ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

HC Deb 11 April 1974 vol 872 cc637-46

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. Bishop

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what use he proposes to make of his powers under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove illegal entrants.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Jenkins—to answer Written Question No. 43.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now answer Question No. 43 about my powers under the Immigration Act 1971.

I have now reached a decision regarding the exercise of the administrative power under the Immigration Act 1971 to remove illegal entrants who are Commonwealth citizens or citizens of Pakistan. This power, which came into effect on 1st January 1973, applies to those who entered this country illegally before that date, and who were irremovable by administrative means until the law was changed with retrospective effect.

In considering the important and difficult question of how the power should be used, I have had to balance the risk of encouraging the smuggling of immigrants against the need to allay the widespread apprehension within the immigrant communities which the continued exercise of these retrospective powers would be likely to cause. I have also thought it right to take into account the widely felt distaste for the use of administrative powers granted under a change in the law which took away an important legal immunity.

Having considered all these factors, I have decided not to exercise the power of removal in respect of those who were adversely affected by its retrospective operation. This means that I shall not direct the removal of any Commonwealth citizen or citizen of Pakistan who entered illegally before 1st January 1973. Those in this category will, on application to the Home Office and verification of the facts, be given indefinite leave to remain. Their dependants will, in accordance with the immigration rules, be admitted when they have obtained entry certificates.

We shall continue to make every effort to suppress the smuggling of immigrants, and where a person has entered illegally on or after 1st January 1973 he will normally be removed from the country.

My decision does not extend to those who were not adversely affected by the retrospective provisions in the Act of 1971 and so does not apply to foreign nationals other than citizens of Pakistan, to deserting seamen, to stowaways, to people who entered in defiance of a deportation order or to people who entered lawfully but then overstayed.

Mr. Tebbit

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As this matter has now changed from what the House understood would be a statement to an answer to a Question further down the Order Paper, may I raise with you the point of order about which I spoke to you earlier?

Mr. Speaker

I shall deal with that now. The hon. Member asked whether it would be in order for him to move an application under Standing Order No. 9. That would not be in order as we shall not be sitting at seven o'clock today or at 3.30 p.m. on Monday of next week to raise the matter on the Adjournment. The hon. Member can take his chance on the Adjournment today if there is time left over. In that event it would be open to him to raise the matter.

Mr. Tebbit

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been my intention to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 as I felt that this was a specific, important and urgent matter—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Tebbit

With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I continue?

Mr. Speaker

I having intervened on the Standing Order No. 9 point, the hon. Member should know where he is on that matter. We shall now have question and answer as usual, then he can raise any further point of view at the end.

Mr. Bishop

Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be a wide welcome for his pronouncement—especially amongst people of moderation and of good sense—which has been made appropriately at Easter, a time of amnesty for all mankind? Is he further aware that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department of the previous Government recently admitted that there was a great deal of subterfuge and deception in this matter, which is a situation that my right hon. Friend has inherited? Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that he will look urgently at the situation of dependants, including the appeals procedure, entry certificates and all aspects which contribute to illegal entry, particularly from areas such as India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Mr. Jenkins

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend began by saying. This is not an easy question. I believe that it is right to have taken this limited step in view of the distaste which generally the House feels for retrospective legislation—and I have no doubt that this was retrospective—and the need to avoid the dangers of harassment and insecurity in the immigrant community. I shall keep under review the other matters which my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. Prior

I think that the right hon. Gentleman should realise that he is treating the House in a cavalier fashion by answering a Written Question of such importance on Maundy Thursday. That is a considerable abuse of our proceedings. Is it that the right hon. Gentleman is ashamed of what he is doing and that he is trying to slip this through when publicity is at a minimum? If he is not ashamed, why does he choose such an inappropriate time to raise such an important matter.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement is bound to cause concern? Have not the much stricter controls on immigration which were brought in by the previous Government been widely supported by the immigrant community itself? Have they not resulted in an improvement in race relations? Will the additional number of dependants who will now be permitted to come to this country be within 10,000 to 20,000? Is not our first duty to those who are here legally and those who intend to come and who have a legal right to do so? Do we not fail in our duty if we give preference to those who have come here illegally?

Have not the administrative arrangements, which enable each case to be considered individually and compassionately, been working successfully? Whilst we are always prepared to have a fresh look at any humanitarian problem, can the right hon. Gentleman produce any new evidence to support a change which is so damaging to those who are waiting in the queue?

Mr. Jenkins

No. I can agree with very few of the points which the right hon. Gentleman has made. I do not regard this as an inappropriate time. The Government have been in office for a limited period and they have had to reach decisions on reversing some false decisions that were taken by the previous Government. There have been a number of other matters involving the previous administration which I have had to clear up already.

As there were people who were in prison pending a decision and statement, I thought that it would not be right for that position to continue for two and a half weeks and for me to make the announcement on a different day. Those who have experience of Home Office matters, although they may not always have agreed with the decisions which I have taken whilst in this office, will not accuse me of being unwilling on any occasion to defend them. There is no question at all of my being anxious to slip it through. I wished to announce my decision in the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

There is no question but that the Act was retrospective in its effects and that this was not made clear to the House when it was under consideration but emerged subsequently. The House is very jealous of retrospective powers when, for example. they affect taxation or other matters of that kind, and it is also appropriate that we should be jealous and suspicious of retrospection when it affects people who are in other difficult circumstances.

No one approves of illegal entry, and I am most concerned about relations with the great law-abiding mass of the immigrant community. But there is no question but that all the evidence from the representatives of that community, and from those occupying positions of wide authority who are concerned with relations with the immigrant community, pointed to the fact that these retrospective provisions, with the possibility of blackmail and harassment extending far beyond anyone who might be here illegally, are very dangerous and damaging. I have thought it right to put this matter on a better basis.

There can be no doubt about our broad intentions. They were made clear in a debate in June 1973, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stevenage (Mrs. Williams) moved a motion which was supported by both the Labour and Liberal Parties. There is no question of doing anything underhand here. But there is the question of dealing with a difficult situation in a way which I believe will help to improve community relations.

Mr. Arthur Davidson

Is my right hon. Friend aware that anyone who is tolerant and fair-minded will agree that retrospective legislation is always offensive, particularly so where the liberty of law-abiding human beings is concerned? Will he confirm that the vast majority of the people he is rightly helping have been living here in jobs, in a settled life with their children at school? He has done quite right to remove the fear of blackmail and harassment from them. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members opposite would have objected no matter when he made his announcement?

Mr. Jenkins

I naturally think that what I have done is right, or I would not have done it. There are difficulties involved in this question, but I believe that my decision is right and in accordance with the great majority of views amongst the law-abiding community against retrospection of this sort, which was not made clear at the time. There were extremely ambiguous statements from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and other Conservative Ministers at the time on this matter. The position was not made even remotely clear in advance, and it is right that I should deal with the retrospective aspect.

Mr. Stokes

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his announcement will be received by millions of ordinary English men and women with sadness and dismay? His words never once mentioned England or our own people, and it seems that from the right hon. Gentleman and from the Home Office there is to be one law for the English people and another for illegal immigrants.

Mr. Jenkins

The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. My announcement does not and cannot apply to English people. I believe that many millions of English, Welsh and Scots are deeply concerned with ensuring good community relations and adopt a more broadly based attitude to them than does the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Beith

Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the Liberal Party made three attempts in the House of Lords to introduce legislation to this effect. We warmly welcome his decision. Can he confirm that the form in which it is made will mean an end to the searches which were made necessary and which caused such grievance and distress in the immigrant community? Does not he agree that his decision should make it possible to gain the support of the immigrant community, by the removal of this grievance, for the application of strict further measures against illegal immigrants?

Mr. Jenkins

Yes, Sir. I attach importance to the last point put by the hon. Gentleman. It is highly desirable and is certainly a principle of law enforcement generally that for a law to be effective it has to carry the support of the great majority of the community in which it is being operated. I believe that my decision will help in this direction and make it easier for us to be firm against illegal immigration. That is the intention and we shall be particularly firm against those who indulge in this most unworthy and discreditable trade. Let there be no doubt about this. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that aspect.

Mr. Tom Boardman

What numbers, including dependants, are involved? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he undertook to consider consultation with local authorities and other responsible organisations in areas likely to be affected by relaxation of the controls? Has any such consultation taken place, including with immigrant communities in cities such as Leicester?

Mr. Jenkins

No, Sir, because I do not think that that aspect is precisely involved here. The people who are involved are, by definition, already in this country. The number involved is limited. Last year, 70 people were removed. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for Carshalton (Mr. Carr), exercised his discretion not to remove some of those involved, so there is no question of his having taken the view that a man here illegally must automatically go. The right hon. Gentleman condoned by administrative action illegality in a number of cases.

What I have decided to do is to make it clear that we do not condone the retrospective aspect and that those who believed they were secure and found that after all, they were not, should now be made secure. There is also the question of dependants. It is natural that people allowed to stay here regularly will in due course be allowed to bring in dependants. —[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"]— It is not possible to give exact figures but I do not think that the number will be vast by any means.

I made it clear to the House in answering my first Questions as Home Secretary in the present Government that I believe my duty to be to endeavour to remove particular injustices, compatible with maintaining—as I believe I am doing—an effective overall control of numbers, which I believe is also necessary to good community relations.

Mr. Sedgemore

My right hon. Friend's statement will be most welcome to the Wandsworth Community Relations Council, of which I am Chairman, to my constituents in Luton, West and to civilised people throughout the country. Will my right hon. Friend accept that the only sadness about his statement is that he has not been able to make it a somewhat wider amnesty?

Mr. Jenkins

I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said to begin with, but I must make it clear that it would not be right to deal here except with the position of those who were caught by the retrospective provisions of the 1971 Act. I have dealt completely with those who were caught by those provisions and have restored the rights which previously they thought they had.

Mr. Speaker

Mr. Tebbit, for a supplementary question.

Mr. Tebbit

May I first congratulate the Home Secretary? By coming here on a Maundy Thursday when there are no newspapers on Good Friday, he has found a cheaper way of muzzling the Press than the Prime Minister with his libel writs. Will he say why, in answer to me on 28th March, he implied, if he did not say, that it would not be the purpose of what he described as any limited changes that he might make in the regulations from time to time to increase the number of immigrants here? Will he now say how many additional dependants he expects to come to this country as a result of this decision? It is no good his saying that it is a certain number and then not being certain about it.

Mr. Jenkins

I said that it was not the purpose, and I was correct in saying that. My purpose is not to increase the numbers coming in. As I recollect, I also said in my answer to the hon. Gentleman that my purpose in introducing such limited changes as I would introduce from time to time when I thought it right to do so was to deal, with a mixture of justice and humanity, with these difficult questions. These may involve some limited increase in the numbers. They are not subject to exact estimation. They were not subject to exact estimation when it was decided to put in the retrospective clauses in this Bill. But I say to the hon. Gentleman that the statement of general policy which I made in answer to his Question was and remains the guiding line which I shall pursue in this matter.

Mr. Bidwell

Is not it a fact that my right hon. Friend, in the way in which he has made his announcement today, has not in any way offended the conventions of this House? One hopes that the maximum publicity will be given to what he said today. However, I wonder whether it is realised that the bulk of those who pass under the name of "illegal immigrant" are those, as I understand it, who are here often without plan, having overstayed a limited visit and who over a period of time—possibly because of extensions on compassionate or educational grounds—have built up different family circumstances from those which they had at the beginning? I applaud my right hon. Friend's method of announcing his intention to the nation and to the House and do not deprecate it. My right hon. Friend is not hiding behind the considerable power which is always in his hands—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—and which was in the hands of his predecessor—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief, please.

Mr. Bidwell

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no fundamental difference between the two sides of the House on the matter of family unity and that, however it is exercised and however it was exercised under the compassion of my right hon. Friend's predecessor, it is fundamentally the same?

Mr. Jenkins

What is certainly the case is that my predecessor, in allowing a number of illegal immigrants to stay here and in not using his powers in relation to them, was envisaging that their dependants should come. Here I think that the numbers should be increased to that extent. However, the right hon. Gentleman thought it right—which I do not—to stand by certain retrospective provisions in the Bill and to run the risk of harassment, and police raids of the kind which caused the House and I believe my predecessor concern in October last year were more likely in these circumstances. I have thought it right to make a further limited change to get rid of these difficulties.

In answer to the point about the day of my announcement, if the House sits on a Maundy Thursday and there are no newspapers on Good Friday, I do not think that this House should be precluded from business. I hope that television and the newspapers on Saturday will give whatever publicity to and make whatever comment on this decision that they think right. But I cannot believe that hon. Members, beyond making petty debating points on the last day before Easter, think that I should have held up taking this decision and held up the possibility of releasing people affected by the decision for 2½ weeks in order to come to this House on a different day.

Mr. Prior

The Question was put down on the Order Paper. The right hon. Gentleman could easily have made a statement yesterday. What stopped him? He knew that the Question was down. Presumably he had it planted. Would it not have been much fairer to the House to make his statement yesterday?

Mr. Jenkins

I do not think that it would have been significantly fairer to the House. There is a large attendance in the House this morning. I could not possibly have made the announcement before yesterday and, although I know that this House comes first, I had an engagement with the Metropolitan Police which I undertook following my predecessor's undertaking and which I did not wish to cancel thereby causing disappointment at short notice.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Business Question. Mr. Heath.