HC Deb 07 December 1972 vol 847 cc1647-50
6. Mr. Biggs-Davison

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has now made with the review of the scheme for the repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants.

Mr. Lane

My right hon. Friend is studying the results of the first 12 months' operation of the new scheme, but he is not yet ready to make a statement.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Has this not gone on for rather a long time? Is my hon. Friend satisfied that our election pledge is being fulfilled, and does suitable machinery exist for helping those immigrants who wish to be repatriated?

Mr. Lane

Our election pledge was carried out by Section 29 of the 1971 Immigration Act, through which, as my hon. Friend knows, we are now using International Social Service to administer this new scheme, which is in addition to the supplementary benefits commission scheme. We have recently had a report from ISS. I met the director myself to discuss it, and we are seeing what lessons can be learned from the first 12 months' operation—whether the present criteria are too narrow. We are also considering possible changes to ensure that genuine demands for repatriation are being met, so far as is practicable.

Mr. Evelyn King

How many families have been repatriated in the last 12 months and how many were repatriated in the year up to 1970?

Mr. Lane

During the past year we have had inquiries under the new scheme from nearly 500 families. These inquiries take a lot of time but, under that scheme, 30 families have already departed or are about to depart. In addition, as I mentioned, there is the scheme operated by the supplementary benefits commission, under which an average of 100 families a year have been repatriated over the last four years. The figure for this year will be slightly over 100.

Mr. Powell

Is my hon. Friend aware that the intention of Parliament in Section 29 of the 1971 Act has been almost completely sabotaged by the manner in which its administration has been entrusted to a small private body, virtually incapable of coping with the volume of work?

Mr. Lane

I do not accept that the intention of Parliament has been sabotaged; nor do I accept the aspersions that my right hon. Friend casts on International Social Service. As I say, we are reviewing this matter, and if it proves necessary to widen the criteria we shall do so—and we shall announce it in due course.

Mr. S. C. Silkin

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's election pledge is satisfied by the repatriation, under this section. of 30 families a year?

Mr. Lane

I am not implying anything of the sort. I am implying that the machinery has been set up according to our undertaking embodied in Section 29 of the Act. We are naturally now seeing how it is working in practice, and we shall make changes if we think fit.

12. Mr. Clinton Davis

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he had with bodies with experience in the field of immigration casework in formulating the new immigration rules.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr)

These bodies had the opportunity to comment on the draft rules when they were published last year, and full account was taken of their comments in revising the draft.

Mr. Clinton Davis

Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that one of his predecessors at the Home Office, during the passage of the Immigration Bill, said that there had been no prior consultation with these bodies before the Bill was laid before the House? Is it not quite clear that there have been no real consultations with organisations that are really active in this matter, and could not they teach the right hon. Gentleman a thing or two and help him to get out of the present mess?

Mr. Carr

The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. There have been frequent and continuing consultations with, for example, the Community Relations Commission, the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service, the National Council for Civil Liberties, the Standing Conference of Asian Organisations in the United Kingdom, and one or two local community relations committees. What they have had to say in respect to the rules was in many respects taken account of, and the results of the consultations were seen in the changes between the original draft and the latest version.

Mr. Stokes

Will the Secretary of State tell the House, apart from consulting these various bodies, what consultations, if any, he has held about the new immigration rules with the ordinary people of this country?

Mr. Carr

My hon. Friend, along with all other hon. Members, represents the ordinary people of this country, and the draft rules lay on the Table for over a year before the final version was produced.

Mr. John Fraser

Members of Parliament are in a very difficult situation in considering long and detailed rules which they have no chance to amend. Is the Secretary of State willing to accept the suggestion of consultation and refer the draft immigration rules to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration, so that hon. Members may have a chance to look at the detail and make comments?

Mr. Carr

I believe that our normal consultation procedures here should be adequate. Hon. Members had well over a year in which to discuss the details with me, my predecessor and my colleagues in the Home Office. They had time to consult about this. Whatever else may be wrong with the rules hon. Members did not lack the opportunity for consultation. I would not, however, rule out something different in the future.