HC Deb 03 May 1973 vol 855 cc1449-51
14. Mr. Ronald Bell

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he proposes to take in the case of Mr. Mohammed Khan who was assisted at the public expense with escort to return to Pakistan and after a short stay returned to this country and was readmitted; and whether he will make a statement.

23. Sir D. Renton

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances it is not made a condition of financial assistance towards repatriation that the people assisted should not have the right to return to the United Kingdom.

Mr. R. Carr

Mr. Mohammed Khan was repatriated under the Mental Health Act 1959 and not under the main repatriation scheme.

My powers to control re-admission to this country are governed by the 1971 Immigration Act. Under Section 1(5) of this Act all Commonwealth citizens settled here on 1st January 1973 have a right to re-admission unless they have been away for more than two years. This right, however, does not extend to people repatriated at public expense who settle here after 1st January 1973.

I can assure the House that all cases involving assistance for repatriation will be very searchingly examined in order to make as sure as possible that the people concerned genuinely intend to reside permanently overseas.

Mr. Bell

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that two conclusions seem to follow from this situation? Is not the first conclusion that it is quite pointless to repatriate people under the Mental Health Act because they simply come back again? Is not the second conclusion that an amendment is needed to the 1971 Immigration Act, so that a sensible, voluntary, assisted repatriation policy may be implemented?

Mr. Carr

The case referred to was a monstrous one, and I understand the high feeling that exists about it, but it should be realised that—as far as I know —it is the first case of its kind, and I certainly hope that it will not be repeated. I shall keep a close watch on the situation. I think that my hon. and learned Friend would agree that, by and large, when people are prepared to go back it is right to assist them to do so. Hitherto, we have not suffered from the trouble of people returning. We have to consider that. As for the 1971 Act, I remind the House that the section which gives the right to which I referred was not included by the Government: it was carried against the Government in another place.

Sir D. Renton

Is my right hon. Friend aware that it would further assist community relations and enable the Conservative Party to implement an election pledge if he made a reality of voluntary repatriation for the many immigrants who do not wish to remain here?

Mr. Carr

I have recently announced an extension and improvement of the repatriation scheme. Those who wish to go back—and I underline "wish to go back"—should be helped to do so. The scheme as it stands provides rather generous help for that purpose.

Mr. Powell

Will my right hon. Friend remind the House whether the Government invited this House to reject the amendment of another place, to which he has referred? I appreciate that he will want to avoid so far as possible, any repetition of this absurd incident, but will he not be deterred from encouraging repatriation, particularly of mental patients from Broadmoor and other hospitals?

Mr. Carr

The answer to the first part of my right hon. Friend's question is "No." As I recollect it, the Government did not invite this House to reverse the decision taken in another place. I shall certainly not be deterred from doing as my right hon. Friend asks, because it is right for this country and for the people concerned that they should be given help. It is worth running the risk of occasional abuse to achieve the greater good. I must watch the situation carefully.

Mr. John Fraser

Will the Home Secretary confirm that it is only the medical reasons that have to be overwhelming before someone is assisted with repatriation? Will he further confirm, for the benefit of some of the supporters of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), that to think that the coloured population of the country will return to their own countries in any great numbers because of repatriation assistance is absolute rubbish? Does he not agree that the normal pattern of movement with, say, the West Indies is that it is sometimes in one direction and sometimes in another, and that repatriation has nothing to do with it, except in a tiny minority of cases?

Mr. Carr

I still think that assistance with repatriation is an important service to make available to those who wish to go back. I am sure we are right to do it. We have always stressed that it was there as a service to help those who wished to go back. I accept that the pressure created by it is quite small in relation to the other social and economic pressures which at any given moment tend to cause major flows inwards or outwards. This is still an important matter. Under the Mental Health Act it is only when doctors advise it on medical grounds that repatriation takes place.