HC Deb 14 February 1978 vol 944 cc235-8
Q1. Mr. Hordern

asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 14th February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Hordern

Will the Prime Minister ask Mr. Moss Evans to come to see him this afternoon and talk to him about his radio interview this morning? In view of the importance of the social contract and of the industrial strategy, will the right hon. Gentleman explain to Ford and to every other company whether they should take advice of Mr. Moss Evans or that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

The Prime Minister

I did not hear the interview, and I shall not be inviting Mr. Evans to come to see me.

Mr. Madden

Will my right hon. Friend find time to urge the Leader of the Opposition to devote a Supply Day debate to the subject of immigration? Does he believe that this would allow the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and the right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) further to expose the weasel words of the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) on immigration and enable her to rebut the charge that she is more anxious to exploit the fears and uncertainties of some people on immigration than to come here to defend and explain her policies on immigration?

The Prime Minister

I understand that there is a Supply Day likely to be available next week and also that a further Supply Day will be available in the following week. There will be plenty of opportunity to discuss this matter, therefore, if the Opposition wish to raise it.

If I may express a view, I hope that the Opposition will do so because, as I said a week ago, I am anxious that there should be, if possible, a national approach to this problem, which can otherwise distort our community with hatred.

Mrs. Thatcher

Is the Prime Minister aware that we shall take a Supply Day when we wish and not at the goading of Government supporters? Meantime, does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the purpose of the 1971 Immigration Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) introduced and which I supported, was to end further large-scale immigration and to permit future immigration only in strictly defined cases? Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that he and his party voted against that Bill on Second Reading not merely once but three times? Is he aware that I support the intention of that Act? He did not, and he does not. What is his intention?

The Prime Minister

I recall a number of these matters because I happened to be leading for the Opposition at the time. I well recall the argument that took place about patriality, upon which there was a great difference which was thrashed out in Committee, some times overnight, between the Opposition and the Government, and it had nothing to do with immigration as such. But I agree with the right hon. Lady that it is for her to choose when she will debate this matter, and it is only for me to indicate that there are opportunities available. As the Government have very firm principles on this matter, I hope that the Opposition will choose to debate it soon. But I repeat my request that we should, if possible, try to evolve a national approach to this issue.

Mrs. Thatcher

We did not evolve a national approach when the legislation was before the House. Do I understand from the Prime Minister's reply that he now supports an Act which at the time he opposed vigorously?

The Prime Minister

Since 1974—that is, for four years—the Government have been operating under the 1971 Act, which was drawn up, of course, by the previous Cabinet and introduced by the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Chiping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). We have also been operating under the Conservative rules which derive from the Act in 1973.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with it?

The Prime Minister

We are administering it. Perhaps the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) does not understand that. I hope that the Opposition understand that what is taking place on immigration today takes place under their Act and their rules and that it is now the law of the country.

I make a proposal—[Interruption.] I try to deal only with adult questions, not infantile questions. What I am about to say will not be accepted by the Opposition, but I should like to put it, and we shall see.

If the Opposition are as concerned about trying to avoid hatred and tension in our society as the right hon. Lady said they were last Sunday, let me make this proposition, which I shall think out and discuss with her. Why do not the leaders of the three parties sit down together with the Home Secretary, the Shadow Home Secretary and, if the right hon. Lady wishes, the former Home Secretary whose Act it was and see whether we can evolve a national approach which will avoid racialism, distortion and hatred which will otherwise enter our affairs? I make that offer to the right hon. Lady. I am willing to discuss it and sit down with her, recognising that each of us has very firm principles. However, the national unity of the country is more important than either of these.

Mrs. Thatcher

Will the Prime Minister now answer the Question? Does he now support the intent—

Mr. Faulds

Will the Leader of the Opposition answer the Prime Minister's suggestion?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) really must control himself.

Mr. Faulds

She must answer the Prime Minister's proposition.

Mr. Speaker

Order. If the hon. Member for Warley, East continues, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mrs. Thatcher

Does the Prime Minister now support the intention of the Act to which he led the opposition?

The Prime Minister

I divide my answer into two parts. The general intention of the Immigration Act has always been supported. However, on the issue of patriality there has always been a difference between us, and I understand that the Opposition themselves are now dissatisfied with the way in which it is working and that that is why they are calling for a review of future citizenship of this country. That is a clear answer to the Leader of the Opposition.

Would she care to think about my suggestion? I do not ask for a reply now, because I know that it is an important matter. Perhaps she could let me have an answer in due course.