IMMIGRATION BILL (Hansard, 24 June 1971)

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)

My Lords, this is the third time in ten years that Her Majesty's Government have found it necessary to introduce a Bill about immigration. Unlike its two predecessors, the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1968, this Bill does not bring under control any further categories of Commonwealth citizens, or of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Let us be clear from the start that no one who is now exempt from immigration control will be made subject to it by this Bill. What it does, in the words of the Long Title, is to "amend and replace the present immigration laws". It consolidates the present tangle of legislation into a single statute.

The need for improvement in this branch of the law has been recognised by Parliament for a long time. Each year when in both Houses of Parliament, the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill has been debated, noble Lords on both sides of the House have criticised the unsatisfactory, piecemeal and, above all, temporary nature of the assortment of statutes and orders 990 which currently constitute the basis of our immigration control. We need look no further back than last December to find the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chanceller, saying of the Government's intention to legislate in this field: I am very glad to recognize that at long last we are to have comprehensive immigration laws ".—[Official Report, 1/12/70, col. 424.] Lord Gardiner was supported, among others, by Lord Walston, speaking with considerable experience of community relations, who welcomed the concept of the Bill saying: I am very happy to hear…of the proposed new Bill: I am sure it is long overdue ".—(col. 425) I must not mislead the House by claiming that either of the noble Lords opposite to whom I have referred is necessarily a wholehearted supporter of the present Bill—both will be speaking later on in the debate. But if we are genuinely concerned to seek common ground in this controversial and emotive area we can, I think, agree at least on a starting point; namely, the general desirability of setting out, clearly and simply in one comprehensive Statute, the law controlling immigration into this country.

On what principles then should such a measure be based? First, I would suggest, it should be as short and as explicit as possible. Second, it must have regard to the sheer practicalities of immigration control in an era of mass travel. Third, it should take account both of our Commonwealth connections and of Britain's present and future relations with other countries. Fourth, it should make no distinction between immigrants on grounds of race or colour. I believe that all of these propositions are likely to command wide support in your Lordships' House. I shall return to the first two later on, for they are features which help towards an understanding of the Bill which is now before us. But it is the last two, my Lords, which make us so sensitive, so uneasy, in considering what should be the approach to legislation in this matter.

Ever since the first Commonwealth Immigrants Act in 1962 the primary purpose of the control of immigration has been to limit the numbers of people admitted into this country to a level that could be assimilated. In the debates 991 ten years ago Parliament had to reconcile the desire to maintain unrestricted entry from the Commonwealth—the traditional and honourable policy of the " open door"—with the equally worthy desire to counter an intensified social problem. This lay in the urgent need to improve the standards of housing, of public health, of schools. of social services, especially in the decaying and often deprived inner city areas. Policies came into conflict because it was in precisely these areas that considerable numbers of immigrants from the new Commonwealth were tending to establish themselves with their families. It was pointed out that in these circumstances the greater the numbers of Commonwealth immigrants corning into this country, the more difficult would be the task of improving these areas and integrating their new inhabitants into our national life.

Both at that time—in 1962—and later, spokesmen for the Government and Opposition Parties made clear that this was no one-way obligation. We owed then, and we owe now, an acknowledgement—more than that, a debt—to those who came from overseas, sometimes at our invitation, to work in parts of this country where labour was in short supply: to keep the buses going; to staff the hospitals; to work, and work unbelievably hard at times, in foundries, textile mills and food factories. I believe that this consciousness was one of the factors which led to the emergence of more positive and considered policies towards community relations. These rested on the fundamental belief that, questions of economic utility apart, Commonwealth citizents and their wives and children, who had already made their homes in this country or who, after the 1962 Act became law came here under the voucher scheme for work and settlement, must be accepted in our society without discrimination. This ideal, easy to state but very difficult to live up to, needed underpinning. Two Race Relations Acts were passed; voluntary bodies were given statutory backing and finance. But action of this kind was not enough on its own. To facilitate the process of integration, and to help mitigate the tension and incipient conflicts, immigration controls were applied to reduce the numbers arriving to a rate at which they, and those who 992 came before them, could reasonably anticipate a decent life, free from privation and free from prejudice, in a country to which often they had come with such high hopes.

I speak in no Party spirit. It would be foolish to overlook the strong differences of opinion that emerged during the passage of the 1962 Act by a Conservative Government, or of the 1968 Act by the Labour Government; and which we are seeing again now. Immigration is a subject that inspires strongly held and deeply motivated opinions. Some of these are expressed and made articulate in a reasoned way. We hear them in this House. Others may be based on resentment or envy, or perhaps just lack of comprehension, but are nonetheless sincerely held.

Public opinion, in this sense, has never dominated public policy in our political system. But no responsible Government during the last decade could possibly have refrained from taking very carefully into account, when formulating its policy. the various strands of public opinion on this particular issue. Having done so, successive Governments have introduced whatever measures they have considered necessary to ensure that the rate of immigration, a main cause of tension and friction, was kept within bounds. These bounds (or limitations or restrictions—use whatever word we like to choose) were justified in order to make practicable the fulfilment of policies aimed at lessening tension, and working towards its eradication both as regards the immigrant communities and those among whom they had made their homes. This ideal, this objective of social policy, is surely no less admirable than that of an "open-door" immigration policy? The difficulty, of course, lies in reconciling the two.

If this has been the justification, as I believe it has, for imposing controls over Commonwealth citizens, including certain categories of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies (aliens had already been subject to control for more than half a century) we turn next to the question of what these bounds should be. Part of the answer is numerical. The previous Administration believed that the rate of entry from the Commonwealth had to be greatly reduced—in the interests of the policies I have just 993 explained. Thus, whereas in 1965, 57,000 Commonwealth citizens were admitted for work and settlement (a figure which excludes visitors and students), the total fell, until in 1970 it was 36,700.

I hope that in the debate this afternoon and in later stages of the Bill we will not get too pre-occupied with numbers. The Bill is concerned with the principles underlying immigration control and not with numbers. However, the feeling that there may again be immigration on a large scale is a root cause of disquiet among the indigenous population of this country. It really does not matter for the purposes of this argument whether or not we agree with this disquiet. That it exists is a fact. It is therefore necessary, in the interests of better community relations, that people should have assurances that there will be no further large scale immigration and that the law has been put on to a permanent footing which is adequate—and demonstrably adequate—to ensure that immigration for settlement in the future will be firmly, but flexibly, kept under control. So long as a belief persists that our immigration controls are obscure and capable of widespread evasion it will be difficult to concentrate attention in a constructive and tolerant way on the urgent problems that demand our attention. That was the basis of the policy contained in the Conservative Party Manifesto, and that is the basis of the Bill which we have now introduced in fulfilment of our undertaking.

The Bill proposes a new single system of control over all immigration from overseas to which everyone will be subject except those people who have a close connection, in the sense of a personal or ancestral connection, with this country. Clause 2 of the Bill sets out certain categories of people who have what is described as a right of abode. This is a positive concept which carries with it exemption from immigration control. Something on these lines was necessary in that, unlike most other countries, there is no separate citizenship of the United Kingdom to which exemption from immigration control can be directly related. Those having a right of abode are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have been born or adopted in this country, or acquired 994 our citizenship by naturalisation or registration here. It also includes the children and grandchildren of such citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies if they themselves are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This is rather more generous than the present situation under the 1968 Commonwealth Immigrants Act, in that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in these categories will in future be exempt from immigration control, notwithstanding that they do not hold United Kingdom passports.

Another improvement on the position under the 1968 Act is that the Bill grants an automatic right of abode to any citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are subject to immigration control once they have been in this country for five years free of conditions. This will help, for example, those United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa who have been admitted to this country under the special voucher scheme. The third category contained in Clause 2 are Commonwealth citizens whose father or mother were born in the United Kingdom. Under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 exemption was granted to any Commonwealth citizen whose father was born in this country. That is the present situation. As amended in another place, all the present Bill does is to extend this to mothers as well. I cannot believe that those who so often champion women's rights in this House will find anything to quarrel with in this change. These benefits, it should be noted (this was a point raised in the debate last December on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill) apply only to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies or to citizens of other Commonwealth countries. They do not extend to aliens once the Bill has become law. There is therefore a priority accorded to Commonwealth citizens under the Bill which marks the strength and importance of our Commonwealth connections.

My Lords, I said earlier that the Bill should be as short as possible, and as explicit. It will be seen that it contains only 37 clauses and 6 Schedules: a notable feat of compression of a complex branch of the law in contrast to that other measure which is before your Lordships at the present time. The concept of the 995 right of abode, with its consequential exemption from immigration control, is not one that can be briefly or easily expressed in normal conversation. Thus the term "patrial" has been used to describe people who have a sufficiently close connection with this country by birth, ancestry or residence to achieve a right of abode. The word "patrial" has touched a sore spot in the liberal conscience. And yet, as I have explained, it contains no significant departure from the present situation, except that it relaxes to a certain extent the closeness of immigration control on Commonwealth citizens, for example, by exempting those whose mothers were born in the United Kingdom.

Connections by birth are well accepted in nationality legislation throughout the Commonwealth. As each dependent territory has gained independence over the last 25 years it has become normal practice to grant or offer its own citizenship to those who were born in the former dependency or whose parents were. In the United States, in France and in India, citizenship (and consequently exemption from immigration restrictions) is offered to anyone whose parents are nationals who were born in those countries. To describe a policy of this kind as racialist seems to me both extravagant and misconceived, and unlikely to lead to the improvement in community relations which we are all anxious to see.

Let me now move on to describe some of the detailed provisions of the Bill which have been the subject of comment. First, deportation. Part I of the Bill, among other things, defines the circumstances in which a person who is subject to immigration. control can be deported. This can be either on the initiative of the Secretary of State or on the recommendation of a court; in either case the final decision is taken by the Secretary of State personally. A court may recommend deportation where a person who is not patrial is found guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment. Similarly, a power of deportation is also available where a person admitted for a limited time—for example, a visitor or a student—overstays the time limit or fails to observe other conditions attached to his stay. There is also a power to deport 996 a person who is not patrial if the Secretary of State deems his removal from this country to be conducive to the public good. The first two of these powers apply under the existing legislation both to Commonwealth citizens and to aliens, but the third ground at present applies to aliens only. It is under this clause that future Home Secretaries will have powers to take action when national security or political considerations are involved.

I must just mention one further point relating to deportation before going on to say a word or two about appeals. This concerns a new power to deport the members of a person's family with him, unless they are themselves exempt from control. The present situation is that when a breadwinner is deported, his dependants may stay behind in this country with no means of support and no prospect of a united family life. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made it very clear in another place that this power will be used only after the most careful consideration has been given to the circumstances of each individual family. Whether the wife is living with or separated from her husband; the age of the children and the extent to which they may have established themselves in this country, will certainly be among the factors that will be taken into account. Moreover, we have come to the conclusion that it would be fair, in view of the strength of feeling on this matter, to provide a full right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for all members of a deportee's family whom it is proposed to include in the deportation order. The Government intend to table Amendments to the Bill accordingly in your Lordships' House in order to give effect to this decision.

The appeals system generally will continue very much as now. The main changes from the system envisaged in the Immigration Appeals Act 1969, but not yet fully implemented, are two. The first concerns appeals against decisions taken at the ports. The Bill provides a right of appeal for anyone who, for any reason, is refused leave to enter the country (unless he is refused on conducive grounds on the personal directions of the Secretary of State). But this right will be exercisable only from overseas, except where the passenger holds a work permit, 997 entry certificate, visa or other document of entitlement. The people in this latter category, which includes all those who will be coming here for work and all the dependants of those already established in this country, will have a right of appeal exercisable at the ports if they are refused entry by an immigration officer. The Bill, therefore, does not go as far as the Wilson Committee's recommendation, as embodied in the 1969 Immigration Appeals Act; namely, that there should be a general right of appeal at the ports for all passengers refused entry.

I mentioned earlier the need to take account of the sheer practicalities of immigration control in an era of mass travel. In 1966, 10 million passengers a year were arriving in this country, mainly as visitors, at the ports. By 1970 the figure had risen to 14 million. The total number of passengers subject to control has increased by 73 per cent. over the last four years. With the advent of jumbo-jets, and vastly improved facilities for visitors bringing their own cars, the numbers are likely to go on increasing. I happen to think that this is a very healthy trend, but the demands made on the Immigration Service are great. If every immigration decision were subject to an immediate appeal on the spot, the strain on the Immigration Service would be such that it simply could not carry out its primary task of operating the immigration control at the ports promptly and efficiently without causing considerable delay and congestion.

The second change contained in Part II of the Bill (which is the Part dealing with appeals), relates to those cases—few in number, but invariably controversial in character—where there are political or security considerations. There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years about the best way to handle these cases. The Wilson Committee concluded that it would not be wrong in principle, or destructive of the general value of the appeal system, to remove from its scope cases in which the decision was taken on political grounds, and to leave these to the Home Secretary's discretion, subject to his responsibility to Parliament. That, in effect, is what the Bill does, not only in political cases but also where national security is involved.

The existing procedure for security and political cases, involving reference to a 998 special panel of the Appeal Tribunal, has been used only once. But on the occasion when it was used—in the Dutschke case—it attracted almost universal criticism. The main objection was that although the proceedings appeared to take the form of a trial (which it was not, since there was no justiciable issue), the appellant and his legal representatives could not be made aware of everything that was put before the Tribunal. I do not believe there can be many people who have had experience of this procedure, least of all those concerned to maintain the standards of British justice, who are at all happy about it. These cases, by their very nature, require political judgments to be made as to what does or does not constitute a threat to the security of the State or what amounts to undesirable political activity. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary believes, and believes rather strongly, that the best approach to problems of this sort is by way of a Minister who is open to challenge in Parliament. To enable him to obtain some advice before reaching a decision in these cases, however, the Home Secretary has said that he proposes to set up some sort of advisory system modelled on the lines of the advisory procedure for security cases in the Civil Service.

My Lords, this is a complex Bill and one containing many other matters which we shall want to discuss thoroughly in Committee. But there are two aspects, in particular, to which I think noble Lords would want me to refer before I sit down. The first concerns the police, and the second the powers contained in Clause 29 allowing payments to be made towards the travel costs of those who wish to return overseas. First, the police. They have a double function under this Bill. Their primary responsibility is to enforce the law. Part III of the Bill deals with criminal proceedings. Certain of the offences set out are new—for example, that of being knowingly concerned with illegal entry. We hope that prosecutions under these clauses will do much to discourage illegal immigration, and in particular those who organise this highly objectionable form of trafficking in human beings. The time limit for bringing proceedings is extended, but otherwise the police have no new powers in enforcing these provisions.

999 Nor is their second role a new one; that is, registering the holders of work permits on arrival in this country. For more than 50 years the police have had responsibility for registering the details of the place of work and residence of aliens, both on arrival in this country and when any later changes arc made. There are approximately 175,000 people from overseas who are currently registered with the police, and we are not aware of complaints of police officiousness or police harassment. On the contrary, all the evidence points towards the work being done efficiently and with good sense. Whenever possible, the police use civilian staff for this work, and it seems right that the same system which has worked perfectly satisfactorily for so many years for large numbers of people from overseas should be extended to those Commonwealth citizens who will come under the work permit Scheme in future. It is, incidentally, worth emphasising at this point, because there has been some misunderstanding, that it is only future entrants from the Commonwealth—mainly holders of work permits—and not Commonwealth citizens already established in this country, who will be affected by this provision.

Noble Lords who have followed the progress of this measure in another place will know that on Second Reading my right honourable friend gave an undertaking to look into any alternative agencies that might be suitable to take on the job of registering Commonwealth workers; and this he has done. But the Government have come to the conclusion that the police are the most appropriate agency for this task: and that it would be wrong to distinguish between one work permit holder and another in this respect. The weight of the additional burden on the police is indicated by the estimate that only 15 extra staff (mostly civilian employees) will be required.

Finally, my Lords, we come to the question of repatriation. I do not know that those who advocate a large-scale programme of planned repatriation would find very much support in this House. Let me make it quite clear, however, at the start of our consideration of this Bill, that the Government do not accept any proposals for large-scale repatriation as 1000 an act of policy which is intended to alter the balance of population in this country. The Home Secretary has said this without qualification in another place and I repeat it to-day. What we believe, however—and I have some personal experience of this—is that there arc circumstances when it is only plain common sense to be able to give travel assistance to an immigrant who himself wishes to depart. At present this cannot be done until he becomes virtually destitute. When he has been some time out of work, and has no prospect of obtaining work, thus becoming a long-term burden on public funds, then, but not before, the Supplementary Benefits Commission can assist.

But what about the man who comes here, who does not settle down, who is not happy even though he may have a job of sorts, whose wife is homesick and who wants to return home, but who cannot afford the fares? Is it not desirable to be able to give some financial help towards travel costs when people genuinely ask for it and genuinely need it, rather than sitting back and waiting for the extreme cases, late in the day, when it has become obvious that it will suit our pockets as taxpayers to do so? Of course the fear is that people may not genuinely ask for assistance; that they may be pressured, may be made to feel unwelcome in order to get them to leave. We should not ignore this argument, although I think it would be wrong to place too much emphasis on it. Thus, for this reason, as well as for others, we believe that the right way to proceed is on a social work basis.

We do not have any hard and fast approach to this matter. It is a new question and one that needs to be explored with an open mind. What we envisage, therefore, is grant aiding an existing voluntary welfare body with considerable experience of social case work among migrant families both in this country and overseas. We have initiated discussions with International Social Services, proposing that financial contributions would be made available under the power contained in Clause 29 where I.S.S. was satisfied, first of all, that the applicants genuinely wanted to leave and needed help to do so; and, secondly, would be better off in their own interests if helped to leave than if they remained in this country.

1001 I have mentioned this subject last to show our general attitude towards immigration and race relations. There are no short cuts here, no ready-made solutions. In present-day conditions immigration policies must be secondary to—indeed they must serve—policies designed to improve relations between the various communities in this country. The word "relations" reminds us that there are different interests and that conflict and tension can arise between them. It is the job of this Government, like their predecessors, to try to ease those tensions to indentify and eradicate their causes, and to ask Parliament to approve measures designed to that end. My Lords, I beg to move.