Schedule

HC Deb 04 November 1949 vol 469 cc800-17

12.47 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 6 to 9.

I put down this Amendment to the Schedule to the Bill to delete the reference to Section I of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, because I do not think it would be right for the House to continue these drastic provisions for another 12 months unless the Home Secretary is at any rate prepared to enlighten the Committee and the country as to the reasons why it is necessary to take these very wide powers and to explain the principles which he applies in exercising them.

I sometimes doubt whether the country is fully aware of the sweeping powers which are retained by the Executive in connection with aliens. These powers were first granted to the Executive in 1914 as a result of the emergency which then existed. It was not intended at that time that they should become permanent. They were, in fact, retained under the 1919 Act, at the end of the 1914–18 war, as a temporary measure. Since then these quite sweeping powers have been continued from year to year, with the result that they have almost imperceptibly become a part of our constitutional machinery. Since they affect the liberty of the subject to such a degree and since there is a considerable amount of misunderstanding as to the basis on which they are exercised, I have put down this Amendment.

May I remind the Committee that in this Section, which we are being asked by this Bill to renew for another year, the Home Office not only have the power to prohibit the landing of any alien in this country but also the power to attach any conditions to such landing, to deport any alien without giving any reasons—and in practice no reasons are given—and in addition the power to make orders—and they have made orders—relating to the arrest, detention and search of aliens.

All those powers, which are quite absolute and arbitrary are exercised without any control; they are not only uncontrolled, but they are unregulated and not subject to any review, any challenge or any appeal to any court. In fact I do not think that anywhere on this side of the Iron Curtain is similar machinery given to the Executive for such complete and arbitrary powers with regard to aliens. Incidentally, there may be some occasions when practical difficulties arise in carrying them out. Notoriously, the Home Secretary looked like having a certain amount of trouble when it came to making a deportation order for Mr. Stanley, but that is by the way.

In practice, these powers are as sweeping as any powers could be. I am not complaining that there lifts been any abuse by the present Home Secretary of the method by which they are exercised. I believe the Home Office takes a great deal of trouble in considering every appli- cation by an alien for permission to come to this country. I believe that these powers, under the present Administration, are always exercised humanely and sympathetically. But I still find that considerable doubt exists as to the principles which are applied by the Home Secretary both in granting permission to come to this country permanently and also when application is made for a temporary visa.

I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to enlighten the Committee on one or two specific questions which arise in connection with the general administration of this Act. May I, first of all, ask whether the principles which were laid down by the Home Secretary in the House on 13th November, 1945, with regard to the admission of distressed persons from Europe, still apply? Second, may I ask whether, in the conditions of today, any distinctions are drawn, and, if so, what, between applications from ex-enemy distressed persons and those who claim to be distressed persons coming from countries which are not ex-enemy countries? Third, will the Under-Secretary tell us what is the policy with regard to persons who obtain a visa to come here for a temporary visit and then, for one reason or another, apply to stay here permanently?

Are we to understand—and there is a certain amount of doubt about this—that persons who come here on a temporary visa can never obtain permission to stay here indefinitely? I can quite well understand that in the case of people who obtain a temporary visa by a false pretence or a deliberate deception in connection with their application, there would be no possible justification for extending the visa. The Home Office would have every possible support in resisting any attempt to abuse the privilege which had been granted.

But there are cases—I do not know how many, but it is a substantial number—in which a quite genuine and legitimate change of circumstances occurs after the person has obtained leave to come here on a temporary visa, say, for three or six months, and then, either because of a change in the conditions of the country from which he has come, or because some employment has been offered him here which was unexpected at the time he came here wishes to turn his temporary visa into a permanent visa.

I can understand that in all such cases the Home Office must be on their guard to prevent abuse. It may be that the right policy in all such cases would be to request the alien to return if possible and then submit a fresh application for consideration on its merits. But that may not always be possible, particularly if the alien comes from a country such as Hungary or Czechoslovakia or some other part of Central Europe.

I, therefore, hope that the Under-Secretary will enlighten a great many people who are interested in this matter, and will indicate broadly what are the principles which at present govern the admission of people who manage to come to this country without a visa in conditions in which it is impossible, or becomes impossible, for them to return. If my hon. Friend can give me satisfactory assurances on those points, I shall be very happy, with leave, to withdraw the Amendment.

12.57 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger)

I am very glad to have an opportunity of replying to my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. Fletcher), and I think I can give him an answer to all his questions. I want to be as brief as I can, but I think it would be useful if I fitted the answer to his questions into a slightly more general framework. My hon. Friend first of all raised the question of the wide scope of the Aliens Order and the powers granted under it. We discussed this matter at some length last year when dealing with the Act, and I hope the Committee will excuse me from going into great detail on the question of whether this should be in a permanent or temporary statute.

My hon. Friend was quite correct in describing the general nature of the powers under the order as very wide. I said on the last occasion that I thought there was some unreality in the proposition that there would be any greater protection for aliens in this country under a permanent statute than under the present procedure, though I cannot deny that it is somewhat anomalous that any temporary legislation of this kind should go on from year to year for so long as 30 years. It has been found difficult by all Governments which have had to handle this matter to find Parliamentary time, and I cannot undertake that the law could be put on a permanent basis within this Parliament. It is, however, a matter which my right hon. Friend has had under consideration. I do not think anyone would deny that the powers for the control of aliens are necessary at present, as they have been necessary at all times ever since this order was first made.

May I now turn to some of my hon. Friend's question? First, he asked about visitors and then about permanent residents. Generally, it is no part of Government policy to keep out foreign visitors who wish to come here for business purposes or holidays. Indeed, we try to facilitate such visits as much as we can. The number of aliens who were allowed to land in the United Kingdom in 1948—the vast majority of whom were here for short periods—was 657,661. There were only just over 2,000 refusals of leave to land in the whole of that year. The number of people coming here in any year is considerable, and most of them go away within a few weeks. Unfortunately, we have been in difficulties over the policy regarding visits of people from the countries of Eastern Europe. For some time past nobody, or almost nobody, in any of those countries has been able to get travel facilities from his own Government to visit this country unless he was a Government-sponsored business man, coming here on business which was approved by his Government, or had to do with a Government trading concern.

In recent months, therefore, we have had really very few cases where people from these countries—usually referred to as countries behind the Iron Curtain—have actually applied to us for purely visitors' visas and possess the necessary facilities from their own Governments to come here and to return. We have had to be rather restrictive in allowing people who are nationals of these countries to come here, because, in general, it has been our experience either that they actually cannot go back because they are refused facilities by their Government to do so, or, if it is not so definite as that, at any rate they are, for natural reasons, exceedingly reluctant to go back. Many of these people had in fact the intention of never going back, and we have had to guard against granting a large number of visas ostensibly for visits which were not intended to be visits.

Supposing the circumstances of the alien change after he has quite genuinely asked for a visitor's visa, and he then wishes to stay here permanently, there is no absolute bar to his applying, and, in proper cases, being granted leave to stay on. That might arise if, after the time he had left his country, there was a violent political change, as in the case of Czechoslovakia last year, and although when he left his country he intended to go back he finds at a later stage that he cannot. That is one type of case where we have never compelled anybody to go back who satisfied us that he was a genuine refugee since his arrival as a visitor.

There is a second kind of circumstance which is common, and that is the intention with regard to employment. Normally, we do not expect people who come as visitors to be seeking employment, and, naturally, we do not encourage people who apply as visitors when in fact, their real purpose is to apply for employment. On the other hand, there are a number of cases of people coming as genuine visitors who, in fact, without having come specially for the purpose, get the offer of a job and then ask to be allowed to stay.

The standard which we adopt in such cases—we are naturally advised by the Ministry of Labour—is to and out whether the proposal for employment which is put up is one which would have measured up to the Ministry of Labour requirements if the application had been made from the foreign country before arrival for a Ministry of Labour permit. Generally speaking, if the offer which they put to us is of a kind which would enable them to get a permit had they applied from abroad, then I think there would be no difficulty in allowing them to convert their visit into a stay.

As regards permanent settlement, the House will appreciate that our policy has had to be conditioned since the end of the war by the fact that there were so many millions of people on the Continent of Europe who were homeless or living in distressed circumstances, or who were, at any rate, unemployed and saw no prospect of employment for a long time, and who would have wished to change the country in which they were living for this country. It is no exaggeration to say that that was the problem at the end of the war, with the figures running into millions, and, although many of the people involved have become settled elsewhere, there is still a great pressure arising largely from the series of events in Eastern Europe which have been creating a new body of refugees.

We have throughout to take account of such questions as possible bad character or the bad health of people coming into this country, and the dangers of spreading disease, and so on, and also the risk of their becoming a charge on the community. Quite apart from that, there has, of course—in view of this potential flood of immigrants—been the need, generally speaking, to limit any large-scale immigration to people who can make some kind of contribution to our national economy as well as merely coming here to enjoy our hospitality, our social services, and to take their share of rationed goods, housing space, and all those other things which have been scarce.

I was asked whether the scheme of 13th November, 1945, is still in force. That is the scheme which we normally call the "Distressed Relatives Scheme," and it is the main exception to the general principle I have mentioned that immigration has to be limited to those who make a positive contribution to our economy. This scheme was intended to enable the hardest cases of persons who have relatives in this country and who were distressed in Europe to come here. That scheme is still in force, and, so far as it has been modified, they are only very small modifications, all in the nature of liberalisation, which do not very greatly extend any of the categories mentioned in that scheme. In answer to a Question in the House on 3rd June, 1948, my right hon. Friend said: The policy which I have been developing has been to grant applications in respect of relatives outside the existing categories where there are special circumstances and considerations which differentiate their position from that of the thousands of people who would find life less difficult if they were admitted to the United Kingdom. In particular, sympathetic consideration is given to isolated individuals in distressed circumstances whose only relatives are in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 1223.] The Committee will appreciate that our real difficulty lies in the fact that there are thousands of people who are in less good economic circumstances than they once were in their own country. In that sense they are distressed, but of course there is nothing to single them out from hundreds of thousands of others. As we cannot accept them all, it has been very difficult to do other than stick, with a certain amount of firmness, to the categories laid down under the 1945 scheme. The figures under that scheme show that about 5,600 of these distressed relatives, admitted on purely compassionate grounds in addition to a very small number of homeless children who have been offered homes and their keep here, have come in during that period.

There was one other extension of that scheme in relation, particularly, to Czechs after the events of February and March, 1948, in Czechoslovakia. There, my right hon. Friend agreed to look sympathetically upon applications by Czechs who had escaped from Czechoslovakia, and who did not come within any of the categories entitling them to come here, but who had strong connections with this country, very often war-time service based on this country. Under that concession, something like 1,000 additional people of Czech nationality have been admitted. There is also the category of aliens of all nationalities who marry husbands or wives of British nationality. There are estimated to be about 6,000 under that category, again in addition to those who came under the 1945 scheme.

As regards the much larger numbers whom we have admitted on the ground that, in one way or another, they will make a contribution to our economy, there are, firstly, the European volunteer workers. Between October, 1946, and August, 1949, 83,000 workers and 3,500 dependants were admitted under that scheme. The flow is now somewhat slowing up, and in fact the recruitment under that particular scheme of male workers has actually stopped, but a limited number of women are still coming in.

The other big category of people who come here for work come under Ministry of Labour permits, and between May, 1946, and August, 1949, Ministry of Labour permits were issued in respect of 90,500 aliens. That category is not falling off. There are still large numbers of people coming in under the Ministry of Labour scheme. Of course, they have to measure up to the standard required and, generally speaking, they can only come to take jobs for which it is not easy to find British subjects or aliens already resident here. In theory at least, and largely in practice, the persons who have these permits are only here temporarily. They may get extensions at the end of their first period of permit if there is still any suitable work, but they are essentially here in respect of the job they have agreed to take. It is expected that about 10 per cent. of the total will be likely in the long run to become permanently resident here.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

Can the hon. Gentleman give us any indication of the numbers now coming over in that last category?

Mr. Younger

It is estimated that for 1949 the figure will be about 35,000, which compares with the figure I gave earlier of 90,500 for the three years 1946–49. If that estimate proves to be correct, this year's figure will be slightly up. I would also remind the Committee that we have taken a large number of new aliens for permanent residence in this country from the Polish army and their dependants, amounting to 150,000. In addition, we have accepted some 15,000 former German prisoners of war and 8,000 former Ukrainian prisoners of war, all of whom have been accepted for settlement in this country.

In the last four years about 275,000 aliens have been admitted to the United Kingdom for permanent residence, of whom about 266,000—a high proportion of the total—may be reckoned as young immigrants or adults who are able to work and who come here for that purpose. Then there is the additional figure of 90,000 coming under the Ministry of Labour permits, most of whom are temporary. So far as one can judge, the flow for permanent settlement now and in the immediate future is likely to be 6,000 or 7,000 a year.

In giving these figures, I want to be careful to avoid any wrong impression. I am neither putting them forward as being large and as showing that we have made a remarkable contribution to the problem of dealing with refugees and other homeless people in Europe nor am I trying to make out that the numbers are small and should be increased. The point I want to make is that it is necessary in the policy for aliens to have a balance between the conflicting considerations. On the one hand, we could not allow a vast inflow without a danger to the standard of living, and possibly—at any rate in the future, if not in past years—also to the employment of some sections of our own people. Therefore, we must have a check. On the other hand, we want to make a genuine contribution to the refugee problem in Europe, which still remains serious. Moreover we are not unaware that in the past immigration has been of great benefit to this country.

If the Committee will reflect on the figures I have given, I think hon. Members will regard them as reasonably substantial, as showing that the policy is not wholly restrictive and at the same time that there is no reason for alarm that we are permitting the country to be swamped by vast numbers of foreigners who, if they come into the country in a short time and in large numbers, are difficult to assimilate.

I have no doubt that many hon. Members have read the comments on immigration in the section of the Report of the Royal Commission on Population, where it is pointed out that to introduce very large numbers of foreigners within a short space of time raises real problems in a fully settled country which already has a fairly heavy population for its area. Experience in the last four years shows that there is not much wrong with the stale of immigration at present. There have been odd incidents, odd symptoms of friction, usually of a purely local character, but generally speaking I do not believe there is any serious ground for complaint on the score of too great a flow of immigration. It is important, as I think the Committee will agree, to keep in tune with public feeling on a matter of this kind. I am not claiming perfection, but I think that the figures I have given and the general categories I have described will satisfy the request of my hon. Friend that the principles upon which we are operating should be reasonably well known.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)

The hon. Gentleman has made a valuable and informative statement on an important matter and, although I do not blame him, I cannot forbear from commenting that it is remarkable that such an important matter should have been raised on an occasion like this when normally we reckon to deal with a Bill of this kind in a routine manner. However, that statement has been made, and I hope I shall be in Order in following it briefly. Speaking entirely for myself, I do not quarrel with the immigration policy which the Government have pursued since they have been in office. If they have erred at all, I think they have erred sometimes in spoiling our foreign visitors.

I have two specific points on which I should appreciate a reply from the Under-Secretary. First, this country has a great and honourable tradition of granting asylum to foreigners fleeing from persecution in their own country. In describing the various categories of the Home Office for allowing immigration, the hon. Gentleman did not mention a specific category covering the granting of asylum to political refugees. On the other hand, he mentioned the specific case of the thousand refugees from Czechoslovakia who would come into such a category. Is there any definite policy about that, and if so, how many people are there in this country at the moment who would come into that category?

My next point deals with the rather delicate question of unemployment. I am not trying to introduce any party point here. I am trying to be realistic and to set at rest the fears beginning to arise in the minds of some of our own people as well as of some of the immigrants. Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have a policy for deciding what is to happen to the 90,000 people on temporary immigration passes if there should be substantial unemployment in this country? Also, what is to happen to the 260,000 people brought in for economic reasons on permanent passes?

1.20 p.m.

Mr. Younger

Perhaps I may deal with those two points. First, the question of asylum. As the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) said, it has been, and still is, the tradition of this country to offer asylum to persons who are believed to be in danger of political persecution. It is still the practice, as always, not to send back to countries where they would be in danger of persecution people in respect of whom my right hon. Friend is satisfied that they are political refugees. In the vast majority of cases which the hon. Member would regard as political refugees, the application for asylum does not, of course, come to us from the country in which the people are in danger of persecution. Whilst there are exceptions, we do not usually come into the picture at all until a person who may well have been in danger of political persecution is well beyond that danger and has reached some country such as, for example, France, or Western Germany.

We have not been able to accept the view that just because somebody has been a political refugee in his own country we must necessarily always agree to have him here—if, for instance, he is already in France and has no greater claim on us than he has on France. It is partly for those reasons that the 1945 scheme laid down a number of categories of those people who, by reason of relationships or residence in this country, were considered to have a special claim on us. It is for that reason that the exception to which I have referred was made recently in favour of Czechs who have, perhaps, no other connection with this country except their residence here during the war, but to whom nevertheless we wished to extend this special facility.

A number of people—largely stowaways—come here direct from countries where they claim to be in danger of persecution. We do not send them back if we are satisfied there is any real ground for that claim, but the House will appreciate that when somebody arrives without any documents whatever, and probably no one except himself is able to tell us how he came to be on the ship, we have to guard against being made fools of by large numbers of people who have not come here because they were persecuted or hold any political views, or had ever been politically active, but simply think that is the best story to tell. On the very few occasions when we have had any serious controversy about this, it has always arisen on the question of whether the evidence justified the conclusion that the people were in fact political refugees. On that, I can accurately and fairly say that we take the very greatest care not, by being too strict on the evidence, to run the risk of sending people back to their fate. We have to treat these cases on their merits. We cannot blindly accept the statement of somebody who arrives without any means of checking his past history that he is in political trouble in his own country.

As regards unemployment, the hon. Member was careful to say he was not raising any party point. Obviously, this is a matter we must have in mind whether or not we believe that unemployment in any near future is likely. I will deal first with those people who hold Ministry of Labour permits. As I have explained, those permits are essentially temporary and their holders understand that. It is quite open to the authorities at the expiration of the permit to ask such people to go back to their own country. What would be the policy in any given circumstances, however, it would be wrong for me to try to say. The situation is a purely hypothetical one.

As regards those accepted for permanent residence, I think that by definition they are accepted for permanent residence. Very largely, however, these people have been admitted into undermanned industries, and it is unlikely that the number of them or the type of work they are now doing is such as would make a very serious problem. Once a person has been admitted for permanent residence, he would be unaffected by the kind of situation envisaged by the hon. Member for Huntingdon.

Mr. E. Fletcher

I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for the answer he has given. He has not only dealt with the specific points which I raised, but has also covered a considerably wider field and has given the Committee a great deal of information, which, I am sure, will be found very valuable. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot (Scottish Universities)

I should be grateful if we could have some indication of how long the Minister now thinks it will be necessary to retain the two Acts detailed in Part II of the Schedule. They were originally brought forward by Ministers as temporary Acts to deal with a temporary situation, and the re-appearance of the Schedules year after year is a tribute to the truth of the French proverb that, "Nothing lasts like the temporary." Both these Acts were introduced to deal with the temporary situation which, it was thought, arose out of the shortage of houses. I should like to ask the Minister what bearing there is on the prolongation of these Acts by the recent announcements by the Chancellor, because the figure of 175,000 recently given is actually below the 1931 figure of 212,000 and the 1932 figure of 219,000. In those circumstances it is clear—

The Chairman

I do not follow those figures, nor the reason why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman brings them within the purview of the Schedule.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

Only that if the rate of housing is much below what the Minister thought the rate would be when the temporary Act was introduced, it is clear that the temporary Act is turning into a permanent Act and, therefore, should be taken out of the Schedule and re-introduced, say, next year, in the form of permanent legislation. It is that general argument which I was bringing before the Minister.

The Chairman

I cannot conceive how an alteration of this kind can affect the Schedule. We are discussing the Schedule as a whole, and the only matters within Part II touch upon The Rent of Furnished Houses Control (Scotland) Act, 1943, and of The Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. I cannot see how the question which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised can conceivably come within those Acts or be related to them in any way for our purpose today, which is to decide whether or not these particular Acts, both of which are included in the Schedule, should be continued in existence for a further year.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot

It was only on the point that frequently in the discussion of whether Acts should be included in the Schedule to the Bill or not, the House or Committee have raised the question whether they were not appearing too frequently in the Schedule and whether they should not now be transferred to some more permanent form of legislation.

The argument I was advancing was merely that, owing to recent developments, it appeared as though those Acts would form almost a permanent feature on the Statute Book and, therefore, that the Government should consider whether they could make any pronouncement as to how long they were likely to remain temporary or whether, in fact, they were not now turning into permanent Acts and should re-appear in a more permanent form. On that basis I was pointing out that the great reduction recently announced by the Chancellor compared with even the figures of 1931–32, when there were 2 million fewer people in the country, indicated that pressure which those Acts reflect on the housing accommodation of the country is likely to persist very much longer than the Minister expected when he brought this legislation forward or when these two Acts were first included in the Schedule of expiring laws to be continued year after year. That is the question which I wish to ask the Minister, and perhaps he will be able to give us an explanation.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks (Chichester)

I understand, Major Milner, that you are not selecting the Amendment standing in my name, and I should be very grateful if you could let me know the grounds on which it is not being called.

The Chairman

I have ruled the hon. Member's Amendment out of Order, on the ground that he was thereby proposing to amend the terms of one of the Acts included in the Bill. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was last year fortunate in prevailing upon the Chair to permit him to move a similar Amendment, because his intention was not then clear, but I am afraid that on this occasion I have bad to rule his Amendment out of Order on the grounds I have stated.

1.30 p.m.

Mr. Osbert Peake (Leeds, North)

Further to that point of Order, Major Milner. I think the Committee are rightly a little puzzled to know how an Amendment can be in Order in 1948 and out of Order in 1949.

The Chairman

Times do change. I have looked at the Debate a year ago. The hon. Gentleman made his intention clear in his speech on that occasion by using these words: Its object"— that of the Amendment— is to vary the provisions of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th Nov. 1948; Vol. 457, c. 1165.] Thereby he made clear what was not previously clear. And having done so, his proposal was clearly out of order and the point cannot be proceeded with now.

Mr. Joynson-Hicks

I would certainly not depart in any way from your Ruling, Major Milner, but I am under a slight disadvantage at the moment because having, prior to putting down the Amendment, consulted those whom we are entitled to consult and verified the authorities, I have come prepared to argue the matter as I thought that the Amendment would be in Order, particularly having regard to the fact that it was accepted last year. I understood that the basis of the authority for an Amendment to this Bill was that the Amendment required only to delete a certain Act or subject matter contained in the Bill. If that is so, I find it very difficult to know how such an Amendment can fail to alter the provisions of the Bill. Consequently, if the provisions of the Bill can be altered, I should be grateful for your further guidance as to how an Amendment can be submitted to the Bill which will be in Order.

The Chairman

As I have indicated, the ground of my Ruling is that the hon. Member's Amendment is beyond the scope of the Bill because it seeks to vary or amend the provisions of an Act which the Bill before us seeks to continue. I cannot say more than that.

Mr. Blenkinsop

The right hon. and gallant Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) has invited me to make a statement on general housing policy which, I fear, would be quite out of Order on this occasion. He has also asked me whether I can give any indication of the period of time the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, may be expected to continue. The Ridley Committee on Rent Control suggested in 1945 that, owing to the urgency of the general problem and the shortages likely to arise, there would have to be some form of rent control for a period of about 10 years from that date.

As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will fully recognise, I am sure that this is a matter connected with rent control generally which at some suitable time must be reviewed, and it is because this Measure falls within the general scope of the rent control problem generally that we feel that it should be regarded as a temporary and not as a permanent Measure. It will have to come up for review whenever it is possible to undertake the general review of rent control that may be necessary at a later date. There is no doubt about the continuing need for this Measure, as is instanced by the decisions which are being taken by the tribunals. I have figures here to show that of the 9,700 cases decided in the 12 months ending 31st August this year—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles)

The hon. Gentleman cannot possibly go into those figures. The question is, "That this be the Schedule"—

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)

I was hoping, Mr. Bowles, to have an opportunity of putting a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. I am, of course, in your hands. It is a very short question.

The Deputy-Chairman

I have not collected the voices. The hon. Gentleman may do so if he wishes.

Mr. Renton

I would invite the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to this. I suggest that he is paying a quite undeserved compliment to the National Government in perpetuating Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. There is a growing body of feeling in the country that street lighting and road safety have not really quite so much to do with each other as was assumed in that Section—

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. Gentleman heard the Chairman rule a discussion of this kind out of Order. He cannot therefore persist in his question.

Mr. Renton

With great respect, Mr. Bowles, I was not trying to flout the authority of the Chair but was making a few introductory remarks to my question, which comes in my next sentence. It is: Are the Government going to take any steps at some time in the near future to vary this law or are we to have a similar provision in next year's Expiring Laws Continuance Bill?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan)

If it is in Order for me to answer that question, Mr. Bowles, may I say that this is a convenient way of continuing the 30-mile-an-hour speed limit, and it will be continued in this way until such time as legislation can be introduced on road traffic matters. I cannot anticipate when that will arise. There are others in a better position than I am to answer that. At the moment it is our intention to rely on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to continue the 30-milean-hour speed limit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

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