HC Deb 31 January 1978 vol 943 cc239-45
Q1. Mr. Neubert

asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 31st January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan)

In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. This evening I shall be the guest of the Indian Journalists Association at the Indian Republic Day Dinner.

Mr. Neubert

With reference to the Prime Minister's undertaking, to read the speech of the Secretary of State for Energy at the School of African and Oriental Studies, may I ask whether he has found time today to do so?

In view of the Prime Minister's own recent statement that millions of pounds of public money have been put into British Leyland without too much to show for it, may I ask whether he agrees with his right hon. Friend in putting public ownership back on the agenda?

The Prime Minister

I read only the headlines, as I told the House last week. I found some of them this morning pretty disquieting.

I have made my position clear concerning Leyland. The Government will clearly have to determine the future policy on this matter. A new leader for the company has been appointed. He must be supported. When he chooses to follow any path, we cannot tell him that he should do something else. If we put him there, we must back him. We shall have to wait and see what plan he produces.

Mrs. Renée Short

In what is obviously a busy day, will my right hon. Friend find a few minutes in which to call in the Leader of the Opposition and to explain to her that, if she is complaining that political parties are not discussing immigration, she has a remedy in her own hands? Since she became Leader of the Opposition, she has had many opportunities to choose a Supply Day for this debate. Will my right hon. Friend perhaps inform her of this?

The Prime Minister

I should be very happy to do so. Indeed, I think it is appropriate, now that the right hon. Lady has opened up the subject in the manner she has, that there should be the fullest possible discussion of it. I go further and say that I think the right hon. Lady now has a responsibility to make absolutely clear what she is proposing to do and not to take refuge three times in the statement that what she wants is a clear prospect of ending immigration. If that is her object, she owes it to all of us to tell us how she will do it.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. David Steel.

Mr.David Steel

rose—

Mrs. Thatcher

Does the Prime Minister recall an occasion when, from that Dispatch Box, he said that numbers entering were an important element in racial harmony? Does he still take that view, in which case is he saying—

Mr. Gwilym Roberts

How would the right hon. Lady end immigration?

Mrs. Thatcher

It is the Prime Minister's job to answer questions. When I am asked a straight question on television, I try to give a straight answer. I wish that the Prime Minister would do the same. Does he still take that view, in which case is he saying, 18 months later, that he proposes to take no action whatsoever to tighten up the immigration rules?

The Prime Minister

I have never wavered in my view on the significance and importance of limiting immigration in order that we should have good race relations. Indeed, I introduced a Bill, which became an Act, to that effect. What I am now saying is that the loopholes have been closed and that the only way in which the right hon. Lady can fulfil her undertaking is to take away the rights of wives and children or United Kingdom passport holders or elderly relatives to enter this country. [Interruption.] We had better get the facts clear. Let us get it quite clearly on the record. There were 28,000 new immigrants to this country last year. Only 750, up to 1st October, came in on the basis of work vouchers. The rest came under the headings that I have already outlined.

I ask the right hon. Lady—no, I do not ask her; as she said, it is my job to answer questions. However, I am entitled to ask the Conservative Party to make its position clear. As these 28,000 people fall mainly into these categories, how does the Leader of the Opposition propose to avoid their entry? The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) made a clear and unequivocal statement to the Conservative Party conference on 12th October last, saying that it would be unthinkable for his party to go back on its commitment to the entry of these people. There is no way in which the Leader of the Opposition can promise a clear end to immigration unless she goes back on that unequivocal commitment. If she does so, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will have to consider his attitude.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Mr. David Steel.

Mrs. Thatcher

May I take up the Prime Minister on one of those figures? [Interruption.] He has given the impression that there were only 28,000 immigrants last year. I do not think that that is the full number. Will he give us the full number and, further, will he give us the full number who have the entitlement to come here under the present rules? We have frequently asked for this figure. In fact, the Franks Committee was set up to determine the number. Will the Prime Minister confirm that he intends to take no action whatsoever further to tighten up the present rules of immigration?

The Prime Minister

As regards the right hon. Lady's last question, there is such rigid control over immigration now that it is very difficult to think of ways of tightening it further, unless the Conservative Party goes back on its commitment. The right hon. Lady is quite correct—thought not in the way she has put it—about the numbers. I said that 28,000 people entered the country last year. There were 16,200 already living here for several years who were given citizenship. Is it proposed that they should be sent away? Is that what the Conservatives propose? What are the Opposition going to do? As I see it, they have two choices. They can send back people who have been living here for years—those 16,000 who were given citizenship—or they can go back on their clear pledges to wives and children, elderly relatives and United Kingdom passport holders. Which is it to be?

Hon. Members

Answer.

Mrs. Thatcher

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I had called the Leader of the Liberal Party when the right hon. Lady rose last time.

Mr. David Steel

Will the Prime Minister tell the House whether he has received any specific proposal from the official Opposition for reducing immigration? If not, will he agree that simply talking in a vague way about reducing it, far from improving race relations, merely encourages fear, uncertainty and prejudice? Does the Prime Minister agree that all of us in this House, but the Government in particular, should concentrate instead on bad housing, poor schooling, and high unemployment, particularly among second generation immigrants? Is this not the best way of improving race relations?

The Prime Minister

The Home Secretary tells me that he has received no detailed proposals—indeed, no proposals at all—from the Conservative Party for reducing immigration. Therefore, I have to base my view of Conservative Party policy on the statement made to the party conference last October by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. He said: It would be dangerous to society and to good race relations to refuse a man the company of his wife and children. Do the Opposition stand by that?

Mrs. Thatcher

My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) set out the policy at the party conference by saying that it was important that we should hold out the clear prospect of an end to immigration.

Mr. Faulds

Why does not the right hon. Lady give the job to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)?

Mrs. Thatcher

Will the Prime Minister say how many immigrants are entitled to come in under the present law? If he does not know how many but proposes to admit all of them regardless, he cannot stand by—

Mr. Faulds

That is what we would expect from the Leader of the Opposition. What is she going to do about it?

Mr. Speaker

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

Mr. Faulds

With that bloody woman in the House, how can you expect it?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me too far. We must listen to the points of view with which we do not agree. That is what this House is all about.

Mrs. Thatcher

If the Prime Minister does not know how many there are, and if he admits them all, regardless of numbers, he cannot agree with his previous statement that the numbers entering are an element in good race relations.

The Prime Minister

I would beg the House once again not to engender too much heat on this matter. I am not speaking to any particular hon. Member.

I am entitled to say that the headlines in the Tory newspapers this morning were designed for a particular end. Therefore, it is important to get the facts out if we are to have good race relations. The Franks Committee tried to find out the total number of possible immigrants. On that Committee there was a Labour Member and a Conservative Member—the hon. and learned Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). They decided that it would not be possible or useful to produce a register. They did not think that it would be accurate enough. As the right hon. Lady knows very well, there is no figure, but, because of the tight control of work permits, the number of new people admitted permanently for work was only 750 for the first nine months of last year. It must follow that the numbers are likely to fall, and that is what is happening.

The numbers arriving for settlement in 1977 were 25 per cent. down on the numbers in 1976. In the interests of this country as a whole, we should try to debate this now and bring the issues out before we get into the excitement of an election. I am glad that we are debating it now. I hope that the right hon. Lady is not hoping to appeal to certain elements in the electorate. [Interruption.]

The reality of the situation—I cannot repeat it too often—is that there is close control over numbers. There is agreement on both sides of the House, up to this moment and I hope after this moment, that dependants of those who are already here should be able to enter. I hope that there is agreement on both sides also that, if there are loopholes that are abused, they should be tightened. I know of no better policy than that and I shall stand by it.

Mr. Bidwell

May I say that I do not regard the Leader of the Opposition as a racialist, but I do regard her as an extremely muddled woman on this question who does not have the good grace to await the work of her hon. Friends and my hon. Friends on the Select Committee considering this matter which is now nearing the time when it will report.

When I was in India, I was asked—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Bidwell

—whether the right hon. Lady would be—

Mr. Speaker

Order.

Mr. Bidwell

—Britain's first woman Prime Minister.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman obviously did not see that I was on my feet. Will he please ask a question?

Mr. Bidwell

Does the Prime Minister agree that, by the way things are going, the majority of people in this country would give him the benefit of the doubt as he seems to be Hobson's choice when one looks at the capacity of the Leader of the Opposition?

The Prime Minister

I am not sure who is supposed to be most flattered by my hon. Friend's last comment, but I shall not leap to his defence and refer to him as a philosophical anarchist when he is under attack next time.

In the discussions that I hope we shall have in which we can thrash out these matters and get the figures clearly on the record of what people intend to do, I hope that we shall not play up the fears of people which are not real and genuine if they are not based on accurate expectations or figures. I hope particularly that the party opposite will not give rise to expectations that cannot be fulfilled when it gets back to office—if it ever does.