HL Deb 24 March 1965 vol 264 cc621-3

2.48 p.m.

Loan ROYLE

My 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 how many Commonwealth immigrants entered the United Kingdom in the year 1964; how many of these were dependants of present United Kingdom residents; and how many alien immigrants entered in the year 1964.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)

My Lords, 406,601 Commonwealth citizens subject to control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, and 2,429,958 aliens, the majority of whom were short-stay visitors, entered the United Kingdom in 1964. The net inward movement of Commonwealth citizens subject to the Act was 75,499, of whom 37,460 were dependants accompanying or coming to join the head of the household. As regards the last part of my noble friend's question, aliens are normally admitted to this country on a temporary basis in the first instance and not for permanent residence. I can, however, say that in 1964, 19,211 aliens (including dependants) were accepted for permanent residence.

LORD ROYLE

My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that comprehensive reply, may I ask him—because I want to get the matter perfectly right and this arises not only from his Answers now but from his speech on March 10—whether the 42,500 aliens on work permits are to be added to the 19,000 accepted for permanent residence in 1964? If so, I look upon it as being nearly 62,000 against the 75,000 Commonwealth immigrants, who included, as my noble friend has just said, 37,000 dependants.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, it is the case that 42,584 aliens were admitted on work permits during 1964. None of them is included in the figure of 19,211 accepted for permanent settlement. In that sense, therefore, they are additional. But a great many of the 19,211 accepted for permanent residence would already have been in this country for at least four years under conditions which were then cancelled because they had been at work here for four years.

LORD ROYLE

My Lords, may I press my noble friend still further, to ask whether the total Commonwealth entry, which he now tells us is something like 75,000 in a year, includes the evasions of control?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, most certainly. It is the total net inflow, of which some 55,900 were deliberately admitted for settlement, and of course it is from all the countries of the Commonwealth.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, my noble friend recently stated that 10,000 of the immigrants from the non-white Commonwealth countries were here illicitly, as were 15,000 of the visiting immigrants from Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Can he tell us how many of the aliens are here illicitly?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, not without notice. But I should generally assume that there would be almost none, or at least they would be very small in number—some who had not complied with their conditions and had so far evaded the police. But the numbers can be only very small indeed.

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to the number of work permits issued. Is it the case that some of the work permits are for residents staying here for a short time, and some for a longer period? Could the noble Lord say what is the average length of permitted stay under the work permits and, perhaps, what is the longest time for which a work permit is issued?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, all the 42,584 were new work permits last year and they were new entries last year. Out of that number, 18,920 were work permits of less than twelve months' duration and 23,664 were work permits of twelve months' duration. I am unable to inform the noble and learned Viscount of the maximum permitted length of stay for a work permit holder hut, generally speaking, it is unusual for it to exceed two years.

LORD ROYLE

My Lords, I am sorry to rise again, but is it not a fact that the comparisons which have been given to us, first on March 10 and again to-day, indicate that the present agitation, particularly in another place, shows a distinct colour prejudice?

VISCOUNT DILHORNE

My Lords, I hope we shall not pursue this line and cause a debate to arise on this matter. The last question seems to suggest that we should debate this matter all over again in your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will not respond to the invitation to draw inferences from what may happen in another place.

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, I think everyone who either listened to or read the debate which took place yesterday in another place would subscribe to the view of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, that everyone who had spoken had made a valuable contribution to the debate.

LORD ALPORT

My Lords, does the Minister not think that the use of the term "immigrant" to cover such a wide variety of people coming into this country in fact tends to be extremely misleading when it is applied to these statistics? Would it not be possible to achieve some different and more distinctive terminology?

LORD STONHAM

My Lords, that was one of the difficulties which confronted me when framing my first Answer to my noble friend's Question. I first gave the answer which referred to everyone who came into the country, for whatever purpose and for however long; and then I thought I made it quite clear by giving the figures of net inflow to show how many people were assumed to have come here for permanent residence. I hope I made the position clear.