HC Deb 12 March 1957 vol 566 cc1083-102

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

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Gough (Horsham)

Until a short time ago the House was discussing the type of people who should or should not sit in this Chamber. I wish this evening to bring to the notice of the House something about the type of people who should or should not come into this country.

This is actually a personal case, but I think it has several aspects which will be of interest to the House, and certainly one aspect which, I believe, affects the rights, indeed almost the privileges, of private Members. It is essential for me to declare some sort of personal interest in this matter. Mr. Sakellis, about whom I speak, is employed by a firm of shipping agents in the City of London with whom I do quite a considerable amount of business. It is for that reason that they brought this matter to my attention.

I should like to give the House a short background history of Mr. Sakellis and how the present situation came about. Mr. Sakellis is a Greek. When he left school, he joined the Royal Greek Navy and served during the war in the Mediterranean alongside the Royal Navy. It is not difficult to realise what a great honour and privilege it is to serve alongside the Royal Navy. Mr. Sakellis ended his service with the rank of lieutenant and, on demobilisation, came to the United Kingdom in October. 1947, when he was apprenticed to the yard of William Gray and Company of West Hartlepool. That was pending his entry into the technical college in Sunderland in September, 1948. He remained at the technical college until 1953 and, during that period, took his Bachelor of Science degree as a marine engineer and naval architect.

At the end of that period he joined the repair section of Messrs. Swan Hunter & Wigham Richardson Ltd. and went to sea in the new motor vessel "Neptune" they had completed for his present employers in January, 1954, in order to gain sea experience. He remained at sea until November, 1954, and, when his training had been completed a few months later. he left this country. The managers of the motor vessel "Neptune" realised the capabilities of this young man and asked for permission from the Ministry of Labour and National Service in February, 1955, to employ him in this country as a superintendent engineer, and that permission was granted.

His present employers are ship brokers and have five directors, three of whom are British subjects, two are Greek, and they are all of Greek extraction. Their business is to manage five ships which are under the British flag and two ships under the foreign flag. It is important to remember that in every ship but one all their engineers are Greek. There is obviously, therefore, a language problem of the first degree. Of their staff Mr. Sakellis was the only qualified man, qualified technician, qualified marine surveyor and naval architect, capable of speaking to the men in their language.

In February, 1956, the employers applied for an extension from the Home Office, and although at first, I gather, this was favourably considered, it was refused and he was told that he must leave the country in June, 1956. He went abroad and obtained employment and residence on the Continent, and there he was employed by various shipowners as a consulting engineer. Then came Suez. In August, 1956, Her Majesty's Government requisitioned two of the ships which were managed by his recent employers in this country.

The Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation—this is the interesting thing—immediately approached the Home Office and obtained permission for Mr. Sakellis to return to this country in order to look after those ships. Mr. Sakellis returned last August and remained here until the end of October. At the end of October his employers again applied to the Home Office for an extension, but although they wrote at the end of October, they received no reply from the Home Office until 31st December, when the reply was "No". This was despite a promise which these people received from the Ministry of Transport in a letter dated 21st December that the Ministry would approach the Home Office and point out to it the value of the services of Mr. Sakellis. So once more Mr. Sakellis left the United Kingdom as a resident at the end of October.

On 1st January, when they received the reply from the Home Office to say that Mr. Sakellis was not to come back, his employers wrote to the Ministry of Labour and National Service asking for a replacement for Mr. Sakellis and pointing out that, besides technical qualifications such as those to which I have already drawn the attention of the House, it was essential that whoever it was should have a thorough knowledge of French, Greek and English. Up to the present date there has been no reply from the Ministry of Labour, and I am not surprised.

On that same date, 1st January, the employers wrote a long and reasoned letter to the Home Office Aliens Department with the reference 5.73477 ENH/CA. I quote the reference so that my hon. Friend may make a note of it or take it from HANSARD tomorrow, because it was a very reasoned letter and no reply has been received to it.

Eventually, in desperation, on 11th February, these people approached me. On the same day I wrote to the Home Secretary. I have had the courtesy of an acknowledgement, but I have not yet received a reply. I apologise to the House for all these dates; they are rather confusing. Eleven days later, on 22nd February, the employers wrote to Mr. Sakellis because one of their ships was expected in Hull about 5th March, and it was essential that he should come over here, not come back to residence, but go straight to see the ship in order to deal with some very serious defects in the boiler furnaces. There was no question whatever of their suggesting that he should come back and try to get residence here.

Mr. Sakellis came to this country from America in the s.s. "United States." He arrived at Southampton on 6th March. The immigration authorities refused him permission to land, although I understand that his passport was in order. I also understand that before this refusal the immigration authorities telephoned the Home Office. I would emphasise that this was after I myself had written to the Home Secretary about the case. In the intervening period, Mr. Sakellis had already gone from the Continent to the United States via this country and had received authority from the immigration authorities at London Airport to land here on 23rd February to join a ship at Southampton and go to the United States.

As a result of his being refused admission to this country last Wednesday, Mr. Sakellis was bundled off to Bremerhaven—at least, he had to return to the ship and went on to Bremerhaven. When he got there he had no trouble at all; he was allowed to land. The following day I took up the matter with my hon. Friend, and I must say that Mr. Sakellis received instructions to the effect that he was allowed to come here. He arrived the following day by air, and is now attending to his duties as marine superintendent, trying to put this ship right.

I wish to bring to the attention of the House one or two points with which I should like my hon. Friend to deal. First. I am puzzled about our policy in relation to alien immigration. It seems quite easy for aliens to come here as domestic servants, and we have been bringing in political and other émigrés, but from my experience in this matter it seems that it is very difficult indeed for technical experts to come here to undertake jobs which cannot be done by British subjects.

My second point is that in the whole of the story which I have tried to unfold to the House there seems to have been a complete lack of co-ordination between the Home Office and the Ministry of Transport—and, indeed, the Ministry of Labour as well. It is a small point, but I wish to make it.

The third point relates to the policy of allowing technicians to come here merely to attend to duties. I cannot see why a technician coming to look after a ship in this country should be held up by immigration authorities. I know for a fact that similar technicians, both ours and those of other countries, can go to Antwerp, to ports in Germany and to other ports without any trouble.

The last two points, are, I think, the most important of all. I have always understood that when a Member of Parliament writes to the Home Secretary about the refusal of a continuation of facilities for residence here, the person concerned is allowed to continue that residence—even if it is after the date on which the Home Office has told him to go—until the Home Secretary has considered the case.

Had Mr. Sakellis been in the United Kingdom at the date of my letter, 11th February, I think that there is no question that he would have been allowed to remain until the matter was reviewed. However, his very job makes that impossible. If he is looking after ships, he has to go to where they are, which may be in Hamburg, New York or elsewhere. In view of the fact that I had brought this case to the attention of the Home Office, and that the immigration authorities at Southampton telephoned the Home Office, it is inexcusable that Mr. Sakellis should that night have been sent on to Bremerhaven. I put it as strongly as that.

I can well understand my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's difficulties. The field might be opened by new applicants writing to a Member, the Member writing to the Home Office, and the new applicant coming here and remaining until he was kicked out. That, surely, is utterly different. This is a case of a young man who fought alongside us during the war, came here to a technical college, got a really first-class degree, is a man very highly thought of, has been here for some time, was brought back here by the Ministry of Transport at the time of Suez, and is now not allowed to come back while his case is considered.

Finally, I ask this. Do Her Majesty's Government really think that if this sort of thing continues it will help our shipping and shipbuilding industries? I do not think that it will. We really want to try to get over this general sort of bureaucratic machinery and to see that in cases like this, where men are doing a valuable job to shipping, difficulties will not be put in their way, but that the opposite will be the case.

8.54 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith)

My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) has put very forcibly the individual case which he has raised on the entry of Mr. Sakellis into this country and has outlined the history of this gentleman's association with this country. As my hon. Friend said, when Mr. Sakellis originally came here he came as a student, in 1947, and graduated at Durham University as a marine engineer in 1953.

My hon. Friend has made quite a point of the fact that, because he had been a student here, he should normally be acceptable thereafter as a resident. But it is part of the generosity of Her Majesty's Government's policy that, apart from those who pass as immigrants, we arrange also to give facilities to young people or, as in this case, people after wartime service, to come here and study as students; but because a foreign student has studied here and has been here perhaps for two or three years, that does not mean that he is given automatic right of entry for residence.

That has always been quite clearly laid down, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will agree. It is to the advantage of foreign students to be able to come here, but it does not give them any prior claim thereafter either to permanent residence or to immigration.

After Mr. Sakellis had qualified, the Ministry of Labour then agreed to his working again as a student employee with Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson for three months, so that he could obtain some practical experience. In fact, he left after only six weeks with the firm.

Mr. Gough

Would my hon. Friend allow me to say that my dates are that he went to Swan Hunter in January, 1954, and left them in November. 1954? I can confirm that.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

In August, 1954, he returned again with a permit from the Ministry of Labour. He left the country after six weeks, and came back with a new permission from the Ministry again for student employment with Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson, the permit being for three months; and when this was up he signed on a ship for discharge abroad. In February the following year, he returned to the United Kingdom with a labour permit for 12 months with Messrs. Hadjilias & Company as a superintendent engineer. An extension was applied for at the end of the 12 months and refused.

Inquiry was made at the time which showed that the bulk of this man's work was, in fact, being done abroad, superintending ships under repair in foreign ports. The Ministry of Labour agreed at that time that no case existed for Sakellis holding a permit for employment and residence here. The broad ground for the decision was that the amount of work requiring his attention in this country did not justify accepting him as a resident.

Mr. Gough

I do apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend again, but does she think that these ships are always in United Kingdom ports?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

If my hon. Friend would allow me to develop and finish my case, he will, I think, find that I can justify the statements I have made.

My hon. Friend is trying to establish a case that any ship of foreign ownership or in which foreign owners are concerned—one realises that there are hundreds of thousands of ships using our ports all the time—shall, by virtue of its use of our ports justify the presence of resident engineers of foreign origin in this country. I do not think that that can be accepted as a premise.

Messrs. Hadjilias & Company wrote asking for the decision which was then made by the Home Office, in consultation with the Ministry of Labour, to be reconsidered on the ground that it was necessary for them to have a representative to travel to any United Kingdom or continental port to superintend work on ships' machinery. We must get this matter in perspective. The company owns one ship, manages four ships for a Canadian company, and two for a British company. The managed ships call at British ports only very rarely, and the ship owned by the company very infrequently.

At this stage, the Ministry of Transport, which had been referred to by the company—this is last August—was consulted and confirmed that it then had an interest inasmuch as the Ministry had requisitioned two ships under the firm's management. This had taken place in August, when the Ministry required shipping to meet our obligations in the Middle East.

A temporary extension was accordingly given, as my hon. Friend quite rightly said, after representations from the Ministry of Transport, until the end of October. Thereafter, further representations were received from the firm for an extension beyond the end of October. We again took the matter up with the Ministry of Transport, which was not prepared to give any further support to the application. On those grounds, the application was refused.

Despite the claim that Mr. Sakellis' presence was necessary in this country during the period of the extension of his permit from August to October, it is significant that, having pressed for this extension from August to October, he was, in fact, out of the country from 8th August to 22nd October. There is no doubt at all that the bulk of the work which he carries out is done outside the United Kingdom and there is no reason on any employment ground for his having permanent permission to reside here.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Does the hon. Lady know where he was during the period between 8th August and 22nd October? Was he dealing with ships that were under requisition by the Ministry of Transport in some foreign port?

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman that. Certainly, on the general permits that he has had from time to time, he has spent a very Considerable amount of time for which he had permission to be here in foreign ports.

On 31st October he left the United Kingdom and was allowed to fly back to join a ship at Southampton as a member of the crew in January, 1957. On 11th February, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Horsham wrote to the Home Office suggesting that the Ministry of Labour should provide a suitable successor before Mr. Sakellis, who was then out of the country serving as a member of a crew, was asked to leave the country.

I cannot accept my hon. Friend's suggestion that a company should be allowed to employ in this country what foreign staff it likes until and unless the Ministry of Labour seeks and finds for it alternative British staff, which is what my hon. Friend is suggesting in his request that the Ministry of Labour must find an alternative Greek-speaking engineer before this company is denied permission to employ resident foreign staff in this country.

My hon. Friend also complains that in view of his letter to the Home Secretary, Mr. Sakellis should have been allowed entry pending a decision. I really cannot accept that an inquiry by an hon. Member should automatically bring executive action to a standstill. There are 61 points of entry into this country. If every inquiry by a Member of Parliament about a foreigner coming in or going out of this country has to be notified to the immigration officers throughout the country so that, because there is a letter from an hon. Member, executive action must be held up, we shall make a farce of the immigration regulations, and give an alien, in the case of entry, the initial advantage of entry whether he is a desirable person or not.

It is true, as my hon. Friend quite fairly says that in the case of a deportation order or expulsion if an hon. Member has written in the case of someone in this country pending expulsion or deportation we do our best to give full consideration to it. It is a very different matter where someone has been refused permission for an extension, has left the country and, on his readmission, we are expected to notify 61 ports of entry and to allow in someone who has been refused permission solely because an hon. Member has written about that particular case.

The immigration officer, when Mr. Sakellis arrived on 4th March at Southampton, acted quite properly. It was known and recorded that Mr. Sakellis was trying to establish a permanent residence here. It was known that his application had been refused. In this instance, he brought with him a letter from the firm asking him to arrange an interview with a Lloyd's Insurance surveyor in relation to the repair of the boilers of the s.s."Nereus". At that time the ship was still at sea and it was not apparent that Mr. Saskellis' presence was essential for any repairs which might be necessary to the boilers. He was refused leave to land and put back on board the "United States", which then left for Bremerhaven.

After my hon. Friend's intervention and following further inquiries by the Home Office to the company, it was decided that Mr. Sakellis might be allowed to report to the company for the specific purpose of advising on and supervising any repairs which might be necessary to the ship while it was in the United Kingdom and only for the duration of the repairs. He arrived back on 7th March, landed and was given permission to stay for three weeks. The s.s. "Nereus" arrived at Hull on 8th March and is expected to sail on the 14th, so the repairs do not seem to have been of a desperately major and serious nature.

There are two aspects in this case. The first is the admission of Mr. Sakellis to the United Kingdom on visits for consultation with Messrs. Hadjilias and Company. The second is the grant of permission for him to settle permanently in the United Kingdom and take employment here. It is not usual to require a Ministry of Labour permit when a foreigner is coming here for a limited period as an adviser or consultant and is already an employee of the company. In this case, permission was at first refused because the s.s. "Nereus" was not in a United Kingdom port and it was not certain that any repairs were required, or that Mr. Sakellis was the only person who could undertake those repairs. The refusal was later withdrawn and Mr. Sakellis was allowed to return for the temporary purpose of consultation and supervision in these repairs. There is not likely to be any difficulty about allowing him to come here from time to time for short periods in connection with his work as adviser or superintendent to Messrs. Hadjilias.

I should like to emphasise that ships of the whole world use our ports. The ships of many foreign countries, and many shipping countries with registrations outside the United Kingdom, with foreign seamen aboard use our ports and we are under continual pressure from the shipping companies to allow the residence of people, who would not otherwise be normally accepted as immigrant residents in this country, simply and solely by virtue of the fact that they may occasionally have to deal with ships of a foreign country calling at our ports.

The second point—the application by the firm that Mr. Sakellis should be allowed to reside here permanently as an employee—is a very different matter. After we had had consultation with the Ministry of Labour permission for this was refused. The ships owned by this company are rarely in British ports. Our information is that during 1955–56 only one of the Canadian ships called in the United Kingdom at all and that in the 13 months from March, 1955, to April. 1956, the s.s. "Nereus" called at Liverpool and Belfast only once. It is not a case of constant transit of shipping by this company's ships round our ports.

The amount of repair or overhaul done for the company in this country is, therefore, small indeed and does not justify Mr. Sakellis being allowed residence here. Even when he had a Ministry of Labour permit from 1st March, 1955, to 31st October, 1956, he spent most of that time abroad and in foreign ports.

I should like also to say a word about the somewhat exaggerated claims concerning Mr. Sakellis. As my hon. Friend rightly said, he qualified as a marine engineer as recently as 1953. So far as is known, his experience at sea is limited to about a year. To suggest that in this country, above all other maritime countries, there are no comparable qualified British marine surveyors available to do that work is, in my opinion, quite unacceptable.

Mr. Gough

Why, then, has the Ministry of Labour been totally incapable of finding somebody to do this particular specialised work? This person has been to sea for many years.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

It is not the task of the Ministry of Labour necessarily to find the people for this company. I refuse to believe that in this country, with its enormous record of shipbuilding and its knowledge of marine engineering, we do not have here surveyors and engineers capable of dealing with any ship, whether British, Greek, Canadian or any other, in our ports and engineering yards. To suggest that there are no comparable qualified British engineers available is not, in my opinion, a true statement of affairs.

Obviously, it is not necessary to have a permanent resident here by virtue of the very rare occasions on which these ships appear in our ports. There must be many repair yards which have the permanent staff who are quite capable of dealing with an issue of this kind. To suggest that the services of Mr. Sakellis are indispensable or that the volume of work which arises in the United Kingdom makes it essential for a firm to bring in a Greek engineer cannot, in my opinion, be substantiated.

I appreciate that my hon. Friend has put his case fairly and, I know, sincerely. I assure him, however, that this is not an isolated case. There are many applications for all types and kinds of Greek and other foreign shipping staff to be brought in, sometimes on even more slender grounds than in this case. If we allowed, on these very slender grounds, permanent residence, which would ultimately amount to immigration into this country, it would be an injustice to those who, through the normal and legitimate channels, try to seek entry and immigration into the country. I have gone into the case since my hon. Friend made his representations but, quite honestly, in view of all the evidence and the fact that there is not the volume of work concerning these ships, I cannot find any ground for changing the decision that has now been arrived at.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I find some difficulty in reconciling the two statements—that made by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) and that made by-the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. I am inclined to take the view that the Joint Under-Secretary probably has greater access to accurate information than has the hon. Member for Horsham, but some of the discrepancies were so wide that I think we must question whether the hon. Member for Horsham, is really in possession of all the facts.

I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Horsham accepted in good faith from somebody else the statements that have been made to him, but the number of ships owned by the company and their distribution under flags were considerably different in his statement and in that of the Joint Under-Secretary. I know that this matter will have been examined with great care in the hon. Lady's office, and I am always reluctant to believe that that office makes a mistake. It is a doctrine that I had to hold very firmly at one time, just as the hon. Lady has to hold it now, but I gather that there were more ships under the British flag owned by this company than there were under the Greek flag.

Mr. Gough

I would be only too glad to tell the House where I had the information. In the first place, I must make it clear that these people are ship brokers and managers and that they manage the ships. All the information came from their tile copies of letters to and from the Ministry and the Home Office and so on. The number of ships were five under the British flag and two under a foreign flag. I got that information from Mr. Hadjilias himself.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I said "British" and four under the Canadian flag. Is my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham counting the Canadian ships as being British? That might well explain the discrepancy.

Mr. Ede

I regard the Canadians as British.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I am sorry, but we were making the differential in shipping and saying that we were not claiming them as United Kingdom ships. Perhaps it would have been better if I had said one United Kingdom ship and four under the Canadian flag.

Mr. Ede

I have been recently in Canada. To suggest there that Canadians were not British would be very disastrous personally. In fact, Canadians are somewhat doubtful whether people coming from the United Kingdom are as British as they are. But I think that it is quite a fair point to say that for this particular job these are Canadian ships, sailing under the Canadian national merchant flag, which occasionally but very rarely visit this country. That is a point that I think needs to be established.

This man has now had ten years' connection with this country. He came to Sunderland in 1947 and started work within a few months in a Sunderland technical college. He remained there until 1953 when he took his degree in the University of Durham. When the hon. Lady said "Let us look at his qualifications", and then said he was a Bachelor of Science of Durham, I did not regard that as any disparagement. In fact, the University of Durham having conferred on me the honourary degree of Doctor of Civil Law, it always makes me feel a little more self-confident than I ought to be when hon. and learned Gentlemen start talking in the House.

What I want to know is if this man has ever applied for naturalisation? During that period at Sunderland he had completed the number of years which qualified him. Accepting the statement made by the hon. Gentleman, which has not been questioned, that he served in the Greek Navy side by side with ours, when there was no free Greek nation, and when he was undoubtedly acting under the administration of a British admiral, if he is so important to this country I would have thought that it would have been appropriate for him to apply for naturalisation, where the question of the Ministry of Labour would not have arisen. Most distinguished Greek sailors were naturalised, and some most undistinguished ones as well.

If he really was to act as if he were a British subject and to go about the seas on behalf of a firm with offices in this country and which is. I understand a British firm, though all the directors are people of Greek descent, and some of those are not naturalised British subjects although others are, I would have thought that the appropriate thing was for him to have applied for naturalisation.

I say frankly to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think the fact that some of the people on these ships speak Greek means that they must have a Greek superintendent to come and examine the ships.

Mr. Gough

May I deal with that important point, which, perhaps, I did not put clearly enough? I understand that the engineers on all these ships, bar one, are Greek and do not talk English.

Mr. Ede

No, but English can be spoken so that it is understood by many tongues. When I was a sergeant-major I had labour companies which consisted of people from nearly all the nations of the earth, including the Chinese, and one only had to point and to speak in a sufficiently determined tone of voice for people who did not understand a word of English to know what an Englishman wanted and what would happen if he did not get it.

Mr. Hugh Delargy (Thurrock)

Sergeant-majors are not engineers.

Mr. Gough

The right hon. Gentleman was a leader, not a technician.

Mr. Ede

I was a Royal Engineer. Whilst I understand the difficulties and the annoyance of this firm, which was heightened by the fact that as soon as the Suez trouble arose they could get anything they wanted—an indication that we may refer to on another occasion—on the facts as disclosed to us this evening I think that the Home Secretary could not reach any conclusion other than the one he did.

That is not to say that I do not sympathise with the wish of a man who has been trained in this country to make this country his base, but if he wishes to make this country his base and to go about more or less permanently to the four corners of the earth on the business of this shipping company, we ought to know whether he wishes to be a British subject or not. It may well be that during some of this period, if he had applied for naturalisation he would have been granted it, and there would then have been no difficulty at all.

I hope that in any further consideration given to the case the hon. Lady will realise that a man of this type may very well want to make this country his base of operations without of necessity residing here all the time. If his firm has a ship in Buenos Aires or Hong Kong of anywhere else in the world the firm may want him to go there, and if this is his base, then I think his absence from it and the period up to his return to it should not be regarded as an occasion when he is not using this country and not being of advantage to a company registered here. I think that on the facts as so far disclosed the hon. Lady had no alternative than to give the answer which she has given to her hon. Friend.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey (Sunderland, North)

I rise in order briefly to support my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I do not know whether what he said about his exceptional qualities as a sergeant-major are relevant, because I do not think he can expect these from the gentleman whom we are discussing.

I want to raise three points. First of all, I should like to speak up for Sunderland Technical College. I was shocked that the hon. Lady should have spoken in a way which could be interpreted as being disparaging of that institution, which is one of the finest technical colleges in the country.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I appreciate the hon. Member's desire to emphasise the credit of his local institution but, with great respect, I think nothing I said was disparaging of that college. Nevertheless, when one talks of this gentleman in the terms used by my hon. Friend, who spoke of his exclusive experience in this field, I think I am entitled to criticise. I was in no way casting a reflection on Sunderland Technical College.

Mr. Ede

He would have done better to have gone to South Shields Marine School.

Mr. Willey

I thank the Minister for her intervention, but not for provoking my right hon. Friend's reply. It has destroyed the testimony which she has given to the Sunderland Technical College, which would have served the college in other ways. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she said, but I still say that this gentleman had an exceptional opportunity in being able to attend the Sunderland Technical College, which is a very high qualification to have in the world of shipping and shipbuilding.

The second point I should like to make—and I can say no more than this, because I have only just had the opportunity of hearing this matter—is that this gentleman has been somewhat uncharitably dealt with. I do not know whether he has made any application for naturalisation. I agree with my right hon. Friend that one would expect such application to be made in this case, and I think the House should be told whether it has been made and whether it has been considered. It might not have been made because indication may have been given that, if made, it would not be favourably considered.

After all, what this engineer requires is a home from which to work. The nature of his work carries him about the world. In the light of the services which he has rendered, it appears from what was said by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) that his services are enough for him to be offered a home in this country. It hardly lies with us to say that because his duties take him abroad a good deal we should not allow him to express a wish to regard Britain as home.

The third point is rather different and has caused me some anxiety. Ship repair work is intensely competitive, and we have just lost a job at Sunderland to Rotterdam. It is becoming more competitive as the weeks go by. I do not know, but I do not think we are taking a realistic view about this at all. It may well be that because of this attitude of the Home Office, we might lose repair work, and that because of the attitude we are taking in this case we may find some of these ships going to other ports for repair. I think that that would be quite disastrous, because we have to fight very hard indeed to retain our ship repair work. This affects my constituency particularly, because we have a lot of ship repair work, and we depend upon a good deal of ship repair work in Sunderland.

I would ask the hon. Lady to see that there are proper consultations with the other Departments, and with the Admiralty particularly. I think that this shows something of a disregard for the importance of the ship repairing industry, and I hope that proper attention will be paid to this part of the case, so that action like this should not prejudice our repairing yards in getting work in ship repairing which might otherwise go abroad. I hope that the hon. Lady will at any rate see that there is consultation with the Admiralty particularly.

9.27 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas (Cardiff, West)

I intervene in this Adjournment debate only because I represent a constituency where we are often faced with a similar problem to that advanced by the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough).

In the City of Cardiff, we have ships coming from all parts of the world, and from time to time it has been my privilege, on behalf of various interests in the city, to seek the admission of foreign people. During the period when my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was at the Home Office, a very great number of foreigners was coming into this country. I want to say that, while I am always keen to see that business interests are not held up by the lack of this technical knowledge, I believe that we must also emphasise that foreigners owe something to this country. If they want all the protection of the law and the advantages of our shipbuilding industry, it is hardly fair that people should want to make a home here without accepting the responsibilities of citizenship. Why should they not have to face the responsibilities that go with citizenship of this island country?

I do not know this Greek gentleman, and I have never heard of him before, but I sympathise with him on many grounds, and not least the fact that he has been dragged into the light of publicity tonight, though that may well have been weighed up before the case was raised. I should like to say, in regard to hon. Members contacting the Home Office and holding up operations, that I hope that the Under-Secretary was not pronouncing a sort of policy with regard to this matter tonight, and that when hon. Members approach the Home Office, normally they do stop action until they have been able to investigate the claim of the hon. Member, because no hon. Member. I hope, would lightly take up a case of this sort without making some inquiries.

I am surprised that this gentleman has not in ten years desired to become a British citizen, and yet he pursues his claim to come here for long periods at a time. I think the hon. Lady owes it to the House to explain whether he has applied for naturalisation and also further to explain her attitude on the question of cases brought by hon. Members.

9.30 p.m.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

With the permission of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised.

The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) conveyed the impression that, having spent some years in this country, it would have been comparatively easy for this gentleman to apply for naturalisation. With his great experience at the Home Office, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the position of people coming into this country as students. During that period this young man never established himself as a resident. He was in this country as a student.

The right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that it limits the freedom we can give to foreign students if the very fact that they are here for five years or so as students gives them automatic priority for naturalisation. During his period here this young man was never a resident as such. He was here as a student training. He has never applied for—

Mr. Ede

No one has an automatic right to naturalisation, but it is news to me that the period a person spends here as a student, if he is otherwise suitable, will not count in the five years out of eight which he has to establish that, he has been here.

Miss Hornsby-Smith

I accept that from the right hon. Gentleman. It is the fact. But it was suggested that that term of years had been residence. One has to consider the period if subsequently a student applies, and certainly his period as a student might be considered and is not necessarily ignored. In fact, this man has not applied for naturalisation, but has been documented since 1939 as a resident of Egypt.

With respect, I do not think that hon. Members appreciate how many shipping companies with foreign connections apply to get all sorts of members of their staff a residence certificate in Great Britain. It is not a small problem nor is it a question of isolated cases. We must assure ourselves that there is a stronger case for residence in this country than that which is made in this case. I can assure hon. Members that there are many applications made on similar terms, if not on even more slender grounds, simply because a shipping or connected company has transit traffic with this country; and all kinds of foreign staff who in many cases would compete with our own people endeavour to get in.

We are not making a difficult or arbitrary decision in this matter. We have had consultations with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation and with the Ministry of Labour and National Service and it was after receiving advice from those Ministries that the certificate was not permitted and the application for an extension last October was refused.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Ten o'clock.