§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the report of Sir Henry Yellowlees on the medical examination of immigrants. I have today placed copies of the report in the Vote Office. The conclusions covering the matters that led my predecessor to institute the review were announced on 13 November.
At this stage, I wish to comment on only one aspect of the report, which, I stress, makes proposals of general application. Paragraph 5.7 recommends that, in principle, all immigrants coming for settlement should be required to pass a medical examination in their country of origin. The report recognises, however, that there are strong arguments against applying such a recommendation to the spouses and dependent children of people settled in this country. I am persuaded by these arguments and, therefore, I do not propose, as a result of this report, to make the entry to this country of the spouses and dependent children of those settled here dependent on the passing of a medical examination.
I shall consider carefully the remainder of the report and its implications for medical care and public health together with my right hon. Friends the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Secretary of State for Social Services.
§ Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)May I first thank the Home Secretary both for the publication of the report and for his statement upon it today? I hope that the full report can be considered as part of the debate that the House must soon have on the general subject of immigration control.
Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's statement today, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Opposition support without reservation his judgment that spouses and dependent relatives of people settled here have an inalienable right to enter this country and that that right cannot be removed or diminished for any reason? Having supported the right hon. Gentleman fully on that, may I ask him three other specific questions about the report?
The first question deals with one aspect that the right hon. Gentleman did not mention. May we take it for granted that gynaecological examinations, which many of us believe should never have taken place, will never take place again in any circumstances? Can the right hon. Gentleman make that absolutely clear?
Secondly, on the subject of testing, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many Opposition Members at least remain strongly opposed to the use of X-ray examinations that, it is claimed, provide some sort of test of a child's age? The report describes such examinations as
fairly accurate and acceptably safe.Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that such a dubious level of accuracy justifies a procedure that is opposed by the World Health Organisation? Does he not share with the Opposition the view of the British Medical Association's annual conference that it is unethical to use X-rays for administrative or political purposes?Finally, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what I think is contained in the spirit of his statement, namely, that the report must be considered as a whole, that only the ill-intended will seize on individual sentences and use 20 them out of context, and that if the report is considered as a whole it makes it very clear that immigration poses no threat to the nation's health?
§ Mr. WhitelawFirst, on a totally non-controversial issue, perhaps I may be allowed to welcome the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbroook (Mr. Hattersley) to his new Shadow appointment. I have no doubt that he will give me a harsh time, but I am delighted to see him in his new position.
To deal with his various questions: first, I made it clear on 13 November, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), that I accepted entirely what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. I made it clear that I accepted what was put forward by my predecessor to Sir Henry Yellowlees and that the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) had confirmed that.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook then asked about the X-ray examination of childern in an attempt to establish their ages. I think that we ought to consider that in the light of what is now, rightly, the attitude of everyone.
As for the third point put to me by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, of course the report must be considered as a whole. I accept fully that any statements taken out of context can only do harm. I hope that certain passages in the report will not be used on that basis.
§ Mr. SpeakerI propose to call those hon. Members who sought to catch my eye at the end of the Home Secretary's statement.
§ Sir Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)Does my right hon. Friend's statement about not examining dependants apply to children between 16 and 18 years of age whose entry is not based upon any statutory right?
When my right hon. Friend referred to spouses and dependants was he referring to those who had been ascertained already to be spouses and dependants and was he excluding medical examinations, the purpose of which is to find out whether a person desiring to come in is a spouse of a dependant?
Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that what is created by statute is certainly alienable, and that there are some people who think that it should be alienated?
§ Mr. WhitelawI have tried to make it clear in my statement—and I want to repeat it because it is very important—that, as a result of this report, the entry to this country of the spouses and dependent children of those settled here will not be made dependent on the passing of a medical examination. Those heads of households here and those who expect their spouses and children to come here have a right to have that statement made to them.
§ Mr. Norman Hogg (Dunbartonshire, East)I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate because of its importance to Scotland and to my own constituency in particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for initiating the debate.
My area is suffering, like all areas of Scotland. Some of the employment problems are especially difficult. I am the second hon. Member with a Strathclyde region constituency to take part in the debate. In the Strathclyde region 700 people a week become jobless. In the third 21 quarter of 1980 there were almost 10,000 redundancies—an increase of 3,000 on the previous quarter and 6,000 more than in the same period a year ago. More than 135 jobs vanished every day in the first nine months of this year. There are now more than 144,000 unemployed persons in Strathclyde.
Those statistics are black enough, but we must remember the hidden redundancies in natural wastage and the unnotified redundancies involving fewer than 10 workers. I was sorry to hear references to the problem not being as bad as the statistics suggest. In fact, it is worse, if one takes into account the unregistered unemployed.
In September, the most recent month for which figures are available, 11,000 redundancies were held in abeyance by the temporary short-time working compensation scheme. In addition, thousands of people are on short-time or operating work-sharing arrangements. For tens of thousands of families throughout the Strathclyde region, the Christmas of 1980 will be the hardest in their experience in spite of the experience of others in the 1930s. There is little about which to be hopeful or confident in the coming year.
In my constituency the job crisis deepens and worsens every day. In Kirkintilloch 1,748 persons are wholly unemployed. That is 700 more than last year. That includes over 200 young people—137 boys and 95 girls. The town has to cope with a serious downturn in its manufacturing capacity.
In the past 18 months, redundancies have occurred in the foundries, the traditional industry of the town. Redundancies have occurred at Anderson Strathclyde Ltd, one of the most important employers in Kirkintilloch. The Government's policy towards the Scottish Special Housing Association, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. Hamilton) referred, is causing real worries. I am constantly reminded of the town's genuine fears for the future of the association's Kirkintilloch site.
§ Mr. WhitelawFollowing what I have said about the need to consider the report as a whole, it would be wise for me not to comment on essentially medical judgments. It is for the doctors who produced the report to comment and justify their judgments in so far as they believe it right to do so. They must stand up for their medical judgment. It is not right for me to comment on it.
§ Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)Is my right hon. Friend aware that many English people who are already concerned at the large numbers of immigrants still entering this country will be further dismayed if, as a result of the report, there is any slackening whatever in the medical standards of immigrants.
§ Mr. WhitelawI can give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance. There is no question of any slackening in medical care as a result of the report. The medical care will be exactly the same as it has always been. I do not wish to give the impression to the House and the country that there is some great threat as a result of what the report says.
§ Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride)I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's concern for the medical profession in relation to the use of X-rays, but will he be a little more, forthcoming about the complaint made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)? Is he aware that people already receive sufficient X-rays and rays of various types? Does he agree that X-rays should be used only for diagnostic or therapeutic procedures? Will he undertake to ensure that the present practice is stopped, because it could be positively dangerous to the health of these children?
§ Mr. WhitelawThe hon. Gentleman's remarks indicate the wisdom of my determination not to be drawn into detailed medical analyses. As a doctor, he understands these matters whereas, manifestly, I do not. It is important for me not to be drawn. We should consider all these matters extremely carefully and maintain our sensible medical arrangements. We should not be panicked by anything that is said. We should continue as before but consider carefully the various recommendations.
§ Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that the exemption from medical examinations will apply only to spouses and young children—that is, those who have a right to enter this country—and not, contrary to what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, to other dependent relatives?
§ Mr. WhitelawI have made it abundantly clear in what I said in the statement. I shall repeat plainly what I said. We do not propose, as a result of the report, to make the entry into this country of spouses and dependent children of those settled here dependent on the passing of a medical examination. I stand by that position.
§ Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea, South)Does the Home Secretary's statement refer only to persons coming to this country for settlement or does it have any bearing on the position of visitors? I am particularly concerned about elderly dependent visitors coming to see their children but who might have difficulty getting in.
§ Mr. WhitelawWhat I have said about entry is entirely connected with people coming here for settlement.
§ Mr. HattersleyMay I press the Home Secretary on the interpretation of the second major paragraph in his statement, which is open to a little doubt as a result of supplementary questions? It refers to the spouses and dependent children of those settled here. May we be assured that the right hon. Gentleman does not mean those already settled here and that if the few people who are allowed here as primary immigrants in future do settle, the same rule—that is, the right of their spouses and children to enter this country—will be observed as it is for people settled here today?
§ Mr. WhitelawWhen I use the words "settled here", I mean exactly what I say—namely, "settled here".