Clause 1.—(PROVISION FOR CIVIL EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS.) (Hansard, 25 July 1955)

§ The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "a" and insert "any."
As the Committee will appreciate, this is merely a verbal Amendment. The word "any" might make the line read slightly more clearly.

§ Mr. Brooke
I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert "or."
This is very little more than a drafting Amendment. It puts beyond doubt the fact that paragraphs (a) and (b) are alternatives. On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) asked about the precise scope of the two paragraphs. I then gave him the correct answer, but it has since occurred to me that it would be better and clearer to insert the word "or" and so put beyond doubt that it is not proposed to certify under paragraph (b) a particular alien for appointment to a particular job overseas which the Minister did not consider to be of a class or description generally appropriate for the employment of aliens.
Paragraph (a) will be used for those cases where the service is of a class or description generally appropriate for the employment of aliens. Paragraph (c) will be used for the appointment of aliens to particular posts in this country under the other provisions of the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Member for Colne Valley will feel that, thanks to himself, I am making this Amendment and thus improving the Bill.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall (Colne Valley)
We are much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for this Amendment, although I must admit that I am not so certain as he appears to be that it entirely clears up the ambiguity. He is, of course, quite correct in saying that on Second Reading I ventured to ask him whether subsection (1, b) meant that a person to whom a certificate 876 has been issued could be employed abroad as well as at home. I rather gathered from the right hon. Gentleman's reply then that that might be possible. I am not certain whether, under the Amendment—that is, with the inclusion of the word "or"—a person who may be employed at home under a certificate must now continue to be so employed and cannot be sent abroad.
It seems to me that some of the people whom we visualise as being employed under paragraph (b), that is, alien technicians and scientists, might possibly have to be sent abroad. For example, I can visualise—although one does not like to think of it—such an individual being sent to, say, Australia to assist either in research work on the hydrogen bomb or for the purpose of being present in that country while one is exploded. I gather that if what the right hon. Gentleman now says is correct, the certificate of such a man might not carry him that far.
On the other hand, it may be that I am too pedantic in looking for flaws in this Amendment and am looking a gift horse unfairly in the mouth. It is probably a fairly small point and I do not want to labour it, but I should be glad if, between now and when the Bill appears in another place, the right hon. Gentleman would make quite certain that if an ambiguity does exist it shall be cleared up.

§ Mr. H. Brooke
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if my Amendment is accepted there will be nothing to prevent an alien who has been appointed under a certificate in this country taking up a post abroad.

§ Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question with reference to subsection (3), which states: A certificate under this section shall cease to have effect, unless previously revoked, at the expiration of a period of five years from the date on which it is issued, but without prejudice to the power of the responsible Minister to issue a fresh certificate. Is it necessary to place this double load upon the person concerned? We would, naturally, agree that it must always be possible for the responsible Minister to 877 revoke a certificate, but if that power is available, as we feel it must be, why then should there be a further five-year limit? Will the right hon. Gentleman consider amending the Clause so that the five-year limit is left out which would, I think, leave quite sufficient power to the Minister?

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
I am a little puzzled, Sir Rhys, by the fact that there are certain Amendments on the Order Paper which you have not thought fit to call. Of course, it is not for me to question your Ruling, but, as I read and understand them, what the Minister has tried to do in them is to put beyond any shadow of doubt the position of a British protected person.
As I read the interpretation of a British protected person in the British Nationality Act, 1948, it seems that the words used in the Bill completely cover a British protected person. However, as some of this Bill stems back to an Act of 1701—and as we know that under an Act of the Queen who came to the Throne in 1702 a good deal of ambiguity has arisen in another direction—it might well be that certain ambiguities may also arise over the Act of Settlement, 1701. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter? Does he think that it might still be useful to clarify the definition of a British protected person in the Bill in any way, possibly when the Bill reaches another place?

§ Mr. H. Brooke
It is not possible for me to say what will be done with the Bill when it reaches another place, but there may be noble Lords who are anxious to investigate further the matter which the right hon. Gentleman has just mentioned.
I apologise to the Committee for the appearance upon the Order Paper of some Government Amendments which have not been called. In those Amendments I was seeking to put beyond all doubt whatever a matter upon which the right hon. Member would support me, namely, that British protected persons should be treated as they always have been treated, in exactly the same way as British citizens, for purposes of employment in a civil capacity under the Crown. It has never been challenged that that is the position, but it struck me that it might be a good thing to seek to amend the Bill so as to make it clear beyond all doubt that that 878 was the will of Parliament. The Amendments have been ruled out of order, however, and for that reason I suggest that we cannot pursue the matter further here. It is very satisfactory to know that both sides of the Committee are at one in wishing the present state of affairs—which has long continued—to remain.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) asked whether it was really necessary to place a double load upon an alien who might be the bearer of one of these certificates. The point which he raises was implicit in an Amendment in the name of his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) which was not moved. I should like to say a word or two about this matter, because it is an important point, which was raised during the Second Reading debate. Under the Bill a certificate, once given, can be revoked at any time. I would add that I have further examined the question whether power of revocation does exist—which was queried during the Second Reading debate—and I am quite satisfied that it does. Under the Bill the certificate, unless revoked, will last for five years, and will then come up for consideration and will be capable of revocation.
A suggestion has been made that this five-year period should be removed and that anybody who is given a certificate should hold it for an indefinite period unless it is revoked. I submit to the Committee, as I did to the House during the Second Reading debate, that upon general policy grounds it is desirable to have a reasonably close measure of control, not only over the employment of individual aliens but over the total employment of aliens in Crown service at home. As I then explained, we have now grown accustomed to full employment, but there might be some future occasion—although we all pray that there will not—when unemployment reappears. Then it would be very easy for a public outcry to spring up against any aliens employed in Government Service, upon the ground that they were taking positions which might otherwise be held by British subjects.
6.15 p.m.
The arrangements provided in the Bill will ensure that cases will constantly be coming up for consideration and renewal, and each of those cases will be examined upon its merits in the prevailing 879 circumstances. I am inclined to think that this will be better not only from the public point of view but also from the aliens' point of view, because we should all desire to guard against a situation arising in which public clamour almost forced a Government into the widespread revocation of certificates. In such a situation, if there were considerable unemployment among British citizens, the Government of the day would clearly need to examine carefully whether they should renew the certificates coming up for renewal under this system from day to day.
In that way the alien himself would not have a double load imposed upon him—as the hon. Member suggested—but might be given a certain amount of assurance and an additional feeling of protection, because he would know that unless his certificate was revoked for some specific reason, it would not be likely that the Government would be forced into a position of suddenly reviewing the whole aggregate of certificates. Instead, as I have said, they would take their decisions upon the certificates which were coming to the end of their five-year period.
We are all talking about hypothetical conditions, but during an earlier stage of the Bill I remember that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has great experience in these matters from his time in the Home Office, was inclined to agree with the Government that it is wise to look forward to hypothetical situations where there might be feeling against aliens. For those reasons the Bill 880 is drafted as it is, and I recommend the Committee to accept the Clause in its present form.

§ Mr. Glenvil Hall
The explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given us is a very reasonable one. It was canvassed during the Second Reading debate, when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) put up what I thought was a very substantial case in favour of retaining the present provision in the Bill. After all, Members of Parliament have to get their certificates renewed at least once every five years, and it ought not to be too much to ask an alien who continues as an alien and does not seek naturalisation, to do the same.
The provision also has the further advantage that it permits the authorities to know exactly who and where aliens are, and to keep track of them. Anything could happen to them if no certificate were required, or certificates ran on indefinitely to the end of time. I think that I carry my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee with me in this matter. We should not dream of voting against the Clause on this point and we, I think generally, accept the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given us.