HC Deb 12 June 1973 vol 857 cc1205-12
Mr. Clinton Davis (by private Notice)

asked Secretary of state for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policy of Her Majesty's Government consequent upon the decision of the House of Lords in D.P.P. v. Azam and others on 11th June 1973.

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

The House of Lords decision yesterday has confirmed what we believed the law to be and what we intended it to be.

The provisions which we wrote into the Immigration Act 1971 fulfilled our undertaking to ensure that all those settled here on or before 1st January of this year should have all their existing rights protected; but we did not, and did not mean to, give this protection to those who had come here before that date illegally and who were therefore not settled here as defined in the Act.

The power of removal under the 1971 Act applies mainly to those immigrants who come, or who have come, here without authorisation since 9th March 1968. But it also applies to any immigrants who may have entered prior to that date in defiance of a specific refusal.

I want to set out what our policy will be in using this power.

The cases of the three men who were the subject of the House of Lords decision yesterday will now be considered, and any representations made on their behalf before the end of June will be taken into account. The same will apply to the other 33 cases now awaiting decision.

In deciding these and any future cases we shall look at each one individually on its merits and compassionate grounds will be taken into account. At the same time I must make it clear that where someone is found to be in this country illegally it must be normal practice to send him away. To do otherwise would be unfair to those who have already entered legally or are awaiting to do so.

Mr. Davis

While not condoning illegal immigration, may I ask the Secretary of State whether he does not think that it is desirable that, where substantive rights have been taken from people. Parliament should be absolutely specific about that? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore particularise where during the passage of the Immigration Act there was any substantial debate, or for that matter any debate, on the retroactive nature of these proposals?

Secondly, has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account the strenuous criticisms of Lord Salmon concerning the Act, which the learned Law Lord described as a labyrinth of verbiage, particularly as regards the retroactive nature of the provisions?

If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to grant an amnesty to certain illegal immigrants, will he give an undertaking to the House that he will exercise his discretion with great generosity where people have settled down and led useful lives in gainful employment?

Finally, does not the Secretary of State consider that it is extremely unsatisfactory that those who have been open with the Home Office and with the police about having entered this country illegally should be penalised primarily for that while others who have been furtive have had an advantage conferred upon them by reason of this judgment? Does not the right hon. Gentleman think there is now a premium upon blackmail?

Mr. Can

No, I do not accept the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I regard my primary duty as being towards those who either were born in this country or who have come to this country legally. I believe that that is our foremost duty. I think that liberal-minded men and women who think about this question carefully and think about our remaining duty to those who still have a right to come to this country legally would support that view.

Of course I have taken note of what Lord Salmon said, but equally the decision of the House of Lords was absolutely clear. As the House will know, I was not in charge of the debates on the Immigration Bill, but I have read the Act and I am in no doubt that it is clear on this subject. At any rate, we thought that it was clear. It has now been decided in the courts, which is the proper traditional method of doing so. As I said at the beginning of my Answer, the House of Lords decision has confirmed what we believed the law to be and what we intended it to be. There were lengthy debates on the Bill on the Floor of the House and in Committee and there was ample opportunity for raising this point and contesting it at the time.

In dealing with individual cases, all circumstances will certainly be taken into account—a man's age; the length of time he has been in the United Kingdom; the strength of his connections, if any, with this country; his personal history including character, conduct, employment record and the like; his domestic circumstances; his medical condition; any other compassionate circumstances, and any representations received. I will give all these special factors close attention.

I repeat that I think that it must be our normal practice that people who have come here illegally, knowingly committing a criminal offence to get here, should be expected to go.

Sir D. Renton

In deciding such cases, will my right hon. Friend also bear in mind that many illegal immigrants were deceived into coming here or forced to come here against their will and that such illegal immigrants would welcome the opportunity of returning to their homelands at public expense?

Mr. Carr

Each of these cases must be looked at. It is very difficult for any of us to judge what pressures were put on people to come here, but I can certainly assure my right hon. and learned Friend that any evidence that is put before us by anybody who falls in this category that he was put under pressure to come here will certainly be a factor of which I shall take great care and careful note.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

If this policy were intended by the Government, why did the Government never at any stage in their pre-legislation documents, in the Explanatory Memorandum, during the Second Reading speech by the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), in any of the discussions in this House or in the other place make plain that they intended retrospective legislation to take away from people—said to number several thousand—immunity which had been conferred upon them by the law at that stage to stay in this country, an immunity which is described by Lord Salmon in his judgment as a "legal status to remain"? This House is notoriously sensitive to retrospective legislation but never at any stage did the Government explain that this tortuous Bill was designed to take away that legal right retrospectively.

Mr. Carr

I must make clear that we have not in the 1971 Act altered the status of these people. When they entered this country they did so in defiance of the law, in breach of our criminal law as it stood at the time. Their status therefore has not been altered. I cannot know what was in the mind of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet but I would guess—and I think it is a fairly reasonable guess—that he thought, as I thought, that our intention was clear in the words of the Act. Hon. Members had the most ample opportunity on debates on the Bill, if they felt there was doubt, to raise the matter. We did not believe that there was any doubt about it, and the House of Lords has confirmed our view.

Sir F. Bennett

Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary accept from one who was a member of the Standing Committee and who sat through many hours of the day and the night on it that his interpretation of the sense of the Act is precisely what was intended during the Committee stage? Will my right hon. Friend accept that if there had been any element of retroactivity it would have been involved only had we conferred advantages retrospectively on those who did not possess them at the time and to the detriment of those who had the legal right to come to this country?

Mr. Carr

Of course I accept what my hon. Friend said. Whatever view we take of this issue, it would have been a different matter had we been changing by this Act the status of, and making illegal something that was legal for, these people when they came in. Had we done that without drawing special attention to it we should have been open to severe criticism, but we have not changed that status.

Mrs. Shirley Williams

Parliament is necessarily the protector of its citizens, whatever the colour of their skin—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are not our citizens."] —the protector of all its citizens—[HON. MEMBERS: "They are not."] Parliament is the protector of the interests of its citizens and it must be the protector of the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of which it is the head. During the course of debate on the Bill, which was described by Lord Wilberforce, in giving the majority judgment in the House of Lords, as A labyrinth of complicated provisions. —and that was his phrase, not mine—there was no attempt at any stage—and we have examined the report of the entire Committee stage—to draw any attention to the consequences for some thousands of people of the provisions of the Bill in this respect.

I merely ask the Home Secretary for his assurance that in this particularly difficult matter, while he is Home Secretary, there will be the sense of responsibility which goes with drawing to the attention of Parliament any Act which may have consequences so severe for many thousands of people, which was not done on this occasion. In the decision that he makes about these individuals, will he at least bear in mind some cases, including one which came before the House of Lords in which an individual was approached by the police before the Act became law on 1st January 1973 and was precisely told that there would be no prosecution? This has led to a great deal of misunderstanding and fear in the immigrant communities.

Mr. Carr

I hope that I have already made clear that I shall take all factors and any representations that may be made into account in deciding this and any other cases that come before me. It is a complicated Act, but a great many Acts that come before the House are complicated. I cannot accept the suggestion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet—and the House knows him and his approach to these matters well enough to accept this from me—deliberately withheld from the House our intentions. We believe that these intentions were clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "They were not."] We believe that they were, and at least one member of the Committee has testified that he thought they were clear. I can assure the House that my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet believed them to be clear and that what he was proposing did not make illegal what was legal before.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

Will my right hon. Friend expressly repudiate the reference of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), and what was implicit also in the question of the the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), as to substantive rights in that there can be no acquisition of legal rights by prescription from an illegal basis? Will my right hon. Friend further add to his impressive catalogue of the unfairness that would result the unfairness to those Commonwealth citizens who sought entry by legal means but were not able to achieve it? Would it not be severely prejudicial to race relations generally if it were thought that those who had acted illegally were better placed than those who had abided by the law?

Mr. Carr

I agree most strongly with my right hon. and learned Friend. We have a duty to those who are here legally and to those who are waiting to come and who have a legal right to come. That is our overriding duty, and we fail in that duty if we give preference to those who have come here knowingly illegally. Those who came here by definition illegally cannot in my view acquire the sort of rights about which some hon. Members have spoken.

Mr. Grimond

The Home Secretary has always held a fairly wide discretion in certain cases. Will he agree that this appears to be a considerable extension of his interpretation of how the law of this country should be administered? Therefore, has Parliament not an interest in knowing as much as possible about how this is to be done? Will he give some indication of the numbers involved? While the right hon. Gentleman has given some criteria upon which discretion will be exercised, will he say whether those involved will be entitled to be represented, whether a tribunal will be set up to consider their cases and whether there will be a report to Parliament? Will he bear in mind that the circumstances in which these people were compelled to leave their countries may be a relevant factor in their cases?

Mr. Carr

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's last point that this could be a relevant factor and I think that I have already indicated that in an earlier reply. There is no right of appeal to a tribunal in these matters, as I understand it. We shall go on considering these cases of illegal entry as we have hitherto. All cases of people who came here before 1st January and who fall or appear to fall under this power to remove them will be considered by Ministers, who can be questioned not only on general but on particular cases in this House.

Mr. Wiikinson

Will my right hon. Friend issue an instruction to chief constables to use the full forces of the law to crack down on those blackmailers and extortionists who have procured illegal entry for unfortunate and ill-informed people who have over the past five years found themselves in such difficulties? The manipulation of those people has been one of the most unfortunate manifestations of the whole activity.

Mr. Carr

I cannot give chief constables instructions on this or any other matter, but I can assure the House that any information that comes to light about blackmail will be pursued with the greatest vigour. It is an evil trade that is going on, and anything that we can do to root it out should be done.

I apologise for forgetting to answer the question on numbers from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), in which I know the House will be interested. I have no estimate of numbers, but I know of 36 cases. I want to make it quite clear that I am not taking any new dramatic steps to hunt out people. There is no question of a witch hunt. I must act on information that I receive in the normal way and continue efforts that we make to reduce illegal immigration. But I am not taking any new dramatic steps. There is certainly no witch hunt.

Mr. Atkinson

Because of the complications of the retrospective aspects of the matter, will the Home Secretary sympathetically consider granting an amnesty to those immigrants who have married in this country, particularly those married to British girls, raising a young family? I understand that many hundreds of them have been deported, leaving the future of a young family to the mercies of a State grant, national assistance and so on. Will the right hon. Gentleman consider helping such families to overcome their difficulties by granting an amnesty to those men who have a good employment record, bearing in mind that employers have never been approached about the illegality of issuing insurance cards and so on to them? Where they have successfully worked over years and paid tax and so on, will the right hon. Gentleman consider the situation sympathetically and stop the dreadful suffering that is being endured by many British girls and young families in this country?

Mr. Carr

I do not think that it would be right to grant any general amnesty, however defined, when we are threatened as we are by the evasion of immigration controls on a serious and, I am sorry to say, ever-increasingly serious scale. It is right to look at each case individually on its merits. As I have already told the House, family circumstances such as those envisaged by the hon. Gentleman will certainly be among those carefully taken into consideration in each case.