§ 2.36 p.m.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMy 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 what documentary procedures are available to their agents in the countries of origin of immigrants for the purpose of checking the conditions and family relationships of applicants for vouchers and for discovering whether, for example, such applicants have adopted sons or step-sons approaching eighteen years of age who, though unskilled and not themselves voucher holders, would infiltrate our labour market.]
2§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM)None, my Lords; because a voucher is issued to a Commonwealth worker without regard to the number or age of his dependants. A person granted a voucher is, however, asked to complete a form (MIG.I) declaring what dependants he may wish to have admitted to the United Kingdom, and this information is kept on record. The children, including adopted children and step-children, of a Commonwealth citizen resident here are not entitled to be admitted without a voucher unless under 16 years of age, and we normally admit those who are older only if they are under 18 and coming with, or to join, both parents or the only surviving parent.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but I wish to ask a few supplementary questions to amplify that information, which is all I have been able to obtain so far. First of all, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the system at present existing can work only, as one might say, on a tight line through linguistic "know-how", which seems to be missing in this country among our officers—officers from the Department of the noble Lord—and among those who are employed as agents in the various countries of the Commonwealth? That position will continue, of course, unless the Treasury allocate enough pay for a great increase in linguistic officers. There are 600, and only 23 know Urdu or Hindustani. That does not seem to 3 help very much in the case of the enormous sub-continent of India. The ports of exit are so numerous, compared with the few ports—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEMay I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, as the ports of exit in the Commonwealth are so many compared with the ports of entry in this country, something like a consular service in all those ports of exit would seem to be needed to meet what is required?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I am well aware that the existing system works only through what the noble Earl has called "linguistic 'know-how'", but that "know-how" exists. I mentioned in my original Answer the completion of a voucher form. When that is received the voucher holder has to fill in another form stating his dependants. That cannot be completed without linguistic "know-how" on the part of our various agencies abroad; and I have no information that lack of knowledge of Urdu or Hindustani is proving any handicap, either abroad or at our immigration posts in this country.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEBut, my Lords, how do we still manage to import 30,000 dependants every year when the vouchers for last year amounted to only about 5,000? The number of dependants is so enormous that it sounds as if the vouchers were granted without sufficient inquiry into the conditions of the families and what was likely to eventuate regarding the number of their dependants coming in.
§ LORD STONHAMNo, my Lords; I cannot agree with that. Not so long ago the number of vouchers issued was 20,000. It is now down to 8,500; and this has a general relationship to the number of dependants likely to come in. That is why we now ask voucher holders to complete a form stating the number of their dependants. Apart from that, however, we insist on the right of a man who is granted a voucher either to bring his dependants with him or to have them join him after he has settled in this country.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEI thank the noble Lord for that answer. Lastly, 4 may I ask him two further supplementary questions on unemployment? Is the noble Lord aware that there were over 17,000 seeking jobs on May 1, 1967? Why are vouchers to the extent of 8,500 still being granted when there is that amount of unemployment? In view of that amount of unemployment, does it not mean that there is unfair discrimination against our own people in regard to the sums of money that go out to these immigrants by way of National Assistance?
§ LORD STONHAMNo, my Lords; it does not mean that at all, because vouchers are issued only under either heading (a)—that is, when there is a job waiting for that person and he has been applied for by an employer℄or, under heading (b), which applies to doctors, teachers, nurses and so on and therefore does not add to unemployment. The noble Earl may recall that when the P.E.P. Report (which dealt particularly with unemployment) was issued, at a time when the unemployment situation generally was not good, there were only 6 per cent. of immigrants then unemployed.
§ THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEI thank the noble Lord.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLMy Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether investigation is made in the country of origin regarding the dependants of an immigrant for whom he has a financial responsibility but about whom he remains silent?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, if the immigrant fills in the form and remains silent about dependants, it is unlikely that they will be admitted later if they come to this country. The purpose of filling in the form is to enable dependants to be checked when they come, so that we do not encourage young people to come in who are not dependants.
§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILLIs my noble friend aware that he has missed the point? Do we allow immigrants to disregard their responsibilities in their own country with regard to their dependants?
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, we are not in a position to make inquiries as to whether the dependants named on the form are in fact being maintained by their parents.