EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL (Hansard, 5 December 1961)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)
My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a third time, I should inform your Lordships that two noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave notice that they wanted to raise the question of aliens on the Third Reading. I hope it will suit the convenience of your Lordships if I move the Third Reading formally and then, after hearing what the noble Lords say, do the best I can to reply to their points. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.

§ LORD SILKIN
My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, I had given notice that I would raise this point on Third Reading. After further consideration, and in view of a Bill which will be coming to this House at some time, I think it might be more convenient if I deferred any observations on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and on the general question of immigration until we have had this other measure before us. I therefore do not propose to take advantage of this opportunity.

§ LORD OGMORE
My Lords, we said nothing on this subject on Second Reading because, on the appeal of Lord Silkin that the hour was somewhat late —it was not very late but it was somewhat late—and in view of the engagements that people had elsewhere, it was felt desirable not to proceed with it on that occasion. I myself do not think that we ought to let a Bill of this kind go forward without a word being said on it at any stage of its passage through the House. Therefore, while I am not going to be long, I think I should just say one word in reference to the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act. This Act and the orders made under it come before Parliament every year. We therefore apply to aliens and to the immigration of aliens a Parliamentary 23 check which is quite important and which no doubt is felt by them and by others as meaning that Parliament has under continuous survey their rights, if they have any, or the desirability of their being allowed into this country.
The Government have now announced, however, that so far as the immigration of Commonwealth citizens is concerned there shall be a five years' review period. All I want to ask is: why should we treat our Commonwealth citizens in this way when, every year, we consider the convenience of aliens? I am not asking for any better treatment for Commonwealth citizens. I am asking, what has decided the Government on this difference in treatment between aliens and our fellow citizens of the Commonwealth?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I want to make one point —namely, that the present policy on the admission of aliens is much more stringent than is proposed for Commonwealth citizens under the Bill. I draw attention to one point in particular: that work permits for aliens are granted by the Ministry of Labour only if a job is available which cannot be filled by persons already in the United Kingdom, whether British or alien. I thought that that ought to be generally realised. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has drawn attention to the fact that there is a Bill in another place that contains a provision for the period of review, and of course it will be open to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to discuss the provision and what he thinks is the correct period when the Bill comes before us.
In view of Lord Ogmore's first remark about the general position, I hope your Lordships will bear with me if, in a few sentences, I give the general picture. I promise the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that I will not be more than five minutes, but I think it is right that we should just take note of the position. In the year ending September 30, 1961, 1,787,566 aliens came to this country. Of these, only 2,984 were refused admission.

§ LORD SILKIN
Would the noble and learned Viscount repeat the number who came to this country?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Yes, 1,787,566 is the exact number of aliens who came to this country, and the number refused admission was 2,984.

§ LORD SILKIN
This would include tourists, would it not?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Yes. I am going to deal with that point, but I wanted, first of all, to put the general picture to your Lordships. I am told that the ratio of refusals to the total number of foreign arrivals is 1 in 552, and the percentage is 0.18 per cent. Again very briefly may I tell you of whom the 2,984 consisted? On employment grounds as having no permit for employment, there were 1,148; those with insufficient means and no permit were 466; those who came for residence —that is, for permanent settlement—but were ineligible were 440; stowaways were 141; those with no valid passport or travel document were 262; those with no visa, 56; those undesirable on medical grounds, 87; and miscellaneous undesirables, including aliens known to have a criminal record or background, 384. My Lords, if my arithmetic is right, the 384, who were refused on the grounds on which the discussion generally settled, were 1 in 5,000 or .02 per cent.
Now, my Lords, I should like to turn to one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised when we discussed this matter on a previous occasion. He will remember that one matter that we had in mind was registration with the police. Under the 1960 Order there was a relaxation, and aliens accepted for permanent residence were exempted. At January 1 this year 405,000 aliens were registered with the police. By September 30 over 295,000 were so exempt, and the number who had to register with the police on that date was reduced to 120,000.
The noble Lord asked me about holidaymakers. Holiday visitors, tourists, et cetera, intending to stay for six months or less amounted to no fewer than 1,062,289, and visitors intending to stay more than six but less than twelve months were 3,799. Business visitors intending to stay for six months or less were 269,506, giving a total of 1,335,594. Of the holidaymakers, over 70,000 aliens travelled to the 25 United Kingdom for short holiday visits, using their national identity cards and the British visitors' card, under the special O.E.C.D. scheme. My Lords. I need not harp on the importance of over a million visitors. It is, of course, a vital part of our export trade. That is the general picture, and I hope I have said sufficient, but not too much, to show that on the figures—and I think this would be confirmed if I went into individual cases—the Act and the orders have been administered liberally and sympathetically. That is always the object of the Home Office and I am sure they will try to continue to do that. I think I have just taken my five minutes and no more, but I felt that I ought to give that picture in view of what had been said.