ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (Hansard, 12 June 1973)

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely, The subject of illegal immigrants as affected by the recent House of Lords decision. The other place confirmed that there are three classes of illegal immigrants into this country. Anyone who came to this country between 1962 and 1968 is immune both from prosecution and from removal. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department said today about the necessity to act against illegal immigrants does not apply to them.

Secondly, there are those who are illegal immigrants who may have come since January of this year. They are clearly affected by the provisions of the 1971 Act. Everybody understood that they would be. They can be removed at any time, however long they stay.

The third class are those illegal immigrants who entered the country between 1968 and 1973. They were immune from prosecution and immune from removal if they stayed longer than six months. In fact, many hundreds of them have done so.

1217 The House of Lords has now confirmed that this House and the other place removed in the 1971 measure such immunity retrospectively. The right hon. Gentleman suggested today that there was no change of status. That was not the view of the Law Lords. All of them accepted that these people had acquired a de facto status of irremovability. Lord Salmon said that they had acquired a legal status. That must be true. In the time that they stayed here after the period of prosecution had elapsed, they were immune from arrest and they could not be brought before the courts. If they had been brought before the courts it would have been necessary for writs of habeas corpus to be issued. In those circumstances it is impossible to distinguish between them and anyone who came here and stayed legally.

This House, by the 1971 Act, passed retrospective legislation to remove the status of irremovability from many Commonwealth citizens. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as the House knows, the House rarely engages in retrospective legislation unless the matter is of grave importance. In this instance the House and the other place never discussed this issue at any stage. The reason is not difficult to find. Paragraph 9 of the second schedule appears to relate only to those who became illegal immigrants after the coming into force of the Act. It is only by cross-reference and a tortuous form of litigation that it can be concluded that that part of the Act refers to people who had become illegal immigrants before the coming into force of the Act.

At every stage the Government assured everyone who questioned them that anyone who was settled here would not be affected by the provisions of the Act. It is only because the Law Lords have confirmed that illegal immigrants were not settled here that the situation has arisen. Therefore, it is not surprising that Opposition and Government hon. Members did not notice the provision in the course of the discussion during the passage of the Bill. It is significant that the Government never sought any opportunity at any stage to explain the relevance of the provision. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman said today that this was never the intention of the legislation.

1218 The matter is urgent and cannot await the normal processes of the usual channels. At least 30 people are under arrest at present and may be sent out of the country at any time at the discretion of the right hon. Gentleman. The Home Office has already removed 13 people who were arrested since 1st January 1973. They were removed before the litigation which culminated in the House of Lords.

The question arises of what is to happen to the 30 people who are under arrest and to anyone else who conies to the notice of the Home Office before there is any possibility of debate in this House. I ask you to say, Mr. Speaker, that this is what Standing Order No. 9 is all about. We should have an urgent debate immediately to try to persuade the Government that even if they have now obtained the power to remove, which I consider to have been obtained by deception, they should not as a matter of policy exercise that power. That can be done only by debate and by a vote. It cannot be done by the passage of questions such as those which have been asked at Question Time. There is no opportunity for a debate and a vote unless you, Mr. Speaker, grant this application. In the interests of the many hundreds of people who are involved, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to grant the debate.