HC Deb 23 June 1959 vol 607 cc1030-2
Mr. Speaker

The House will recollect that, last Wednesday, I had to rule out of order a proposed Question by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) about the Rev. Tom Colvin because the regulation of immigration into the territory is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

In the course of subsequent points of order, the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) said: 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?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1959; Vol. 607, c. 441.] I replied that the Question had not been submitted to me on that ground, and that there was a point in what the right hon. Gentleman had said which I should like to consider. I therefore made inquiries to find out whether or not this gentleman is, in fact, a citizen of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. I am told that he is not. Therefore, as the Rev. Tom Colvin is not a citizen of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, he comes within the category of immigrant and, as immigration is a Federal subject, I must adhere to my Ruling that there is no responsibility of Ministers here for that subject nor for making representations upon any particular case.

I notice, however, that it has not escaped hon. Members that an action which is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government may have repercussions on matters for which the United Kingdom Government are responsible, and that Questions on the latter are in order.

Mr. Woodburn

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for what you have said. May I call your attention to the further result of our discussions? Sir Roy Welensky now proposes to make statements, presumably, about Mr. Colvin and his character, which may be in order, but is it not desirable, in the interests of proper relations between our countries and these responsibilities, that Sir Roy Welensky should not employ anything in the nature of character assassination to justify such action?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter with which I can deal. Sir Roy Welensky is not a Member of this House. Therefore, I have no control over him.

Mr. J. Griffiths

We are very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for the consideration that you have given to this matter. Is the effect of what you said at the end of your remarks about repercussions upon this country that the Question which my hon. Friend proposed to ask was really in order?

Mr. Speaker

That I do not know. I ask the House not to ask me to give advance Rulings on Questions which I have not seen. It would save the time of the House and, I think, assist hon. Members better, if, when they have framed their Question, they would consult the Clerks, who will give them any necessary assistance to bring the Question into order. I do not want to commit myself to general statements on these difficult topics.

Mr. S. Silverman

Arising out of the first part of what you said to us, Mr. Speaker, about this gentleman not being a citizen of Nyasaland, was not my right hon. Friend's point not that he was a citizen but that he was domiciled there, ordinarily resident there, having his home there? This is rather different from being a citizen. Did the Ruling which you have given take that point into account?

Mr. Speaker

Yes, it certainly did. Taking the analogy of our own immigration laws, an alien such as a Frenchman, or, let us say, a German, might be resident in this country and domiciled here without achieving our nationality. He might then go on a visit to his own country. It would be quite within our powers to deny him re-entry to this country if we thought that that was in the public interest.

Mr. J. Griffiths

Further to that point, Mr. Speaker. This is very important. May I submit this for your consideration? There are Federal citizens in the Federation, but there are also two Protectorates. Does that not alter the matter? There are protected persons as well as citizens, and protected persons come under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Secretary.

Mr. Speaker

I am aware of that. I think that the unit to be considered here is the Federation, which has these powers over immigration.