Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]

3.39 p.m.

Mr. William Whitelaw (Penrith and The Border)

During the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) on 24th May, I gave an undertaking that the Opposition would use one of their Supply Days for a further discussion on immigration problems. Events since then have underlined the need for another debate and a frank consideration of the major problems involved which are of such concern to all our constituents.

Over the years Britain has been an absorbent society, welcoming all corners, and in due course assimilating them into our way of life. We have never made any distinctions of colour or culture. Everyone who has come here has been free to practice his or her own customs and religions. We have guarded these freedoms jealously for centuries, and we are justly proud of them.

In these circumstances, it is important to discuss any restrictions on immigration which modern circumstances have made essential against the background of a conviction which I hope is shared throughout the House. Everyone in our country is an equal British citizen before the law whatever his race, colour or creed. All acts of racial discrimination, incitement to racial violence, and, worst of all, violence itself are wholly abhorrent to our British way of life and must be unequivocally condemned.

However, we all know today that these principles of the fair and tolerant society which we seek to uphold will be undermined if individual fears and resentments are allowed to grow. Indeed, I accept that they are seriously threatened already, and it is for that reason that, since the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, we have sought to operate a system of immigration control in addition to the normal aliens' legislation.

It is strange now to look back at the atmosphere of the time of the debates on that Act. Not only were the Labour and Liberal parties violently opposed to it, but, as a Government Whip at the time, I remember the grave doubts on the Conservative Back Benches. We have all had many critical letters from our constituents who now blame us all as politicians for the difficulties we face today. It is easy to look back and appreciate that the end of the British Empire and the emergence of the new independent Commonwealth, with all the consequential changes, made a Commonwealth immigration Act inevitable. But as, in subsequent years, those who opposed the Act then have found it necessary to strengthen some of its measures, we are surely right to review our position today calmly and frankly.

Our objective must surely be to ensure that our immigration control procedures are strict and effective while at the same time administered with humanity and fairness. If they are to allay many unjustified fears, they have to introduce some certainty into a situation which, alas, today is shrouded in far too much mystery. I do not underestimate the difficulty of meeting these requirements over arrangements which are inevitably somewhat complicated, but we must put an end to the rumours about large numbers of United Kingdom passport holders or dependants from the India sub-continent waiting, as is too often described in headlines—quite wrongly in my judgment—to flood into this country.

There is no doubt that the British people want to know that there is in prospect an end to those entitled to come here. Indeed, many of them have to be convinced that we cannot simply say "No more now from anywhere". The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon)—who I trust is recovering from his illness and will shortly be restored to complete health —gave as his reason for temporarily increasing the numbers coming in that an end was clearly in sight. Frankly, under the present arrangements, I do not see how he can claim that.

But I have no doubt that in the interests of good race relations, certainly in the interests of the ethnic minority groups already in our country, we should seek to provide finality and certainty, and it is in the search for that position that I want to put forward certain proposals to the Home Secretary which I hope he and the Government will most carefully consider. It is always wrong in Opposition to produce exact administrative blueprints without the necessary resources, but I hope that the detailed application of my general suggestions will be studied.

First, there is an urgent need for simple, easily understood and accurate statistics. I know very well that the Home Secretary wants to be as straightforward and open on the figures as possible but, alas, due to past mistakes, for which he bears no responsibility, he will know that we are all—or nearly all, I believe—totally unjustly accused of evasions and cover-ups. Therefore, I renew my request for a small independent body to review the method of compiling the statistics and to recommend the most simple and easily understool system possible.

Secondly, there are still far too many stories of illegal immigration and overstaying which are widely believed. I do not accept all of them, but the old saying "No smoke without fire" is usually true, and so I conclude that there are some illegal immigrant rackets which need to be uncovered and smashed immediately. I also believe that too many people are coming in as visitors or on limited permits and then simply disappearing. It cannot be stated too often that illegal entry is very unfair on those in the same ethnic groups who have come in legally, and indeed it is widely resented by them. I hope, therefore, that the Home Secretary will take the opportunity of reinforcing the view that there is need for ruthless police action and of confirming that he has not in mind any further amnesties for illegal immigrants.

I turn now to the main categories where we have plain commitments. These are the United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa and the close dependants of those already here. The anxieties about the numbers in the latter category are mainly centred at present on the Indian sub-continent, as reflected in the Hawley Report, but the problem is much wider than that.

On the question of the United Kingdom passport holders, I hope, first, that the Home Secretary will be able to assure us that he will shortly be publishing the Government's proposals for amendment of the British nationality law. Clear definitions here would surely stop many of the wild and, as I believe, unjustified rumours of people in many parts of the world with rights of entry to this country. Work on this admittedly complicated measure was already in hand under the last Conservative Government, and surely proposals should be ready by now.

Recently, there have been encouraging signs that the Governments of India and Pakistan are willing to co-operate with us over some of these problems, particularly in the case of refugees. I share wholly the view of my noble Friend, Lord Carr, as I quoted in the last debate, that we simply could not again accept a burden such as that of the Ugandan Asians suddenly imposed on us.

I trust, therefore, that the Home Secretary will take full advantage of the discussions with the Governments of the Indian sub-continent and others closely concerned. I hope, too, that such discussions will not only deal with the problems of United Kingdom passport-holders but will range over the whole subject. In our last debate the Home Secretary stated: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary that the number of United Kingdom passport holders and their dependants in Africa has been reduced to about 40,000. But later, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern), he went on: There is some confusion—shared by the right hon. Member for Down, South—about whether dependants are passport holders. In many cases they are. When we talk about vouchers, we are referring to the heads of households. Passport holders include dependants, and in East Africa they total about 40,000."—[Official Report, 24th May 1976; Vol. 912, c. 100–1.] I do not think that I am being unfair to the Home Secretary if I say that I think that that statement requires clarification with precision this afternoon, because from what he has said it would seem that there are some dependants who are not passport holders. The immigration figures would seem to confirm that. So the question must be, what is the total of all those likely to come in under the voucher system—that is to say, heads of households and dependants together? It is very important that the Home Secretary should give those figures and clearly, because his case for the continua- tion of 5,000 vouchers a year rests on the need to fulfil a comparatively small and final commitment at an early date.

If the right hon. Gentleman can confirm a total of about 40,000 as definite and final, of course he has a strong case and I admit it. But if it is much higher or indefinite, I must tell him that I hold to my view that, in the current situation, we should substantially reduce the number of vouchers below the 5,000, particularly when we remember that the 1968 Act, introduced by the Prime Minister when he was Home Secretary, put the figure at 1,500.

I turn to the dependants of those who are already here. A great many people who press to stop all further immigration would, I believe, still consider that a man who came here some time ago believing that one day he could be joined by his wife and children should not be denied that expectation. In any case, I do not see how it could be justified as either humane or fair to deny some husbands a right which had been granted to others in similar circumstances.

Unfortunately, the publication of the Hawley Report has aroused fears of widespread abuse and of large numbers being able to claim entrance. Once again, therefore, action is needed if certainty and finality are to be achieved.

It is for this reason that I believe that it would help to have a register of dependants compiled in this country. Heads of households who came here before 1st January 1973 should have the right to register their dependants. A date would be set for the closing of the register. Those who came in on work permits in the future—I trust in small numbers—or those accepted for settlement—also, I hope, a sharply diminishing number—would have to understand that they came in without any automatic right for their dependants. I realise that there may be snags in such a register, but it offers a means of obtaining a clear guide as to the exact size of the commitment, and I ask the Home Secretary to have the administrative details carefully studied.

We then have to consider the categories of dependants who should be entitled to be put on the register. It would surely be accepted in the main that humane considerations and our commitment are confined to a wife and children. As a start, therefore, each head of household should be entitled to enter one wife. We are a basically monogamous society and should operate on that basis.

There are two other categories who are sometimes admitted at present, certainly under stringent conditions, but who do not seem to me to qualify for the register. They are children over 18 and under 21 and parents and grandparents over 65. I accept at once that these are not large categories and that there may be compassionate circumstances when they should be admitted, but they would be more appropriately dealt with by a separate application, with admittance made subject to the Home Secretary's discretion.

There is then the question of the age below which children should be admitted. Both in the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration and in some educational circles opinions have been expressed to the effect that the age should be reduced to below 18. A judgment on this difficult question can best be made once the register has disclosed the numbers involved. I suggest that it should be permissible to register children under 18 in accordance with present rules, but such an approach underlines the importance of making clear from the start that inclusion on the register does not convey an automatic right to an entry certificate, particularly not to entry at a given moment on time.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall)

The right hon. Gentleman is not correctly conveying the view of the Select Committee when he says that it took a positive view. It observed that the age limit for children of people coming here for settlement from the new Commonwealth was 16 and that it was put up to 18 by the previous Conservative Government, which brought it into line with Common Market family rights.

Mr. Whitelaw

I think that the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) will give me the credit for being careful in the words which I used. What I said was that both in the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration and in some educational circles opinions have been expressed to the effect that it should be reduced. I do not think the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else in the House, would deny that proposition. We must discover the total numbers involved in this category and consider the serious position of schools in many areas. I believe that judgment should be deferred until the register has disclosed the number involved.

My reason for believing that inclusion on the register should not confer an automatic right to an entry certificate is the inherent difficulty of estimating the numbers likely to be on the register, and people's views vary widely.

Mr. George Cunningham (Islington, South and Finsbury)

is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the child of an immigrant, the child being already here, should not have the right to bring in his or her spouse if he or she marries a spouse from outside this country?

Mr. Whitelaw

Perhap the hon. Gentleman will wait until the later part of my speech. I think that he would be the first to agree with me that fiancés—to which he is referring in the main—by their nature would not come within the register of dependants who would be put down in advance. I shall come to the fiancé a little later.

Some people think that the figures on the register would be low. If they were as low as is occasionally suggested, we should have comparatively easy decisions to take. But if, as many fear, the figures were very high, we might have to institute a quota system of entry for those who were accepted to enable us to absorb them satisfactorily.

There is one last category who are presently admitted but who by their nature could not be dealt with in a register of dependants. I refer to male and female fiancés. The figures of those accepted for settlement, particularly since the Home Secretary gave the concession for male fiancés, show a considerable increase. In 1973, for some reason which escapes me as there was no concession for male fiancés at that time, 137 arrived. The right hon. Gentleman gave the concession in June 1974, and in that year the number rose to 1,777. In 1975 the number rose to 3,685—a very significant increase. The figures for female fiancées were 2,708 in 1973, 3,864 in 1974 and 4,402 in 1975.

There is no doubt that if these increases were to continue they would have widespread repercussions in future. In his instructions to immigration officers drawn up in 1968 the Prime Minister felt obliged to withdraw the concession to male fiancés. In these days of sex equality, such discrimination becomes more difficult but if, as is widely suggested, there are abuses, I hope that the Home Secretary will ensure that they are investigated and, if they are proved, that those concerned are sent back to their country of origin. I fear that if it were proved that concessions for fiancés were becoming a widely exploited loophole they would have to be revoked.

I ask the Home Secretary to give his views on how the provisions for fiancés are working and on their future impact. I emphasise that they could have considerable repercussions, although I appreciate that if there were no fiancé arrangement it would still be possible for those settled here to go back to their countries of origin and to bring in a spouse. Whatever may be the merits of that arrangement, there is less opportunity for abuse and much less likelihood of it.

As we face all these difficult and detailed problems. I hope that the Government will actively seek the co-operation of the representatives of the various ethnic minority groups in this country. I have found on talking to them a clear understanding of the extent to which the future happiness and security of those in their communities here depend on the traditional tolerance of the British society. They know, too, that it is essential not to stretch this too far. Although they will naturally have their own points of view, I hope and believe that they would be ready to help.

In conclusion, I must state my firm conviction that we in this House should discuss problems in the closely-related subjects of immigration and race relations frequently and objectively. I pray that we shall be able to do so calmly and without emotion, bitterness or party bickering, since we owe that to many anxious and troubled people in all the communities in this country. Only in this way can we hope to convince our critics that we are not seeking to run away from the difficulties in some carefully-contrived cover up operation.

Many genuine people, entirely free from any racial prejudice, want reassurance. At a time when they see over- crowding, stress and strain in their own areas, they are upset by rumours and statements from those who play on fears for their own ends. They need to have their confidence restored. They must be told the whole truth about the situation and be convinced that they have been given all the facts. That is the task facing the Government and all of us in this House.

We shall succeed only if we can give to all our people the prospect of an end to immigration and a clear sense of finality and certainty in our plans. The Home Secretary has the major responsibility. I trust that today he will give a clear lead in meeting this challenge.

4.2 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Roy Jenkins)

I welcome the tone of the speech by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and I also particularly welcome his forthright declarations about racial equality, our intractable opposition to intolerance and the complete equality before the law of all people legally in this country, whatever their colour. I also welcome the fact that he rightly raised some important and difficult questions about immigration and did so with a recognition of the fact that there are complications, difficulties and balances to be struck in this matter.

In the course of my speech in its natural and, I hope, reasonably logical, order, I shall be able to deal with nearly all the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

I am glad that this debate is taking place. The view is sometimes expressed in this House—though not universally—that some topics, of which immigration may be one, are so sensitive that they are better not debated at all or not debated too frequently. I do not share that view and nor, clearly, does the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border.

When a matter is difficult and delicate it does no good simply to ignore it, though it is also crucial, as I believe the great majority of hon. Members recognise, that we should approach our speeches in such a debate, particularly in present circumstances, with a new sense of responibility. At the preent time, considerable importance attaches to what is said in this debate. Public concern about immigration policy has undoubtedly been increased in the past few weeks by a series of events, beginning with, but not only associated with, the so-called four-star hotel incident.

There has also been a deterioration—I hope short term—in race relations. It would be foolish not to recognise that fact. There are fears and anxieties in both the majority and the immigrant communities. We can all see how these fears and anxieties spring, to a large degree, from uncertainty about the future. For the white majority there is anxiety about the effectiveness of immigration policy and control and about future immigration. In the immigrant community, there are fears about the security of their place here and their rights of equal treatment and opportunity and the full protection of the law.

These anxieties and fears, quite as much as objective facts about housing, jobs, schools, health and welfare services, breed tensions inimical to good community relations—which is a rather worn and threadbare term for the wellbeing of our society and therefore of us all.

I share wholeheartedly the view expressed so clearly by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border in our briefer debate six weeks ago and again today that the restoration and maintenance of public confidence depends on the removal of uncertainty, as far as this is possible. He called for the utmost frankness in dealing with these matters. By its nature, this is primarily a task for the Government, but it is also one for the House as a whole and I hope that we shall all consider carefully what we say on this question.

I propose to examine the basic elements of our immigration policy, its present effects and the way it is working, to examine the scope for changing the system and, finally, to look a little ahead.

Any policy towards immigration and race relations must start from where we are today and not from some different position to which some people in the House and country think or wish we could go back. First, we have a community made up of a preponderant indigenous majority and a small, but nevertheless substantial, minority of different ethnic origins with family ties in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean. This part of our community is now developing into a second generation.

Secondly, the British people occupy a largely urban, densely populated, industrialised island of limited size, possessed still of great natural and human resources but also with real economic and social problems and limitations. Our imperial history, combined with the maldistribution of wealth and prosperity in the world, has traditionally produced strong pressures to migrate to this country.

These are basic facts. They necessitate both a strict limit on the amount and rate of inward immigration for settlement and an acceptance of certain well-defined obligations to those we have already accepted here and who are settled.

Where is the right balance to be struck between the need for limitation and obligations both in law and moral commitment? The crux of the issue is whether the two can be combined. Some people think that they cannot. I believe that they can, though I do not believe that it is an easy problem.

Our obligations are fairly well known to the House and I do not intend to give a lengthy exposition of them. We have two main obligations. First, we have the special voucher scheme for United Kingdom passport holders who are heads of households. This is currently limited to 5,000 a year. I shall come in a moment to the proposition that this number might be reduced. Secondly, there are the dependents, essentially the wives and children of those already settled here. By that, I do not mean the dependants of the heads of household who are United Kingdom passport holders. I mean the dependants of those mainly, but not exclusively, from the Indian sub-continent who are legally settled here at present.

Voucher holders with their families and the separate category of other dependants of those already here together accounted for about 95 per cent. of the 34,000 admitted to this country for settlement last year from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan. The remaining 5 per cent. were mostly husbands of women already here settled.

There are, additionally, those already here in a temporary capacity, who are accepted for settlement with the removal of their previous conditions of stay. The number of New Commonwealth and Pakistan citizens already here, and so accepted last year, was 19,000. Nearly 8,000 of them were people who were resident here before the Immigration Act 1971 came into force and who also have at least five years' residence. As such they are, under the terms of the 1971 Act, immune from removal. This follows directly from the Act of our predecessors. Freeing them from conditions does not in itself increase the numbers here. No one arriving after the end of 1972, or 1st January 1973, which was when the Act came into operation, automatically acquires that immunity, so after the end of 1977 that particular avenue of automatic settlement will in effect be closed.

Of the remaining 11,000, that is, out of the 19,000 for whom conditions were removed, 8,000 were men and women already in this country who married someone with a right of residence here. They did not come to marry; they were already here, but without permanent right of residence, and they married someone with a permanent right of residence and thereby acquired it themselves. Rather more than half of that 8,000 were women.

The remaining 3,000 of the 19,000 were people such as, for example, dependants of work permit holders who were already here temporarily and for whom the grounds for allowing them to stay were individually clear cut and persuasive —in other words, where individual discretion was applied, as the right hon. Gentleman urged it should be applied more widely, but not too generously, in relation to other categories. I shall come to that matter shortly.

This is the basis and those are the elements of immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan.

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

In respect of these obligations, does my right hon. Friend agree that in practice very often they are actually borne by people who are already under some disadvantage? East London, for example, has always been a very tolerant place, but feeling there at present is quite strong. If the Government have an international obligation, which many of us support, do they not have some obligation to divert resources from the rest of South-East England into the London dockland area in particular, and to do it quite soon?

Mr. Jenkins

I understand my hon. Friend's wish, from a constituency point of view and a wider point of view, to get that point in. I think that he would agree that perhaps it was not directly bearing upon the rather close arguments about numbers that I was endeavouring to deploy. However, of course there is force in his point, and some of the areas in which immigrants are congregated are areas that would be difficult areas even if immigrants were not there. This is something that any Government must bear closely in mind in their allocation of resources. This is not the first time that I have become aware of this issue, but I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the matter again.

I want to deal with a point that arose early in the right hon. Gentleman's speech and to which he devoted considerable attention—the United Kingdom passport holders who are heads of household, who have no other citizenship and who wish to come here with their families. The special voucher scheme has one purpose, and one only—to regulate the arrival of these people in a controlled and orderly way. The right hon. Gentleman half suggested—though conditionally, on a point to which I shall come shortly—that one ought to consider whether it was right to maintain the figure of 5.000, and he said that he might prefer it to be reduced to some lower level, say, 3,500, at which it was previously. I think that this would be a mistake on any assumption other than that of repudiating our obligation to these United Kingdom passport holders, and I know that that is not the right hon. Gentleman's assumption. I shall explain why it would be a mistake.

First, let me say, however—it is necessary—that I foresee no case, and have no plans, for any increase in the number of vouchers. I equally believe, on balance, that any notional benefit from a reduction would be illusory. There are at present no queues for special vouchers in East Africa, except to a small extent in Malawi, so people are coming at a controlled rate and without the tensions or strains and, in particular, in the overwhelming majority of cases, without the loss of means and possessions which delay following loss of livelihood has brought about in the past.

Opinion is sensitive, and understandably so, to the very small number who arrive here without means and have at the start to be publicly supported. My policy is designed to keep that number to the absolute minimum, although I cannot and should not say that where a United Kingdom passport holder with no other nationality has been rendered destitute by arbitrary action abroad he should, as an additional penalty, be denied right of refuge as well. However, were we to reduce the number of vouchers we would inevitably, over a period, be running the risk of almost certainly increasing the number who arrive without means, because we would be creating queues, where there are very few at present, of those who are deprived of their livelihood, who would use up their resources and would arrive here without means and, therefore, create exactly the situation which now occurs very rarely but which, understandably, occasions great concern. We would be making that more frequent and more likely.

The right hon. Gentleman said, however—I welcome this—that he would be prepared to accept the 5,000 limit and not press for a reduction if I were to reaffirm that the figure I gave in the previous debate is believed to be sound and right as a maximum from Africa of United Kingdom passport holders. I can and do. Indeed, I would stress the view that it is a maximum figure and that the actual number could now well be significantly less. Thus we can foresee the end of the United Kingdom passport holder Asian-African commitment. Nearly all those who wish to come will have done so, at the present rate, within the next 18 months to two years. This commitment is, therefore, in the fullest sense, finite.

On this specific point, the right hon. on the previous occasion that the number that I was inadvertently less than clear on the previous occasion that the number that I am talking about, as opposed to the number of vouchers, is 40,000. The figure of approximately 40,000 includes the United Kingdom passport holder heads of households and their dependants of any nationality in East Africa who are eligible to come here. Therefore, whether or not they are the dependants of United Kingdom passport holders does not affect the numbers about which I am talking.

Mr. Peter Hordern (Horsham and Crawley)

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, I tabled a Question to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the number of United Kingdom passport holders who were eligible to come to this country. The Home Secretary has rightly dealt with the number of these United Kingdom passport holders who live in East Africa. However, what is the position in regard to those, some Asians, who were formerly in East Africa and who now live in India, of which there are 25,000? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is just as deep an obligation to those 25,000 as there is to the other 40,000 he has just mentioned?

Mr. Jenkins

We have had this argument before. I think it is generally recognised in the House that those who are United Kingdom passport holders and have no other citizenship have a claim which most of us would recognise as legal. I refer to their legal claim, as opposed to their moral one.

The right hon. Gentleman urged me, as others have done, to try to get the Governments of the sub-continent, and in particular the Indian Government, to take more of their nationals who are dispossessed and turned out of East Africa. I hope that to some extent that has been possible, and that it will continue to be possible, but where we are dealing with United Kingdom passport holders in India the ethnic position is not that which prevails in Africa, and therefore there is a different point of view. I have not included United Kingdom passport holders in India in the 40,000 figure. The figure that the right hon. Gentleman gave was approximately right, but I hope and believe that a similar situation will not arise in relation to them because of the difference of their ethnic relationship to the majority of the population.

Mr. George Cunningham

So that we are clear on the factual position, may we take it that when my right hon. Friend refers lo people in East Africa that includes Zambia and Malawi?

Mr. Jenkins

The figures that I gave are for those in what is normally referred to as East Africa, and therefore there is a little geographical confusion. The figures include those in Kenya. Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia and Zaire. They therefore include all the African countries—whether East African or not—in which there are United Kingdom passport holders.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

Will the right hon. Gentleman please deal with the thousands of others—

Mr. Jenkins

I shall not give way.

Mr. Stanbrook

—in Malaysia and Singapore?

Mr. Jenkins

I have given the House as much information as I can. I have given way a number of times, and I should now be allowed to proceed with my speech.

There is a second and separate category, the entitled close dependants of those already settled here.

Mr. Whitelaw

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the British nationality law. Surely the importance of dealing with the law at an early date is that it would, or should, answer some of the points which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).

Mr. Jenkins

A great deal of work has been done on that. I know that the right hon. Gentleman would like to see results more quickly, and we are near to being able to put something before the House, but the mere fact of putting something before the House on this extremely tangled subject will not automatically solve the problem to which the House will have to address itself. But we are fairly far advanced with this, and I hope that it will be possible to put something before the House reasonably soon.

As I was saying, there is the second and separate category, the entitled close dependants of those already settled here. This has nothing to do with United Kingdom passport holders. The essential rôles governing admission are clear and tightly drawn. Apart from wives, it provides for the admission of children under 18, the age of majority, with a little room for flexibility towards, for example, unmarried daughters under 21 who have remained part of their family unit.

As to dependants more generally, the terms of the Immigration Rules as they apply to such cases are equally clearly drawn. We are here dealing with old age and bereavement, isolation, dependency on grown up-children and distress, and it is better—I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman here—to set out openly and clearly in the rules what the practice is in such cases than to operate on the basis of an informal unpublished concession with the same results. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would want to have too much discretion were he to occupy my office. There must be some discretion certainly, but not on a wide range of cases. It would not help to have too much ministerial discretion operating outside the rules.

Mr. Whitelaw

If I may put the last of my thoughts to the right hon. Gentleman, I was referring to the limited category that I thought would be better dealt with in that way than by a register such as I was proposing.

Mr. Jenkins

The right hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned old age. I am about to come to that. The age limit of 65 for entry as an elderly dependent relative, except for widowed mothers, corresponds to the normal age of retirement in the United Kingdom. I do not believe that it would be defensible—and the right hon. Gentleman did not suggest it—to discriminate by raising the age still further for the dependants of those settled here. Moreover —and I stress this—there has to be clear evidence of dependency and of the means of support available here before the aged parent or other distressed relative can be admitted. There has to be clear evidence that the children settled here are able, willing and anxious to support out of their own resources the person concerned.

The operation of these rules must be kept under review, and that is done on a continuing basis. Equally, it must, I think, be clear to hon. Members that occasional apparently harsh decisions in particular cases are inevitable and necessary if the general acceptance of the need for control is not to be frustrated. Given the disparity between the standards of living here and in the sub-continent it is not surprising that contrived or false relationships, or false intentions or false statements about family circumstances, may be claimed in particular cases. But it is not, in my view, in the public interest for either Ministers or hon. Members dealing with cases to let such cases through without the most careful examination because of natural pressure from individuals in their constituencies.

I turn now to the concession that I introduced in June 1974 after pressure from both sides of the House and much opinion outside, in putting the admissibility of husbands and male fiancés on a basis comparable with that of wives and fiancées. I do not think that the fiancé point is, in general, the significant one. The significant point is whether to allow women—whether they be indigenous British, people with the right of settlement, or those who have acquired British nationality—to bring in and live with their husbands here. The question whether one adds fiancés broadly, subject to what I shall say later, merely determines the place of marriage and the profits of airline companies: it does not bear directly on the core of the argument about the concession. This is a clear issue, and it is the only significant alteration that I have made to the Immigration Rules since I returned to the Home Office.

Let me deal first with numbers. Last year, about 3,600 women already here with a right of residence, married men who were thereupon accepted for settlement on marriage—after being admitted temporarily as fiancés or in some other capacity—and another 1,500 already settled and married, brought their husbands to join them. That was substantially fewer than the number of men already settled here bringing in wives.

This year I would expect the number of husbands or male fiancés to be greater, but not dramatically so. The number so far has fallen somewhat short of what I expected when the concession was introduced, but of course the long-term immigration effect will turn upon the extent to which young women—and their parents—in this country will look abroad for husbands. The answer to that question cannot possibly yet be given, since the concession is still so new.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)

The indications from overseas posts are that the right hon. Gentleman is rather optimistic. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the queue of applicants in New Delhi alone is 55 per cent. comprised of male financeés? There are already dramatic signs of an increased growth in this sector.

Mr. Jenkins

I am not being optimistic or pessimistic. I am trying to outline what I believe to be the facts. To some extent there are necessary uncertainties here. It is true that the queue in New Delhi is to some significant extent composed of the category that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. This was not the case in other countries in the sub-continent, and it was due partly to the fact that the queue of other dependants in New Delhi had shrunk and had gone very near towards disappearing.

Let me deal with one misunderstanding. A husband admitted or accepted for settlement does not carry with him any general right of entry for other members of his family, as is sometimes supposed. Apart from the children of a widower by his first marriage, who marries again, it is essentially only the very narrow category of elderly dependent parents and grandparents with private support available here, and not elsewhere, who may eventually qualify as a result of a husband being settled by way of marriage.

The basic issue here is not simply one of numbers. We cannot avoid this addition to numbers unless we either keep out all husbands—which would be across-the-board sex discrimination—which would affect the right of English-born wives to bring in an American or Australian husband, or by keeping out those from the sub-continent, which would be straightforward racial discrimination. I could not, and would not, defend either of these two forms of blatent discrimination.

I believe that facts about the long-term effect of this concession rely on some exaggeration of the likely continuation of arranged marriages. The propensity to go on with arranged marriages, and, hence potentially marriages to men from overseas, in inherently unlikely to stay at the level of the parent culture. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I think there is substantial evidence. I am not saying that they will disappear completely. I am saying that as one moves into the second generation it is inherently unlikely that exactly—

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Beaconsfield)

rose—

Mr. Jenkins

If the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me I will not give way. It is inherently unlikely that exactly the same pattern will persist—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am not saying that it will disappear completely in any sense. No one can be certain about that. I can only express an opinion and other hon. Members can only express an opinion.

Mr. Michael Shersby (Uxbridge)

Is the Home Secretary aware that in my experience it is very much the second generation of youngsters who are returning to their country in order to participate in arranged marriages? I can see no evidence at all, from my own experience in my own constituency, that there is any diminution of this practice.

Mr. Jenkins

We cannot be certain what will happen. I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman compares that with the first generation because the first generation were mostly married when they came here. It is a judgment which none of us can be certain about. I do not wish to press the point too far.

Mr. Ronald Bell

The right hon. Gentleman resisted this for a long time. He was under no great pressure to allow male fiancées and husbands and he said that he would not allow it because of abuses. I wonder whether he could tell us why he has changed his judgment about that.

Mr. Jenkins

I did not say that I would not allow it because of abuses. I did not resist it for a long time. I became Home Secretary for the second time at the beginning of March 1974 and when it was first put to me I did not immediately make the alteration. I made it in June, and I would not describe March to June as a very long time. I was hesitant about it not necessarily because of abuses but because, while I thought that there would not be very large numbers, I thought that there would be substantial numbers involved. I had to weigh up that consideration. I hope that I am not insensitive about the question of numbers. I decided that the arguments of treating men and women on the basis of equality in this respect were stronger. Those arguments were taken strongly in this House, and outside, and I believe it right to accept them.

None the less, while the reason I paused was not abuse, I acknowledge that the concession then left some room for abuse by way of marriages of convenience aimed solely at achieving entry or avoiding removal. I am not talking about arranged marriages, which under Asian culture can be just as real and lasting as any other marriages. I am talking about essentially bogus or artificially contracted marriages. There is sufficient evidence to justify counter measures. I am not yet satisfied that a change in the rules themselves, while maintaining the concession generally is called for, or whether we can control abuses within the present framework, but I am examining urgently possible proposals to deal, in particular, with cases involving a bogus marriage designed to avoid removal for breach of conditions or illegal entry.

It should be said that action which follows will bite on bogus marriages generally whether the skin colour is white, brown or black. Such contrivances to defeat the controls are not confined to those wishing to immigrate from, or avoid removal to, the sub-continent.

Then there is the particular question of illegal entry: the numbers detected and detained are small—fewer than 200 last year. That is despite a great increase in the intelligence and detection effort including close operational cooperation with the authorities in neighbouring countries. I think that is important to emphasise.

As I made clear to the House ten days ago at Question Time, I am totally opposed to illegal entry. I regard it as a potential threat to sound immigration policies and to good community relations. Leaders of the immigrant communities have assured me in the past few weeks that they agree and share my determination to see it dealt with firmly and effectively. Those illegal immigrants who are caught are, save for exceptional or compelling reasons, removed and those who organise it can expect to get no mercy from the courts.

Overstaying by those who enter lawfully for some temporary purpose, as opposed to illegal entry as such, is a more substantial problem for the system of control. The amount of illegal entry as such is generally exaggerated. I think that overstaying is a more substantial problem. The 1971 Act limited the effects by removing the right of settlement from someone completing five years' residence even where that residence was the fruit of over-staying. But the abuse remains. Dealing with it, as with other kinds of attempts to defeat the control, is a task requiring firm, fair and properly judged action by the Home Office and the police. They have my full support in that task, and I can assure the House that there is great and detailed knowledge and experience of the many ploys in the game.

I raised these issues, both of illegal entry as such and of overstaying, with the Ambassador for Pakistan and the High Commissioners for India and Bangladesh when they came to see me last week. They assured me that neither they nor their Governments had any sympathy with that practice and they assured me of their co-operation in dealing with it. This is a valuable offer which I am certainly pursuing.

I acknowledge the doubts and fears about future migration which are felt by many of the majority community. One suggestion, which has attracted general interest on the other side of the House, and on this side of the House to some extent, and among some leaders of the immigrant community and the Heads of Missions, is that of a register for dependants to which the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border applied himself. I see its attractions but I also see its difficulties. Should there, for example, be sanctions for failure to register? How would the results be applied? How much would the register cost?

Such a register was introduced in 1965 but a year's experience of its operation at that time led to the decision to wind it up as serving no useful purpose.

I, none the less, do not believe it would be right at the present time to reject the idea out of hand because of some obvious but, as yet unmeasured, stumbling blocks. Nor would it be right for me to sweep aside for presentational reasons the real arguments of difficulty put to me by those who would have to do the work concerned with the register. I am anxious to carry the House, and outside opinion, with me on this matter. I wish the discussion to be an open and in no way a hidden one.

I therefore propose the appointment of a parliamentary group of no more than three Members, one from each side and perhaps an independent chairman from the other place, to look into the feasibility and usefulness of such a scheme with all the problems and evidence available to them from official resources. I will willingly enter into immediate discussions with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border about the membership of such a group.

I would propose that its remit be fairly narrowly defined in this way, both because I have taken note of the expressed view of the Select Committee that it intends to look into the wider assumptions about our future commitments, and because I wish the group to report as soon as possible. Indeed, after discussion with the chairman, I will ask the members of the group to carry out their work within a specified time limit. The report of this group will of course be published, for it is right that the issues that it raises should be fully open to public discussion and that no suggestion be made that the Government are themselves feeding uncertainty by coming to public conclusions without public debate.

I began by saying that uncertainty is the root of fear and anxiety. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly made and taken opportunities in recent weeks to reiterate the Government's wholehearted commitment to the basic commitments—to the special voucher holders and the dependants of those already settled. I have stated our position in greater detail today. I hope once again that the minority community will not be misled into unnecessary fear and anxiety on that score. Our determination to ensure good community relations is unswerving. There is no room for racial hatred in our crowded island. We cannot afford not to make a success of a multi-racial society.

A moving speech was made the other day in the other place by Lord Pitt, himself a distinguished citizen of London of West Indian origin. In that speech, he looked forward hopefully to a harmonious multiracial Britain setting an example to the world. He spoke on a high level of moral seriousness, but reminded us too that our self-interest is also served by racial harmony and tolerance.

I agree with that view, and would share Lord Pitt's hope, but I do not see it as an easy or even a certain outcome, at any rate in this generation. Its accomplishment will depend on the minority community accepting that this country will not take, in Lord Pitt's own words, a "large and unending stream" of dependants, and on the majority community accepting that tolerance is one of the greatest and most traditional of British virtues and that if that tradition is broken we shall all of us suffer deeply, both minority and majority, and suffer for many years to come.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Mr. Speaker desires me to say that pressure to participate in this debate is very severe indeed. With all the good will in the world, it will be a sheer impossibility to call every hon. Member who wishes to speak. Nevertheless, if right hon. and hon. Members will limit their speeches to the minimum necessary to make their points, it will be possible to get more hon. Members into the debate. Mr. Speaker therefore appeals to the House to help the Chair in this matter by limiting speeches as much as possible. I call Mr. Bidwell.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Ealing, Southall)

In response to your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would say that there seemed just now to be more pressures to participate from the other side of the House than from this—

Mr. Whitelaw

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it reasonable to call two hon. Members running from the same side of the House. It is somewhat unusual. You may have a good reason, Sir, but it is unusual.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I regret that it was due to an error by the Chair. I shall put it right in the course of the debate.

Mr. Bidwell

I was saying that the pressures to participate in this debate did not seem so great on this side of the House as on the other side of the House. Since we shall therefore probably hear more voices from that side, I shall try to be brief, especially since I believe that shorter speeches are more effective.

I did not take part in the debate in May initiated by the hon. Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) and I was not free to listen attentively to it, but it made a considerable amount of national news. I am therefore returning now to the immigration debate. Only once in my parliamentary career, which began in 1966, have I failed to take part in any debate on immigration. I was therefore somewhat taken aback by the remarks of the hon. Member for Thanet, East and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—for whom, apparently, enough is enough, since he is not here today.

I do not believe that the ethnic minorities will thank the hon. Member for Thanet, East for the broad terms in which he initiated that debate, although he made an accomplished speech, obviously based on a great deal of painstaking research. It is not enough to confine any consideration of immigration to the narrow assessment of the effects of New Commonwealth immigration without taking into account the continuous and considerable immigration from other countries—even if it is not as great as it would be if the British economy were thriving. There is also immigration, connected with family obligations, of aliens and those from the Iberian Peninsula.

Ironically, if Greece joins the Common Market, her citizens will have a much freer right of entry into this country under the rules of free movement of capital and labour than the Greek and other citizens of Cyprus and the rest of the New Commonwealth.

Mr. Aitken

Reverting to what the hon. Member said about the debate which I initiated on a Private Member's motion, will he accept that strict immigration control is the friend rather than the enemy of good race relations? Secondly, will he not accept that it must be beneficial to both the immigrant community and the host community that this House has now debated strict immigration control twice in seven weeks instead of once in seven years?

Mr. Bidwell

It was the hon. Gentleman's own Government's measures of 1971 which put an end to the annual discussion of immigration on the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. The common feeling in the House at the time was that we needed law which would be seen to be fair and that immigration would then no longer be a constant preoccupation of the House. It is because the rules in the 1971 Act are not fair that this subject continues to come before the House and to baffle the public.

The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) made a proposal today which is worthy of examination, as is any proposal on this subject, but it could well confuse an already confused situation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to a "tangled" situation. I would agree with that description, and our last debate did little to untangle it.

The immigration rules have come before the House twice. In Committee on the 1971 Act, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who was then the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, moved an amendment, with the support of the hon. Member for Rox-burgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel), the emerging leader of the Liberal Party, and of the present Prime Minister, myself and others, to remove the concept of patriality. Some hon. Members seem to want to apply strict controls. The question is, strict control of what? Do they mean strict control of all human beings—white and black—entering Britain? Do they mean strict control of people having family rights and coming here to live and work here?

Tory Members in particular seem to be worried about the potentialities of immigration from Hong Kong and elsewhere. We have been an Imperial power with worldwide connections. Let them consider the concept of patriality in connection with Australia, New Zealand and Canada, and recognise the potential there and the possibilities of people coming here from those countries. A certain nonsense emerges if one is thinking genuinely in terms of immigration as a whole—white and black, brown, and black and white.

That is why the rules have emerged in the Common Market that once the worker establishes his right to work, which he can do after six months if he gets employment, he has family rights. That is how we got the 18-year-old movement. The 1971 Act was kept in abeyance until our membership of the Common Market was sewn up. Workers from the New Commonwealth were pretty well eclipsed under such arrangements. There have been very few new workers—that is, bread winners—coming in from the New Commonwealth.

I accept the Home Secretary's viewpoint that this is a very tangled situation and that one cannot apply a blanket view to all the world. The movement is likely to be from those parts of the Commonwealth whose people would find it an advantage to come to Britain to work, whereas people in Common Market countries do not see it as much of an advantage to come to Britain to work.

Illegal immigration into Britain is not confined to New Commonwealth citizens. There is almost a total eclipse of illegal immigration from the West Indies. As my right hon. Friend said, far more of it derives as regards the sub-continent from people overstaying initial visits and all sorts of attendant factors. There can be no ultimatum here. Although I agree with what the Home Secretary said about having the rules drawn as tight as they can be made, the Home Secretary will always have to have a considerable area of discretion where human movement is concerned. That is, it always has been, and it always will be, one of the principal aspects of his job.

Suddenly someone overseas is widowed or is left in some other capacity on her own but not wholly dependent upon a breadwinner here. She is left in misery. Such cases must be considered and reconsidered by my right hon. Friend or by Minister charged with responsibility for immigration matters.

Mr. Ronald Bell

On the question of overstaying, we are talking not about people who ask for special consideration and to be allowed in at the Home Secretary's discretion but about those who come here as tourists or as students and who simply stay on and get lost. No question of attendant circumstances arises there.

Mr. Bidwell

We do not know what the factors are. During the amnesty arising from my right hon. Friend's measures in fulfilment of the promises made by the Labour Party at the General Election very few such people came forward.

Then there is the question of marriage. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border would encounter considerable opposition on both sides of the House if he sought to step back now from the obligation to accord equality to the spouses. When he spoke in the last debate I made a short intervention on that point, although I did not actually make a speech, and suggested to him that the arranged marriage is becoming a thing of the past. I have writen a book on this subject, but I had better not advertise it fully. I deal with this subject in the book.

I used to take the same view as some hon. Members seem inclined to take, that arranged marriages will continue ad infinitum. If any parent here believes that, however, he must believe that he has far greater control over his children than parents of Asian origin. Arranged marriages are fading, and my guess is that they are fading fast. Very often the party in this country wants to see the "found" partner abroad before committing himself to marriage. It is only one step from that to saying "On no account will I accept the suggested partner as a bride."

When my right hon. Friend was speaking along these lines I heard voices opposite suggesting that such would not be the case. Hon. Members opposite do not know what goes on under the bushes in Southall Park. They should not think that they will hold back young Asian people from what we call "natural selection". Some very fine marriages have resulted from the old Asian culture, but necessarily this culture will be modified and affected by the experience of living in this country.

One of the fears of elders of the Asian community in Southall is that they are tending to lose their grip over the young people. My prediction is that the substance of the unity of family life in Asian families will be retained and the mutual regard between the older and younger generations will continue.

According to my right hon. Friend, it was under the patriality rule that the Malawi Asian family entered this country. That sparked off a whole chain reaction. Very few members of British society understand the concept of patriality. Periodically Members of the House reveal an inability to understand this concept in the Questions they put to Home Office Ministers. New members of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigrations when traveling abroad astonish me by their failure to understand the rules that they put through the House and which apply under the 1971 Act.

Coloured people probably overrate the Act, because of that, as a racial Act. Recently produced figures show the short-term movement of people coming here and the longer-term and typical patterns. There never has been a mystery about these matters. Such mystery as there is has been conjured up in the fertile imagination of the hon. Member who initiated the debate a week or so ago. I have lived with the problem for many years, as Member of Parliament for Ealing, Southall. In fact, it sometimes seems that I have discussed little else since I have been in this House.

I will make one observation on the latest proposal of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border. Select Committees which have gone abroad have found that the bar to emigration is going up, because although in some countries there has been a surfeit of people to export, in the sub-continent concern is being expressed about the exodus of medical people—the kind of medical people whom the right hon. Member for Down, South was busily recruiting when he was Minister of Health in 1960–63. If one can accept the report in The Times in April 1971, according to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexam (Mr. Rippon), the right hon. Member for Down, South told him that there was no need to increase the nurses' pay because he could recruit on the open market overseas.

The right hon. Member for Down, South has had much to say on this subject and he has created considerable mischief outside the House—not inside the House because his views are not taken so seriously here as they are outside. He fans the blazes of racialism outside. He encourages the psychopathic racism which is assailing us. I am glad that there has been a total absence of that sort of thing in this debate.

Pressures could arise in this country in five to 10 years time if Pakistani bread winners decided to call their families here. That is exactly what happened when the first restrictions were imposed in 1962. During the different phases of the restrictions this is invariably what has happened. Indeed, it has happened in other countries as well as in this country. We in this country have an obligation to manage our economic affairs properly and to secure a return to full employment. Inevitably people overseas will wish to come and work here, and as a civilised society we are bound to ensure that family rights are acknowledged. This has happened in Germany and in France. People have gone to those countries from Algeria and Turkey, and likewise there has been an exodus from Southern Italy to Northern Italy. New Commonwealth citizens have been recruited by British employers overseas and they have come to this country. It has all happened in roughly the same period of time.

We must accept the basic principle of the right of family unity, and the continual exercise of discretion by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the observance of British principles. To be racist and to stir up racial hatred in Britain is to be anti-British, and the quicker we snap out of it the better.

5.5 p.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor (Croydon, North-West)

The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) opened his speech by saying that he believed short speeches were best, and he then spoke for 20 minutes. I shall not prolong my remarks by replying to many of his points.

I represent part of the London borough of Croydon, which has a substantial immigrant population. It is correct to say that relations between the different groups in the borough have been excellent for many years, and I am sure that they will continue to be so for many years to come.

It is also true to say that during the six years that I have been a Member I have regularly received letters from constituents protesting at the change in the character of the locality in which they live. Those letters have been couched in reasonable terms, but recently I have detected a change in their note. The volume of protest letters has substantially increased, and instead of reasonably questioning why the neighbourhood is changing the mood has now changed to an absolute demand to halt the process.

The area which I represent does not wish to be like Southall, which is synonymous with the Asian community. We wish to maintain our individuality, and we hope that the situation which exists in Southall will not be reached in North-West Croydon. Within the last fortnight I have received a petition on the subject signed by 1,300 Croydon citizens, and all the signatures were collected in the course of one morning by two ladies.

As a contrast to the attitude in the borough, when I hold my regular meetings with constituents the majority who come to see me are immigrant families and they all have one thing in common. They wish to be reunited with members of their families, and the reunions, of course, must always take place over here. I regret to say that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of these applications ever since the Home Secretary introduced his relaxation in June 1974 for the fiancés of young girls, which has been referred to in the speeches from both Front Benches.

Recently a father from the Indian subcontinent came to see me on behalf of his three daughters, each of whom was under 20 years of age and for each of whom he had arranged a marriage with a fiancé in India. Those girls have had marriages arranged for them on the briefest of acquaintanceships.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether any financial arrangements attend these arranged marriages?

Mr. Taylor

I have no reason to believe that that is so, but in any case, in my opinion, that is quite irrelevant to the point. These girls do not know the fianceés with whom their marriages have been arranged, and this practice is likely to continue for a reason which I shall make clear when I give my next example.

My next example relates to an occasion when the fiancé of a constituent was detained at Heathrow because he had arrived without the necessary certificate and entrance clearance papers. I did not support his efforts to jump the queue. I supported the action of the immigration officials at Heathrow, and he went back to India. I then had a meeting with the family who were to be his in-laws, and I asked "Why was it necessary to arrange this marriage to a man whom your daughter has not seen and who lives thousands of miles away?" I was told that no sensible Indian family would wish their daughter to marry an Indian already in this country, because such a man would have been Westernised.

I do not know what they mean by that expression. Perhaps they feel that an Indian who has been Westernised will take the marriage vows less seriously and that there will be a greater chance of the marriage breaking up. The family was insistent that the daughter should marry an Indian from the Indian subcontinent. That is more racialist than any other action one could think of, because it is a rejection of other races and customs and a rejection of our society's customs.

It is right that Mr. Hawley in his report, which I have not seen—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

It is in the Library.

Mr. Taylor

I shall read the report later. The report is correct if it concludes that the problem of marriage to Indians from the Indian sub-continent is infinite. My experience bears that out, although it is refuted by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the Home Secretary. Those in daily contact with the Indian community will take my view.

Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)

The only way in which the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) can solve what he considers to be the fiancé problem is by ensuring that no woman in Britain who marries a foreigner has a right to bring her husband to this country. Does he agree with that?

Mr. Taylor

Yes, I do. I would not discriminate between the sexes, because it applies equally to men and women. I would put the discretion in the hands of the Home Secretary. It is not right that anyone who is engaged to marry someone abroad has the automatic right to bring that person to this country.

Miss Joan Lestor

Is the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West disagreeing with arranged marriages or with marriages to anyone who lives abroad?

Mr. Taylor

I disagree with arranged marriages, but it would be difficult to legislate in a definitive way. I would therefore take away the automatic right of a person to bring her fiancé to this country.

Miss Joan Lestor

Like the Queen.

Mr. Taylor

The hon. Lady will have plenty of time to make her anti-loyalist points later.

The Home Secretary said that he totally disapproved of people coming to this country for short stays and that only in exceptional circumstances would he allow them to do so. He mentioned the London Airport problem, which, he said, created racialist feeling in the country. But a case in my constituency has created even greater passion than that at London Airport. It concerned a lady from Sierra Leone who arrived in Croydon in 1969 to join her student husband. They were permitted to stay until August 1970, but in January 1970 the student husband embarked for Sweden to study psychology and has not been seen since. When the case first came to my notice in November 1971, the lady had just produced a fourth child and professed herself dissatisfied with the accommodation provided for her by the taxpayer.

The Home Secretary agreed with me that the most sensible action would be to return the family to their natural environment in Sierra Leone, the Government of which gave them a new passport in 1972 for that purpose. They had never held a United Kingdom passport of any kind. On 21st March 1973 the Home Office formally refused them permission to stay here. In a parliamentary answer on 15th June that year I was told that the lady had been advised to give notice of appeal. By that time, I calculate that she had received in cash supplementary benefits of £1,600 together with other benefits in kind, such as a subsidised council flat and education for her older children.

On 20th August 1973 the appeal was heard and was dismissed by the adjudicator. The lady then asked leave to appeal against the decision of the adjudicator, and that was refused on 22nd November 1973. The Home Office served notice to deport her under Section 3(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971 but told her that she could appeal against the deportation notice and against the place of destination.

There was a change of Government in February 1974, and on 18th April 1974 her appeal against deportation was dismissed. In June 1974 she was refused leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. On 20th September 1974 the hon. Member for York, who was then Minister of State, Home Office, told me in a letter: The Home Secretary and I have now given the case very careful consideration and have decided that in view of the strong compassionate features of the case and especially the children's association with this country it would not be right to return the lady and her family to Sierra Leone. Her stay in this country will now be regularised. The latest chapter in the case is that the lady and her family, still on social security, called at the offices of the Croydon Advertiser on 29th March to complain that their council flat was inadequate. The history of the case is directly contrary to what the Home Secretary had said about his determination to return illegal immigrants. That lady had no right to be in this country or have a British passport.

I could give more examples because I hear of such cases frequently. A Tanzanian family—a mother and three children—arrived for a temporary stay of six months in 1972. They did not have a United Kingdom passport and on 31st August 1973 a deportation order was made against them. That lady is still here today and her children are being educated in this country.

All hon. Members with immigrants in their constituencies will know of cases of that nature which do so much harm to race relations. They do more harm than the London Airport incident, which was only of a temporary nature, because they fester sores in the community where such people live. I hope that in the future the Home Secretary will stick to the words he used today and be more firm than he has been in the past.

I support the idea of a register of dependants as proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). That would be a method of making the matter finite provided that no new impetus of immigrants was created by the fiancés of young Indians born in this country becoming engaged, through their parents, to men whom they have never seen and who live many thousands of miles away.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. Churchill (Stretford)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon North-West (Mr. Taylor) I have to declare a constituency interest, because there are more than 10,000 coloured immigrants in my constituency out of a population of 120,000, that is, about one third of the estimated coloured population of Lancashire. They come from the West Indies, the Indian sub-continent, West Africa, Malaya, Cyprus, Malta, and many other places.

It is a grave mistake to imagine that the problem applies only to coloured immigrants. In my constituency we have rather more immigrants from the Irish Republic than from the New Commonwealth countries. In addition, there are the refugees of an earlier generation—Poles, Hungarians and Ukranians, the victims of Nazism and Communism—who have come here to make their home. I only regret that, despite more than 30 years' residence in many cases, they have not been afforded the right to vote.

It is very important that in this debate we should draw attention to the good relations that exist between these communities and the majority community. Above all, we should pay tribute to the way in which British people, with enormous tolerance and friendship in the overwhelming majority of cases, have accepted into their midst a large number of people of an alien race, culture and religion.

It would be very dangerous to trespass too far on that tolerance and generosity, but I fear that we are in danger of doing that. It would be equally foolish to pretend that, even with the difficulties we have on our plate today, they do not present a grave problem: they do, indeed.

First, we cannot fail to recognise the deep bitterness that exists among ordinary people who one day were living in Lancashire and woke up the next day in New Delhi, Calcutta, or Kingston, Jamaica. Above all, this affects the poorest section of the community. When an area starts to decline, a large immigrant population moves in. Those who are best equipped fin