House of Commons Hansard Debates for 2 Mar 1992

Column 44

following reasons : the identity card is primarily a civil liberties document and gives certainty of identity to an individual and entitles him or her to travel freely within the European Community without let or hindrance ; it offers the individual the opportunity to demand and receive services from the state ; and it helps in the suppression of crime. For example, the banking industry loses about £0.25 billion a year through cheque card fraud because of the lack of any suitable bona fide identity card.

I agree with the Association of Chief Police Officers that if such a card is to serve the purpose of freedom

"it should be the size of a normal credit card be incapable of being forged : it should have a unique background and a computer-readable internal strip it should be renewable at regular intervals the individual's fingerprint should be included the individual's place of birth and other suitable details should be included, including the National Insurance number".

We have had national insurance numbers for many decades in this country, but we do not exploit them to give people the services and advantages to which they are entitled.

I also agree with the association when it says :

"the individual's photograph should be sealed into the card, which should be self-defacing if tampered with" ;

and :

"the manufacture of the card should take into account current and developing technology".

If we adopt the identity card scheme, we shall not be alone within the European Community in having such a device. We shall have to decide whether it should be mandatory to carry it, and in what circumstances it should be produced for inspection. We should use the opportunity of our presidency of the European Community Commission to make progress on this matter urgently.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley) : The hon. Gentleman suggested that one's national insurance number should be included on the proposed identity card. We all have a national health service number as well and the hon. Gentleman will know that, for those of us who are old enough, it was our national identity number during the war when we had national identity cards. Would he want to include that number also on the proposed card?

Sir John Wheeler : I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the present absurd position. We have a series of numbers. We have a number on a driver's licence. Now there is to be a driver's licence that includes a photograph. It will become the de facto identity card for those fortunate British citizens who happen to have a driver's licence. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, there is a national health service number. There is also a national insurance number and a United Kingdom passport number. There are too many numbers. Few people remember any of them and they do not serve the best interests of British citizens. We should settle for one number and we should seize the opportunity to exploit that one number within the Community.

Mr. Spearing : The hon. Gentleman is making the case for a main identity card in the United Kingdom. Indeed, he has just said that we should exploit that at Community level. First, is that a personal view? Secondly, is he saying that we would solve the frontier problem which he mentioned earlier by granting freedom of entry and exit on production of such cards which would be valid throughout

Column 45

the Community? Would the cards and their national variants then be virtually cards of European citizenship, if the Maastricht treaty is endorsed?

Sir John Wheeler : The hon. Gentleman is right. In previous reports, the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended the adoption of a national identity card. We shall have to see what it will conclude in its report on this inquiry. It is my view--I believe that it is shared by many other members of the Committee, if not all--that we must grasp this opportunity and make progress. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that such an identity card would be the card of the European citizen. If the 350 million citizens of the European Community are to exploit the opportunities of being in the Community, they must have the certainty of identification. Other member states are already developing high-tech cards. The kingdom of Spain, for example, is working on one now. When we hold the presidency, we should lead the initiative in the interests of British citizens as well as those of the Community as a whole.

Mr. Mark Wolfson (Sevenoaks) : Does my hon. Friend agred that there is nothing to prevent us from developing the card for considerable valuable use in this country, whether or not it ultimately becomes relevant within Europe? Many of his arguments are highly relevant in this country first.

Sir John Wheeler : The arguments for the card are primarily those of civil liberties and the right to receive services. Imagine a pensioner or a recipient of social service benefits who possessed such a card. It would render an entitlement by electronic technology without the argument and debate that is so often the case now. It would be efficient and effective as a tool for delivering rights and services to individuals. It would have the secondary purpose of being the European Community travel passport and means of identity. Therefore, it would solve a number of problems. I agree with the thrust of my hon. Friend's question.

Dr. Godman : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir John Wheeler : I should like to make further progress. I want to continue for a moment on compensatory measures. British airports and sea ports and air and sea carriers are not prepared for the potential changes that would be necessary if the Government's view of the controls permitted at the internal frontier does not prevail. The changes will be costly. Irrespective of decisions about our frontiers, money will need to be spent on improving the control of the external frontier elsewhere in the Community and on improving visa-issuing procedures by some other member states. Important issues are at stake. They need full discussion in Parliament and in the country.

I am glad that the Select Committee on European Legislation has recognised the importance of these proposals. I look forward to a more detailed examination of immigration in the European Community context in Committee and in the Chamber in the near future. 5.5 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : When I sought to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), I wished to ask him whether I was right in presuming that the

Column 46

identity card would be extended to citizens of European Free Trade Association countries vis-a-vis the European economic area agreement.

These documents prompt several questions which I hope that the Minister will answer when he replies to the debate. The supplementary explanatory memorandum states :

"the Community has competence in relation to rights of free movement and residence under the Treaty of Rome and has issued a number of directives and regulations governing the exercise of those rights."

However, it continues :

"Under Article 100C, a new provision to be inserted into the Treaty of Rome by the Treaty on European Union, the Community will also have competence over the determination of the non-Member States whose nationals are to be subject to a visa requirement."

I know that that requirement will be subject to the ratification of this Parliament together with the other 11 Parliaments, but we seem to be shifting towards giving competence to the European Commission and taking it from national states.

Hon. Members who sought to talk about the implementation of the principle of subsidiary missed the boat. I am beginning to come to the conclusion that the concept of subsidiarity--perhaps I should say, the doctrine of subsidiarity--is worthless where Community officials are concerned, in terms of devolving political power to national legislatures, and even further to regional and local government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talked about some measures being given strength by unanimous support in the House of Commons. I remind the House that we gave unanimous support to the Bill that became the Merchant Shipping Act 1988. One of its most important sections was overturned or suspended by an interim judgment of the President of the European Court of Justice sitting on his own. In other words, an Act of Parliament, passed with support from both sides of this House, was overturned by the President of that court. I suspect that we might have a similar position here.

The European Community documents refer, among other things, to free movement of European Community nationals throughout the Community. The documents precede the European economic area agreement, so will the Minister confirm that the right of movement and travel will be extended to citizens of the 19 countries of the European economic area ?

Mr. Peter Lloyd indicated dissent.

Dr. Godman : I notice that the Minister is shaking his head. Is he saying that, as a result of that agreement, the citizens of the seven EFTA countries will not enjoy the rights outlined in article 8A and in articles 48 to 59 ? It seems to me that there is a case for suggesting that the citizens of the 19 countries will be given that freedom.

Mr. Lloyd : The treaty of Rome confers rights of movement on the nationals of EC countries, but it does not confer those rights on those who are not EC nationals.

Mr. Spearing : Not at the moment.

Dr. Godman : I note my hon. Friend's remark, but I am seeking to establish that the rights of movement contained in article 8A are confined to EC nationals and that the citizens of the seven EFTA nations will not be given those rights under the terms of the European economic area agreement.

Column 47

Mr. Lloyd : That is our interpretation of article 8A. We must consider what rights of movement might be given to residents of the Community who are not EC nationals. Clearly, that is a matter for the intergovernmental discussions that will take place under the new pillar structure that has come about as a result of Maastricht.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. However, the rights might be given by the European Commission in advance of membership being formally granted to the EFTA countries seeking membership of the European Community.

Mr. Lloyd : I shall try to clarify the point. Such residents will have rights within the countries party to the Schengen agreement, which have removed their internal frontiers. That is a matter for, and an agreement between, those countries. Our position is that that is not required by the treaty.

Dr. Godman : Again, I am grateful to the Minister.

In an earlier intervention, I asked the Secretary of State about the rights of third-country nationals long domiciled within the European Community, and whether different classes of citizens would arise. For example, would those from north African countries now living in France and immigrant workers from countries such as Turkey and Yugoslavia, who have been long domiciled in Germany, be given inferior status in comparison with the nationals of the 12 nations that make up the European Community?

The euphemistically named gastarbeiter in Germany and the immigrants working in France will not be given the same freedom of movement under article 8A and articles 48 to 59. If they are to be denied such rights to movement, will they be confined within the borders of the countries in which they now live? That would seem to be the case for several millions of people, many of whom have lived in such countries for many years.

In Germany, the Government actively encouraged people to move from countries such as Spain, Yugoslavia and Turkey to take up work when the German economy was booming. Some of those people have lived in Germany for more than 30 years. The same could be said of many people living in France.

I am concerned that those people will be denied the rights of free movement, travel and work in the 12 Community countries. We will be left with a group of people who will not have the rights given to all EC nationals. That is a matter for considerable concern.

The secretary to the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Elspeth Guild, has written to me to say :

"It is not conducive to the completion of the internal market that long term resident third country nationals should be subject to a fundamentally different regime in EC law as regards family life, deportation, employment or other immigration matters than EC nationals exercising free movement rights."

As I said to the Secretary of State earlier, many of the recent racist attacks in Germany and France have been directed against those migrant workers and their families. If the EC treats such people as inferior citizens, that encourages the vicious and horrible treatment that is meted out to them by their fellow EC citizens.

Those workers were encouraged to work in the EC just as many West Indians were encouraged to come here to work for the national health service, London Transport and other public agencies. After migrant workers have been resident in the EC for perhaps seven years, they

Column 48

should have equal rights to those enjoyed by EC nationals under the terms of the articles that I mentioned. I appreciate that we do not have such workers within the borders of the United Kingdom, but I should be interested to discover the Government's position on the status of immigrant workers.

Under the terms of the new directory--one could call it the "Yellow Pages"- -and assuming that it goes any further, if one of my constituents chose to live and work in any of the 11 EC countries, he or she would have the right to vote in municipal elections. That Greenockian would also have the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament. I suspect that the next stage would be the right to vote in domestic elections to national legislatures.

My constituents will have the right to travel freely throughout the other 11 countries of the Community--I suspect that they will be given the right to travel freely throughout the whole of the European economic area, despite the reservations that the Under-Secretary of State voiced--whereas immigrant workers long domiciled within the European Community, having been encouraged to come and work here, will be denied such rights. That is shameful.

The European Commission has much to answer for, because the measure will affect not only the immigrant workers and their families but also members of their families who still reside in their country of origin. It is difficult for immigrant workers in the European Community to encourage members of their families to visit them from their countries of origin. Such discrimination should be eliminated on the basis of a period of residence within the European Community. Nothing less will do.

Several Hon. Members rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. May I remind hon. Members of Mr. Speaker's appeal for brief speeches?

5.22 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East) : I shall make a brief speech, because there is just a small issue to consider. I hope that the Under- Secretary of State will answer the point clearly and precisely. The only issue that really matters is : if the European Court overturns the lovely outline of policies set out by the Home Secretary in his splendid speech, what will the Government do? This debate is about the fact that our whole immigration control policy could disappear so that we would have no effective parliamentary or governmental control. We all know that that is the issue. I also want to know why we are having this debate at such a good time. There is one reporter in the Press Gallery and plenty of people listening in the Public Gallery.

Why, when the Government usually have all the filthy, rotten, dirty, expensive, undemocratic issues in Europe discussed after 11 o'clock at night, is this issue being discussed in the afternoon when people can hear about it? We all know that the reason is that we have a decent Home Secretary who wants to fight for our rights and for democracy. He knows that it will be a tough battle with the European Community, and he is looking for support. However, he is not getting much support, with only a handful of hon. Members present, because most hon. Members do not like talking about the EEC.

Column 49

The Home Secretary will agree that the issue is terribly important. If the British people appreciate--as they will--the fact that our control of immigration is likely to disappear, they will be concerned about good race relations. Conservative and Opposition Members who, like me, want to keep good race relations in Britain know that that depends on people feeling that we have matters under control.

Much has already gone. We have heard about the double lock in Maastricht-- it sounds wonderful--but, sadly, we add to that what we committed ourselves to discussing and agreeing so quickly at Maastricht. It is all set out in the official documents : harmonisation of policies on admission ; harmonisation of admission for other purposes ; harmonisation of legal provisions ; and a common approach to illegal immigration. We have committed ourselves to working out agreements on what should go.

We now know that we have made a commitment that European nationals will be free to move. We must remember what an EEC national is--not just nice people who live in France, Germany and Italy. If the Community is extended, EEC nationals will include eastern Europeans. I am sure that the civil servants who give such splendid advice will tell us that many European nationals do not even live in Europe. For example, only a few miles from Hong Kong is a Portuguese territory with Portuguese citizens who will shortly have the right to enter Britain, while the people of Hong Kong, which until now has been a British colony, will not have the same right. Citizens of French territories will also be allowed to enter Britain in the same way. What will the Government do on the European scene? They believe that, because of the Maastricht agreement and other legislation, Britain and its European partners will have the power to decide what is allowed and what is not allowed. The Home Secretary set that out in his speech. He said that the Government think that they have control, having ensured a double lock at Maastricht, but he and many others know that the European Commission challenges that absolutely and fundamentally, and has energetically disputed our interpretation of the legislation. it understands what the single European act says.

Some of my hon. Friends who voted so enthusiastically for the Act should tell their constituents what they agreed to--the free movement of goods, people, services and capital. The Commission says that that means something else--if the free movement of people is to be guaranteed and because the majority of MPs voted for it, the controls that we think we have will not be enforced.

Who will decide? Sadly, the Home Secretary will not decide. Rather, the European Court will do so, and we must warn people in Britain that the European Court is not like our courts but is a political court. At almost every opportunity, it gives more power and control to the institutions of the Community. As certainly as night follows day, on the basis of reading all its judgments and interpretations, I believe that it will find against Britain.

Individuals may follow Mr. Bangemann's advice and go to the court and say, "Please sir, the British law is rubbish." However, after 1 January 1993, the Commission will promote that case, and I am certain that the British Government will lose. People may say that I am a fatalist, and that I always think that we shall lose but that we may win ; but what will happen if the Government lose? Will we

Column 50

simply say that the decision is fair enough, we shall scrap our immigration control and it does not matter? Ultimately, we must state our policy now.

Conservative Members are becoming well aware of the fact that the power and authority of British elected Governments are not only fading away because of the policies to which we have agreed but slipping away because of the interpretations of the court. After the next election--we do not know who will win--we must start to ask where we should go on Europe. Are we willing simply to sit back and let all the power of our democratic assembly simply go to non-elected bodies? People--including my hon. enthusiastic Euro- Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who is always promoting the EEC--who think that the European Parliament will fill that gap should know that they are kidding themselves. There is no way in which the European Parliament could fill that gap unless we were to start over again.

Mr. Budgen : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Sir Teddy Taylor : I promised to speak briefly, but if my hon. Friend insists, I shall give way.

Mr. Budgen : Is not one of the problems the fact that people think of judges as highly qualified and wise technicians whereas, unfortunately, the judges of the European Court of Justice are part-lawyers, part- politicians? They interpret the treaty in a way that gives it extra impetus, and, as a result, the alliance between the court and the Commission always extends the power of the EC.

Sir Teddy Taylor : Those are wise words, but I am not sure whether the public will listen to them.

There is a real danger that our immigration control laws will be switched to Brussels and therefore become useless. If anyone doubts that, he should consider the control of immigration in Italy, for example, and the spasmodic control of immigration in Greece. Given the fact that that will be our boundary, the matter is important. The Government should say what they will do if Britain loses in the European Court. They can do something in a positive European way. First, to make it clear that they have everyone on their side, they should publish a statement by our Law Officers saying that they support the views of the Home Secretary and explaining why they support those views. If we had a clear indication that the Government and the Law Officers were united, that would strengthen our purpose. Secondly, if the Government fundamentally believe that immigration control is still to be a United Kingdom matter, they should use the presidency of the Council to put forward an emergency proposal or treaty saying that, for the avoidance of doubt should the Commission disagree, we wish to make it abundantly clear that the control of who comes into our country is a matter for our Government and our laws. I am glad that the Government had the courage to discuss a difficult Euro-issue at a time when people will hear what is happening. We cannot run away from the issue ; the EEC is taking more and more control over it. But if responsibility for the control of who comes into this country is transferred to the EEC, national sovereignty will effectively disappear. It will not be enough to say that

Column 51

we shall have new cards stating, "I am a Euro -citizen," and giving the holder certain entitlements. Even if we tried to the best of our ability not to allow forged identity cards for citizens of a United Europe, we would not solve the problem of who comes into this country and how. The Government must stand firm.

I watch Ministers, and I believe that, in my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, we have someone who is prepared to have a fight and have a go. I believe that he will not merely pass the issue to a committee to have another look. If my judgment is right, I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is prepared to stand firm and have a go. If that is his intention, he should first ask for a statement from the Law Officers giving the Government's view and the reasons for it. Secondly, we should have a new treaty under the British presidency stating that the matter of who comes into a country is one for elected national Governments. If he does that, it will be a step forward for democracy, Britain and Europe.

5.32 pm

Sir Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) : It is absolutely right that we should debate this subject today, and that it should be debated in a tone remarkably free from the electioneering which accompanies almost everything that happens in the House at present. We have had a sensible and serious debate. We know that problems are caused by the pressure of large numbers of potential asylum seekers, that the Government's Asylum Bill is proceeding through Parliament, and what happened at Maastricht. Nobody could doubt the seriousness of what is taking place in many parts of the world, such as Africa, the middle east and eastern Europe, where events are all liable enormously to step up pressure to migrate.

We are faced with terrific difficulties. We have a tradition of dealing with refugees fairly and seriously, and it would be sad if we were ever to abandon that, but we cannot simply accept everyone who comes from a country where there is civil war, famine or poverty. So far as possible, we must act through our aid and development programmes--hon. Members have been right to stress that--but we must also recognise that the most intense pressure at present comes not from strictly economic refugees, but from those fleeing the civil wars that are breaking out, causing chaos and cruelty in places such as Africa, Sri Lanka and Iraq. Therefore, it is not simply an economic refugee problem.

We must also press throughout the world, through aid and development programmes, for human rights. One of the wise moves of the Government, led by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, is the way in which they have been willing to couple the notion of good human and civil rights with the provision of aid for development. We are moving into an era in which not only our aid programmes, but the United Nations, are having to be a bit more interventionist than they were in the years of post-war dispensation.

The debate is about how the Government and the European Community are responding to the pressures. I believe that on the whole we have got it about right. The policy that is developing is basically sensible. I support the Asylum Bill, the need for it and, generally, the measures postulated to accompany it. Those measures have been

Column 52

activated by the need to cope with the pressures that I have already mentioned and the need to speed up the handling of asylum cases, which is enormously important. I know as well as everyone else the delays which can occur in the Home Office.

The report of the Select Committee on European Legislation reminded us that the handling of cases is an important part of the Asylum Bill. The report states :

"the Asylum Bill is mainly concerned to provide a right of appeal in asylum cases."

We should remember that it is not just a restrictionist measure, but states that when people come to this country and apply for asylum, there should be a proper and more effective system of appeal than the one that we have had.

As one who has previously argued for better appeal rights for asylum seekers, I am glad that the Bill provides that. I accept that some people would like it to go further and believe that the appeal rights are not sufficient. One can argue that, but asylum seekers will gain in terms of human liberty for asylum seekers under the provisions provided, which is why I support the Bill.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and other Government Members who said, when dealing with the Bill, that they were willing to be flexible and respond if it is suggested that there are inadequacies and elements within the package which are not sufficiently fair to any group of asylum seekers. A number of important changes have been made, all of which are to the credit of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

The Government have been taking exactly the right steps on the issue, but what about the European Community's position, the subject of today's debate? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary explained in his opening speech that the Community has competence over the rights of free movement and residence for EC nationals, which is accepted. There is a more difficult question about the families of EC nationals, as they too have rights which are governed by EC rules. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) spoke of the objective tests that a Labour Government would apply, he was somewhat cloudy on the issue. We all know that the primary purpose rule is difficult to interpret. I was at the Home Office when it was introduced and I do not think that I had any illusions then, but I realised that it would cause difficulties. Anybody with a substantial number of immigrants--particularly Asian ones--in their constituency will know that it is not easy to interpret the primary purpose rule.

The idea that the Labour party, if in power, would set the matter on an objective basis is a fanciful and pie-in-the-sky idea. At the very least, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), the Front-Bench spokesman, should tell the House exactly what is meant by objective tests and how they would work. We must ask questions about that.

Apart from the establishment of a common list of visa countries and a standardised format, most of the important questions have rightly been left to the realm of political co-operation outside the treaty. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) queried whether that could be maintained and whether the European Court might not throw the whole thing out of the window. I do not think that it is realistic to ask Ministers to state what they would do if that were to happen--we devoutly hope that it will not--and it would be injudicious on their part to do so. It is right that matters

Column 53

such as asylum policy, border controls and the immigration of third-country nationals should be dealt with by political co-operation. Such issues are better left in the realm of national competence.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has been right to insist that we retain frontier controls. To abandon them would bring enormous risks. We know all too well the dangers of terrorism today. We also know, as we look around the European Community, that there would be some pretty weak links in the chain. Without particularising the matter, we could not rely on some countries to have effective border controls, and we are absolutely right to take a cautious view.

I also believe that we should be cautious about accepting the notion that any non-European Community national with a right of residence should be able to work anywhere in the European Community--the point raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). He asked why people from third, non-European countries who have the right to live here and who may have lived here for a long time should not have the freedom to move anywhere or seek work anywhere in the European Community. That view is being expressed by the Commission for Racial Equality, too.

The answer is that the circumstances of these different groups of non- Community nationals vary enormously. The reasons why ours are here are particular to our own circumstances to do with the history of the British empire. Our non-nationals are from the new Commonwealth and Pakistan. They came here for reasons to do with the empire and in many ways they have retained their special character. It would be wrong to say that what has been suitable for us should necessarily be accepted by all other European countries as suitable for them. Their histories differ from ours-- [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South- East (Mr. Budgen) says helpfully that the same applies in reverse. The history of north African migration is particular to France, and so on.

It would be a mistake to adopt the view advanced by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. The notion of subsidiarity is relevant in this context. If, for the sake of argument, someone comes from Pakistan and lawfully settles here, he will after a period be able to acquire British nationality. That is open to him. The proper way for a man or woman to achieve what the hon. Gentleman desires is to do exactly that : to live here for a period, to be settled in this country, to have a commitment to this country, and then to acquire citizenship.

I know that there are some difficulties because certain countries--India, for instance--choose not to allow dual nationality. That is really not our fault ; we cannot help it if the Indian Government insist on forbidding dual nationality to their citizens. Perhaps Indians should, at a certain stage, have to commit themselves to living in Europe even if that means relinquishing their Indian citizenship and then acquire United Kingdom citizenship--and in the process acquire the rights that pertain to a citizen of the United Kingdom. The stance that we are adopting on this is perfectly tenable ; to move away from it in the direction advocated by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow could cause difficulties.

The Government are proceeding on the right lines in this respect. It is enormously important that there should be no question of playing the issue as an election card--it would do nothing but harm if, in some mysterious way,

Column 54

issues of race or immigration became puffed up at election time. The Government are perfectly entitled to bring back the Asylum Bill after the election if it does not reach the statute book before then. I would support such a move, but time has shown that it is possible to handle these issues with a mixture of firmness and sensitivity. Perhaps I am parti pris, but looking back on the period since 1979 during which we have handled the matter in Government by the frequently mentioned combination of firm control and a positive commitment to building up good race relations, I think that our method has worked. It is to the credit of the Conservative Administration since that time that we have pursued those policies. It has not always been easy, given the many emotive pressures involved, but it has paid off. There are still blots on the landscape, such as the vicious and deplorable racial attacks, but overall the policy has worked. We have a fairly good degree of racial harmony in this country, and it would be fatal to do anything to damage it. 5.44 pm

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North) : It is a privilege to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir T. Raison), who had a distinguished career in the Home Office as an Under-Secretary of State--

Mr. Budgen : Minister of State.

Mr. Carlisle : Yes, he was promoted halfway through. He was enormously helpful to my constituents and those of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. We respect his views and the knowledge that he brings to our proceedings. I am pleased to follow what may have been his valedictory oration to the House, in which he has served as a distinguished Member for many years.

On a note of slight dissention from my right hon. Friend's views, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will agree with me that this issue will be talked about in the forthcoming general election campaign, especially in constituencies such as mine, where, in the constituency town although not in my actual constituency, about 20 per cent. of the inhabitants are of ethnic origin, albeit third or fourth generation.

This matter worries a lot of people, and it is one on which the two parties of opposition and the Government are miles apart. That was well highlighted in this afternoon's speech by the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who once again failed to answer the relevant questions put by Front and Back-Bench Conservatives.

The representative from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), saw fit to grace our proceedings- -[ Hon. Members :--"Where is he?"] My hon. Friends are right to ask. He came in 16 minutes late with a lame excuse for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He stayed for part of my right hon. Friend's speech and then disappeared ; yet I have no doubt that on doorsteps over the next few weeks, as we go to ask the country for its support, many Liberal Democrat candidates will be expounding policies which are obviously a matter of shame to the hon. Gentleman, who is not here to defend them.

I remember the contribution by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland to the Second Reading debate

Column 55

on the Asylum Bill ; many of us who were here will recall that it was the longest diatribe we had had the misfortune to listen to--

Sir John Wheeler : And the most boring.

Next Section

Home Page