HC Deb 17 June 1959 vol 607 cc439-45
Miss Herbison

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today I wished to put down a Private Notice Question to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of the declaration by the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland that the Rev. Tom Colvin of the Church of Scotland was a prohibited immigrant. You, Sir, ruled that Question out of order since the Secretary of State was not responsible and it was the responsibility of the Government of the Federation. I now wish to ask for your help and guidance, Sir.

Since Nyasaland is still a Protectorate under the Colonial Office, how can we in this House raise this important question concerning the Rev. Tom Colvin, who is regarded by most of the people of Nyasaland as their friend, and make clear to that Government the views of the people in Britain and of the people in Nyasaland? Is it the case that we have so abrogated any power we had in Nyasaland that the Secretary of State for the Colonies cannot even use his good offices to influence the Federation? If that is the case, the vital point I want to raise is this: has the Minister or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations any responsibility in that matter and can a Question be put to him?

Mr. Speaker

I was obliged, with regret, to rule the hon. Lady's Question out of order because there was a lack of Ministerial responsibility. We had this out before on a previous occasion and it is clear that this House, when it set up the Federation, delegated to that Federation the sole power to make laws and orders about immigration. The order made against the reverend gentleman is an act of theirs and not of Ministers in this country. It is one which this House has empowered them to make and with which Ministers of this country cannot interfere.

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of order, Sir. Is it not the case that if a British subject is denied admission to a foreign country, it has been the practice in the past, on occasions that could be produced, for the Foreign Secretary to undertake to make representations in such a case? If that is so, even if the Federal authorities decline responsibility, what is there to prevent the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations from indicating to the Federal Government how much they are damaging their own case, and how repugnant public opinion in this country feels it should be that a British subject should be excluded from their territory merely on the ground that they dislike his political opinions?

Mr. Woodburn

Further to that point of order, Sir. Is it not the case that the Rev. Tom Colvin has been domiciled in Nyasaland for many years, that he is an engineer and missionary, and has played a great part in developing the life of the people there? This is not a question of prohibiting somebody immigrating into Nyasaland but of actually preventing a missionary from returning to his place of work. Is it not the case that the position is now being reached where the Church of Scotland is being treated by the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland as a dangerous organisation carrying the gospel to Nyasaland?

Mr. Speaker

I will reply to the points that have been submitted to me. In the first place, the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has asked whether the Foreign Secretary has not made representations in past cases where a British subject has been denied entrance to another country. I must rely on my memory, but I do not remember such a case. The rule governing these matters is that if the foreign Government concerned acts towards a British subject in some way other than that in which it acts towards its own subjects—that is to say, outside its own normal proceedings in law—there is generally considered to be a case for representations to be made. If, however, it applies its law equally to a British subject and to its own, I think, though I am speaking from memory, that the practice is that there is between nations no right to object, because it is really a criticism of their own municipal law.

As regards the point of the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), the Order in Council, founded on the Act of 1953, which is the source of the power of the Federal Government to regulate admission to its territory, applies to Nyasaland, because it is part of the Federation. Although this gentleman works in Nyasaland, the order made by the Government of the Federation covers Nyasaland as well as the other parts of the Federal territory.

Mr. Woodburn

Without questioning your Ruling, Sir, may I ask whether the word "immigrant" applies to people living in an area who happen to go out of the country to visit this country? An immigrant suggests to me somebody going to a country. This is preventing a man from returning to his home and place of work. Has the Colonial Secretary no responsibility for ensuring his rights?

Mr. Speaker

I would say, in the first place, that the Question was not put to me on that ground. This is a new ground which I would like to consider, but normally the word "immigration" really means entrance to a country for whatever purpose. For example, our own immigration law would enable us to keep a man out even for a short visit of twenty-four hours, or anything like that. However, there is a point in what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and perhaps the Ministers concerned will consider whether they have any responsibility. At present I see none.

Mr. G. M. Thomson

Further to that point of order, Mr. Sneaker. I have submitted to the Table Office a Question to the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, to ask him what representations he has received from the Church of Scotland about the declaration of the Rev. Tom Colvin as a prohibited immigrant, what reply the Minister has made, and what representations he is making as a consequence to the Government of the Federation. May I ask whether that Question is not bound to be in order, since the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has a responsibility to a British Church when one of its missionaries is prevented from entering a protected Territory which is the responsibility of the Colonial Office?

Mr. Speaker

I do not know anything about that Question. As far as I know, it has not been ruled out of order. It will receive careful consideration when we come to it.

Mr. J. Griffiths

I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you promised to give further consideration to the point made by my right hon. Friend, namely, what is an immigrant? Will you look at it in two ways? First, speaking from memory, immigration is a concurrent power of the Protectorate and of the Federal Government, and since the Secretary of State for the Colonies is still responsible for the Protectorate, and since the gentleman concerned proposed to return to Nyasaland where he was resident before, would not the Secretary of State for the Colonies have responsibility for that? Secondly, would it not be creating a precedent to describe as an immigrant somebody who was domiciled in that country but returned to this country for a period and seeks to go back? Is not that stretching the conception of an immigrant?

Mr. Speaker

I leave that to the judgment of the right hon. Gentleman and of the House, but Ministerial responsibility is a matter for Ministers. I will certainly consider what has been said, however, and see whether I can help in any way.

Mr. Bevan

Does not the original Ruling, Mr. Speaker, create a sense of frustration and helplessness on the part of hon. Members in all parts of the House when action of this sort has been taken which is deeply repugnant to British opinion? Although it would not be possible, nor would we desire, to conflict with your Ruling about the responsibility of Ministers, is it not the fact that we have still in our hands the power of dealing with this in another way? When a foreign Government—this is, for the purpose of your Ruling, a foreign Government—acts in a way which is unfair to one of our citizens and discriminates against him in a way we resent, it has been the practice for us to impose similar restrictions on their citizens here. Would it not be a good thing if the next time Sir Roy Welensky wanted to come to this country—this is a matter for which we are responsible—we declared him a prohibited immigrant?

Mr. Speaker

That is certainly not a matter for me. I should be chary about expressing an opinion on the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Hoy

While it may be correct and legally right for the Government of the Federation to have declared this man a prohibited immigrant, when we were giving that power we did not abrogate all our rights in the matter. When you are considering your answer to the House on that point, Mr. Speaker, will you also consider and make clear what powers we have retained in our own hands to defend our own nationals in like circumstances?

Mr. Speaker

All this arises from the Order in Council which was passed by the authority of the Act of 1953. The Order in Council was confirmed by Addresses from both Houses. I have to go by the law as it stands, and the law as it stands is that this House decreed that the question of immigration should be a responsibility of the Federation. It is one of the consequences of the grant of self-government to a territory within the Commonwealth that we in this House lose control over its actions in these matters. It has never been the practice, for example, to interfere with actions taken in accordance with their own laws by Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Will you, Mr. Speaker, give further consideration to this point? This territory has not been granted self-government—

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to correct what I said. The territory has been granted self-government in so far as the power to make laws about immigration is concerned.

Mr. Griffiths

Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is unique in the Commonwealth. It is a Federation in which there are two Protectorates for which we are still completely responsible.

May I ask you, with respect, to consider another matter? Even in the field of a Federation, this House—even by the Order in Council—retains the right to legislate for the area of the Federation. Does not that, therefore, give us an over-riding responsibility for the Federation, since we have reserved the right to legislate for it? That right was acknowledged by the present Government some time ago, because they entered into a convention with the leaders of the Federation saying that they would not legislate without their consent. That was merely a matter of arrangement between the British Government and the Federation Government, but the fact that they arrived at that convention is an indication that the Order in Council contains within it power for this House and this Parliament to legislate for the Federation. Does not that put things in a different position in which the House ought not to be prevented from raising a question such as that which has been raised today?

Mr. Speaker

I do not think so. If that be the position—and I have no doubt that it is as the right hon. Gentleman has said so—I have no doubt that the House could legislate for the Federation, perhaps to change the law in respect of this matter, but I do not think that the power to legislate by itself would enable us to deal with questions of administration which we have definitely by our own legislation handed over to the Federation.

Mr. M. Stewart

Would it not be in order, Mr. Speaker, for my hon. Friend to ask the appropriate Minister whether he would introduce legislation in order to restrict the right of the Federation to restrict immigration?

Mr. Speaker

I should not like to give an answer to a hypothetical question. I should first like to see the question itself. I have no doubt that if right hon. and hon. Members consult on the matter, they will be able to devise a form of words which will be acceptable to the House.