HL Deb 09 February 1977 vol 379 cc1166-70

3.49 p.m.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE: (Lord Harris of Greenwich)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:

"The report of the Parliamentary Group under Lord Franks set up by my predecessor 'to examine the feasibility and usefulness of a register of dependants' has been laid before the House and is published today. I would like to express the thanks of the Government to Lord Franks, my right honourable friend the Member for Dartford and the honourable and learned Member for Runcorn.

"On the central issue the Group say that

'if the reader of this report had hoped to find a positive recommendation for or against a register he will be disappointed.'

"The Group did not make recommendations. They have, however, reached a number of conclusions about a possible scheme but in doing so draw attention to the fact that it would be open to objections which would be matters for the Government and Parliament to take into account. It is inherent in the only scheme which the Group thought feasible that a register would be discriminatory, incomplete in coverage, would involve long delay in implementation and be very expensive; and it is clear that it could give no certainty about future numbers. Although we shall listen carefully to the views of honourable Members on the report, the Government's view is that such a register would not be desirable, practicable or likely to serve the purposes which promoters of the idea intended for it.

"The Government have been considering whether other steps can be taken to relieve current anxieties. These anxieties have to be seen against the background of the society to which we are dedicated. This is a society based on racial equality and harmony in which all with a right to live here are treated fairly. This can be assisted by firm action to check abuses of the present system.

"New immigration rules will shortly be made to deal with marriages of convenience aimed solely at achieving entry or avoiding removal. The taking of employment contrary to conditions imposed on entry—which is by no means confined to people from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan—has been of concern not only to the Government but to the TUC and is currently under discussion in the EEC. Methods of ensuring that all applicants for employment are entitled to take it will be discussed with both sides of industry. I am also investigating the extent of overstaying by people permitted for temporary purposes.

"Action in these areas should do a lot to put an end to abuses of the existing system. On all of these matters the Government will give further information to the House in the near future.

"I am also considering the question of reform of our nationality law which, as the Franks Report points out, has a bearing on our immigration policy. I shall make a further Statement on this also in due course."

My Lords, that completes the Statement.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE

My Lords, I know that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating the Statement made in another place. I also congratulate him on being almost the only one on the Front Bench opposite who omits the part about Mr. Speaker, which is an example I wish all would follow. Although I have had the report as distinct from the Statement in my hands for only a minute or two, quite clearly this will be a troublesome matter. First of all, I should like to endorse the words of thanks and commendation to the three authors of the report, one of whom has been an honoured and honourable friend of mine for some years, for the work that they have undertaken. From the fact that there is no recommendation I rather infer that no agreement was reached among them. Although of course we shall study the pros and cons in the report with great care, it will take a good deal to persuade us that a register is undesirable and impracticable, which is apparently the conclusion that the Government have formed. It will not, of course, be a guarantee against a great increase in numbers, but it may be some guard against abuse of the kind which has taken place.

I must also express some degree of disappointment at the rather modest practical proposals contained in the Statement, which are limited to unspecified changes to deal with marriages of convenience, breaches of condition and overstaying. In paragraph 15 of the report it is estimated that there are just short of 2 million—1.9 million—persons of New Commonwealth or Pakistani ethnic origin present in the Kingdom and that paragraph envisages that on existing policies that number will be doubled as a minimum by the turn of the century. I rather doubt whether public opinion will be entirely reassured by these figures.

I note that at the end of the Statement the Minister refers to the possibility of a reform of the nationality law. Frankly, I have always regarded that as the root of the matter and the root of the trouble. I have urged this on colleagues in my own Party and I have urged it before now across the Floor of the House upon my political opponents. It all stems from the British Nationality Act 1948. We should have recognised then, with a little more clarity of thought, that when a nation becomes independent, after a brief period for option, its inhabitants should be treated as aliens because that is what independence means. The idea that one could have a tertium quid is almost at the root of all our troubles. I therefore urge the Government to pursue the suggestion in the last paragraph with the utmost vigour—which I am bound to say that previous Administrations of both the noble Lord's and of my political persuasions have not hitherto notably shown. My Lords, I am anxious in this brief commentary upon the Statement not to enlarge the area of partisan difficulty. The largest area of consensus is the surest route to harmonious public opinion on this very contentious and emotional subject. Although there will be debate between us, I hope that there will be the largest possible degree of agreement between us.

Lord BYERS

My Lords, this House is certainly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Franks, and his colleagues for producing this report. Although like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, I have had it for only a few moments, I am quite certain that this Committee has performed a public service. We on these Benches have always been against the compilation of a register, largely for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Franks, in his report and particularly because such a register was bound, by its very nature, to be a form of discrimination. Therefore, we welcome the Government's rejection of the register.

We indeed welcome the possibility of our nationality laws being clarified and reformed. They are confused and complicated and in many cases in their present form act unfairly on individuals. My only doubt is whether a departmental or ministerial look at this problem is a powerful enough weapon to use. I should have thought that something on the lines of the Franks Committee was the least that we could expect to examine the nationality laws as they at present stand.

3.58 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for their remarks. I join with them in thanking all the participants and obviously the Member of this House who was the chairman of the Group. Certainly I join with the noble and learned Lord in his desire not to extend the area of partisan disagreement. As I have said to him before, he never has at any stage in the past. It is right for us to recognise that this must be one of the main objectives in what is undoubtedly an extremely troublesome matter—which is how the noble and learned Lord described it.

Inevitably I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his reaction to the Government's position as regards the register. For the same reason I do not entirely accept the view of the noble and learned Lord. The position about the register is quite clear. If there is to be a register, it will be discriminatory. That is an issue over which we should have cause to pause long. It creates very real difficulties. I am by no means sure that on reflection either House of Parliament would find that a particularly attractive way in which to proceed. The noble and learned Lord referred to the rather limited action embodied in the Government's response to this report. My right honourable friend indicated in another place this afternoon that the Government are contemplating a change in the immigration rules as they relate to marriages of convenience. This is an important matter because there is genuine public concern over it. There is a belief that there is a significant amount of evasion taking place here and inevitably, however we measure the scale of this, it is a matter of concern and that is why we have proposed to apply our minds to dealing with it by changing the immigration rules.

So far as nationality law is concerned, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I recognise that there is some impatience on this question. Indeed on a previous occasion the noble Lord, Lord Carr, indicated that in the past the then Opposition had rather underestimated the complexity of this matter, and that is an accusation which I think he was probably right in making. It is probable that all Oppositions sometimes minimise the real practical problems involved in changes of this sort. Certainly we have found this a daunting problem. Nevertheless, it is obviously important to move in this matter, and we are anxious to do so.