§ 3.14 p.m.
§ LORD ELTONMy 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 whether it is not desirable that the inflow of immigrants should if possible be so regulated as to remain within the capacity of this country to absorb it, and since the number of dependants of immigrants can at present be neither regulated nor predicted, whether they 543 will consider requiring future immigrants to register the number of dependants likely to join them and then treating this number as a factor affecting the decision whether to grant permission of entry.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)My Lords, the whole purpose of the control is to relate the total inflow of immigrants, including dependants, to the capacity of this country to absorb them. It is already the practice to require a Commonwealth citizen overseas who is given a Ministry of Labour voucher or an entry certificate for settlement to provide particulars of the dependants entitled to enter the United Kingdom with him or to follow him later. We do not think it right, however, to make the grant of the entry document dependent on the number of entitled dependants.
§ LORD ELTONMy Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he recalls that on May 23 last the Home Secretary said outside another place, on a public occasion—and I quote from The Times:
In present circumstances the Government is bound to contain the flow of immigrants within the economic and social capacity of the country to absorb them.Does he not agree that this apparently innocuous statement, and numerous others similar to it, must mislead the man in the street by leading him to suppose that a Government which says that it must contain the flow has power to control the flow, which in respect of dependants it most assuredly has not? May I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in the first five months of the present year—which is not, of course, the season of the main inflow—whereas the intake of voucher holders, which is controlled, was 2,000-odd, the intake of dependants, which is not controlled, was 14,000-odd?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am, of course, aware of the statement by my right honourable friend, but there is no conflict between that statement and the Answer which I have just given. Her Majesty's Government will not, however, accept a policy of separating wives from their husbands and young children from their parents. That is why, when the restrictions had to be tightened, we prefer- 544 red to reduce the number of families by reducing the issue of vouchers, rather than break up families by the method implied by the noble Lord.
With regard to the noble Lord's point about the first five months of this year, he has apparently misunderstood the figures. The facts show that our policy is already succeeding. In 1964, the net inflow of immigration from all the countries of the Commonwealth was 75,499; last year it was 63,819. The process is continuing this year, for which I am able to give the figures for the first six months In the first six months of last year the net inflow from all Commonwealth countries was 49,097, in the first six months of this year it was 34,061. With regard to dependants, what is of even greater significance is that in the first six months of this year, for the first time for many years, they comprise less than the numbers ill the corresponding period of the previous year.
§ LORD ELTONMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is nothing in the Question I asked which was calculated to promote or encourage the separation of families? The suggestion was merely that in selecting the immigrants some regard should be had to the number of dependants who would be likely to come with them. May I also ask him, in respect of the absorptive capacity referred to in the second part of my Question, whether he has seen the recent statement of the National Secretary of the Indian Workers' Association, to the effect that the Association has no desire to see the integration of Indians taking place since they desire to retain their own cultural traditions and have indeed requested that Urdu, Hindi and Gujerati should be taught in English schools? Is it not equally true of most Muslims and Sikhs that they, too, rightly desire to retain their own social and cultural traditions, rather than to accept ours, some of which they regard, with a certain degree of justification, as highly uncivilised?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am, of course, aware of the desire of many immigrants to preserve their own religious, national and cultural way of life, but the whole of Her Majesty's Government's policy, and the greater part of the White Paper, is devoted to steps for integrating these Commonwealth 545 citizens into the British community. That policy is succeeding very well, and will proceed as energetically as Her Majesty's Government can pursue it.
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, I do not quite understand the noble Lord's first Answer. As I understand it, he said that a man can be given a voucher to enter, and is then asked how many dependants he has. So there is, in fact, no control over the number of dependants coming in, because he is given the voucher in the first place. Is that correct?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the purpose of completing the entry certificate and stating the number of dependants, either coming in or likely to come in, is to gather statistics and so that we can prevent evasion. We have no control over the number of dependants of a particular voucher holder, either before or after he enters the country.
§ LORD DERWENTBut if the Government want to control the number of immigrants so that they may be absorbed easily—and that I understand, is Government policy—if they do not limit the number of vouchers for the dependants who are coming in, how can they keep control over the total number?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, certainly did not understand my first Answer, because facts with regard to the number of dependants will influence subsequent decisions on the number of vouchers that will be issued.
§ LORD PEDDIEMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the immediate and potential difficulties which can arise from the tendency of immigrants to concentrate in well-defined areas? May I ask, also, what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking, or what steps they can take, to effect a dispersal which would facilitate integration into the community?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, we are of course aware of some tendency to concentrate in particular areas, although it is not so marked as is generally supposed. One of the reasons is that many immigrants tend to congregate where their fellow citizens live, and also in the poorer parts of the great cities. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in this respect is to assist local authorities in the provi- 546 sion of amenities and facilities so that such concentrations may be dispersed.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend, quite seriously—I asked him this question last year and he did not answer—how many women dependants designated as wives a Muslim may bring into the country?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I can only tell my noble friend that there have been occasions when we have admitted more than one wife, but not more than two.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the case that all those who have studied this problem agree that the arrival here of wives and dependants, whether of white or coloured immigrants, adds to the stability and health of those communities and should be welcomed by this House?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I would entirely agree with the view expressed by my noble friend. If my original Answer did not make it clear, I should add that the figures I have given were for the net inflow from all the countries of the Commonwealth, whatever the colour of the skin of the immigrant, and Her Majesty's Government make no distinction in this regard.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that one African visitor to the Coronation, who himself travelled first-class in a steamship, brought fifteen wives all of whom went steerage?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, in addition to mentioning that discrimination, with which I wholly disagree, the noble Earl should have said that he went back and took all his fifteen wives with him.
§ LORD MILVERTONMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? Would he explain what he means by "families and wives"? I make particular reference to the prevalence in, for instance, Jamaica of what are called "civil law marriages", which have no reference whatever to legality. They are merely arrangements between a man and a woman who decide to live together and have children for so long as it suits them. It is a very prevalent custom in Jamaica, and when such a man comes 547 to England he may in all honesty regard that woman as definable as a wife. But do the Government recognise that kind of union here, where it would be an entirely illegal position?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, with regard to the families which Her Majesty's Government recognise, they are the wife and children under sixteen, with a little latitude beyond that in some cases for the exercise of discretion. With regard to the definition of a wife, we do not attempt a precise definition which will cover all the countries of the world. But with regard to the West Indies, we are aware of the prevalence of what is sometimes called the "common law marriage" and we have admitted, and do admit, some wives of that type who would not have had what we in this country regard as a normal union.
§ LORD PARGITERMy Lords, could my noble friend say whether he considers that the reception arrangements for receiving immigrants into this country are adequate?
§ LORD STONHAMNo, my Lords, they are not wholly adequate, but they are constantly being improved.