HC Deb 23 March 1949 vol 463 cc348-9
26. Sir Peter Macdonald

asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is now in a position to state what further action he has taken regarding the directive issued by the Government of the Gold Coast recently in connection with immigration; and what is the present position.

Mr. Creech Jones

In accordance with the undertaking which I gave in the House on 16th February, there have been discussions with the interests concerned regarding immigration procedure and these are still proceeding. The matter was debated in the Gold Coast Legislative Council on 16th March on a motion that the directive should be withdrawn and replaced by Regulations. Wide support was expressed during the debate for the general policy of immigration control. The Attorney-General suggested that, as the Gazette Notice and directive were evidently capable of misunderstanding, they should be reframed in order to remove ambiguity. This was accepted by the Council. Action will be taken accordingly.

Mr. Sydney Silverman

Can my right hon. Friend say what, if any, is the difference between the immigration laws in the Gold Coast, as now proposed, and the immigration laws in Jamaica or St. Vincent and British Guiana, referred to in Question No. 23?

Mr. Creech Jones

I should be happy to do so if I could do so in the space of a sentence.

Sir P. Macdonald

Before this directive is put into law, will it be placed on the Table of the House so that hon. Members may be able to see it?

Mr. Creech Jones

It is not usual for such papers to be placed on the Table of the House, but I can assure the hon. Member that consideration will be given in London to any regulations that are framed.