§ 3.14 p.m.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government the reason why John and Michael Penney were refused permission to land at London Airport on 5th April.]
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, John and Michael Penney, holding Canadian passports, arrived at London Airport 852 from Montreal on April 5 and told the immigration officer that their purpose was to take employment as metal moulders with a Birmingham company. They had scarcely any money, and had single tickets which had been purchased by relatives in this country. As Commonwealth citizens intending to take employment in the United Kingdom, they needed Ministry of Labour vouchers, but they were not in possession of these. The immigration officer discussed the situation with them, in the presence of their aunt and grandfather who had come to London Airport to meet them. These relatives suggested that the two young men might be admitted for a holiday, but this was not possible as they had come for employment, and neither they nor their relatives appeared to be in a position to pay the return fare at the end of a holiday visit. The immigration officer decided that he must refuse admission under Section 2(1)(a) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. The reason was explained to the young men and their relatives at the airport.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for that full explanation of the circumstances. While in no way condoning the action of anybody who attempts to get into this country in contravention of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, I would ask this question. Would the noble Lord not agree that it would save a great deal of individual and personal hardship if immigration officers at ports of entry were instructed that in cases where there is considerable personal hardship, and where there is apparently no desire to flout the regulations, the act having taken place due to ignorance, at any rate there should be some delaying action, so that opportunity may be given to regularise the position without the expense involved of making the return journey?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's view. I think the lesson to be learned from this is that before people emigrate to another country to take work they should find out what the restrictions are likely to be and what vouchers it is necessary to have. The fact is that if these gentlemen had been allowed in, ostensibly for a holiday, then they 853 would have had to pay their own fares back, which, on their own admission, they were unable to do. If they had been allowed in on the understanding that they would try to find employment, they would then be, as it were, jumping the queue ahead of the many people in Canada who want to come to Great Britain and who have to wait, in some cases, a number of years before they can do so.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, the noble Lord may remember that in the debate we had on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill the Government undertook to see that information was available in Commonwealth countries. May I ask the noble Earl whether he is satisfied that the regulations which we have recently imposed—and I stress the words "recently imposed"—are widely known in Canada and other Commonwealth countries; and, if this is not the case, whether the Government would look into it to see whether it is possible to prevent young people from coming over here without full knowledge of the consequences?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I shall certainly look into the point which the noble Lord has brought up. There is a very good booklet which tells people exactly what processes have to be gone through before they come to this country. So far as I know, that is in full circulation in Canada. But, without previous notice, I could not answer that point categorically.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it not possible for the Government to draw the attention of the airlines to this problem? After all, they sell tickets to these people. One would not have thought it would be a great problem for them to be able to draw the attention of intending passengers to this regulation.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the airlines are aware of the regulations, and it is up to them whether or not they inspect individual passports of passengers.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, in this case they allowed these two boys to come over here, knowing that they had not the necessary work permit when they arrived in this country, and they had to be returned. Who is going to pay the fare both ways?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, in this instance the fare to this country was paid by the relatives of the brothers Penney, who were in fact in England. The return fare was paid for by the airline itself.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, my point is this, if I may pursue it. They should not have been allowed to come on the 'plane if they had not the right certificate. They were wasting their money, although the airlines could have put them right before they started and saved the money.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the airline exists to carry passengers and it is up to them. So far as the airline were concerned, their tickets were paid for. When they were not accepted in England, it was then up to the airline to transport them back again.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, is it quite as simple as that? After all, there was a great disappointment for these young men. It does not help Commonwealth friendship when this happens. Should not the Government take a little more interest in what the airline does in a case like this?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, the Government are as sorry as anyone that these boys had to be returned. It is perfectly clearly stated what is necessary for people to do who come to this country to take up employment.
§ LORD HENDERSONMy Lords, may I take it a stage further? Surely this is a matter in which there should be co-operation between the British Government and the Canadian Government. While the British Government have no authority over the Canadian airline, surely they should enlist the co-operation of the Canadian Government to inform lads what are the circumstances in which a person can be received at this end when coming for work. Surely it is possible to assist in avoiding these unnecessary troubles.
EARL FERRERSOf course, I take the noble Lord's point, but I think he is possibly extending the Question a little far. It is perfectly clear what has to be done if people want to come from Canada to take up permanent employment in this country. I should have thought, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord's views, that the first and obvious essential would be for the 855 individuals concerned to find out exactly what processes should be gone through before they purchased an airline ticket. All the experience of the Governments are at their disposal, but if people purchase an airline ticket and come without any vouchers in any form, intending to take work, then I feel that Her Majesty's Government can hardly be held responsible for the action, and Her Majesty's Government are indeed vindicated in the action taken by the chief immigration officer when he decided that this was a contravention of the immigration rules.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, surely we are getting into a bit of a muddle about these things. I do not want the law to be evaded, but it does not make it easier when the Home Secretary blows hot, then blows cold, and then blows hot again. Surely my noble friend Lord Henderson's point is a reasonable one. Presumably the Canadian passport officers examine the passport when the passenger is about to take his place on the aircraft. Could they not be helpful in checking up as to whether the proposed passenger has a right to come here, and that the situation is clear? Is it not at any rate worth inquiring into?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I shall certainly take away the noble Lord's suggestion and look into it. I cannot tell him at the moment what the Canadian Government do at their end, but I will certainly look into it and let him know.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that there is another lesson to be learned from this? He mentioned one lesson in his original reply. As I understand it, these young men have now been offered a job by a firm in the Midlands. Had they known of this beforehand they could have made the necessary arrangements and arrived with the necessary permits. Is it not advisable and desirable, in the interests of good feeling in the Commonwealth, and of minimising the harm done by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, to ensure that the immigration officers act with some regard to the personal factors in each case, and do not give this country the reputation of being guarded by a set of impersonal bureaucrats who go according to the letter of the law without any regard to the personal factors?
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, I am not in a position to know whether these two men have subsequently been offered employment. There was no application made to the Ministry of Labour for a voucher for these people at the time at which they arrived in this country. I merely say that it would not be practicable to work this scheme of control if some Commonwealth citizens were allowed to come here on the off-chance of getting a job once they had arrived here. If they did that they would, of course, be jumping the queue of people who had been waiting for some time in Canada to obtain jobs here.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, in view of the difficulties to which the scheme gives rise, and the profound sympathy which the noble Earl has expressed with these and other cases of hardship, will the Government now consider repealing the Act?