under-Secretary of State a lot of statements about the difficulties for the Government, how they must recognise that other Governments have responsibilities and other matters which we have heard so many times before. The ultimate responsibility resides with the Government.

I should have referred earlier in my speech to the case of the two young ladies, Miss Vasanti Paleja and Miss Shankuntala Paleja, which reflects the misery of the position. Miss Vasanti Paleja is 29 years of age and the other young lady is 22 years of age. They are both British passport holders who were horn in Dar-es-Salaam, Tanzania, on 26th October, 1942, and 27th November, 1949, respectively. Their mother is in Tanzania. Their father was last heard of in Bombay. They have a brother but they do not know where he is. He is supposed to be arriving in the United Kingdom.

Shankuntala left Tanzania in 1967. In 1971 she attended a six months' course in clinical pathology in Bombay. When she completed her studies she was unable to provide financial guarantees and was required to quit India on 2nd June. She was required to quit within seven days. She tried to get an extension of her visa but that was refused. She left India with her sister on 10th June, 1972.

The two young ladies travelled by air to Genoa from Bombay. They were unable to get a ticket to London. They took a train via Paris to Boulogne and and a ferry to Folkestone, arriving there on 13th July. They did not have a visa to enter the country. They were stopped at Folkestone by immigration officials and taken to Dover, where they were kept overnight. On 14th July they were taken to a detention centre and were told they were being detained because they did not have a visa. They were told that they would be brought to Holloway prison, but happily that did not take place.

On 19th July they saw immigration officials who produced quota voucher forms to them and an application for a visa to India. They refused to sign the forms. They have no relatives in India, they cannot work there and they cannot support themselves there. They were told that if they did not sign the forms they would be sent to prison. They were told that the Home Office was trying to co-operate with them and that they should co-operate with the Home Office.

I have said that they were, happily, not sent to prison. But after 19th July they were sent to Holloway. I believe that my own firm of solicitors is dealing with one or other of the cases and therefore I declare my interest in the matter if that is the situation. But I am a little vague about it because the gentleman who deals with these matters is out of London and I have not been able to check overnight. It seems to me that this is the sort of case which best illustrates how the Home Office has viewed these matters by looking at the letter of its own regulations—I will not describe it as law—instead of applying common humanity and compassion. That is what is needed and I hope, therefore, that the Minister will give a promise that the Government will not simply look into this matter but will deal effectively with the position forthwith, so that when we rise for the recess we may be able to have some feeling that the Government are concerned and are taking direct action to deal with what is a blot upon this country.

7.7 a.m.

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

This situation is distressing and distasteful to everyone concerned with it. Of course it is distressing to the individuals involved, who as we know are United Kingdom passport holders in a special position within the entirety of would-be Commonwealth immigrants and to whom I acknowledge at once, this country has a special responsibility; but it is also distressing—and I am grateful for the acknowledgment of this by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis)—to the Home Office officials who have to deal with it, to myself and to other Ministers. I welcome this debate. It is good that even at this curious hour we should look at the situation, and I am grateful for the moderate terms used by the hon. Members.

The Government's aim is to operate the immigration control in a way that is firm but fair. It is a very difficult balance to strike, particularly in this context. All I can say is that we shall continue to do our best to get the right balance. I want to sketch a little of the background to the present difficulties. First, in looking towards our goal of one nation, which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was discussing once again last week, plainly a major element is good race relations in Britain, and we have always mentioned that in talking about this subject at and since the General Election.

Equally plainly, a prerequisite of good race relations in Britain is control of immigration which is tight and is seen to be tight. In this, as the Minister who carries particular responsibility for immigration, I should like to pay tribute to the Home Office officials who have to deal with it. They have a thankless task, accused one day of being too lax and the next of being too harsh. Coming comparatively new to the problem, I am much impressed by the thoroughness with which they work and the humanity with which they try to deal with these difficult cases.

To turn to the United Kingdom passport holders, their place in the whole United Kingdom immigration scheme and how we got to this position as a result of the 1968 Act, may I remind the House of the course of events by which we got to this position in the summer of 1972. When the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, came into operation there were in East Africa a considerable number of people whose origins were in the Indian subcontinent but who had obtained citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies, either by registration or birth in a British dependency. Like other Commonwealth citizens, these people became subject to control on entry to the United Kingdom in 1962.

When the East African States subsequently gained their independence, they automatically acquired citizenship of the newly-independent territories if they themselves and one parent had been born in Africa. The others retained citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies unless they elected to take local citizenship. They then obtained United Kingdom passports from the British High Commissions in the newly-independent countries and in this way they became exempt from the then existing control on entry into the United Kingdom.

Before 1967 the number of holders of United Kingdom passports coming for settlement was not significant, but in that year and in the early part of 1968 the number of immigrants from that source increased and the then Labour Government introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1968, extending control to all United Kingdom passport holders having no close personal or ancestral connection with the United Kingdom, so that entry could be at a controlled rate.

I do not wish to go again into the controversy of that time but merely to state the facts which we have to deal with at present. United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa were then able to come here in ways open to Commonwealth citizens generally, for example by means of employment vouchers. In addition an allocation of 1,500 special vouchers a year was made available for issue to heads of households wishing to settle here. This made up an annual rate of admission, including dependants, of about 6,000 a year or about the number arriving in the years before 1967.

Owing to the difficulties in which they found themselves in East Africa because of Africanisation, applicants for special vouchers soon exceeded the numbers of vouchers available, and after a review my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary, towards the end of May last year, announced that the Government had decided first to double the rate of entry by the issue of 3,000 instead of 1,500 vouchers a year, providing for an annual entry of 12,000, including dependants, and secondly to make available over a period of six months a further 1,500 vouchers for those in special need in order to relieve pressure on the queue. At the same time the number of employment vouchers for issue to Commonwealth citizens was cut from 8,500 to 2,700 a year to compensate for the increase in arrivals from East Africa.

There has since been a marked improvement in the situation in East Africa, although the rate of applications for vouchers has increased since the allocation was doubled and there is a long waiting list at present. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, before dealing with the present Indian difficulties, asked how this had been going for East Africa. I think that these arrangements have worked well and on the whole smoothly although of course, as we all know, there are still many people waiting to come here.

I am puzzled by what the hon. Member said about the numbers. It is my recollection—I do not have the precise figures with me—that the numbers coming with special vouchers from East Africa month by month in 1972 have been greater than the corresponding figures of last year as a result of the increase that we made 12 months ago.

Mr. David Steel

I am not disputing that. The point I was making was that the total figure, not just from East Africa but of all United Kingdom citizens, had been dropping month by month. That information was given to me in a Written Answer that has not yet appeared in HANSARD and I could not find in my office the one copy that I had. I asked for the total number of United Kingdom citizens coming into the country.

Mr. Lane

I should like to study the figures further but I am clear that the figures for East Africa, where there has been the main pressure over the last few years, reflect the increase that we made a year ago. However, I should like to look into that.

Some United Kingdom passport holders went from East Africa to India. Some went under the terms of an agreement that we have with the Indian Government whereby, if those people wished, they could later apply for entry certificates to come from India to the United Kingdom, and those entry certificates would be issued without delay. These were people with a good case for the issue of a special voucher in East Africa and they are not among those with whom we are mainly concerned this morning.

Other people at sometime after their arrival in India applied to come here under the special voucher arrangement. In India they are not in the main experiencing the same difficulties as are faced by United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa, and we have thought it right for the great bulk of the special vouchers to be issued to United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa.

However, as the House will remember, in November last year United Kingdom passport holders began to travel from India to the United Kingdom for settlement without vouchers. Some applicants in India had waited several years for their vouchers and the Home Secretary announced in a Written Answer on 3rd May this year that, after reviewing the position of United Kingdom passport holders in India, the Government had decided to make an immediate issue of special vouchers to them for settlement in this country. This answers the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central for I stress that the issue was to be decided according to priorities settled from time to time by our High Commissioner in New Delhi, taking into account the local situation and individual circumstances as far as possible.

Mr. Steel

The hon. Gentleman has made a point that is new to me, and it is interesting. He appeared to draw a distinction between two different categories of United Kingdom citizens in India—those who went to India under a special agreement between the two Governments and those who simply went there outside the special agreement and are there just as though they had remained in East Africa. It is a new and interesting distinction. I do not expect the lion. Gentle. man to produce the figures now but it would be interesting to have a breakdown of the numbers coming to this country from India from among those who went there under the special agreement and those who went there outside it.

Mr. Lane

If I can get an accurate breakdown of the figures I will send it to the hon. Member. In this situation they have all been waiting for special vouchers for varying times.

I was saying that with effect from 3rd May this year the total allocation of special vouchers to United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa and India was increased from 3,000 to 3,500. But at the same time there was a further reduction of 450 a year in the number of employment vouchers issued for Commonwealth immigrants generally—that is, down to 2,250.

Coming back to the situation in India, as soon as this announcement was made our High Commissioner in India sent letters to all the applicants on the waiting list telling them that vouchers were now to be issued and warning them that anyone who arrived in the United Kingdom for settlement without a voucher must expect to be refused entry here. Airlines operating from India to or towards the United Kingdom have been informed that helping United Kingdom passport holders without proper documents to come here for settlement is both unsettling and unfair to those waiting their turn in India and causes hardship to the passengers themselves who arc liable to be refused admission on arrival here and to be detained pending arrangements for their removal.

As we all know, despite these warnings a few United Kingdom passport holders have continued to come here from India without the vouchers necessary for their settlement. We cannot allow them simply to jump the queue in this way. We have to operate a new system, unsatisfactory though it is in many respects. We also owe a duty to residents of this country, including those immigrants who have come here in the proper way, to ensure that the total rate of arrivals is not greater than the community can absorb. Distasteful though it is, therefore, we shall have to continue to do all we can to ensure that people without the proper documents are not admitted for settlement.

I have deliberately gone over the background at some length because I wanted to remind the House of the great trouble taken over the last few years by British Governments to deal as generously as possible with the problem of United Kingdom passport holders, both in East Africa and in India, who wanted to come to this country, whilst still keeping the total arrivals of immigrants from the Commonwealth as a whole at a level substantially below the level of the middle and late 1960s.

I want for a few moments more to discuss the central and the immediate difficulties with which hon. Members and I are greatly concerned.

Mr. Clinton Davis

Does the hon. Gentleman seek to say that the problems of the absorption of these people are in any real sense comparable to the problems of absorption facing previous Government—say, in 1962? Are not most of them in fact qualified professional people who are much more readily absorbable within our society than many others?

Mr. Lane

I do not contest that at all. There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman has said. I remind him, however, that we doubled the figure only 12 months ago, and it is out of the question at the present time to seek to enlarge that any further. I would rather leave the matter there for the moment.

Considering the individuals about whom we are concerned my latest information is that something like 80 are detained in this country today in various places and for various periods of time. Unhappily, because of the temporary increase in the number, the places of detention have to include Pentonville. All these people, I believe, knew when they left India about the new arrangements for the 500 special vouchers that I have been describing, which were intended to make possible the orderly movement of United Kingdom passport holders from India to this country. All of them nevertheless sought—one must say it plainly—to jump the queue. As far as I know, they never applied for vouchers before starting, and it is fair to say that these are not necessarily by any means the worst cases of hardship in India.

To admit these people on arrival is out of the question. It is wholly unfair to those who are waiting their turn in India. If people come here from anywhere without vouchers and the proper permission they must expect to be challenged when they arrive and to be sent back. We have been obliged in most cases to refuse admission under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, if no proper entry documents were brought by those seeking to come here. We have also unhappily had to exercise our power to detain people pending further examination or the giving of directions for their removal. As the House knows, these directions have to be given within two months of the date when they first arrive in this country.

I assure the House, all the same, that we have been doing our utmost to resolve this difficulty in a fair and humane way. Every single case has been looked at and will continue to be looked at individually. It is bound to be a slow process. Considerable inquiries have had to be made, in some cases linking up with other possible immigrants in the same family. There have been constant consultations with our High Commission in India and, of course, we have had to keep the Indian Government informed about the developing situation.

The stage we have reached at this moment is that a few of these people who have come without vouchers have been admitted. These were cases in which, although they arrive without the documents, when we looked into the matter there were features, we thought, which justified admitting them exceptionally, for a period of three months anyway.

But for the majority who have come without documents in these last few weeks the right course is that they should return to India and await the issue of vouchers there. Some of them we have sent back to India in the last few weeks. In every case we have undertaken that applications would be lodged for them in India immediately they get there. We have had no reason to think that they would not be willing to land in India or that the Indian authorities would not be willing to admit them. In fact, a few have re-entered India in this way in the last few weeks. Nevertheless, as is well known, a handful—I stress only a handful—have apparently refused to land in India, could not be compelled to do so under Indian law and are now back in this country.

That is the general position regarding those whom we have sought to return to India from the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Steel

The hon. Gentleman has referred to the handful. If that happens on one occasion, presumably it is then known to his Department that they are not willing to enter India and they cannot be compelled to enter. Why, therefore, should they be sent back again?

Mr. Lane

There have been one or two cases in which we have tried a second time to return them because we felt that there should be a further chance at that end to have the matter regularised. We wanted to be sure that there was no misunderstanding, as this is an area in which there can be misunderstandings. That was the reason.

Both hon. Members referred to those who are waiting in France and Italy. There are a certain number in Boulogne and Turin and for them, I repeat, the right course is that they should return to India and await the issue of vouchers there, or wait where they are on the Continent—though, as regards the latter course, I agree that there are the difficulties mentioned by, in particular, the hon. Member for Hackney, Central.

In view of what hon. Members have said, I want to look further in particular into the situation of those on the Continent. I assure the hon. Member for Hackney, Central that I shall look further into the case he mentioned of the two sisters who finally came here in, I think, the middle of June. I cannot give any commitment about what we shall do but I shall look personally into it yet again.

Mr. Clinton Davis

I am grateful for that, because I know from past experience that, when the hon. Gentleman gives an assurance of that kind, he most certainly does look into these matters with care, and he is always scrupulous to keep in touch with hon. Members who refer matters to him. But I want to return to a matter to which he has not yet referred, namely, the position and status of British protected persons, who are not eligible to join the queue.

Mr. Lane

I take it that the hon. Gentleman means British protected persons in India. I shall double check and write to the hon. Gentleman, but I understand that they are entitled to apply for special vouchers, as others are.

To sum up, this is an exceedingly unhappy episode. I believe that the criticisms of what the Government have been trying to do have not been wholly fair. All I will say in conclusion is that we must, in fairness to those who are observing the rules, continue to resist queue jumping. We shall continue to look at the particular circumstances of each individual case and to administer the whole law governing the entry of United Kingdom passport holders strictly but, I hope, reasonably, and we shall certainly keep in mind the points that have been made in the debate, particularly the points about humanity.