HC Deb 18 December 1975 vol 902 cc1873-85

2.40 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Jones (Daventry)

I have a long-standing interest in the admission of Commonwealth and foreign persons to the United Kingdom, stemming from arrangements entered into soon after the end of the last war, under which recruitment took place, mainly in Southern Italy, of labour to man the brick-making industry in Bedfordshire and elsewhere. Many Italians who arrived here settled permanently in the town and now play their part in the life of the community in Bedford and district.

It was a short report in The Times of 11th February last which brought to my attention the fact that after the imposition of a temporary ban in 1973 the Secretary of State for Employment had announced that work permits are to be permitted once again for unskilled workers from the Philippines, with new safeguards". These were then set out, and later in the piece it said that A quote of 8,000 for resident domestic workers, including hospital nursing auxiliaries, will be introduced. Hotel staff and catering workers who have completed recognised courses abroad will be allowed in outside the new overall quota for the industry of 8,500. I was concerned from that report to try to establish the terms of entry that were to be required and the situation that faced the incomers, in terms of both the employment and administrative problems that faced the Government. My inquiry at that time, therefore, was addressed to the Minister of State at the Home Office.

I quite understood why the reply came from the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, who elaborated a little beyond what appears to have been said in the Press release from which the reporter in The Times may have been quoting. In a letter to me dated 26th March, the Minister said This now means that skilled or semi-skilled hotel workers and resident domestics will be able to come here again from the Philippines … there are quotas for 8,500 for the hotel industry (but unskilled catering workers may only he recruited from Europe and North America) and 8,000 for domestics and hospital workers … I do not expect an excessive number to come from the Philippines although they are generally reckoned to be good workers—but we shall keep the situation under review. It is fair to assume that the implications in the terms of that letter is that not all those admitted on work permits are good workers, and that raises the question of what judgments are made as to whether they are good workers and suitable for employment in this country. I shall welcome whatever assurance is possible. The Minister way wish to refer, in addition, to the question whether adequate medical standards are being ensured. What evidence is required in that respect?

The terms of the Department of Employment temporary leaflet OW5 lead to a number of questions. Page 5, paragraph 7 reads: A permit does not constitute a contract of employment between an employer and an overseas worker. It does not authorise an employer to keep the worker in his employment if he does not wish to remain, nor does the employer require permission to terminate the employment. The worker will not be permanently restricted to the particular job for which his permit was issued, but will be expected to remain in the same type of employment and will require the permission of the Department of Employment before he takes another job.… Changes of employment authorised by the Department of Employment will be recorded in the certificate of employment for Commonwealth citizens and in the police certificate of registration for foreigners. Foreigners are required to register with the police if they are given leave to enter for more than three months. Here, again, there are some important implications for the admission and subsequent movement of foreign nationals in the United Kingdom. They are not tied to the job for which a certificate of employment is issued and there is also the problem associated with housing and accommodation for workers coming in under this form of entry.

I am concerned that they need to register with the police, and I wonder to what extent those registers are kept up to date. Does the responsibility lie with the Metropolitan Police or, if the employment is elsewhere in the country, with one of the various police forces? What social security arrangements are made for these immigrant workers? The same applies to the health and welfare services. Are these people entitled to unemployment benefit? What information is available about the number of applications that go to the Home Office—because the next paragraph in the document says that After four years in approved employment they may apply to the Home Office for the removal of the time limit on their stay. Can the Minister say how many of those admitted stay longer? What about those who wish to change their jobs? How is that monitored, and to what extent is the administration effective for foreigners in employment here? What records are kept by the Home Office? I recognise that the Minister will not be able to speak for that Department, but I am in possession of a letter which may enable me to give a partial answer to that question.

If no application is made for the removal of the time limit on staying, what steps are taken by the Department of Employment and the Home Office with regard to those who enter? Where does the responsibility lie for foreign workers subsequent to entry? Does it depart entirely from the Department of Employment and go to the Home Office, or is there some division of responsibility for these persons? Are any of those granted entry required to return to their country of origin because of any shortcomings that may be found or because of inadequate registration? If so, what procedures exist for this, and whose responsibility is it to operate them?

The level of entry is significant. I was surprised when I saw the number of permits which are issued both for long-and short-term engagements. In 1973, 6,379 Commonwealth certificates and no fewer than 26,460 certificates for foreign nationals were issued. In the following year 8,536 Commonwealth admission orders and 24,509 entry permits were issued. According to the November edition of the Department of Employment Gazette, page 1159, for the third quarter of this year 2,190 Commonwealth permits and 5,932 foreign ones were issued, giving a total for the three quarters of this year for men and women of 6,716 Commonwealth certificates and 18,313 foreign ones. If one projects that to the end of the year, it looks as though in the past three years about 25,000 permits have been issued for Commonwealth nationals and about 75,000 for foreign nationals. Is it possible to say how many have left Britain in those three years? What records give this information, and by which Department are they maintained?

To some extent the answer is given in a letter dated 30th June that I received from the Minister of State, Home Office. I was surprised at the terms of the letter, which said: I am afraid we keep no record of the numbers of foreign nationals who return to their native countries at the end of the period covered by their work permits, but over a period of several years the number of foreign workers who remain here for the four years rquired to qualify them for removal of the limits on their stay has been about one-third of the number who entered 4 years previously with work permits initially for 12 months.… The Immigration Rules require that a foreign worker must be able and willing to support and accommodate his dependants without recourse to public funds. It has not so far been found practicable to direct foreign workers to areas where the housing shortage is less acute". This is entirely unsatisfactory. What we are allowing, apparently, is the entry of these significant numbers of foreign nationals on work permits, with no social service support ensured for them. How many permits are issued? They may stay in that job or not, as they wish, or as their employer decides. They enter the country with a work permit. Once they are here, they flow into the community at large and no record is kept either of their continued work in the job for which the permit was issued or of whether they return.

A cumulative total is being built up over a period of years. Seventy-five thousand are likely to have come in in the three years up to 31st December of this year. No effective records are maintained of what happens to them, where they go, how many go home, and so on. If it is said that there is no need to keep a record, that this is an open-ended commitment, that is understandable. I have been told on numerous occasions that the inflow is maintained according to some judgment, but it does not seem to be anything effective.

Mr. Alfred Sherman, in an article in the Local Government Review dated 15th March, said: The newcomers were recruited consciously to fill the worst housing and the lowest-paid jobs in the stress areas, thereby increasing stress and, as the author says elsewhere, developing an underclass of third world origins in London and other large cities. They are harsh words. They are not words that I would use.

We are undoubtedly recruiting unskilled and semi-skilled workers for entry into the United Kingdom and making no provision other than in terms of the entry work permit. Their jobs are bound to be in the large cities and urban areas and, I suspect, mainly in London. One would expect that to be so, because it is much easier to get here and this is where their friends and compatriots are. This is adding to the tremendous social and housing problems that we face in London and the other great urban areas.

It is a fair question to put to the hon. Gentleman: do the Government have full regard to the social and community problems that their policies involve? The admission that the Home Office does not keep records of those workers who return to their native country concerns me. So does the obvious weakness of a system which apparently allows workers to break the terms of their permits with very little prospect of retribution. Although sanctions exist, it seems that in the absence of regular checks they can rarely be brought into operation. While I appreciate that when investigations are being made into individual cases there is excellent co-ordination between the Government Departments concerned, but my complaint is that only in isolated cases is the effective monitoring of the movement of foreign workers, once in this country, achieved.

I cannot conceive how, without much more accurate knowledge of the existing situation, their impact on housing, health, education and our administration generally can be assessed. Nor do I understand how, without any clear idea of the number of foreign workers who have so far been absorbed into our society, any reliable estimate can be made with regard to our continuing ability to accommodate more.

What criteria are used for admission? It cannot be job vacancies, bearing in mind the present levels of unemployment. Is it employment applications? I see that a significant number are let in for seasonal work. Department of Employment leaflet OW6 says, in paragraph 7: Permits for workers to take unskilled jobs in the hotel and catering industry are issued only for work between 1st March and 31st October each year. Permission will not be given for workers to remain in this category of employment after 31st October. What happens after 31st October? Does the Department know where these people are? Are they required to maintain their registration with the police, and do the police have the time, the manpower and the motivation to see that on 31st October each year the number who came in on seasonal work permits—and they run into thousands, in terms of foreign nationals—are required to return to their country of origin?

I wonder, too, why there is this sudden surge of nationals from the Philippines. We have a clear obligation to the Commonwealth generally, and many immigrant workers from the Commonwealth are suitable for work in the hotel and catering industry—we see them at work as we go around, particularly at London airport—but why are these substantial numbers of foreign workers allowed in, particularly Filipinos who come from a different ethnic and social background from the the one that they enter in the United Kingdom? Their standards are different, they have language problems, and there are problems of all sorts that could be avoided if recruitment were done elsewhere. It would be interesting to know why there was this sudden decision to allow in this number of Asians from the Philippines.

I mention only briefly the matter of unemployment in this country in the context of admissions. I am referring to the Department of Employment Gazette for November 1975, page 1198 of which gives some unemployment figures. In September 1973 there were 545,400 unemployed, or 2.4 per cent. of the working population. In 1974 the figures were 647,100, or 2.8 per cent. In September of this year nearly twice that number were unemployed—1,194,300, or 5.2 per cent. of the working population.

It is difficult to see how the Government can justify this continued employment of foreign nationals, both from the Commonwealth and elsewhere, in the light of our changing circumstances. Upon what basis are they continued to be allowed in? There is no evidence as I see it, to support this action. I have looked back through Hansard to try to establish whether statements on this subject have been made in the past. In view of the almost continuing rise in unemployment, how can the level of work permits for this year be justified? What are the proposals for 1976, during which I think we are likely to see unemployment continuing to rise?

There is widespread questioning of policies which, in the context of our present economic difficulties and rising unemployment, still encourage and permit the issue of work permits to both Commonwealth and foreign workers. Those with special skills to maintain some of our services are in the special categories. I recognise that. But the testing of foreign doctors employed in the National Health Service was revealing in recent months, in terms of the rate of failure in the examinations that were set. I make no judgment on that.

The House and the country will be interested to know the Government's thinking and future proposals in this field of industrial and social policy.

3.11 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)

The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Jones) has raised a number of matters about which, he rightly reminded us, he has been expressing concern for a considerable time. I have studied the correspondence that he has had with Ministers of both my Department and the Home Office. Some of the points that he has raised have been dealt with—although, as I readily accept, perhaps not to his satisfaction—in the letters that he has received.

I think that the hon. Gentleman will frankly recognise that some of the points that he has mentioned are matters not for me and my Department but falling within the responsibility of the Home Office and perhaps other Departments, and they are matters, therefore, with which it would be quite inappropriate for me to try to deal tonight. Some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised are part of the wider issues of immigration policy, for which the Home Office is responsible. Likewise, the question of monitoring, about which the hon. Gentleman expressed considerable concern, is a matter for the Home Office and not for my Department.

I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, effectively, responsibility subsequent to the issue of a work permit ceases to be that of the Department of Employment.

The hon. Gentleman raised matters concerning social security payment and provision. Here again, I think that he would not expect me to try to deal with them in my reply.

I recognise, however, the general anxiety that underlies the hon. Gentleman's speech. I think that he is right in saying that it is an anxiety that is shared by other people—perhaps inevitably so at a time when unemployment is certainly very much higher than any of us would wish it to be. Workers, in particular, understandably look critically at anything that may appear to them to jeopardise their job prospects. I hope, however, that this debate will give me an opportunity to ease some of the anxiety to which the hon. Member has referred and to correct one or two misunderstandings—and particularly one which I think the hon. Gentleman has about Filipino workers.

It might be helpful if I first set out rather fully the conditions and the circumstances in which overseas workers enter this country. The employment of overseas workers in Great Britain is controlled by a work permit scheme which since 1973 has applied equally to workers from all countries outside the EEC. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman reminded us, a work permit scheme has been with us for many years and has been applied by successive Governments. The change in the application of the scheme was very fully debated by the House in 1972 and again in 1973, and subsequently approved by Parliament. I do not want to make too strong a point of the fact that on that occasion the hon. Gentleman voted for the rules we are now discussing and I voted against them; we know the way in which these things work in the House.

People in a limited number of professions—doctors, dentists, ministers of religion, journalists working for overseas newspapers, and so on—do not require work permits but do need authority from the Home Office in order to take work here. All other workers who do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom need work permits to present on entry if they intend to take employment in this country. People already in this country as visitors, students, and so on, may apply to have the landing conditions in their passports altered to enable them to take work, but the same conditions will apply to them as to all applications for work permits. Although the application for that change is made to the Home Office, the alteration is subject to the approval of the Department of Employment.

The basic conditions for the issue of a work permit are that the worker has to be aged between 18 and 54, that the wages and conditions of service offered by the employer are not less favourable than those generally applicable for the same sort of work in the district, and that the employer has made adequate attempts to obtain labour from the resident work force. I emphasise these conditions—in particular, that if suitable labour is already available, no permit will be issued.

In industry, the professions and commerce permits are generally issued only for skilled or professionally-qualified people to do jobs for which their particular skills are necessary and to fill vacancies for which the employer has been unable to recruit resident workers. The Department of Employment obtains information about the availability of resident labour and the pay and conditions of the job from local offices of the Employment Services Agency.

The hotel and catering industry is exceptionally allowed also to recruit unskilled and semi-skilled workers within an overall quota of permits—8,500 in 1975—for men and women of all levels of skill. Unskilled catering workers are admitted only for seasonal work from March to October, from Europe or North America, and must return home at the end of the season.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Question to my right hon. Friend that he has tabled for oral answer on 20th January, in which he refers to a 1975 quota of 8,500 work permits for Filipinos. I think he will see from what I have just said that the Press statement to which he referred may have been misleading. I am not necessarily blaming the newspaper. The figure of 8,500 is for the whole hotel and catering industry, irrespective of source. It is not a question of 8,500 work permits being available for Filipinos to enter the hotel and catering industry. In so far as Filipino labour is admitted into this country for hotels and catering, the numbers will be subsumed within the aggregate of 8,500.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the rather surprising surge of applications from the Philippines in recent years. I understand that this may well be because of the zealous work of employment agencies in the Philippines in recruiting workers for employment in the United Kingdom. We hope to make fully effective the Employment Agencies Act 1973 by introducing, next summer, the Regulations for which the Act calls. I am hopeful that they will exercise a degree of control that is now lacking on the activities of such agencies.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has recently consulted both sides of industry about the quota for 1976. He has not yet reached his decision. I am sure that he will have full regard to our present levels of unemployment and the fact that there will be workers in our own labour force seeking jobs. I stress that the Government's objective, like that of our predecessor, is the phasing out of reliance on overseas workers in the hotel and catering industry.

The hon. Gentleman was also kind enough to draw to my attention a Question that he has tabled to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, the substance of which he dealt with in his speech. It would be wrong for me to anticipate my right hon. Friend's reply or seek to deal with a matter that is not within my Department's responsibility.

Outside of industry and commerce, permits are issued for overseas workers to take jobs as resident domestics in private households, hospitals, schools and similar institutions, or as nursing auxiliaries in hospitals. These are numerically controlled by a quota, and 8,000 were issued in 1975. Permits for domestics are issued only where the work is full-time and resident. Permits are not granted for those who have children under the age of 16, and are issued only for single men and women and married couples taking joint posts. Permits for nursing auxiliaries are issued only for single men and single women without dependants.

There are other special quotas of permits for people from the Commonwealth, and a total of 1,000 permits is available for workers from Malta and the dependent territories and 500 for United Kingdom passport holders who are unable to qualify for work permits under the normal criteria. As in the case of hotel and catering, to which I have already referred, these quotas are being reviewed, and of course we shall have to have full regard to our own present problems of unemployment.

There are opportunities for young people from abroad to work in this country under special arrangements. The "student employee" scheme allows for young foreign people to come here for up to a year to widen their business experience and improve their knowledge of English. They have to be employed in a supernumerary capacity and can be paid only a maintenance allowance. Commonwealth citizens may also qualify for permits to enable them to undertake limited periods of training with employers in Great Britain. These permits are issued on the understanding that at the end of the period of training both foreign and commonwealth citizens will return to their own countries.

Other work permit holders may apply for extension of stay at the end of their initial period, which is a maximum of one year and this is usually granted. Changes of employer are allowed, subject to permission being sought from and given by the Department of Employment, but overseas workers must remain in the same occupation while they are subject to employment restrictions. After four years in approved employment application may be made for removal of these conditions, and if the application is approved the worker from overseas is then free to seek any employment.

Let me now turn to the figures which the hon Gentleman has put before the House and develop them a little further. The total number of work permits issued for the years from and including 1970 are as follows: 1970, 53,156; 1971, 45,399; 1972, 36,690; 1973, 35,646; and 1974, 35,167. I am not sure whether my figure tallies exactly with the hon. Gentleman's, but for the first nine months of this year the figure is 26,586. The hon. Gentleman broke down the periods to which he referred as between the permits for foreigners and those for people coming from the Commonwealth. I have the figures broken down in a similar fashion for the whole of the period to which I have referred. I do not know whether the House would wish me to weary it at this late hour with all the statistics, but if the hon. Gentleman would like that breakdown I should be glad to give it to him. For the early years of that period EEC nationals have been purposely excluded so that the figures for 1970, 1971 and 1972 provide a valid comparison.

Mr. Arthur Jones

I have roughly totalled the figures for the period the hon. Gentleman has dealt with, and they come to about 220,000. Is it possible for him to say how many of those people have returned or are still in this country?

Mr. Walker

I must stress that the responsibility of my Department effectively ceases once the permit has been issued. Monitoring is the responsibility of the Home Office. Clearly I cannot answer on behalf of the Home Office. I know that that is not very helpful to the hon. Gentleman but, as he told the House, he has corresponded with my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office on precisely this point and on other matters. I cannot add to what he has been told by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Jones

It may be an unfair question to ask the Minister, but does he regard it as a sensible arrangement that one Department should allow the people in and then take no further responsibility in the matter?

Mr. Walker

The responsibility of my Department is clearly to vet applications, to see whether they meet the basic criteria and correspond to the circumstances in which permits should be issued. I do not think I should trespass on the responsibility of another Minister in another Department.

The important point about the figures is that there is a progressive reduction each year. It is a fallacy to seek to suggest that each year permits are being granted in increasing numbers. Clearly that is incorrect. Details about permits are set out each quarter in the Department of Employment Gazette and the figures are available in the Library.

I know that the hon. Gentleman is less concerned with the actual numbers than with the effective control of people in this category who are already here, but again I doubt whether I can usefully add to the contents of the letter quoted by the hon. Gentleman.

I have acknowledged the anxieties that exist on these issues, and the hon. Gentleman put his case to the House in a restrained and reasonable way. But they are sensitive matters in an area in which there is already misunderstanding about the numbers admitted and the circumstances of their admission. In the difficult phase through which we are passing these misunderstandings, if not corrected or carefully handled, may give rise to serious problems. Therefore I hope that what has been said in this debate will contribute to a balanced understanding of the situation.