HC Deb 05 December 1961 vol 650 cc1161-275
Mr. Gaitskell

I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert: or (b) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or".

The Chairman

I think that it would be convenient if we discussed also the following Amendments: in page I line 13, leave out from "passport" to "or" in line 14.

In Clause 2, page 2, line 40, after "citizen", insert: other than a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies".

Mr. Gaitskell

That would be convenient, Sir Gordon.

The attitude of our party to the Bill has been made abundantly clear. During the Second Reading debate we explained the reasons why we are opposed to the Bill as a whole, but today we are in Committee and concerned with its details.

The first Amendment does not deal with the principle of the Bill, though it does deal with a very important part of it. It has been described in one of the newspapers as a wrecking Amendment. I wish to make it plain that in my opinion it is not a wrecking Amendment. It may well be that some Amendments could be so described; I do not know. There may be people who would argue to that extent, but I think that when the Committee has heard the explanation of the Amendment it will agree with me when I say that it is not a wrecking Amendment. If it is accepted, it will leave the Bill, in our view a deplorably bad one, but perhaps not quite so bad as it is now.

What does the Amendment do? It draws a distinction between independent territories in the Commonwealth, self-governing territories, and those which are dependent territories; between, to use the older phraseology, Dominions and Colonies. It emphasies, therefore, that although all the territories are within the Commonwealth, one can for certain purposes legitimately draw a distinction between them.

The obvious reason for this distinction is that the Colonies are our responsibility; that we do in the last resort still continue to govern them. They have governors appointed by Her Majesty, but the Secretary of State for the Colonies is responsible to this House for what the Governor does, in a way that neither he nor any other member of the Government is responsible, for instance, for what the Government of India or the Government of Canada may choose to do.

With that goes something else, that these Colonies of ours have no independent nationality of their own. They are not separate countries. They are part of the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies". This was recognised very plainly by the British Nationality Act, 1948, which happens to be the latest legislation on this subject. Before that Act was passed, no distinction for the purpose of nationality was drawn between the citizens of the United Kingdom and those of any other part of the Commonwealth, including the so-called Dominions.

After that Act such a distinction was drawn, and it was drawn very clearly between, to use the phrase which we have used in the Amendment, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on the one side, and citizens of self-governing members of the Commonwealth, on the other. I should add that even in the 1948 Act, only thirteen years ago, we still felt sufficiently strongly about the need to preserve the relationship between the Commonwealth and British citizenship to write into that Act that the citizenship of any of these other countries—I am speaking of Dominions not Colonies—carried with it the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizenship. But I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the first distinction, the distinction which identifies clearly in that Act for the first time citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

In law at present, we here in Britain are in precisely the same position as regards nationality as the citizens of our Colonies. There is no difference. We all have the same passports. There is no question of a distinction between the place of issue, or the Government who issues it. The phrase is the same in them all, and any hon. Member who chooses to look at his pasport will find stamped in it, "British Subject, Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". That is what we all are. I must confess that to introduce, as the Bill does, a new distinction according to how the passport—still the same blue passport—is issued, is an extraordinary innovation, for we are still, even after this Bill, citizens, in the Colonies or here, of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

What is being done by the Bill is to introduce a distinction between two kinds of Government. Clause 1 (2) says: This section applies to any Commonwealth citizen not being—

  1. (a) a person born in the United Kingdom;
  2. (b) a person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or who holds such a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland …"
Then, if one turns to subsection 3, one finds the definition of "United Kingdom passport", and these are the crucial words: ' United Kingdom passport' means a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom. I again remind the Committee that I am not speaking about Governments of independent countries within the Commonwealth. I think that the Committee will observe that we are introducing here a remarkable distinction between what the Government of the United Kingdom in Britain does, and what the Government of a Colony does, which seems to me wholly untenable.

What we are, in effect, saying is that the Government of Gibraltar—and after all, Gibraltar is obviously one of the territories affected—can issue a passport to a member of the Gibraltar community, to a citizen of Gibraltar,—he is still a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—but it does not carry with it the rights of a United Kingdom and Colonies citizen who happens to have a passport issued by the United Kingdom Government. This is done despite the fact that we still have responsibility for the government of those territories. I find this constitutionally an extraordinary position.

I submit that these people of whom we are speaking this afternoon are British. They cannot be described in any other way. They are British people. There is no proposal before us to amend the British Nationality Act, 1948. They are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and they have no other home. They have no other nation. We have not granted them independence. They are part of us. I venture to say that this argument alone is an extremely weighty one which hon. Gentlemen opposite will find some difficulty in disposing of. I appeal to them to consider carefully what they are doing in this.

There are a number of other reasons for the Amendment. During the course of his Second Reading speech, the Home Secretary urged, as his first reason for the Bill, that it was highly embarrassing for us that within the Commonwealth there were no fewer than one quarter of the world's population. He was frightened that they might all come here. It was a very specious argument, as the right hon. Gentleman knew very well. At least, this Amendment might appeal to him, for if it is accepted, he need have no anxiety. It will not involve the 400 millions of India coming here. It will not involve the Pakistanis coming here. It will not involve anyone but the citizens of the remaining Colonies, so long as they are Colonies.

We know, roughly, what they are. I suppose that the largest territories are still in Africa—Gambia, Northern Rhodesia, and, for the time being Nyasaland, I suppose, Kenya, for the time being, though for how long we do not know, some islands, Gibraltar, also of historic importance which I should not have thought people could ignore altogether, Malta, and, of course, Uganda—

Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)

For the time being.

Mr. Gaitskell

My right hon. Friend says "for the time being".

Of course, there is also the West Indies. It may well be that the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Well, that would be all right if it were not for the West Indies. We would not worry, because, after all, there is not an enormous number of people coming here from East Africa, there is not an enormous number coming from Mauritius or Zanzibar, or any of the other islands which are still colonies, but there are many people coming here from the West Indies". Therefore, I make no apology for concentrating now upon their case.

I think that we should recall just a little of the history of the West Indies. The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of these islands were not there when we acquired possession of them. Barbados was uninhabited, and in most of the other islands there might have been some natives there, but they were comparatively small in number. We find that, overwhelmingly, the population there has come from other continents—from Africa, and to some extent from India. How did they get there?

They did not go as free immigrants. They went there because our ancestors, British traders and planters of that time, needed their slave labour to work on the plantations. In that sense, we created these islands ourselves. Britain did it, and we cannot escape responsibility for what was done. After all, this is not a very recent thing. Some of these islands—I think I am right in saying Barbados and Jamaica—have been British for about three hundred years. They have never been anything else. We made them. We brought them up in our own traditions. They have no other language, and nothing is spoken there except English.

Those hon. Members who have been there will agree with me—it is a rather entertaining thing to do—that we find various accents which we can trace to different parts of the British Isles. We find an Irish accent quite common, and also a Welsh accent in some cases, and we find that these accents are there because our forefathers taught them those accents. Their culture has been affected by us, and I need hardly emphasise their sporting abilities. Few small islands could have been so brilliant at cricket as those in the Federation of the West Indies. That is one reason why I think that, far from taking the view that because the West Indies are still a Colony, we cannot accept this Amendment, we should say, "Right, this is a good case. We have special obligations here, and we should not apply these distinctions"

I do not know how many hon. Members heard or saw Sir Grantley Adams in his television appearance and interviews last night. I did not see him myself, but my wife did, and she told me how deeply moved she was—and I have heard it from other people—because of what he said about the feeling of the people that they were British and had never felt anything else. If people are like that, and they are British, how can we keep them out of Britain? How can we do this thing?

4.45 p.m.

There is another reason. It may well be that the main motive for people coming here has been economic. I have never denied that, but if we were to stop Indians and Pakistanis coming here, though I would deplore it, for the reasons I gave on Second Reading, I certainly would not claim that the trickle of immigrants from these territories made any substantial economic difference to the situation in the countries from which they come. In the West Indies, it is a very different matter. If we stop them coming in, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know this very well, we shall be throwing back their unemployment problem upon them. We cannot say that this is not a matter for us. They are still our responsibility. How can we do this? I beg hon. Members opposite, and I beg the Government, to think very seriously about what the consequences may be.

If we stop them coming here, and we stop this outlet, and, at the same time, we give them the impression, as we must,—let there be no illusions about this—that this is a colour bar, let us consider what the political consequences are likely to be in these islands. There are groups and parties in Jamaica and the other islands which are frankly racialist in their outlook. What a fillip it will give them. I am not surprised that those who are at present governing—the Prime Minister and Ministers in these islands under our Colonial Office—should feel bitterly about this, and sad, too, because there is something else about the West Indies with which I think those hon. Members who have been there will agree with me.

One of the things that impressed me so deeply was the absolute absence of any racial friction there, and the real feeling that one had of racial equality. It may be partly because we do not just have two colours, but because we have a great many different colours. Whatever it may be, it is something which, I should have thought, was, in this moment of history, rather precious. It is particularly tragic that we should destroy it, as I am afraid we shall.

There is yet another reason. Nobody would think that, even with immigration to this country, the economic situation in Jamaica and Barbados and the other islands is particularly good, even with the efforts we have made, as we learnt at Question Time the other day, in trying to induce the United States to grant a quota-free entry to these islands. I will not trouble the Committee with the details, although I was aware of them before, but there are possibilities here, and the matter is under examination by a Congressional Committee.

We want our Government to encourage the United States to do this, because it would be helpful to these islands. How can the Government go to the Americans and say, "Will you please lift your quota?" at the very moment when we are imposing ours? How can that be done? Is it not obvious that this is bound to prejudice any efforts which we may make in that direction? One would have thought that at least the Government would try to start with their hands free, without the burden of this Bill, to go to the President and American Government and urge them to take this step.

What is the Government's case for this? It is definitely not that we may be flooded out. We cannot be flooded out by the few millions remaining in the Colonies. Let us be clear about this; there is no possibility that all of them will come over here, any more than there is the possibility that the Indians and the rest will come over here. The case so far made out has been principally based on the argument—and here, I gather from the newspapers, the point was made again by the Prime Minister—that although it is all right now there may later be unemployment, and then it will be very difficult.

At the Tory Party Conference the Home Secretary said the same thing. He said: There is no immediate anxiety about the employment of immigrants but we must look ahead… Will this country be able to absorb indefinitely immigrants at the current rate of entry together with the natural growth of our population? My first question is: if there is no immediate anxiety about the employment of immigrants why are the Government rushing the Bill through now? We are entitled to an answer to that question. How do these arguments add up? If there is no immediate anxiety, and it is merely a vague fear, what will happen in the future? Surely the least that should have been done was to ensure that proper consultations were held before the Bill was proceeded with—and I shall return to that matter shortly.

Secondly, when did the Government start getting frightened about unemployment? Is this something that we must take seriously, or is it a patent excuse, due to the fact that they cannot think of anything else to say? We are entitled to a further explanation here. The Prime Minister referred to this point in his talk with Sir Grantley Adams. I should like to repeat and also to enlarge upon what I said in the Second Reading debate. If hon. Members are seriously frightened about unemployment and its possible consequences here, and about the possibility of there being a lot of coloured immigrants out of work, I ask them to consider the facts—that is to say, the relationship between the immigration from the West Indies and the number of outstanding vacancies here. I said then that as the number of vacancies arose the movement of migration also went up, and as the number of vacancies went down that movement declined.

I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I give some figures here, because they are extraordinary. I begin with 1956. In the first quarter of that year there were 257,000 outstanding vacancies, and the number of West Indian migrant arrivals was 4,700. In the second quarter there was an increase in the number of outstanding vacancies, to 270.000, and a substantial increase in the number of migrant arrivals, to 9,000. There was a fall in the number of vacancies in the third quarter and also a fall in the number of arrivals from the Commonwealth. There was yet another fall in the number of vacancies in the fourth quarter—a sharp fall this time, as the economic situation evidently deteriorated—and also a fall in the number of arrivals, from 8,000 to 3,500.

There is the same picture in 1957. In the first quarter the number of vacancies went down, and so did the number of migrant arrivals. There was a rise in the number of vacancies in the second quarter, and also in the number of migrant arrivals. I have the figures for the past five years, and in practically every case it is a matter of equivalent movement, quarter by quarter. What does this suggest? It suggests that these people come here when they are wanted and do not come here when they are not wanted. That is common sense.

When the Home Secretary talks about the fear of unemployment I suggest, first, that he had better explain how frightened he is. What does he expect? Is this a serious argument? Secondly, I suggest that even if he is frightened that there will be a depression here he need not worry about the immigration figure. I think that he can take it as certain that if there were to be any serious increase in unemployment here, with a consequent diminution in the number of outstanding vacancies, not only would the number of arriving migrants decline sharply but that there would be a large return to the West Indies. Last week, we saw the beginning of this trend. I cannot understand how any serious-minded person can put forward this argument in the face of those figures.

It is also sometimes suggested that during the last five years there has been a steady increase in the numbers coming from the West Indies—that the numbers are gradually increasing year by year, and that we shall eventually be flooded out with them. That is simply not true. The figures vary from year to year, and I will quote them. I am dealing now entirely with the West Indies. In 1955, the number was 27,500; in 1956, it was 29,800; in 1957—the crisis year—it was 23,000, a decline. In 1958, as the contraction went on here, the migration figure fell to 15,000. It rose slightly in 1959, to 16,400 and in 1960 to 50,000. The same sort of figure is probable for 1961. This does not show a steadily increasing rush of migrants. It shows a variation according to the economic situation existing here.

What other arguments can the Government adduce? One has been mentioned in various newspapers, and I want to ask the Government a direct question in relation to it. Were they asked at any time, in the discussions about the Common Market, before we went further with this matter, to make sure that we could control the flow of migrants from the Commonwealth, so that, in turn, Europe would not have to face a possible flow from this country? I have not mentioned that possibility before, but I have read it in several newspapers, and since it has been said we should be clear whether or not there is anything in it.

As far as I can see, unless the Amendment is accepted citizens of the Colonies—those who have passports issued in the wrong place—will be kept out. What will be the position of the Irish? Can we know? First, they were in the Bill—that is to say, they were to be subject to control. Then, in the Second Reading debate, the Home Secretary said that we could not keep them out. The whole implication of his speech was that they were to be taken out of the Bill. Then, so quickly do Government minds change, the Minister of Labour, when winding up said that the Government would have another look to see whether they could pop them in again in the Bill.

This is an absurd situation. So far as I can see there are no Government Amendments dealing with this matter. What will they do about it? I hope that they will at least be honest with the Committee and will not try to pretend that they are going to keep the Irish out and then quietly allow them in. I do not wish to keep the Irish out, any more than I wish to keep out people from the rest of the Commonwealth; they are just as useful to us over here, and have been for years, as those coming from the West Indies. But it will be an intolerable position if the Irish are allowed in and the people from the Colonies, for whom we are responsible, are kept out—and I mean kept out, effectively.

Will he Home Secretary tell us whether the Government are proposing to introduce Amendments dealing with the problem? If they are not going to do so, how, precisely, will the Bill be administered so as to keep the same degree of control over immigration from Ireland? Or will the Home Secretary tell us that the Government will leave it in the Bill, but, of course, will not attempt to administer control? I suppose that it would be better to be told that the Government were going to administer it, although, in practice, they would not be able to do so.

There is one other question which has special reference to the West Indies, and that is the question of consultation. The Government record in this matter is extraordinary. Earlier we asked about consultation and we received general replies from different Ministers saying that it had taken place. Then Sir Grantley Adams sent me a telegram—which I passed to the Prime Minister—in which he described exactly what had happened. The Committee should be reminded of this. Sir Grantley Adams said: I categorically deny that West Indies Government was ever consulted in any way whatever about form or detailed provisions of Bill. On October 13th we were told in confidence the intention to introduce restrictive legislation given its broad general terms and promised the Secretary of State's readiness 'to discuss any matter which may arise from time to time from operation of Bill' We strongly protested. On October 31st he repeated those assertions, again using the word 'operation'. On November 7th we first knew of provisions through receiving savingram dated November 1st with printed copies of the Bill without invitation to comment. On November 16th we received another confidential telegram explaining the mechanics of voucher system and asking for our co-operation in working out details. This is what the Government call consultation. I ask the Government again: how is it that before they decided to introduce the Bill they did not have proper consultations with the Prime Ministers and leaders of the Colonies most likely to be affected by it? How can this be defended?

5.0 p.m.

I know what will be said, or perhaps it will be said—"Oh yes, of course we did have discussions." On 23rd November the Prime Minister told me: The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that informal and confidential discussions on this matter have gone on for a long time. A little later, he said: This matter had been discussed and had been in the air for a very long time. Confidential and informal discusions were held… "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1541–2.] When I asked the Leader of the House about this very recently; when I said: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman consulted Commonwealth Governments about a proposal for the British Government to control immigration from the Commonwealth? he said: No, Sir. That side of it was dealt with by the Prime Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 632.] "Dealt with" is a strange phrase to use in that connection. The fact is that there have been no informal discussions whatever with Sir Grantley Adams and with Mr. Manley. I can tell the Committee that. Sir Grantley Adams told me so himself, and I think that there are enough hon. Members who know him well enough to realise that he would not have invented that. There was none at all. I say that this is really a scandalous thing for the Government to have done and it is not improved by the way in which Ministers have tried to pretend that there were consultations when there were not.

I do not regard the parliamentary correspondent of Punch as being particularly biassed on our side, but I think that what he said over this matter is worth recalling. In his report in the issue of 29th November he said: The trouble about being a clever politician is that after a time nobody believes what you say—least of all when it happens to be true. Then, after various points which were illustrating that, he said: So, in the same way on Thursday, nobody quite believed, however bold the assertions, that Mr. Macmillan had consulted Sir Grantley Adams over the Immigration Bill as fully as he pretended. People believe that he didn't simply because he said that he did. Indeed, when Mr. Macmillan said, 'The Prime Ministers' Conference did not in its open session discuss this question"—

Mr. Compton Carr (Barons Court)

On a point of order. With the greatest respect, may I ask whether the matter now being raised by the Leader of the Opposition is in order in discussing this Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot)

Had he not been in order I should have called the right hon. Gentleman to order.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am obliged, Mr. Arbuthnot.

I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I think the question of whether we are to exclude from this Bill citizens of the Colonies is closely related to whether those persons or their representatives had been properly consulted. I am saying that they have not been properly consulted and evidently that is the view of the parliamentary correspondent of Punch; and he thought, evidently, that it was also the view of most hon. Members in this House.

I will complete the quotation. He said: People believe that he didn't simply because he said that he did. Indeed, when Mr. Macmillan said, 'The Prime Ministers' Conference did not in its open session discuss this question as Prime Ministers', what were Members expected to believe? This may be all most unfair, but I am afraid that that is the way it is. Yes, that is the way it is—and a shocking state of affairs, too.

I do not know, but possibly hon. Members opposite, and the Government, are so desperately frightened at the danger of racial friction here that they feel that they must rush this thing through. If that is the case I wish that they had told us. I do not think they are right to be so frightened. I do not know whether many hon. Members read the interesting article on the position in Nottingham, published in the Economist. I will not read it all, but after pointing out that the immigrants were not packing into and smashing up the houses they inhabit it states: … the city's medical officer of health reports that neither disrepair nor overcrowding is more serious in immigrants' houses than it is in the rest of Nottingham. After saying few immigrants are on National Assistance. Few young coloured people are unemployed; but their elders are less easy to place it states—I think that I must read this—about the health of the immigrants: … in Nottingham, far from being simultaneous carriers and spreaders of everything from smallpox to leprosy, the coloured population suffers mainly from digestive troubles (being unused to British food), coughs and colds; their children suffer unbilical hernia more often than English children do; and their babies get bronchitis. Tuberculosis, it is stressed, is rare. The crime bill is remarkably clean. Nottingham's chief constable finds that only coloured people sometimes have noisy parties, which break up when the police ask them to. But, he says, 'so far there is no evidence that they engage in crime'. How many other of 8,000 people could match that? This is a Bill which had much better be dropped altogether. The Bill with our Amendment would at least be one degree more tolerable. The Amendment has, I believe, logic, compassion and common sense, and I hope that the Committee will approve it.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

I think that it may be convenient if on this occasion I make an immediate answer, even though it be a short one, to the speech which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to make perfectly clear, first, to the right hon. Gentleman, and to his hon. Friends, that there is no question of dropping this Bill and that we propose to see it through. We have brought it in for very good reasons, which I gave in my speech during the Second Reading debate, because the situation is one which should be taken hold of before there is any deterioration in certain of the areas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.

I accept immediately the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Committee, and I accept personally the reports of the chief constables and the social reports we get on the question of indulgence in crime by many of our immigrants from overseas, which cannot be said to be in any way worse and are often in many ways better than that of the local population. I accept all those things. But I still say that this Bill is vital at the present time, and I propose now to try to answer the right hon. Gentleman.

It is an extremely peculiar Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen with which to make his first onslaught on the Bill. The position, frankly, is that U.K. and colonial citizenship is to be exempted and others are to be included. I think that we must get clear what this means. It means that the right hon. Gentleman, having come to the Committee stage of the Bill, immediately concedes that a wide measure of control of immigrants from the Commonwealth is necessary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—

Mr. Gordon Walker


Hon. Members

Give way.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. If the Minister does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

Mr. Gaitskell


Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Gaitskell

I am obliged. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to keep the debate at a slightly higher level. I said nothing of the kind. I made it perfectly clear that we were opposed to the Bill as a whole and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, which Amendment happens to come first depends on the Bill and the accident of the selection of Amendments. The position still remains that we detest the Bill as a whole. But if we have to have the Bill as a whole, as evidently we are, we would rather have it with our Amendment.

Hon. Members


Mr. Butler

I have to take the Amendment as I find it on the Notice Paper. The effect of the Amendment on the Notice Paper would be to leave a wide measure of control over Commonwealth self-dependent countries and remove simply those with U.K. and colonial citizenship. I think we had better get it quite clear that the effect of this Amendment, which I consider would be wrong, in the initial stages of this discussion would be that a diminishing part of the Commonwealth would be exempted from control.

When we come to the case of the West Indies, on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke with considerable power and emotion, Sir Grantley Adams and everyone else there must realise that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be that on gaining independence, which is in sight, they would come under control. Therefore, we must balance against the high-minded phrasing and sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman that if you are dependent you have free entry and if you are independent you have control. I should regard this Amendment, therefore, as being for these reasons extremely unsatisfactory and not at all suitable to the Bill.

Also, in my view, taking the Amendment as we find it on the Notice Paper, which we must do in discussing this Bill, it would be invidious to draw distinctions between Commonwealth countries, in favour of a country like Australia or Hong Kong and other dependent territories. I do not believe this will be well received overseas, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's argument will be received as anything but a great mistake in the course of the passage of the Committee stage of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker

The right hon. Gentleman says that he has to take this Amendment as it is on the Notice Paper. I take it that he has taken the trouble to read the whole of the Amendments on the Paper. It is quite clear that we have to take one thing at a time. We want in later Amendments to exempt citizens of Commonwealth nations. It is a cheap and pettifogging point which the Secretary is trying to make.

Mr. Butler

In that case, the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) gives the lie to what was said by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He said that his Amendment was in no sense a wrecking Amendment. Taking the Amendments to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick has now referred in company with this Amendment, they are obviously wrecking Amendments to the Bill. If there is to be any charge of insincerity, it should be laid at the door of right hon. Members opposite who attempt to prove that they are not indulging in wrecking Amendments. I hope I have said enough to show that this Amendment by itself—

Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester)

On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. We have been notified of the Amendments which have been selected, and those Amendments include a number of Amendments which the Home Secretary now describes as wrecking Amendments. Is it in order to describe as wrecking Amendments Amendments which have been selected by the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman

The Amendments we are now dealing with are: the Amendment which has been moved, the Amendment to page 1, line 13, and the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 40.

Mr. Diamond

Further to that point of order. I apologise for not having made my meaning clear. May I refer to Amendments appearing later on the Notice Paper which the Home Secretary has just mentioned in your hearing? May I refer to those Amendments which have been selected and which have been notified in the Division Lobby as having been selected? Those Amendments dealing with Commonwealth countries the Home Secretary has now termed wrecking Amendments. Is it in order to describe as wrecking Amendments Amendments which have been selected by the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman

Those Amendments have been only provisionally selected and we are not discussing them now.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

Further to that point of order. With great respect, it would appear that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has been misconceived. I understand that he is not suggesting that we should discuss now any other Amendment than the one which has been moved. What he is suggesting to you, Mr. Arbuthnot, is that it is a reflection on the Chair to describe as a wrecking Amendment an Amendment which the Chair has selected.

The Temporary Chairman

If the hon. Member looks at the Paper giving the selection by the Chair, he will see that it is a provisional selection. We are at present dealing with the first Amendment, the Amendment to page 1, line 13, and the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 40.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget (Northampton)

Could we have your ruling, Mr. Arbuthnot, on whether it is in order to describe as a wrecking Amendment an Amendment which the Chair has provisionally selected?

The Temporary Chairman

It is not incumbent upon me to answer metaphysical questions.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

Further to that point of order. We are discussing the first Amendment on the Notice Paper, an Amendment which was selected by the Chair as proper for discussion. It is that Amendment, among others, to which the Home Secretary has referred as a wrecking Amendment. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to refer to something as a wrecking Amendment which has been actually discussed with and has passed the Chair?

The Temporary Chairman

I do not consider that the reference made by the Home Secretary was that this Amendment of itself was a wrecking Amendment.

Mr. Butler

May I congratulate you, Sir, on your discernment and the correct appreciation you have made of my remarks? My reference to wrecking is simply that if we are to get the Bill cut into ribbons here and cut into ribbons there nothing will remain of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members acknowledge that. If they accept that definition, I tell them in perfect good humour that the Government are not going to stand for it. We are proposing to get this Bill through substantially in its present form. I would also add—

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

Is the Home Secretary implying that it is a waste of time to move Amendments and that the Government are not going to listen to the arguments?

Mr. Butler

I was coming to my next remark, which is that we are going to see the Bill through substantially in its present form, but there are a great many Amendments which we can consider favourably—as a result of looking at the Notice Paper, those which have been selected by the Chair. I shall refer to a particular question, namely the duration of the Bill, in the course of my remarks this afternoon in answer to the Leader of the Opposition. There are a great many other points on Clause 1, including the questions of residence and students. All those are things on which possibly we can get a substantial amount of agreement. I believe we can meet a great many of the constructive points in the Amendments put down, but I do not believe that we can meet an Amendment such as this which would sunder United Kingdom citizenship from Commonwealth citizenship. I do not believe that we can divide the immigration problem in that way. I do not believe we can accept the sort of Amendments to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick referred. I hope that will inform the Committee that we approach this Committee stage in a constructive manner. We shall try to do our best to make the Bill a better Bill when it passes into an Act. I think this will be found not to be a humbug when we have completed the Committee stage.

Before I refer to some of the questions put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, I think it my duty to refer in answer to the method of operation of Clause 1. The purpose is to define those who belong to the United Kingdom, and therefore have right of entry, and those who have no United Kingdom citizenship—the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1948—and on whom we do not confer exemp- tion. Under the Act of 1948, there are separate citizenships. The self-governing territories of the Commonwealth created their own citizenship, and there is citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to which he referred. Then there are other British citizens who have, so to speak, been left behind by the tide, some of whom live in Eire and some of whom live in fairly large numbers in India and Pakistan.

The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will be the first to agree with me that there is no more complicated subject than citizenship or nationality and the Acts concerned with it. Therefore, in order to define "belonging to the United Kingdom" two criteria have been laid down in the Bill—first, that the person should be born here, and, secondly, that he should have a United Kingdom passport. In the latter case, if the holder is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, his passport must have been issued in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, The latter proviso is to include certain Irish loyalists who under the 1948 Act elected to remain British but stayed in the Republic. Those are the only types to be covered by this proviso. Dependants will be shown on the passport.

The criteria in Clause 1 have been chosen partly for simplicity for the immigration officer to interpret. He can tell at a glance from the passports who is covered and who reasonably belongs to the United Kingdom. If hon. Members require a simple definition of the British Nationality Act, 1948, they will see in the explanation of Clause 1, which is contained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, a clear definition of who is exempted and who is not.

The reason why we believe that we must adhere to our point and cannot take up the point of the right hon. Gentleman is that we believe that the pressure of immigration comes not only from the Commonwealth but also from the Colonies. The Bill is made necessary by the figures I announced, which were net figures, some of which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. So there is no need for me to quote them. They are the net figures of hard immigration which make the Bill necessary.

The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures for the West Indies. The total net figure of inward movement for the first ten months of 1961 from the West Indies, East and West Africa, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, India, Pakistan and Ceylon is no less than 113,500, as compared with 57,710 in 1960, 21,620 in 1959, and 29,830 in 1958. This is regarded by the Government as an indication of a very considerable rise in immigration. That is why we are introducing the Bill, because we feel that the situation should be capable of being controlled, although we do not believe that when the Bill is finally passed it will be unreasonable or that it will make it impossible for bona fide immigrants to come to this country, especially those seeking work, those who are coming here on visits, those who are coming as students, and so forth. When the Committee has had an opportunity of going into these matters in detail, I believe that it will realise that this control is not going to be so impossible or severe as Sir Grantley Adams and many other sincere and decent people overseas fear it will be.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

Will the right hon. Gentleman divide the figures into those coming from the Colonies and those coming from independent countries, so that we may have them in perspective in discussing the Amendment?

Mr. Butler

I will certainly make some figures available. I think that they have been circulated in the past in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If they have not been, I will see that they are circulated. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that the figure for the West Indies for the first ten months of 1961 was 57,700. The figure for India was 18,300. The figure for Pakistan was 19,280. The net inward movement from India during 1958 was 6,200. The net inward figure for the West Indies was, as quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, 15,020. That gives some indication of the numbers. The numbers from the other countries I mentioned are not so large.

It is for these reasons that we have decided that we must proceed with the Bill. Let us hope that we can make it a better and a suitable Measure as we pass it through Committee and Report.

I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer on the question of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was permitted by the Chair to discuss Ireland and so, if I may, I will answer him. I hope that I shall be regarded as being in order. I will not go into the full case about Ireland because there is a later Amendment on the Notice Paper—that in page 2, line 6, which seeks to delete subsection (4)—which I think would be more appropriate for a detailed consideration of this subject. Therefore, if I truncate my remarks it will not be from a desire to avoid the subject but merely because we shall be considering it again.

As I explained in my Second Reading speech, there is a close association with Ireland, geographically and for every other reason. There is a close association in citizenship, the Southern Irish being regarded as British citizens. There is a close association in voting, the Irish being allowed to vote. There are always very many anomalies when we deal with the Irish question.

On Second Reading I explained why it is virtually impossible to control the Irish coming in by the ports, unless we impose a control within the United Kingdom itself—that is, against United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland. The Government have considered this very carefully. They have considered the possibility of manning and policing the border between Eire and Ulster, but have decided that the difficulties are too great to make this possible. That is the decision which the Government have reached. I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the decisions, because he asked to have them.

The next question which arises is: why was Ireland mentioned in the Bill. It was natural, we thought, to mention the Republic of Ireland in the Bill, for a variety of reasons. The main one was that we genuinely wanted to have the power to control Irish immigration in the case of absolute necessity. [Laughter.] There is no need for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, because I am trying to explain the details of this difficult problem. The main reason why we want to have this power in reserve is that, if the Government of the Republic do not control immigration from the Common wealth coming to their shores, it would be necessary to adopt the inevitable course, undesirable though the Government regard it, of imposing an immigration control at the docks to catch immigrants coming in.

But I have reason to believe that the Southern Irish Government have recently indicated in the Dáil—Mr. Aiken, the Foreign Secretary, was the speaker—the likelihood that the Government of the Republic would take steps at their ports to control immigrants. If that is so, there will be no reason from that point of view to impose control at the ports.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of the Minister of Labour in winding up the debate on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend said then that we would consider every possibility of controlling the Irish, even if control at the ports were not possible. He said that a variety of points had been put to me and we would consider them.

Mr. S. Silverman

Does the Committee understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly? Does he say that he has some sort of assurance from the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland that, in order to maintain the right of his citizens to come here, he will put an embargo on the ports to keep other people out?

Mr. Butler

There is no such arrangement. Nothing has passed between the Governments in this sense. What I have read in the newspaper is the statement made by the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic that they were intending to impose control at their ports. No sort of persuasion or anything else has come into the matter. It has been decided by the Government of the Republic.

Mr. Silverman

Will the Home Secretary explain this a little further? Does he say that he made the statement that he made just now without any authority at all, except what he read in the newspaper, and without any consultation whatever with the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland?

Mr. Butler

There are the normal consultations between Governments, but I made this statement without having attempted to persuade or in any way affect the Government of Southern Ireland, and the statement was made and then communicated to me in the ordinary manner. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.

5.30 p.m.

I was saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, said that every possibility would be examined. The Government's position in relation to Irish immigration remains that we desire to keep this power in reserve. We regard it as a power that is extremely difficult to use, but we wish to keep it in reserve. We propose between now and the time when this Measure needs to be renewed to take every possible precaution to obtain information about the scope and nature of the problem of Irish immigration.

We intend to do that by investigating the insurance cards laid with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance; to approach it through the records of the Ministry of Labour and, if necessary, to approach it by using the power contained in the First Schedule to impose the need for landing cards. We propose to accompany that plan with the suggestion contained in an Amendment which I propose shortly to put down to Clause 5—which will meet much of the sense of the various Amendments to Clause 5—that we should treat this subject as we treat alien control, and provide that this Bill shall expire in December, 1963, and that it then shall be renewed by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.

We believe that that will give an opportunity for the whole question to be reviewed, not only in the light of developments that may or may not occur in the Irish problem, but also in the light of developments that may or may not occur in the Common Market problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Paget

As I understand what the Home Secretary has said about the Irish problem, it is that the control is not to be applied to the Irish unless there is an absolute necessity; that that absolute necessity will not arise as long as the Irish immigrants continue to be white, but if, owing to Commonwealth people coming through the Irish ports, the Irish immigrants begin to be black, an absolute necessity will arise.

Mr. Butler

No, that is not the interpretation. It is very rarely that I can accept an interpretation from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that one is totally wrong—

Mr. Paget

That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Butler

No, it is not what I said. If it became obvious that Commonwealth immigrants were able to come through the Irish ports without possibility of control, it might be necessary to reconsider — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—Commonwealth immigrants as a whole. Immigrants—Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, or anyone from the Commonwealth would be susceptible to the same control; if that occurred, we should have to review the position.

I have made a secondary reservation that we shall watch the position between now and the time when the Bill comes up for renewal in case for any other reason it seems necessary to apply control to the Irish immigrants—

Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

What the right hon. Gentleman has said about his relations with the Irish Republican Government is rather vague. Will he tell the Committee whether or not he has had direct communication with the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republican Government?

Mr. Butler

Relations with Ireland are usually vague, and it is, perhaps, better that they should be left vague. There have been the usual methods of communication with the Irish Government, as well as with any other Government concerned.

May I now answer—

Several Hon. Members


Mr. Butler

No, I must proceed—

Several Hon. Members


The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray)

Order. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way no other hon. Member may be on his feet.

Mr. Hector Hughes

With due respect, Sir William, I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question and he has evaded answering it.

The Deputy-Chairman

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is not in order to remain on his feet if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. Hughes

Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Butler

No, I must answer the other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. We are in Committee, and I do not wish to speak for too long.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been any agreement or arrangement in relation to the Common Market; whether we had been asked to control Commonwealth immigration. I would hold to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 29th November, 1961, in which he said: We have had no discussions whatever with the European Economic Community Governments about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 49.]

Mr. Frank Bowles (Nuneaton)

I am obliged to the Home Secretary for giving way. I, too, have been reading the newspapers, and one of them said: The Common Market is the real reason for the Government's proposed curb on immigration, said Jamaica's Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Keble Munn, yesterday. Britain does not want to sit down at the bargaining table, he said, liable to attack as a pipeline through which coloured Commonwealth citizens can be fed into Europe. That appeared in the Daily Express on 25th November. Is it right?

Mr. Butler

I am afraid that I cannot always accept what is in the Daily Express as correct. I must leave my interpretation, as given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, as being the correct one in answer to the right hon. Gentleman who asked the specific question.

Before I leave Ireland, I would add that the Government, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I myself have considered every possibility of controlling the Irish, once they get here, by a system of work control. We have studied the Northern Ireland Safeguarding of Employment Act, but have found that for various reasons, particularly to do with the difficulty of providing public assistance, with the difficulty of identification, and with the difficulty of imposing this as an offence and finding the person who has offended—for all these reasons—and the possibility that deportation would be the only sanction against some wretched Irishman who was refused a job—we have found that these methods are not sound, so we have not been able to put them before the House.

I do not believe that during the course of this Committee stage we shall find, in the immense population of our industrial country, a method of internal control of labour that is possible to enforce. I mention that only because some of my hon. and right hon. Friends have asked us to look into these matters; we find them extremely difficult to carry through—

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

What happens to the Jamaican who arrives in Cork and comes to this country from Dublin? Will he be in the same position as the Irish in the way the Home Secretary has now described it?

Mr. Butler

If a control is imposed at the Irish ports—that is, control by the Government of Southern Ireland of entry into Ireland—such a matter would not arise, and I cannot deal with every hypothetical question. Our general intention is to impose a control on Commonwealth immigrants, and I can only trust to the ingenuity of the immigration officers to deal with any situation that may arise—[Interruption.] The answer—

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

On a point of order, Sir William. Is it not the fact that the Home Secretary is now, in respect of this particular matter, attempting to answer for the policy of the Southern Ireland Government, and is not that completely out of order?

The Deputy-Chairman

The Home Secretary has said nothing that is not perfectly in order in debate.

Mr. Butler

Thank you, Sir William, for your kindly interpretation of my remarks.

I think that I have answered most of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We shall have a further opportunity—

Mr. Thorpe


Mr. Butler

No—we shall have a further opportunity of going into the Irish aspect in the later stages—

Mr. Thorpe

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to ask him what is, I hope, just a simple question about Ireland. He has said that he will try to take precautions to obtain information—whatever that may mean. Does it, in fact, come to this: that Jamaican citizens will be subjected to the provisions of the Bill when coming into the country but that foreign citizens from the Republic of Ireland may come in completely freely? Is that the position?

Mr. Butler

I have just explained to the Committee that the Government cannot find a workable or desirable method of controlling the entry of Irish immigrants into this country. The answer to the hon. Member, therefore, is "Yes." [HON. MEMBERS: "Colour bar."] It is not a colour bar at all. The Bill is applied to citizens of the Commonwealth, whatever colour they may be. The exception is this Irish question, which has proved to be an anomaly in the past. I am very ready to make it quite clear that it is an anomaly, and that it is being carried forward because we can find no solution to it. The more clearly we can accent that situation—at the opening of the Committee stage; and that is why I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for raising this—the more easily we can discuss the Bill in a dispassionate manner.

I have done my best to answer the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. We have had this matter before us for several years. When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of consultation, I can assure him that we have been in touch with overseas Governments. For example, we were very much in touch with them in 1958 and 1959 on their methods of control, which were very effective and which we hope they will be able to continue. We have since had continuous consultations with Governments overseas, not just in sending the Bill to them, although I am not prepared to deny or confirm the dates when communications took place between Governments as was Sir Grantley Adams. That is not usual in communications between Commonwealth or Colonial Governments and the home country. It is not usual, and I am not going to fall into the error of naming dates.

We all have perfect confidence in the nobility of character and the general bearing of Sir Grantley Adams, and although I do not wish to go further into this matter, I must add that it became quite clear to us over the course of the passage of time that they could not find the chance of controlling their emigrants from their countries. A decision, therefore, had to be taken by the British Government. We acknowledge that the decision is unpalatable. We took it. It is our decision, and now we have taken it we hope that we can make this Bill work to the best possible effect.

Mr. Gordon Walker

The right hon. Gentleman has, in effect, just rebuked Sir Grantley Adams, by implication, for giving the date of the passage of a communication between this Government and his own. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on 14th November the British Prime Minister did exactly the same thing? The Prime Minister said that communications had been made to Commonwealth Governments some weeks before the right hon. Gentleman announced it to his own party conference. If what was done by our own Prime Minister is perfectly right, then surely what Sir Grantley Adams did was right.

Mr. Butler

I am not aware that the Prime Minister of this country gave the exact date, but if the right hon. Gentleman cares to communicate with me about it I will look into the matter.

Mr. Nigel Fisher (Surbiton)

I did not raise this matter before because I did not want to interrupt the Front Bench speakers. Although they raised the Irish problem, it is, technically, quite impossible to discuss that problem on an Amendment which deals with citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies. The Irish are neither of these things. I want to know, from the point of view of back benchers, and since the Irish problem is of great importance in this debate, whether we are to be allowed to talk about Ireland, or whether special dispensation has been allowed to the Front Bench speakers because of the importance of the matter?

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker

It would surely be absolutely in order, indeed necessary, to a sensible discussion to compare the rights of United Kingdom citizens and the Colonies under the Bill and compare them with the rights of citizens of the Irish Republic. This must be necessary, I submit, in order to have a sensible discussion. I do not mean that we should necessarily increase the whole field of the debate but that it is necessary to discuss this matter.

The Deputy-Chairman

An opportunity will occur later—on Amendment No. 141—to deal purely with the Irish question. But as the debate has gone, from the two leading speeches from the Front Bench, Ireland has been frequently mentioned and undoubtedly it will not be out of order for hon. Members on the back benches to follow that example to a certain extent, bearing in mind that Amendment No. 141 will be debated later.

Mr. Grimond

Seldom can a worse Bill have been defended by weaker arguments than those we have heard today. What has the nobility of Sir Grantley Adams to do with the question of whether he was consulted about the Bill? The Government must not write things off in this way, for it is not the way for them to gain a congenial and useful Committee stage.

Questions have been asked about Commonwealth consultation, a matter of considerable importance, and all we are told—and no one is impugning the nobility of Sir Grantley Adams—is that various discussions took place. We were not given any concrete answers to those questions. It seems a curious spectacle; the Home Secretary reading in the Irish Times or Irish Independent, over breakfast, the news that the Irish Government are prepared to put some check on immigration. Are we to understand that that is the way in which the Government are handling the Bill? Is the Home Secretary looking at the various newspapers to find out if other Governments, inside and outside the Commonwealth, will be helpful or otherwise?

We now know that the Bill will not be applied to Ireland. After learning that we are told that if the position becomes desperate, it might be applied to that country. In the same breath we are told that it is impossible to do that, anyway. Yet, despite this, the House of Commons is being asked to consider a Bill for which the Government have offered this sort of opening defence.

Surely this country today needs Irish immigrants. The only question in the Government's mind is whether they can get away with allowing it and, at the same time, not appear to be moved by colour prejudice against the West Indies. But this country, of course, needs West Indian immigration, too. The obvious way out is to drop the whole thing, including the Bill.

It is true that should the economic circumstances change it is conceivable that the need for labour might decrease. We have had no answer to the question whether the Government expect the demand for labour to decrease and no answer has been Riven to whether their statement about the dangers of a slump should be taken seriously or is just another throw away line. It has already been pointed out that should there be the danger of a slump, immigration from Ireland and the West Indies would fall off normally.

What a pathetic attempt it was to try to persuade the House of Commons that opposition against the Bill as a whole is, nevertheless, in favour of part of it if that opposition tries to strike out another part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was not on top of his form if he thought that one up—and if someone else thought it up before him I suggest that he should get rid of them. The suggestion that because we want to take out the Colonies from this miserable Bill we are, therefore, in favour of leaving in the Dominions is too childish. It is like a comment to an under seven debating circle.

The right hon. Gentleman must realise that even if we cannot get rid of the whole Bill, the Amendment, if carried, would certainly do some good. Does the Home Secretary intend to stand by his statement that his obligations to the Colonies are exactly the same as those to the Dominions and Ireland? Because of our special obligations to the Colonies, it is reasonable for us to ask that they should be treated differently from the other areas.

There is a further point of considerable importance with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal. We have been told time and again that the present situation is not very serious but that it is the great danger of hundreds of thousands of Indians and Pakistanis hanging over us. So it would seem that there would be more like 50,000—rather than 50 million—people pouring in if we do not pass the Bill.

There is a simple way out; keep the Indians and Pakistanis in the Bill and exclude the Colonies. The Home Secretary has said that that would not be fair to the West Indians. But it would not be more unfair on them than the Bill as it stands. It is no good the Home Secretary wringing his hands and saying that when they become a Federation they will all he excluded, because that is what the Bill is all about. That is what the right hon. Gentleman wants. We want to know whether or not it is a serious argument that the Government and their supporters are afraid of massive immigration from countries representing a quarter of the world's population. Let us drop that argument. Let us drop the Irish argument. Let us drop the pretence of consultation, and, finally, let the Government drop the Bill.

Mr. Norman Pannell (Liverpool, Kirkdale)

This Amendment—I assume that we must speak to it without reference to those which come later—clearly has the object of admitting without restriction all citizens of the Colonies and subjecting to restriction all citizens of the independent countries of the Commonwealth. Therefore, in present circumstances, it would admit without restriction West Indians, Gambians, Mauritians and people from Hong Kong and from various countries in Africa. Also, it would admit without restriction citizens from Malta and Gibraltar.

Hon. Members will observe that, with the exception of the last two countries I have named, Malta and Gibraltar, all the citizens are coloured. Compared with the small population of Malta and Gibraltar, about 350,000, there are the millions in the West Indies and the other countries I have mentioned. The Amendment would subject to control citizens of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

On this side of the Committee, we have been accused of wishing to introduce a colour bar. It is said that we have that in our minds in our arguments in favour of the Bill. I can only say that right hon. and hon. Members opposite, by this Amendment, are introducing a colour bar in reverse.

Mr. Bowles

On a point of order, Sir William. Have you noticed yet—I have no doubt that you probably will very soon—that the hon. Member is reading every word he says?

The Deputy-Chairman

It is within the experience of the Committee that hon. Members frequently wish to consult notes. It is to be hoped that they will not consult notes to excess.

Mr. Pannell

I thank you for that Ruling, Sir William. I have in my hand only notes of headings, and what I read to the Committee were the names of countries which did not come readily to mind. My notes are very brief, as you can see, Sir William. They are merely headings. It is quite wrong to say that I was reading from these papers.

I emphasise that the people who, under the Amendment, would be admitted without restriction are coloured people, almost without exception, the only other ones to be admitted without restriction being people from Malta and Gibraltar.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the value and purpose of passports issued to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I once had a passport issued to me in Nigeria. I returned to this country with that passport and, some years later, I returned to Nigeria with the same passport. The country was then under the control of this country and had reached much the same stage of development as the West Indies have today. At the port of entry to Nigeria, I was required to give a guarantee that I would not be a charge on public funds and, eventually, I was given an entry permit valid for 21 days and subject to renewal for a further seven days.

It would be the same for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am sure, or for any hon. Member here. That is how things were worked in Nigeria then and how, obviously, they would be worked today in the West Indies and other Colonies for which we are responsible.

Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)

This suggestion is trotted out very often, but it really ought to stop. We have taken great trouble to publicise the clear statement of West Indian Governments like that of Jamaica that there is no restriction of the entry of people from Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman does his own cause harm by repeating things which he knows to be untrue.

Mr. Pannell

I have been to the Office of the Commissioner for the West Indies in London to ask what restrictions would be imposed on me if I wanted to go to Jamaica. I was told that I could go as a visitor but that I could not go as a settler without giving a guarantee that I should not be a charge on public funds.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

On a point of order, Sir William. The sound amplification system appears not to be carrying anything which my hon. Friend is saying while it allows to be heard the interventions of hon. Members opposite. Might the attention of the appropriate authorities be drawn to this.

Mr. Chapman

What I wanted to point out to the hon. Member for Liverpool. Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) is that he was informed of the letter of the law which is a law passed under the colonial Government when we were responsible for Jamaica. What has happened is that, as the Premier of Jamaica has made clear in a public statement, his Government decided, when they attained internal self-government, not to apply this law passed under British rule.

Mr. Pannell

Without disclosing who it was who gave me the information, I can tell the Committee that the answer I had from the West Indian office in London was as I have given it. I was informed that if I were an intending settler I should be told exactly the same and that I could not go to that country without giving a guarantee. That is my personal experience, and I give that fact to the Committee as opposed to the theory of the hon. Gentleman.

The Leader of the Opposition made great play about our responsibilities to the people of the West Indies. He spoke about the slave trade and indicated that, perhaps in retribution, we should admit them freely to this country on that account.

Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)

Why the West Indies?

Mr. Pannell

Because of all the countries which would be exempted from control under the Amendment the West Indies are clearly the most important.

I have here some figures about the West Indies and I hope that I shall be allowed to put them. The population of the West Indies today is 3,115,000. Forty years ago it was 1,600,000. So it has doubled in the last forty years. But that is not the only point. The birth rate today varies between 33 and 46 per 1,000. The death rate varies between 9 and 13 per 1,000. That means that, at the present rate, the population will double again in the next twenty-three years.

Do hon. Members opposite suggest that we should take the whole of the surplus, as we have done during the last year? That is the rate at which they are coming in now. We are taking the whole of the surplus population. It is estimated that there will be 70,000 immigrants from the West Indies this year. The right hon. Gentleman said that they came only in relation to vacancies. He spoke of the vacancies in 1956, when 18,800 came in. The figure of vacancies which he gave was, I think, 283,000.

I do not want to be accused of reading too much, so I shall try to rely on my memory. Do hon. Members suggest that the total of 70,000 coming in today is related to the number of jobs available and that the number of jobs available in this country has risen in that proportion? Obviously not. That argument entirely falls. In fact, there are very few more vacancies today, when 70,000 are coming in, than there were in 1956, when 18,000 came in.

6.0 p.m.

I am trying to reply to the points raised in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the Medical Officer of Health for Nottingham, a very favourable report so far as immigrants are concerned. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman read in The Times of today the report made by the Medical Officer of Health for Birmingham. I should like to quote from it. According to The Times, he said: '…I think it is most unfortunate that these people are subjected to housing conditions which are by far the worst in Birmingham. Life in these lodgings in which most of them live is infinitely worse than living in the slums which are being demolished. It is not a matter of colour'. The Times goes on to say: The report shows that rising figures of illegitimacy, venereal disease and tuberculosis were all due, in some measure, to the greater number of immigrants in the city.

An Hon. Member

Is that Irish immigrants?

Mr. Pannell

I will come to that.

The Times continues: The increase in the number of half-caste and West Indian children was producing more social problems than ever, the report states. It points out that in the West Indies and South America more than 60 per cent. of all births are illegitimate and accepted by public opinion. I shall not weary hon. Members with any more quotations, but I can assure them that there are several which are as unfavourable as those that I have made.

It is clear that conditions are difficult in our major cities where immigrants congregate, in particular where West Indians—I relate myself to the Amendment which refers to West Indians—have congregated, especially in Birmingham and other cities.

Hon. Members opposite are quite unrealistic in their opposition to some control of immigration. They know very well that some control should be exercised, but oppose any suggestion for control. The newspapers generally have adopted much the same attitude, particularly The Times. The feeling is that something ought to be done, but that any action is unthinkable. It is not so much a case of willing to wound and yet afraid to strike, but of willing to strike and yet afraid to wound.

All right hon. and hon. Members opposite know that this is a serious problem, but they have made no alternative suggestions for solving it. They put forward Amendments which try to destroy the purpose of the Bill. They are not true to their responsibilities by showing such irresponsibility in the face of such a grave problem.

Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood)

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has been engaged for such a long time in a campaign favouring the control of immigration, but the case that he has made out this afternoon is not a very good one. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), have been engaged in a campaign on immigration which has brought terrific fear to the minds of those already in the city who are anxious to have their families join them.

Why have the figures of immigration increased? The Home Secretary made a speech which, I regret to say, I found extremely nauseating. If he examines the figures, he will find that a considerable number of people have come over here in the past year to join their families. In the City of Birmingham no fewer than 1,000 children have been brought over in the last year because the campaign which has been carried on has caused their parents to fear that they would not be able to join their families.

Mr. N. Pannell

We cannot consider this problem in miniature. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the 57,000 West Indians who have come here this year were women and children? If he can, we will have a proper appreciation of the problem.

Mr. Yates

I do not know. I should think that the figure is probably 50 per cent.

Mr. C. Royle

According to the figures from the office of the West Indian Commissioner, the number of depend- ants who have come here this year is about 43 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Yates

I said that I thought that the figure was about 50 per cent.

I am looking at this problem from Birmingham's point of view. Birmingham takes about one-third of the immigrants coming to this country. Therefore, we have the right to say whether or not this is a grave problem. I agree that immigration creates problems which the city has to consider and tackle.

I was referring to West Indians, but I have here a September communiqué from the Indian Embassy, in which it is stated: A total of 12,277 passports and endorsements were granted to the United Kingdom during the period January to June, 1961. There was an increase of 2,110 passports and endorsements in 1961 as compared with the corresponding period in 1960. Asked what accounted for the increase in the issue of passports, the Parliamentary Secretary replied that the families of those who had found jobs in the United Kingdom wanted to join them and this fact accounted for the increase. In my judgment the campaign which has been carried on by hon. Members opposite has contributed to the increase.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Selly Oak explained why Birmingham should be excluded from a consideration of this problem. He referred to what he called the housing problem. Those of us who have been on the local authority know what a grave problem housing is in Birmingham, but it has not been created by immigration. In 1955, before immigration began, 50,000 houses out of just over 300,000 were considered unfit for human habitation. The hon. Member for Selly Oak said: Slum clearance was in sight in Birmingham, but now it is not. A tremendous number of new slums have recently been created. It is easy for hon. Members to gibe, but I challenge them to come with me to Birmingham, where I can show them people living in the most appalling circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 741.] I know Birmingham. I represent an area in the centre of Birmingham which probably has more slums than any other part of the city. When I was a member of the city council, we protested about these 50,000 unfit houses, but the fact is that the authority is not able to deal with the problem as some of us would wish. The representations that we have made to the Government show quite clearly that it is not the immigrants who have caused this problem.

Mr. Leonard Cleaver (Birmingham, Yardley)

Why does not the hon. Member get the Socialist-controlled council to do something about it?

Mr. Yates

The hon. Member knows perfectly well that we made representations even before the question of immigration arose.

Mr. William Yates (The Wrekin)

On a point of order. Is it in order to discuss the affairs of the City of Birmingham here?

The Deputy-Chairman

I was beginning to feel myself that the hon. Member was going rather too far in that direction.

Mr. V. Yates

I appreciate your observation, Sir William. I am trying to relate my remarks to the fact that in the City of Birmingham we have 30,000 West Indians. The question whether these people can be adequately housed is one about which the House of Commons ought not to have any misundersanding. A five-year registration is necessary before these people can be considered. Hon. Members must know that this year the city council can allocate only 26 houses to those who could qualify as immigrants, as coloured persons.

Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The hon. Member has referred to me on no less than four or five occasions. I do not object very much to any of his references. He has given me credit for bringing this serious matter—which the hon. Member himself agrees is serious—to the notice of the House and of the country. May I ask the hon. Member why it is so wrong to point out that uncontrolled immigration adds seriously to the housing problem? I have never said, nor have I seen that anyone else has said, that it caused the housing problem in Birmingham, but why is it wrong to say that it has aggravated it?

Mr. Yates

The hon. Member said much more than that in his speech to which I have referred. Many of us on this side who represent Birmingham thoroughly resent and object to his remarks. It is not true that worse slums than ever before have been created as a result of immigration. I am seeking to give reasons why West Indians and others should be excluded from the operation of the Bill.

We have been told about crime in the City of Birmingham. The hon. Member for Selly Oak knows that the Chief Constable of Birmingham recently issued a report for the city. I challenge the hon. Member or anybody else from Birmingham to quote me any reference in that report to immigrants and crime.

In replying to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) about crime in Birmingham, the Home Secretary said on an earlier occasion: It is the view of the Chief Constable of Birmingham that, in general, the coloured population of the city are no less law-abiding than the other inhabitants. I have been in touch with the hon. Members representing the city on this and other aspects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 146.] I am surprised that some of those hon. Members should have used that argument on Second Reading, or that the hon. Member for Selly Oak should have suggested that a great deal of crime was being committed in Birmingham and that the coloured immigrants were to some extent responsible for it.

I support the Amendment, particularly because I believe that Birmingham could never have progressed in the manner it has done during the last ten years without both the Irish and the West Indians.

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe)

Tory rule.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Yates

The hon. Member can call it Tory rule if he likes, but, apparently, it will not be Tory rule any longer, because the good work that has to be done is suddenly to be brought to a halt. My right hon. Friend gave some figures about employment and vacancies—

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth (Hendon, South)

The hon. Member said that this work will soon be brought to a halt. Is he arguing on the basis that the proposal of the Bill is to stop all immigration or to control it?

Mr. Yates

I appreciate that the Bill is not designed to stop all immigration. Nevertheless, it will make it extremely difficult in future for West Indians to come, as they can now, to this country, to see the work and to be absorbed.

Mr. John Hall

I have listened with interest to the hon. Member's argument and am trying to follow what he is saying. Why will it be so much more difficult for any citizen of the Commonwealth to come here if there are jobs available to be filled?

Mr. Yates

I want them to have the opportunity to come without all these restrictions. I use Birmingham as an example and I see no justification for the restriction.

Looking at the national situation, the total number of persons registered as unemployed in the whole of Great Britain at 13th November was 387,339, a percentage rate of unemployment of 1.7. The percentage of coloured immigrants unemployed certainly was 5.6. Birmingham is a specific area which is concerned with these problems. The total number of coloured Commonwealth immigrants unemployed there at the time of the survey on 7th November was 251, 158 men and 93 women. At 13th November, the total registered coloured employed were 13,763, representing 1.8 per cent. of the total unemployed in the Birmingham area. Unfilled vacancies in Birmingham numbered 4,549.

It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that our arrangements in Birmingham have broken down, for the simple reason that these people have come and are being employed. We have in Birmingham a liaison department for coloured persons whose staff has been increased to three liaison officers. Wonderful work is being done in integration. There has never been any difficulty in Birmingham, as there has been in some parts of the country. It is an area which is vitally affected. Therefore, I want the West Indians to be allowed to come to this country and to Birmingham. We are grateful for the help they have given in the hospitals. There is one hospital in Birmingham where the ratio of nurses is about six coloured to two white.

It is a great tragedy that the Bill should have been introduced without the fullest consultation and careful thought. I deny that Birmingham cannot cope with this problem. Apart from the question of the immigrants coming in or not, there is no doubt that we have problems in Birmingham which the Government have failed to solve. They might have done something vital and dynamic in providing Birmingham with a new town when we were pressing our problems upon them long before immigrants came to Birmingham.

We have created 61,000 jobs in Birmingham during the past five years. This work is going on and must continue if we are to have industrial expansion. Somebody must do this work. If we are prepared to bring people into this country to do difficult and irksome work we should show them consideration in other respects as well. To say, "We will take you only when we want you" is not very ethical conduct for a country which has boasted of its Commonwealth and its close relationship with the Colonies

I want to make clear that, although I support the Amendment, I do not accept the Home Secretary's interpretation that this means that I am, or anybody else is, in favour of the Clause or of the Bill as it stands. It is part of Parliamentary practice not only to propose Amendments, but, even when they have been proposed, to vote later against the Clause standing part of the Bill and against the Bill itself. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain firm throughout the Committee stage on every one of their Amendments. We are trying to improve the Bill, but, as the Guardian said this morning, this is a bad Bill. It is unnecessary and it ought not to have been introduced. I hope that there will be a great deal of support for this Amendment, which will at least limit the evil that the Bill can do.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)

I am sure that immigration has brought great problems to Birmingham but I am beginning to hope that I shall not hear about them again for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there is a very much wider problem here than one relating to any one city.

The problem should be considered on a very wide plane. It has been said, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) himself said it at the end of his speech, that there was no consultation before the Bill was introduced. As one who has been complaining for a long time to his right hon. Friends that they were spending too long on consultation and consideration, it is specially my duty to come to their support on this occasion.

We have had answers for years past to questions about Commonwealth immigration that the Government were in consultation with Commonwealth Governments and that the matter was under active consideration, and so the matter drifted on from year to year. I should like to illustrate that by a quotation which has some interest on its own account. This was the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, then Mr. Henry Hopkinson, speaking on 5th November, 1954, having been pressed by hon. Members opposite to do something about Commonwealth immigration. I am sorry not to see the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) here. He played an honourable part in all this.

Thus pressed, the Minister said: We are not at the moment in a position to make a statement, but it is our intention to do so as soon as we have been able to go into all these intricate problems, involving the possibility of legislation, if that is thought necessary, to impose some measure of regulation or control upon this flow. Then follows a passage which, I think, will appeal to hon. Members: In case hon. Members may think that we are merely giving this what is described as 'active' consideration, I would explain that it is far more than that. We are very well aware of the importance of the problem, of its urgency and of the deep concern which it causes in many parts of the country and we are determined to press on with our work and to see that a satisfactory solution is evolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 831.]

Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

It does not say anything about consultation.

Mr. Bell

I did not say that it did. The hon. Member is one step behind, as so often in his political life. What it shows is that as long as seven years ago the Government were promising urgent consideration. They said that they were considering legislation. Therefore, it can hardly be said, as the hon. Member for Ladywood said, that we now have a rush of immigrants because they feel themselves presently threatened by some imposition of control.

Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester)

Does the hon. Member not recollect that when he opened that part of his speech he hung it all on the question whether or not there should be consultation. I listened very carefully and all his remarks were related to that.

Mr. Bell

The hon. Member was not listening carefully enough. I said that there had been years of consultation. I had dealt with consultation and I was then dealing with consideration.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

Would not the hon. Member agree that after all the consideration he talks about as having gone on over all these years, the Government view was expressed from the Treasury Bench in debate in the House that such a Bill as this was quite unnecessary?

Mr. Bell

The hon. Member has certainly simplified that. What was then said from the Treasury Bench was that the Government were not then satisfied that such a Measure was inevitable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. They have been all along extremely reluctant to take this step. None the less, they have been poised upon the brink, though not wishing to take it until the step was forced upon them. I am perfectly satisfied that there has been steady consultation with Governments and, what is more, two of those Governments, in response to requests, have introduced a voluntary scheme of limitation, that is, the Governments of India and Pakistan.

I am satisfied that the West Indian Government were repeatedly invited to introduce such a scheme of voluntary limitation and they flatly refused to do so. I do not think that anybody here is in a position to deny that fact. This is why we are faced with this problem tonight. I recognise, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that if we tackle this problem at all we have to split up the unitary conception of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I do not think that we should shrink from that, disagreeable though it is, if we are satisfied for other reasons that some action is necessary. I am so satisfied.

6.30 p.m.

This is one of those questions where principle and degree are intertwined. Those who want to be absolute in their opposition to limiting Commonwealth immigration must be prepared to hid up indefinitely and never yield their principle. There are some hon. Members in that category, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is one of them. They earn the respect one always gives to intransigence. But I do not think there are many. Most would agree with The Times when it said, in extremely equivocal form, I am sorry to say: …if it is indisputable that a small and overcrowded island may not be able indefinitely to keep open its doors to an unlimited influx from the almost inexhaustible reservoirs of population which the rest of the Commonwealth affords … If that is so, then at some point we have to say that it is right to impose a control.

If that is so, then this is not a matter really of principle, but of degree; and the question we have to ask ourselves in practical terms is whether we have reached the point where we have to do something. I want to tell the Committee why I think that we have reached that point, and why we have to do this, more especially in relation to the West Indies, which are the subject matter of the Amendment.

The right hon. Member for West Indies—I am sorry; the slip was entirely accidental. It could have been premeditated, but it was not. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said that the West Indies deserve special consideration from us because of the background of the slave trade. If this were a problem which dated from past generations, something which had its roots in those events, I would see some substance in the argument, but what is the nature of the problem?

My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) dealt with the figures. The West Indies have always had a high birth rate. So have India and Pakistan. In the past, the birth rate used to be balanced by a high death rate. The birth rate in the West Indies has been about 37 per 1,000 for a long time. In 1930, the death rate was 25 per 1,000, so that there was a relatively small increase rate of about 1.2 per cent.—high compared with Great Britain, but low for tropical people. The problem has arisen because the death rate in the West Indies has fallen from 25 per 1,000 to about 10 per 1,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, it is splendid, but that is what we have done for these countries. We have brought Western medicine and sanitation to them—above all, D.D.T. That is the principal factor.

Of course, by doing that we have enormously raised the increase rate, so that now the natural rate of increase of, for example, Jamaica is about 2.8 per cent. per annum, which is a fabulous increase rate. That is what has happened during the last thirty years.

Mr. John Baird (Wolverhampton, North-East)

Is it not a fact that, whilst the death rate has gone down, creating a problem, we have also created a problem by building up a one-industry economy in the West Indies, and that it is only by supplying capital for new industries that the labour can be absorbed there?

Mr. Bell

I am not going to avoid that point. I intended to come to it.

First, I want to state the problem, because one should be sensible about this. It has nothing to do with taking people to the islands through the slave trade. This problem has arisen all over the world in the last thirty years, and it is due to the fall in the death rate caused by Western science.

In another place, at the end of the last Session, it was brilliantly epitomised by a noble Lord when he said that whereas it had taken the world 200,000 years to reach a population of 2,500 million, that would increase by 2,000 million—almost double—in thirty years. That is the staggering background against which we must consider these policies.

What are we to do about this problem? It is new in one sense because of its intensity, but it was recognised more than twenty years ago by the West India Royal Commission, which wrote this immensely prescient sentence: The sharp contrast between the present birth rates of tropical peoples and those of most peoples of European stock is, indeed, a phenomenon of the most profound importance, with far-reaching implications. That was written when the process I described a moment ago had only just started. The increase rate in the West Indies has nearly doubled since those words were written. In fact, I see this as now the dominant problem in the world, and I am, therefore, absolutely convinced that we are on the right lines in introducing this Bill at present, however reluctant we may be to do so. I say quite frankly that three years ago I would not have supported a Bill of this character, but I think that one realises now that it is no good talking about vacancies pulling in immigrants and saying that the influx will vary according to the economic situation.

Of course, it will vary, but only marginally, and the trend is bound to be upwards because these countries are bursting with population, which has to go somewhere. Or else, of course, these countries have to face up to the problem which exists inside them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) put a point which I can answer directly. His question was: is not the answer to this problem to raise the economic standards of these countries?

Although, some years ago, I would have agreed with that, in my view now—and this, in a way, is why I support the Bill—we have reached a point in world affairs where, over a considerable part of the globe, it is no longer possible to proceed that way round. I will buttress this argument. The rise in population in these parts is so dramatic that it swamps economic development. Therefore, we have to start the other way round—with family limitation, otherwise everything is finished. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear."] I am not giving a mildly eccentric view. This has been recognised by Mr. Nehru, who has allocated more money in each five-year plan for family limitation. I should like to read what he has said, because it bears on the Amendment: We have found that we can never plan for the nation, and our Five-Year Plans have no meaning, if the population grows at this rate. Economic development there has been swamped.

Again, President Ayub Khan of Pakistan said recently: If we continue to increase at the present rate it will ultimately lead to a standard of living which will be little better than animals. That, too, is a comment on the suggestion that we can, by economic development, in some way short circuit this problem.

Is it true of the West Indies that we ought to solve the problem by economic development? In this, the West India Royal Commission is a perfect authority. Two most distinguished members of the party opposite sat on the Commission. I knew them both. This is no partisan approach. They wrote: We regard a reduction in the number of births as an indispensable condition … of improving or even maintaining the standard of life in the West Indies. The Royal Commission recommended various economic proposals to better the conditions of the West Indies, but said that they would be only a superficial palliative, a mere postponement of the evil day unless the rate of growth could be limited. It went on: The material betterment of the West Indies must be accompanied by, and is to a large extent conditional on a moral resurgence among the people themselves. We are introducing a Bill to limit immigration from the West Indies. What is our objective in doing that? On our domestic considerations we are justified in preventing an uncontrolled influx of this problem into our own country unless it can be shown against us that there is a reason of quite transcendental importance why, in the interests of others, we should allow it to happen and that we would help the West Indies by allowing them unrestricted immigration into this country.

Let us get the price clear first. Every other country has shut the door already. That is the trouble.

Mr. Chapman indicated assent.

Mr. Bell

The hon. Member is kind enough to agree with me. We are left alone to take the whole population surplus if we propose to do it. I do not know what it is, but I would have said that it was about 70,000 a year. This year's influx is probably somewhat exaggerated by anticipation. This is a tremendous influx and it would give us a population of West Indian extraction by the end of the century of at least 1½ million, and probably many more.

Mr. Chapman

It is when we come to this issue that we find the difference between us. In countries like Jamaica we are buying ten years' time in order that they can begin to solve this problem for themselves. We are not trying to buy time to the end of the century.

Mr. Bell

The hon. Member is trying to buy time for a considerable period and I suggest that it is wrong to buy time because of the extracts from the Report of the West India Royal Commission which I have read. The members of the Royal Commission said that they came away with one dominant impression—that of a reliance upon other people. Paraphrasing, but doing so quite conscientiously, they said that there was no hope of a reduction in births unless something dramatically brought home to the people of the West Indies the fact that this was the only solution.

How are we to bring it home dramatically? The Bill is too weak, but it can help. I do not believe that Mr. Manley, or Mr. Bustamente, in Jamaica, has any intention whatever of tackling the problem unless forced to do so. The name of Sir Grantley Adams has been frequently mentioned in the debate and I would like to be fair to him and say that he is one of the few men in the West Indies who has had the honesty to face up to this issue. I am a little surprised that Sir Grantley Adams has opposed the Bill, because he opened the Family Planning Association conference in the West Indies last year. His wife is the president of the Association and Sir Grantley very courageously said at the time that the West Indian people must not think that they could go on indefinitely exporting their problem. He said that it was time they faced up to it. That was a very courageous thing to say and I absolutely agree with it. But I do not think that they will face up to it so long as they can export it.

It is right for ourselves and right for them that we should now do something which is dramatic. The Bill is not dramatic—I wish it were—but at least it will come home to the people of the West Indies that they must tackle this problem at the right end, appreciating that any idea of economic investment and development doing it for them is purely illusory.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. V. Yates

Why is that argument not applied to the Irish, who come here in greater numbers?

Mr. Bell

I am speaking to the Amendment and there is nothing about the Irish in the Amendment.

I want now to say a few words about ourselves and why we should reject the Amendment. Here, again, one should be honest. It is not a question of colour and I never thought that it was. Pigmentation is a protection against strong sunlight and nobody in his right mind would think that it had anything to do with this problem. But it is a question of the cultural levels of tropical peoples, and that is an inescapable fact. What is the consequence to this country of a large influx of West Indians? If they come in in small numbers, they could be and I think that they are successfully—[Interruption.] I gave way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and I hope that he will now listen. One does not gain by these brawling interruptions.

If they come in in small numbers, they can be assimilated into the life of the country. If they come in in tens of thousands, they clot together in communities and preserve the characteristics which they brought with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is true. What is the very important characteristic which they bring with them? It is their completely promiscuous method of breeding. Everybody knows that that is true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] I am surprised that hon. Members should not like to hear that said. It is common ground between the two sides that the illegitimacy rate in the West Indies is between 60 and 70 per cent.—those are the figures of the Royal Commission.

Mr. James MacColl (Widnes)

The hon. Member said that the history of the West Indies was not relevant to the existing problem, but he is now indicating one way in which it is very relevant. It is precisely because we did not want our slaves to marry that their habits are not sanctioned in quite the same way as ours in this country. It is precisely because we created a culture pattern in that country to suit our own economic convenience that these problems arise today.

Mr. Bell

There is a shadow of a point there. I say a shadow because it is quite illusory to imagine that in their native communities in West Africa, whence most of them came, these people had the institution of monogamous marriage. This is one of those simple arguments which are found on examination to be not very valid, but there is slight justification inasmuch as these people were taken to be the slaves of a European community and might well have been taught the institution of Christian marriage. I concede that they were not and that there is much in the hon. Member's case, but we have to consider this problem pragmatically and, according to the Royal Commission, 60 or 70 per cent. of the children in the West Indies are illegitimate. Marriage is rare.

Mr. Chapman indicated dissent.

Mr. Bell

That is the fact. If the hon. Member studies the figures he will see that, unfortunately, the marriage rate is still declining. I do not suppose that the hon. Member is really interested in the facts of this subject, but it is the truth that the marriage rate, inconceivably low, is still declining.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)


Mr. Bell

I have given way several times and I must conclude.

Mr. Howell

They are all getting married in Birmingham, so we had better get more of them over here.

Mr. Bell

I wish that that were true.

Mr. Howell

It is true.

Mr. Bell

These people come here and live in communities, and retain their characteristics. This is the answer to the hon. Gentleman. I took the trouble to make some inquiries about this. On making inquiries from the great national children's societies in this country, I found that as long as three years ago they began to impose a quota of four coloured to six white children in their nurseries to prevent swamping. I recently asked what these children were. I was told that nearly all were half-castes.

As a rule, children of pure blood, although illegitimate, are kept by their mothers because that is the normal state of affairs in those islands, but the fate of half-caste children is tragic because nobody wants them. They go into the care of nurseries in this country, and there they grow up as illegitimate half-caste children, knowing no parents and no homes.

According to my information, these half-caste children represent four out of ten children in all the nurseries in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] This is borne out by the figures recently released by the Medical Officer for the County of London, which show that illegitimacy in London has risen from about 10 per cent. to 11.4 per cent. in the last year, whereas in the rest of the country it has been for a long time and remains at about 5.1 per cent.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

Analyse the figures.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

What about the American soldiers?

Mr. Bell

I will analyse the figures. I have the figures for last year, and the analysis of this year's figures may be much more dramatic. These are the figures given by the Medical Officer for the County of London. At the five control points, illegitimate births from United Kingdom mothers totalled 1,270. From Southern Irish mothers, the figure was 455.

Mr. C. Royk

On a point of order. Have the figures which the hon. Gentleman is quoting anything to do with the Amendment? The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the illegitimacy rate in London, without any reference to any people who have come here from the Colonies. I submit that this has nothing to do with the Amendment.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy)

I assumed that the hon. Member was using these figures in support of his argument that coloured people ought not to be permitted to come here, but I hope that he will come to the point of the Amendment.

Mr. Bell

I was coming to it, Mr. Hoy. I read the first two sets of figures because it is no good reading the third set without a basis for comparison. Illegitimate births from United Kingdom mothers totalled 1,270; from Eire mothers, 455; and from West Indian mothers, 236. These figures show that Irish and West Indian immigrants were responsible for approximately 700 as against 1,270 illegitimate births in the Administrative County of London.

Mr. Lipton

There is no restriction on the Irish.

Mr. Ronald Bell

The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) was one of the hon. Members who, in past years, pressed most strongly for something to be done about this. If he changes sides as often as that, he will find himself as editor of The Times before much longer. I gave that analysis of the figures only because I was asked to do so.

The point is the broad one, that the illegitimacy figures in London are enormously enhanced by the rate of immigration from Ireland and from tropical areas. We ought, in our own interests as a country, to control the rate of immigration so that the people who come in can be quickly absorbed into the life and standards of this country, and will not come in in a flood so that they live together in communities and remain insulated from the assimilating influences to which they would otherwise be subject.

That is the justification for the Bill, and I have dealt with the point about excluding the West Indies by examining the situation there and showing that it will be in the long-term interests of those territories to pass this Measure so that they join Mr. Nehru and the Government of Pakistan in an energetic campaign to control their own problem at home, from which, I am sorry to say, until now they have completely stood aside.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

Because of the view we take of the Bill, I should have thought that it would have been the duty of hon. Members on this side of the Committee to delay the passage of the Bill and that we would be doing a good job if we succeeded in our efforts. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for assisting us in this ideal. In the 35 or 40 minutes during which he has occupied the Floor of the House he has greatly assisted us in delaying the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Ronald Bell

May I take it from that that it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman merely to delay the proceedings of the Committee?

Mr. Royle

No, I am expressing my thanks to the hon. Member for setting an example.

The hon. Gentleman denied that the Bill had anything to do with the colour bar. He devoted part of his speech to advocating a cultural bar. That is almost as dangerous. I consider that we should open our doors to the people who have not had the advantages of culture that we have had and thereby help to educate them. By introducing the Bill in its present terms, the Government are handicapping that progress.

The hon. Member also devoted a considerable part of his speech to birth control. We have heard nothing like it for a long time and I am sure that tomorrow morning he will receive a hearty vote of thanks from the Family Planning Association. Not that I object. On the contrary, I think that there is wisdom in what he said. But, after all, we have something more to discuss, and I want to bring the debate back to the terms of the Amendment.

I was deeply disappointed this afternoon. We had two powerful speeches, one from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the other from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and wedged in between them a completely unconvincing speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I am extremely disappointed with him. It has been my lot for three or four years to consult him occasionally with regard to immigration, and we have, together with other hon. Members, discussed the details of the immigration problem. Knowing what he has said in the past, I heard him making that speech this afternoon with a great deal of disappointment.

7.0 p.m.

What caused the right hon. Gentleman to do it? One can suggest only two things, one of which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in brief terms—whether there was any relationship between this question and the negotiations on the Common Market. The other one is the pressure which has been brought to bear upon him at successive Conservative Party conferences, and particularly by a small coterie of back benchers in this House. I feel that this is a complete fall from grace on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and of his right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the House in that they have given way to this terrible—I can name no other word—agitation from the benches behind them.

Let me make it clear that, along with my hon. and right hon. Friends, I am not trimming at all. I want a complete open door for the whole of the British Commonwealth into this country, but we are at this stage discussing an Amendment which deals with a certain section of the Commonwealth, and that section comprises the places which we still call Colonies.

May I say in passing that the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) made an accusation that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have placed an alternative before the Home Secretary or the Committee. It is not true. I had the opportunity of addressing the House during the Second Reading debate, and, without going into the matter in detail again, perhaps I should be permitted to repeat that I had made to the Home Secretary, along with other hon. Members, suggestions on dispersal, and things like that could have been dealt with very many years ago. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Kirkdale.

In this Amendment, we are specifically discussing the question of the Colonies, and therefore I make no apology for concentrating, as has been the case with so many speeches today, on the West Indies, because the West Indies is the outstanding example among the Colonies. In the first place, let me say that the reason why this Amendment has been tabled from this side of the Committee is because, while not departing from the principle, we recognise that there is some difference between the Colonies and the rest of the Commonwealth. That is due to the fact that this country has a greater responsibility for the people in the Colonies than it has for those in the rest of the Commonwealth.

Those of us who know something of the West Indies know something of the conditions which prevail there, and those conditions, whether they be social or economic or both, are still our responsibility. Not only that, but they are conditions—let us face it—which, to some degree, we have created in the days that have gone by. I wonder how many hon. Members, and there must be quite a number, have had the experience of going to the delightful north coast of Jamaica, with all the wonder and beauty of Montego Bay and that string of high luxury hotels along that coast, patronised by rich Americans and film stars. Did they also see, within 800 yards at the most of those luxury hotels, some of the worst slums in the world? Has any hon. Member who has gone along the road between Kingston and Spanish Town looked in at the shanty town on the way?

These things are our responsibility. We have been governing that territory and owning that territory for 300 years, and if bad housing exists today in Jamaica and in other parts of the West Indies the responsibility lies heavily on our shoulders for the fact that these conditions exist. Let it be said that improvements have been made in recent years, when the West Indians have had a greater share themselves than they ever had in the past, and it is they who are being responsible for the changed conditions which now obtain.

What about the poor economic circumstances and conditions of the West Indians? For years and years the main economy of Jamaica has been dependent on sugar, and we all know that apart from the actual growing, harvesting and the work which takes place in the sugar factories, there is no industry and it is practically a one-crop economy. Because of the reliance on that industry, we find Jamaica and other West Indian islands in their present economic circumstances.

Let us look at the question of trade agreements. Every time representatives come from the West Indies to discuss matters of sugar prices and supplies and citrus prices and supplies, we keep hearing all the time of the battles going on behind the scenes in order to get the best terms possible in the agreements that are to be made. Is it not our responsibility, and, over the years, ought we not to have seen to it that the economy of the territories was greatly improved by giving much better terms than we have been liable to do in the past?

Because of these social and economic problems, we find these people looking for somewhere else to go. As I had the temerity to say on Second Reading, there is a search all the time for better conditions of life and a lifting of their standards so as to obtain a fuller life than is possible in the conditions in these territories. Therefore, our doors should be opened wide to them, and this Committee should be taking no step whatever to limit the opportunities to be given to these people to increase their standard of living. Why should we restrict entry at this time? Is there any real reason for it?

There was put into my hands today a summary of a document which has been prepared by the British Market Research Bureau for Flamingo magazine. The Bureau has been carrying out some careful researches into the circumstances and living conditions of the West Indian population in this country, and I want to quote one or two figures from the report. First, I want to refer to the size of West Indian households in this country. That may be an answer to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. The average West Indian household, as determined by the survey, consists of 2.72 people. At that time there were an estimated 100,000 West Indian households in the country. The average net income of those households was approximately £10 15s. a week, which is about 66 per cent. of the average income of the whole population. In only 2 per cent. of those households in which there was a male at the head was £8 or less earned each week. In 90 per cent. of the households with males at the head there was an income of £20 a week or more.

Now let us consider the question of employment. Nearly 62 per cent. of the heads of households interviewed had semi-skilled or skilled occupants—bus drivers, conductors, machine operators, fitters, electricians, and so on. Eighteen per cent. had unskilled jobs—porters or labourers, for example—and 5 per cent. were professional workers, self-employed or employed as foremen, supervisors or charge hands.

We can bring the unemployment position up to date, because the Report was published only on 4th December. Of the informants questioned, 3 per cent. said they were unemployed at the time they were interviewed. The national average of employment, according to the last Ministry of Labour figure, is 1.7 per cent., and the unemployment figure for Scotland is 3.2. The proportion of immigrants who had been unemployed at some time during the last twelve months was 23 per cent., but about half of those had been unemployed for less than nine weeks in the year. Only 19 per cent. of the informants who had arrived in the United Kingdom before 1959 had been unemployed in the previous twelve months.

I want to make one more reference, concerning accommodation. No less than 17 per cent. of the informants owned their accommodation. In the London area 4 per cent. owned their own accommodation, as compared with 8 per cent. of all households in the L.C.C. area. In the Manchester and Birmingham areas, 31 per cent. owned their own accommodation, as compared with 37 per cent. for all the households in the conurbations covered by the Rowntree Trust Housing Study in 1961. About half those people paying rent paid an average of £2 10s. a week. Most West Indians tended to live in small units of one or two rooms. Ninety per cent. had a private bathroom, or shared one, and 92 per cent. had the use of a separate kitchen.

These are the people who have come to us, and this is the way in which they are living and behaving here. In the light of those figures, is any hon. Member prepared to suggest that those people are a burden on the economy and the social life of this country? These people come to us as of right. They are colonial people and are British subjects. The independent territories have a greater responsibility for their own social and economic conditions than do the people of the Colonies.

I suggest that the Colonies are our direct responsibility and that it is part of our responsibility to see that if their people wish to improve their conditions and raise their standard of living they should be given an opportunity to do so by being allowed to come to this country. I have become a little worried about the Government. I remember all the circumstances leading to the negotiations concerning the Common Market and the accusations of a lack of consultation. There is no doubt that there has been a failure to consult other Governments in this connection. I begin to wonder whether at last the Tories have made up their minds that there is nothing left for them in the Commonwealth. I wonder whether they have now reached the stage, when exploitation is finished, of thinking that the Commonwealth means nothing, and that the thousands of millions of people in the Commonwealth should now have no relationship with us because they can no longer be exploited as they have been in the past.

There would seem to be some strength in that suspicion, and I am sorry to find it so. As I said in the Second Reading debate, when we have finished with the Bill—and we are now only in the early stages of Committee—the country and the Commonwealth will know which party is the friend of the Commonwealth. It will not be the party opposite. As we now enter upon many days of debate and discussion of this issue, we ought to set the example and say that, whatever the Bill may be in the end, it is a shocking Bill and that it will be a disgrace to this country and to the House of Commons if we pass it. I hope that we shall lead the way in the right direction this evening by accepting the Amendment as a token of the Committee's feelings in the matter.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. John Hall

I had not intended to intervene, because I did not have the pleasure of hearing the opening speeches dealing with the Amendment. I am moved to intervene, however, because I feel that some speakers have missed the real problem which lies before us. I do not apologise for referring to my constituency, because those hon. Members with special constituency interests have dwelt at some length on them. In High Wycombe we have had an increasing number of immigrants in the last two years, Today, it is estimated that between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the population of High Wycombe consists of immigrants from Pakistan and the West Indies.

High Wycombe is no stranger to incursions of immigrants from different parts of the world. After the last war we had them from Yugoslavia and Poland, and because they came in quickly they created the same kind of tensions and housing and social problems as are being created owing to the rate at which today's immigrants are arriving. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) said that we owed a great deal to the West Indies and that we ought to have a completely open door. I do not see why he should have restricted his argument to the West Indies. The same problem applies in Pakistan.

Mr. C. Royle

I did not restrict it, but I was speaking to the Amendment.

Mr. Hall

I apologise to the hon. Member. Nevertheless, I do not think that that is the point. The real question is: at what rate can this country accept immigrants, from whatever source, so that they can be absorbed into the community with the minimum amount of dislocation and social tension? A year or so ago, together with the late Mayor of High Wycombe, I was instrumental in helping to form a committee known as the Overseas Consultative Committee. Its purpose is to try to help immigrants, from whatever source, to adapt themselves to the life of the community into which they have come, to try to sort out problems as between the indigenous residents and the immigrants, and solve them before they go too far and become out of hand.

That committee has done some useful work, but it is becoming very overworked. If we look at it from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, especially of a citizen in a small community, we can understand the problems. Here, in a comparatively small town—and in other places in the neighbourhood and in big towns—people who are suddenly confronted over a very short period of time with a number of arrivals who form a very useful addition to the labour force in the area, but whose general background, whose habits and ways of life and thought are radically different from the community which they have joined.

A few people of that kind can come into a community, and it does not make a great deal of difference. They can be absorbed and get used to the community and adapt themselves. But, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), if they come in large numbers they tend to congregate together in communities and maintain their own habits and way of life. I am not criticising their habits and way of life. I am merely saying that they are completely different, and it is this very question of difference which produces a social tension. If we do not do something designed at least to slow down the rate of inflow of immigrants, we shall find, springing up in the areas most affected a growing tension which I think may lead to very unpleasant disturbances—

Mr. Denis Howell


Mr. Hall

I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. This has nothing to do with the country of origin. It would apply to any group of immigrants if they came in too quickly and in too large numbers. Now I will give way to the hon. Member.

Mr. Howell

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has raised a substantial point. Because immigrants tend to congregate in certain areas social frictions and problems arise. Will he tell the Committee of a single passage in this Bill which will alter that situation? Indeed, is it not a fact that if we have a system of permits to go to work all the immigrants will be directed to the places where there are jobs, and in the places where there are jobs the social and housing problem will be worse? This Bill will do nothing about that problem.

Mr. Hall

I see the strength of the point which the hon. Member has made. It seems to me that under the provisions of the Bill it would be possible to do something which perhaps the hon. Member for Salford, West had in mind when he produced suggestions for the solution of this problem some time ago. It might be possible through the issue of labour vouchers to direct some of the immigrants to other parts of the country so that their numbers could be spread more thinly. The real problem arises because they concentrate in certain areas far too quickly.

One of the anciliary problems which arises and which is serious from the point of view of this country is the increase in disease. That is not necessarily because immigrants bring disease with them. It is because they live under conditions which encourage its growth. I will mention one instance. In my own constituency the recent figures for V.D., for example, have doubled over the last two years. That is not because the immigrants come with V.D. but because of the large number who come without their families and are driven into associations with the less desirable kind of prostitute in this country and get V.D. The terrible consequences of that could be very serious for the community in which they are living. To overcome this evil we ought to allow in their wives and families so that they may live normal family lives. Then that kind of evil might be stamped out.

Mr. Diamond

Can the hon. Gentleman give the figures for the increase of V.D. for the whole of the country over the last few years?

Mr. Hall

I cannot. I have seen only the figures for my constituency where this problem has arisen.

If we are to encourage and allow wives and families to enter this country it will add considerably to the number of people coming in. In my own constituency there are about 600 or 700 Pakistanis. The majority are here with out their families. I know of only two Pakistani families. If we are to encourage them to live as responsible citizens, to settle down and become part of the community, they must be allowed to bring their families to this country and, therefore, the number of Pakistanis in the area will double—

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I shall be grateful if the hon. Member does not continue to argue along those lines, as, perhaps he is aware, there is a later Amendment which deals with immigrants from Pakistan.

Mr. Hall

I apologise if I have transgressed the rules of order. I think that I have made the point which I was trying to make. That is one of the problems which arises through the artificial conditions in which immigrants have to live.

Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent, Central)

I agree with what the hon. Member is saying, and I intervene only to ask whether he is aware that what he has said about venerial disease is true of tuberculosis? In the main, these people come in free from T.B. but contract it when they are here because of overcrowding and longer hours of work.

Mr. Hall

I accept that entirely. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It makes it all the more essential that we should allow an inflow of immigrants at a rate which will permit us to deal with the housing problems and the problems regarding education which arise for those with families, and at a rate which does not create tension through different habits of life and thought between the existing community and the immigrants, and make it possible for us to welcome these people as useful members of the community. But if we allow the present flow to go on unchecked, I am afraid that there cannot be other than problems and tensions, and even the kind of racial riots which we all deplore and hate to see. I welcome the Bill if for no other reason than that it safeguards the immigrants already here and will enable us as a country to absorb and give hospitality and a real welcome to those who want to settle among us.

Mr. Llywelyn Williams (Abertillery)

In resisting the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Home Secretary pointedly suggested that it and similar Amendments were really wrecking Amendments. I join issue strongly with him on that point. I interpret the Amendment, moved so admirably by my right hon. Friend, in terms of a salvage operation; an attempt to salvage something from the shambles and the wreck, which I am sure is a right description of this Bill; an attempt to preserve something which is good and decent and in accord with the highest and best spirit of this country.

I genuinely regret having to say this, because, like everyone else interested in Parliamentary government in this country I have regarded the Home Secretary as one who has deservedly enjoyed a very high prestige over many years. If I may use a colloquialism, the right hon. Gentleman is regarded as a Parliamentary heavyweight champion. Today, we read quite a lot about heavyweight boxers and what happens to them. I speak with sincerity when I say that to me it is almost sad to see the Home Secretary appearing before us here like a punch drunk ex-heavyweight champion boxer—not knowing what to hit, but blindly lurching out in various directions in the faint hope of hitting something.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that, but I say it because I feel it, and this feeling is shared by other people. It was the saddest speech that I have ever heard the right hon. Gentleman make. It could be delivered only by an hon. Member of this House who, honestly and genuinely, could not believe in what he was saying.

For what it is worth, I declare that the Home Secretary, from the beginning, has never convinced me that his heart is in the Bill. I know very well that we are all circumscribed procedurally and by party affiliations, but if, one day, he is able to speak openly and frankly about the Bill, I hope that he will disavow it as something with which he once was unfortunately connected.

7.30 p.m.

I want to concentrate particularly, as the Amendment does, on the Colonies and on the West Indies. As did my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), who made such a moving speech, I have visited the West Indies. As has been said by other hon. Members, and as was said so touchingly by Sir Grantley Adams on television last night, the West Indians regard themselves instinctively as British people. They regard this country as their own country. Although they may have been brought up in the West Indies, which is a Colony of the United Kingdom, nevertheless, in their general attitude and feeling they regard themselves as British people. This Bill, which this Amendment is trying to correct, is for the West Indies a slap in the face.

I ask the Home Secretary to remember a fact which was quoted some months ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), who, at one time, was Secretary of State for Air in a Labour Government. He informed the House that 8,000 Jamaicans served in the Royal Air Force in the last war. There was no control of this kind exercised over them. We were glad to accept every Jamaican in our Air Force, our Army or Navy. We are certainly glad to accept them and utilise their friendliness and warmth of disposition in our hospital service and transport services.

What sort of hospital service would we have were it not for the West Indians? We hear much about industrial strife. I say heaven help the Government if the West Indians, for just one day, were to withhold their services from the transport service and the hospital service. I believe that this problem could never have arisen, and need never have arisen, if the Government had followed out in spirit and action the Distribution of Industry Act, which was passed by a Labour Government. That would have been the obvious solution to immigration from the West Indies and by other peoples from our Colonies.

The great indictment of the Government is that, even with that Act on the Statute Book, giving them all the necessary powers to diffuse our industry and distribute our population more evenly and sensibly, instead of having these absurd concentrations in two or three connurbations in the Midlands and London, the coming to this country of people from our Colonies has aggravated this situation.

Mr. John Hall

I am listening to the hon. Member with great interest, but it is true, is it not, that there are a number of industrial areas where unemployment figures are very low and there are a large number of vacancies, yet where there are practically no West Indians, or none? The fact is that a nucleus in a particular area tends to attract others. That has nothing to do with the distribution of industry as such.

Mr. LI. Williams

I do not accept the hon. Member's argument.

I do not feel that the Home Secretary addressed himself as he should have done to the main argument which my right hon. Friend used when he was moving the Amendment. My right hon. Friend said that the nub of this matter is economic and that where we have a fluctuating number of vacancies we also have a corresponding fluctuation in immigration to this country.

I speak, I hope, with some imaginative feeling on this subject. I wish to offer to the Committee an analogy. I know that it is not perfect, for all analogies break down at some stage. I am a Welshman. My little nation, whose population is roughly 2½ million, has seen conditions very analogous to the poverty and destitution now existing in Jamaica. Between 1921 and 1938, from the South Wales Valleys 400,000 to 500,000 Welsh people migrated to England. There were some very unfortunate consequences of that mass migration. The same mistake was made then as is being made now with immigration from the Colonies.

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) referred to the concentration of immigrants in certain areas. That is exactly what happened with the Welsh immigration before the war when, for instance, 10,000 Welsh people settled in Slough. I am, naturally, proud of being Welsh, but I think that it is asking too much of the residents of Slough to dump 10,000 Welsh people on them. The same happened in Luton and other centres. My argument is that if we had planned our policy of immigration from the Colonies with more understanding, then the vexatious issues and problems which have arisen in some of our cities would not have arisen.

To prove that fundamentally this is an economic issue, I shall describe the situation as it obtains today in Wales. There is no migration from Wales to England today. No Welshman in his senses wants to come to live in England. Fortunately, we have in South Wales today a fairly prosperous economic industrial situation.

Mr. Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

If Welshmen did return to England, would it not be by way of reoccupation rather than migration?

Mr. LI. Williams

I think that there is a lot of truth in what my hon. and learned Friend says.

The point I am trying to make is a basically simple one, and, I think, is basically crucial to this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the fears expressed by the Home Secretary and other hon. Members on Second Reading—fears about what might happen if unemployment reappeared in this country—are without foundation. They are imagined fears. I say this even about a Conservative Government. I am certain that even they will never allow a condition of mass unemployment to recur in Britain. These fears are imagined unless, as one hon. Friend is now prompting me to say, the Government are bluffing. The genesis of the Bill has been referred to so often by my hon. Friends. It is a succumbing to a culmination of pressure from back benchers opposite and from the Conservative Party Conference. It is abject and cowardly that a Government who have proclaimed so often their belief in the Colonies and in the Commonwealth should have allowed this type of pressure to influence their judgment. In some cases this is against the better judgment of some members of the Cabinet, and I refer particularly to the Home Secretary.

I wholeheartedly support the Amendment, because we owe more to the Colonies than we have given them. I do not deny that in many instances our colonial history has its bright and brilliant chapters of selflessness. Our colonial history is nothing to be ashamed of; I have never thought or said that it is. I have been in places where it is difficult to say these things, but even in America I have been as eloquent and warm as anyone in paying tribute to our colonial history. The Bill is putting the clock back. In that sense it is abject that, in 1961, the Government should have taken this attitude because of the pressures to which I have referred.

Mr. Fisher

I agree very much with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams). We have ranged so widely from Birmingham to Wales and other places that I must apologise to the Committee for returning directly to the Amendment. I am sympathetic to it, for two reasons. I do not want to labour the point which was eloquently made by the Leader of the Opposition, but I think that he was absolutely right in saying that there is a rather important difference between imposing a Bill such as this upon a colonial dependency for which we are still responsible and applying it to an equal and independent Commonwealth country. This is the first strong argument in favour of the Amendment.

My second reason is this, that on Second Reading I made the point, in defence of the Government's position in relation to the Bill, that what my right hon. Friends are worried about is not so much the actual numbers coming in from the West Indies but the potential numbers who might come in from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth—who could come here and have a perfect right to come as things are at the moment. With no restraints at all, citizens of India and Pakistan could come here literally in their millions. I do not say that they would, but they could. If they did, they could not possibly be absorbed, either from the point of view of housing or of employment, into the economy of this small island.

On the other hand, in the context of the Amendment the position of the Colonies is quite different and much less serious in the numerical sense. The total population of the West Indies is rather over 3 million. In a normal year probably not more than 30,000 people would want to come here from the Caribbean. I stress the word "normal" because this year has not been a normal year and to a somewhat lesser extent last year was not a normal year either, for the same reason. People who might have come next year or the year after have rushed to come this year. In Jamaica this movement is known as "Operation Christmas", because they are rushing to come here before the Bill becomes law, because they will not after that be able to come here.

If the citizens of the Colonies are exempted from the provisions of the Bill, which is what the Amendment seeks to do, we shall reduce the migrant intake to a manageable and ascertain-able size. It is not then a vast problem. It is not the same as the many millions of people who could come from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth. It is a much smaller problem.

7.45 p.m.

I want to be quite fair and, if possible, unbiased. There are two valid arguments which can be advanced against the Amendment. The first is that for the time being it is a wrecking Amendment. I do not say this in any derogatory sense. It is a wrecking Amendment in the sense that it deliberately excludes from the Bill the largest single category of migrants, namely the West Indians. As I am devoted to the West Indies, I am in favour of that. I join with all those hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, who have paid very generous and absolutely accurate tributes to the West Indians for what they have done to help our economy.

But the fact remains that if we start excluding any category from a Bill such as this we shall be in trouble. This is one of the difficulties now facing my right hon. Friends, because they have had to admit that in practice they must exclude the Irish. This is a very real embarrassment for the Government. It is the real difficulty. Later Amendments on the Notice Paper seek to exclude every Commonwealth country. In that context this can be described as a wrecking Amendment, because it drives a coach and four through the Bill.

The second argument against the Amendment—it is, in a way, a contradictory argument—is that if it is intended to help the West Indies it will probably turn out to be of rather marginal and ephemeral assistance to them, because the majority of the migrants come from Jamaica. Jamaica will be independent in May next year. It is still open to doubt whether Trinidad will lead a smaller federation of the Eastern Caribbean. If she decides to do so, there is no doubt that that Federation would very soon become independent. If Trinidad does not decide to take up that position, she in her turn, if she wants to go it alone like Jamaica, will become independent in a short time. Therefore, most of these territories will be independent within the next year. In practice, by the time the Bill becomes law, all that we have been discussing this afternoon will be almost irrelevant. We have all been talking about the West Indies and we are all sympathetic to their position, but by the time the Bill is in serious operation most of the West Indian migrants who might be affected will be excluded by the main body of the Bill, whether the Amendment is carried or not.

So I do not think that there is very much in the Amendment in practice—at any rate for the West Indies. However, in so far as it would be helpful to the West Indies, even temporarily and even in a small way, I am not disposed to vote against it.

I now want to deal shortly with the Irish problem. This has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, but, Sir Gordon, we have been allowed by one of your predecessors to discuss it.

The Chairman

Certainly, provided that the hon. Member does not go too far. There is another Amendment which deals with this question.

Mr. Fisher

I should not dream of going too far, Sir Gordon.

Having listened to my right hon. Friend's announcement about the Southern Irish position, I cannot pretend that I feel any happier about it now than I did on Second Reading. The plain fact is that unless the Southern Irish, who are not even citizens of the Commonwealth are effectively—and I want to underline that word "effectively"—included in the Bill, it really does become a colour Bill; its whole impact will fall on the coloured nations and coloured citizens of the Commonwealth.

That is all there is to it. I know that it is not the Government's intention to make this a colour Bill—of course it is not—but that is what it will seem like and, quite honestly, what it does seem like to every coloured citizen in our multi-racial Commonwealth. That being so, I cannot avoid the feeling that it is bound to harm race relationships in the world and Commonwealth relations towards this country.

People who think that it will not are really thinking of the Commonwealth as it was when it was the Empire. I am afraid that they are thinking of it in terms of the older white Dominions, but they are probably fifty years out of date. The Commonwealth is not like that today. None of the older white Dominions is likely to be affected by this Measure. Their citizens who come to Britain are either tourist visitors, students, returning British migrants, perhaps disappointed in their careers overseas, or are self-supporting, or are skilled men, or men who come to prearranged jobs.

From the practical point of view, very few people come from Australia or Canada as unskilled manual workers with no job arranged or in prospect—

Captain Walter Elliot (Carshalton)

I have particular experience of people coming from Australia. It is true to say that tens of thousands of young Australians come here, do a job for a short time, travel to the Continent, come back here and do another job, and so on, staying for about a year or 18 months.

Mr. Fisher

I should be very surprised to find that my hon. and gallant Friend's figure of tens of thousands was correct. When, in a few months time, hon. Members put down Questions to my right hon. Friends, as I have no doubt they will, asking how many Commonwealth citizens have been excluded by this Bill; how many from Australia, how many from Canada, how many from the West Indies, India, Pakistan, and so on—

The Chairman

That does not arise on this Amendment.

Mr. Fisher

It does not arise on this Amendment, no, Sir Gordon, but it is difficult, when one is interrupted, not to be permitted to give a short answer. I think that when all the answers are forthcoming it will be found that the vast majority of those excluded by this Bill have been our coloured Commonwealth citizens.

The fact is that almost the only unskilled white labour entering the country is to be found among the Southern Irish. I do not want my feelings about them to be mistaken. I like the Southern Irish, and I know Southern Ireland very well. I know that, like the West Indians, the Southern Irish are making an extremely useful contribution to our economy, but if they are not included the Commonwealth will say, and believe, that we are legislating against colour—and in practice, though not in intention, I am afraid that will be true.

I had hoped very much that some way would be found to distinguish in this Bill between citizens of Northern Ireland and those of Southern Ireland. I knew that it would be very difficult; I said so in the Second Reading debate, and I have said so in many speeches inside the House and outside it for years.

We have seen circulated in the Press the suggestion that the Northern Ireland National Insurance cards might possibly provide a solution; that people from Southern Ireland who did not possess such cards would not find employment here. I gather that that and similar proposals have had to be rejected on administrative grounds. The position now is that we shall have an interval of, I gather, two years in which to get information about the Southern Irish, presumably to see how many of them come seasonally, how many stop here permanently, whether they live in camps or require permanent housing—I suppose that is the kind of investigation we shall have—

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)


Mr. Fisher

I just want to finish this point, which is the purpose of the argument.

Why is it thought likely that in 1963 we shall suddenly be able to find a solution of the Southern Irish problem that we cannot find today? I simply cannot believe that my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon about the Southern Irish was a really valid one. To me, it seems to be just another attempt, perhaps, to help those like me who are in a very difficult position, but it is not a successful attempt, because if we cannot get a solution today, after all the thought and the very sincere efforts that my right hon. Friend has devoted to the matter, why should we be better able to get it in two years' time?

I am afraid, therefore, that we are in the very difficult position, if we cannot find a solution—and I do not honestly think it very likely that we shall—that this Measure remains a colour Bill. This is the main difficulty for me, and probably for some others of my hon. Friends. It is a most unhappy position, but as long as the Irish are excluded in practice just so long will this remain a colour Bill. That makes it quite impossible for me to give my right hon. Friend and the Government the loyal support I should genuinely like to give them on any major Government Bill.

Some of us on this side of the Committee, who feel deeply about the Commonwealth and strongly about things like this, are being put in a terribly difficult position when our loyalty is requested, when we are anxious to give it, but when the situation is such that we cannot give it without betraying very sincere convictions held over a very long period of time. That, in the final analysis, I cannot do.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

Part of this road I have travelled before, as the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was careful to remind me on Second Reading. I did not take part in that debate, because I know the difficulty that confronts him. He quoted what I said on 13th July, 1948, when, dealing with the Irish in relation to problems of this kind, I said:

8.0 p.m. It is true that this may present anomalies, but in my experience of attempting to deal with the Irish, whether Southern" or Northern, if one can do anything at all it is sure to be either by way of creating an anomaly or of recognising one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 1112.] Having studied the problem during the intervening thirteen years I am more than ever convinced that the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Bill confirms the view that that is the inevitable conclusion to which English politicians will be driven in any attempt they make to control the Irish. We have been trying it for 700 years. Some of our ablest statesmen and some of our best generals have been employed in that task; the Irish have beaten us every time, and they will continue to beat us.

We can only deal with this problem by becoming out and out Fascists. Hitler was determined to control the Jews. He was troubled by no scruples about inflicting indignity on fellow human beings so he said, "Every Jew shall wear a yellow badge." No English politician, let alone statesman, will ever be able to say, "In order that I may identify the Irish, every Irishman who comes from Northern Ireland shall wear an orange badge, and every Irishman who comes from Southern Ireland shall wear a green badge." We would not inflict on any minority such a social indignity. It is because we do not have the hardness of heart to do that that, in this matter, the Irish will beat us every time.

What exactly is the basis of this and similar Measures? It is to deal with easily recognisable minorities. This Bill becomes a colour Bill because we do not have the pluck, the hardness of heart, or the wickedness to inflict the social indignity of having to wear a badge on people whom the Government would like to exclude. One can see the colour of a man's face. I have even seen in police reports on occasions—and I objected strongly to it whenever I saw this—the reference to a man having an "Hebraic countenance"—which meant that one would probably try to designate him a Jew because of his facial formation. The easily recognisable minorities are, of course, far easier to deal with than other people who, villains though they may be are so apt to look like the most respectable and peaceable of citizens.

That is the problem which confronts the Government in dealing with this matter. I give credit to the Home Secretary—who has had a rather rough time this afternoon—for not succumbing to the demands of some people that the Irish should be excluded. I do not want to exclude anyone. I am not an economist, but while I have seen Germany beaten in two world wars I now see that country among the most prosperous nations on earth. How do they do it? I ask this question of my economist friends, of whom there is a large number among my hon. Friends, although they regard me as an outcast because I am never able to take part in their discussions. Not that they discuss matters, for they are as pontifical as any Pope who rules in Rome. When I ask how the Germans do it they reply, "Look at the great influx of labour Germany has had with the refugees."

This is the answer I get and as I travel about Britain, especially on public transport in London and in the provincial cities, I soon realise that our public transport, faced with the most tremendous difficulties, is today only kept running because these people have come in. They have picked up the local knowledge, although, I admit, the majority of them would rather one supplied the name of the "pub" than the name of the church at which one wished to alight. Perhaps that is because it is easier to read the name on the "pub" than to read the small type on a church notice board. The way they acquire this knowledge on where one should change, especially on London's underground, is remarkable. This particularly applies to a journey where one must make two or more changes and it is an indication that any attempt to write them off as being inferior or unintellectual is founded on a misconception.

I have given up trying to determine whether an Irishman living in the Scotland Division of Liverpool regards Ireland or England as his home country. A Scotsman will even sometimes allow that he is British, but if one calls a Northern or Southern Irishman British he will at once say that he is Irish.

Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)

I simply cannot allow that to pass. A Northern Irishman is very proud of being called British.

Mr. Ede

I had some responsibility for Northern Ireland. One job that nearly broke my heart was trying to work with the Government of Northern Ireland. It is far easier to work with the South.

The Chairman

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment deals with the question of the Colonies?

Mr. Ede

I apologise, Sir Gordon, for I should have ignored the remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I merely wished to treat the hon. Gentleman with appropriate respect.

This afternoon we had what I regard as a valuable speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who faced up frankly to the problems involved. I was responsible for introducing the wonderful phrase "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" into the law of this country. It was done deliberately to associate us most particularly with people living in foreign climes for whom we in this House accept the responsibilities of government.

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) used at one time to ask, "Is Labour fit to govern?" Whenever I was asked that question at an election meeting, I always replied, "No. No one man is fit to govern another, but it becomes necessary on occasions that the job should be undertaken"—and I always thought that I was as capable of doing it as anyone else.

As I say, this was a deliberate act on the part of the Labour Government and I carefully explained this on the Second Reading, in Committee and on the Third Reading of the 1948 Act, because we always felt a special responsibility for people we must govern because the development in their territories had not advanced them to a stage when they could undertake the task themselves. I rejoice that, steadily, we are now being able to pass on that responsibility to them. Therefore, it will be a diminishing number. But, while we retain responsibility, if we call them citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, we must remember the tie which we ourselves on this side of the Committee have created.

I know that the phrase was not popular on the benches opposite. The Bill, by a misfortune, was introduced in another place. In another place everything which we had put in was struck out, and another nomenclature was put in. This nomenclature we reversed during the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons. We went right through it and struck out everything which had been put in in another place and restored the Bill as we had introduced it.

We have a very heavy responsibility particularly for the people of the West Indies. I had the great honour of being appointed, with the right hon. Gentleman, as he then was, Sir Thomas Dug-dale, now Lord Crathorne, and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), to go to the West Indies to present a Mace from this House to the House of Representatives there. We had the great honour of being entertained by Sir Grantley Adams. There is no truer friend of British ideals in the world than Sir Grantley Adams. No denunciation can be too strong for the way in which this Government have treated him in the promotion of the Bill.

I had the great honour to have a private lunch given to me by a member of the Government of Trinidad, the Hon. Leary Constantine. Anyone with a greater friendship for the enlightened members of this community than Leary Constantine I should very much like to meet. As Minister of Transport in the Government of Trinidad he has been showing how he managed to assimilate in this country, as well as in the West Indies, the British way of life and, more particularly, the English way of life.

Mr. S. Silverman

The Lancashire way of life.

Mr. Ede

I give my hon. Friend his point. Mr. Constantine felt greatly honoured because he had been represented in Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).

These people have an affinity with us which is very striking, although one has to allow for the different climate in the way in which some parts of their lives are lived. For myself, if I had to choose a place in which to live, I should still prefer England, because I have not the kind of blood in my veins which likes living for fourteen successive days in a temperature of 95 degrees.

We have a very heavy debt to repay these people. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) accused them of promiscuity. Their ancestors had a tribal life in Africa with its own standards, not quite the same as ours, which we disrupted in a disgraceful way. The other night, in preparation for this debate, I read in the Dictionary of National Biography the biography of John Hawkins, the man who founded the slave trade, and who, in promotion of that trade at the time, was actually given a vessel by the first Queen Elizabeth, a vessel which, in view of the use to which it was put, was I think, almost blasphemously called "Jesus".

Her Majesty took some of the profits, but made no contribution towards the expenses of the voyages. These people were taken from Africa where they had a tribal organisation which they had built up as a result of experience. They were transported to America, largely to the West Indies, and they were the originators of the present inhabitants of the West Indies.

8.15 p.m.

They lived for about two-and-a-half centuries in a state of slavery. I read in a book provided for me by the Governor-General of the West Indies, whom we used to know better in the House as Mr. Buchan-Hepburn, a description of the way in which this primitive organisation had managed to survive during the years of slavery and how, when liberation came, many of the practices which inherited from their African ancestors still remained in the rather newer state of society into which they moved.

It is an astonishing thing that there is no legitimacy or illegitimacy in the West Indies. It just does not exist. A man and a woman living together are recognised as such by the community. I do not want to say anything which might upset the Scots, but I have understood that, in earlier days, Scottish marriages were not very different from that. If the family breaks up, the girls are looked after by the grandparents on the mother's side and the boys by the grandparents on the father's side.

I am not defending that sort of life, but neither am I attacking it. These people have had to adapt themselves, as a result of our misdeeds to their ancestors, in order to build up a new civilisation which can help them in the world today. To suggest that we can now treat them as if we had no responsibility for them, and as if, in the words of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, they had now got to work out their own destiny, is to suggest something exhibiting a lack of responsibility for our imperial debts as well as for our imperial honour which will never, I hope, be supported by the Committee.

We are, by this Bill, opening a new chapter in British history. I recall that I got into great trouble in the House when, as Home Secretary, I was once asked whether I would take powers to enable me to deport Canadian subjects who were giving us some trouble during a shipping strike at the docks in the East End of London. I said that I wished I could have powers to deport Canadian citizens because I should then deal with the proprietor of the Daily Express. Hon. Members on what was then the Opposition Front Bench said that it was very wrong to say a thing like that about a Member of the other place. Let me say this for Lord Beaverbrook. He wrote and said, "If you ever want me to go out, send me a note and I will go quietly". I hope that I have as good a sense of humour as Lord Beaverbrook.

We are being asked to take an important decision in this Amendment. I regret that it was not included in the Bill by the Government. I believe that, if the Amendment is defeated, we make a completely new start in our relationship with the coloured peoples of the Commonwealth. I believe that it is a bad new connection to make, and I for one hope that, if not tonight, at least before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, we shall continue to extend to the Colonies which we govern, and for whose economic and political future we are responsible, the wish that they should be one with us and and that all the advantages which we enjoy should be shared among all of them.

Sir Richard Pilkington (Poole)

I listened, as did every other hon. Member, with great interest and respect to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I think it probable that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take some comfort from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman supported the Home Secretary's decision concerning the Irish. Two distinguished occupiers of the office of Home Secretary have apparently come to the same conclusion.

The hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) and Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams) both hazarded the opinion that what had brought the Bill about was back bench pressure and not the decision of the Government themselves. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have heard of a newspaper called the Daily Herald? If so, and if they read it, they will have seen that earlier this week it referred to the letters which the editor had received about the Bill. They may remember that the article dealing with the problem that we are considering stated that, out of the 57 letters which the editor had received, only six supported the line which the Opposition are taking. I therefore think that it can be said that it is not only Conservative back bench pressure that has brought the Bill into being.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and another hon. Member opposite went into the history of the West Indies and called attention to the fact that our ancestors were largely responsible for bringing Africans from Africa and putting them in the West Indies. The right hon. Member for South Shields referred to what he called the tribal life that they were living before that. Perhaps he should have mentioned that the tribal life that they were living knew slavery very well indeed. He might also have said that, although we did a great deal of the carrying of slaves across the Atlantic, it was this country which led the way to the abolition of the slave trade and, later, of slavery itself. It is as well that we should get the picture rounded.

I have every sympathy, if I may say so respectfully, with those who really believe that this is a bad Bill. I attach full importance to the strength of the arguments that we have heard on this Amendment. However, it seems to me that the arguments against the Amendment, not by a long way, but by some way, override the arguments for it.

I put my belief on three main grounds. If the Amendment and all that goes with it were accepted, this growing nucleus of immigrants would grow at a faster rate than do the people now living in this country, because, as has been said by several hon. Members, their birth rate is that much higher. After all, we are supposed to legislate not only for the present, but for the future. It seems undeniable that this country would then suffer the same sort of problems which are confronting the United States and which they have found insoluble. I think that that is the overriding consideration in all the other important considerations which concern the Bill.

Mr. Chapman

Which problem does the United States find insoluble?

Sir Richard Pilkington

The hon. Gentleman may have heard the name Little Rock. In America, Little Rock is not an end but a beginning. I am anxious to avoid the same sort of thing happening in this country.

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

Does the hon. Gentleman regard this as a colour Bill?

Sir Richard Pilkington

I believe that I am right in saying that I have no feeling one way or the other personally about the colour question. It is an inescapable fact that where too many people of a country and too many immigrants are too close together—this applies to other countries where the experience has been the same—then the sort of friction to which I have referred arises.

Mr. Hale

Is not that the situation in Kenya today?

Mr. S. Silverman

The hon. Gentleman said that, if this Amendment were accepted, we would be in danger of creating in this country the same insoluble problem which exists in the United States.

Mr. Hale

And which exists in Kenya.

Mr. Silverman

Whether the problem is insoluble or not, the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a colour problem and only a colour problem. Therefore, if he says that to accept this Amendment would be to create a colour problem in this country, then to reject it would be to avoid the colour problem in this country. The hon. Gentleman has given the Government's case away. He has demonstrated that this is a colour Bill and nothing else.

Sir Richard Pilkington

If the hon. Gentleman had listened with his customary attention he would have remembered that I referred in every case to "immigrants". I did not bring the question of colour into it because I do not think that that is necessary. We are an overcrowded island already. We are dealing with immigrants, whatever their colour. It is only a matter of administration that we cannot bring the Irish in at the same time.

Mr. Hale

Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he would propose that the new Kenya Government should deal with European immigrants in Kenya?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot)

The hon. Member for Old-ham, West (Mr. Hale) is not in order on this Amendment in asking the hon. Gentleman how the Kenya Government would deal with the matter.

Mr. Hale

I am trying to deal with the people in Kenya and to relate my intervention to the hon. Gentleman's observations about Little Rock. If Little Rock is not in the Bill, Nairobi is not in the Bill. With great respect, I should be grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would tell me why it is permissible for the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) to develop a detailed argument about a place in the United States but not permissible for me to develop an argument about a place which is, to an extent, still under British rule.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

Further to that point of order—

The Temporary Chairman

It was not a point of order.

Mr. Hale

I did raise a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. It has had no reply. I ventured to challenge your Ruling, with great respect, and to say that, whilst respecting the Chair, I humbly asked for guidance as to why an observation about the colour bar in Kenya was not relevant when an observation about Little Rock was.

The Temporary Chairman

That is not a question for me to answer.

Mr. Hale

With great respect, Mr. Arbuthnot, this was the intervention you made to me. You directed me virtually to resume my seat on the ground that I was out of order in referring to Nairobi. I am asking why you say that I was out of order.

The Temporary Chairman


Mr. Hale

No, I will not give way in these circumstances. You have ruled, Mr. Arbuthnot, that you are not responsible for your own Ruling and I venture to ask you why.

The Temporary Chairman

When I am on my feet, the hon. Member must resume his seat. I have told him that we could not discuss on this Amendment a matter which was the responsibility of the Kenya Government.

Mr. Gordon Walker


Mr. Hale

Further to that, this is not a matter of responsibility for the Kenya Government. It is still a matter for the United Kingdom Government. I was intervening to make a point in which I was suggesting that the hon. Member who had the ear of the Committee was a little wide of the point in referring in complete detail to Little Rock, which is a purely colour bar question in a limited area, in a depressed and rather poverty-stricken area of the United States.

I asked the hon. Member to explain to me, in view of our responsibility for the present negotiations in Nairobi, in view of the fact that the Government of Kenya is under discussion, in view of the fact that the Colonial Secretary is at the moment discussing with Mr. Jomo Kenyatta and others the future of Kenya, which will involve the security and the safety of European citizens, including United Kingdom citizens, who have not abandoned their nationality, why this, was not a matter to consider in the light of the argument that the hon. Member was putting.

8.30 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman

I cannot see that chat arises on this Amendment.

Mr. Gordon Walker

The Amendment deals with citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Inhabitants of Kenya are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Therefore, is it not directly relevant to the Amendment?

The Temporary Chairman

Sir Richard Pilkington.

Sir Richard Pilkington

The second speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was not as good as his first speech earlier in the day. Density of population is the answer which I could give him in three words, but which I must not give him more fully, because, Mr. Arbuthnot, you have ruled it out of order.

I have tried to make the points which I regard as of overbearing importance in this difficult problem, but there is one further thing to which, possibly, hon. Members opposite who speak after me may care to refer. What is the limit which hon. Members opposite who are in favour of the Amendment consider would be the proper limit of immigration into this country? Is there no limit that they would put? If there is a limit, at what level would they put it? Surely, it is right at this stage to get the machinery in the hands of the Government so that if later it becomes necessary to control one way or the other the number of people coming into the country, it can be done.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

The speech which the Committee has just heard from the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) seems to me to be an abject confession of failure. The hon. Member has compared the potential situation which existing immigration has created with the Little Rock situation. In my submission, the Bill is a condemnation of the Government because they, too.

have taken a wholly defeatist attitude to the problem of how to organise a multiracial society.

There was an occasion not long ago when the Minister of State referred to the United Kingdom as "the focal point of a multi-racial Commonwealth." Can he say that now, after the Bill, when the Government are saying that even though we have not got a population of 500,000 immigrants, it would create too grave a problem, it would create dangers of racial disorders and we could not risk it?

Is that the example that Britain is setting to those territories where, according to spokesmen of the Government, we are advocating multi-racial societies and communities? Is this the message of Britain, that multi-racialism is all very well across the oceans but not here, and that we cannot cope with it here, with all our resources, our wealth, our traditions, our tolerance and our neighbourliness? Is that the verdict that the human race is to pass upon Britain, that we cannot absorb in this community 1 per cent, of the population which has a different colour from ours? What a message for a party of Commonwealth and Empire.

I have had occasion several times this year to be in Africa and I have been in some of the Colonies. I remember one evening in a remote farm in Kenya early this year some of our people there, European settlers, saying "For God's sake, what are you doing about the Government's plans on immigration? What do you think our fate here in Kenya will be? Here we are in a lonely outpost, in lonely farms, where we have survived the challenge of Mau Mau. There is a new challenge now coming to our position from England, from the Tory Party or part of it, in Britain." I suppose that the British white population of Kenya is about 24,000. It may be more, though not much more.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset, West)

Is it not about 100,000?

Mr. Elwyn Jones

Whatever it is, it is a very small proportion of the total population, and I stand to be corrected on the figure. We happen, however, to own a great deal of wealth there. We have invested a great deal there, and it is perfectly true that we have made a great contribution.

The Temporary Chairman

I think that the hon. and learned Member is going into too much detail and is a little wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

With great respect, Mr. Arbuthnot, surely on this Amendment it is legitimate for the Committee to consider what the reactions of the Colonies will be to the Bill if it is not amended. We have a practical responsibility for the Colonies. We still have responsibility for their government, and I submit that this is a highly relevant and a most material part of the argument which the Government have to face.

To return to the situation in Kenya, the small white population there has been subject to serious challenge and threat, but it has survived, and now there is a prospect in Kenya of multi-racialism developing. There are better relations between the farmers and their neighbours. Africans are moving in as neighbours to the white farms. I have seen it happen. I am sure the Colonial Secretary is eager to surmount these difficulties. This is the root of survival in these territories, but what an example the Bill will be to the Kenya Government. It will be a direct provocation to the racialists there who will say to the whites, "Get out. We do not want you." This is the kind of thing that will happen if this sort of Measure goes through.

I see that the Attorney-General is present and I wonder what he as a lawyer feels about the Bill. It does violence to a tradition of the common law which has existed for over 350 years. We on this side of the Committee have always thought that the Tory Party was reactionary, but the party has not in recent years gone back to the 15th century for its precedents as it is doing in this Bill. Ever since the great judgment of Lord Chief Justice Ellesmere in Calvin's case in 1608 it has been the rule of our law that all have enjoyed the same rights to the King's protection.

Our law does not know and never has known any distinction between British subjects in respect of race or colour. It is a great and noble tradition. It is the tradition that led Lord Chief Justice Mansfield to make his famous decision which led to the ending of the slave trade. I was in Sierra Leone this year. It is a somewhat rare experience for a lawyer to go to a country where a former Lord Chief Justice is a national hero. It is not one of the normal attributes of the holders of that high office, if I may say so. Lord Chief Justice Mansfield was applying the famous principle declared by Lord Chief Justice Ellesmere when he said that King James I was "one entire king" over all his subjects in whichever of his dominions they were born and that they all enjoyed the same right to the King's protection.

That is not going to be said after this Bill. They will not enjoy the same Queen's protection, wherever they may be. It will no longer be possible to say of a British subject, if this Bill goes through, as they said proudly of Roman subjects—civis romanus sum. Where are the shades of Palmerston? Where is the idealism of the Tory Party, if it ever had sincerity in this? Has all this interest in Imperialism merely been a squalid interest in property overseas?

Here is the moment, of all times, when we should not be turning the pages of history backwards. Here is the moment, of all times, for us to assert once again the brotherhood of man and the rôle of the Commonwealth.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentle man to come back to the Amendment.

Mr. Elwyn Jones

I do not wish to be impertinent to the Chair, Mr Arbuthnot, but the whole purpose of this Amendment is to try to introduce something of humanity into an inhumar and wholly illiberal Bill. As I was say ing, and I repeat it, this of all moments in the development of the Commonwealth is the worst in which to take this step. There is a great challenge of world forces with which we should be concerned at this present moment. There is a great challenge in the places we have left and in those which we are about to leave. There are others who are very ready to enter these places. This Bill will give encouragement to them. It is deplorable, it is reactionary, and the refusal to accept an Amendment which at least would give some corner of decency to it is about the most depressing Parliamentary development for a very long time.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) wondered what I, as a lawyer, felt about the Bill. I hope that I shall inform him, in the course of my speech, of my views on this Amendment. But I might say first, if I might, that I think that some of his language was somewhat exaggerated. He approached the Bill as though it were a Measure to stop all immigrants from coming to the country. It is, of course, nothing of the sort.

The hon. and learned Member also sought to represent the Bill as one which alters a person's nationality. He said that we would never be able to say, as the Romans said, civis romanus sum. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has pointed out, however, the Bill makes no difference in this respect to the Act of 1948. That is to say, it does not alter the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

This has been a wide-ranging debate and if I would not perhaps get out of order by saying so, I would say that it has appeared at some stages to be somewhat analogous to a Second Reading debate—though, of course, Mr. Arbuthnot, you would not permit a Second Reading debate on an Amendment which, although very important and far-reaching in its consequences, is an extremely narrow Amendment.

It has been a wide-ranging debate, for it has ranged from a discussion of matters appropriate for consideration by the Birmingham City Council—raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. V. Yates)—to consideration of vital statistics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), in a very interesting speech. It has even ranged in its later stages from Little Rock to Nairobi.

8.45 p.m.

I do not intend to attempt to cover the whole range of the discussion. I want primarily to deal with the Amendment, because, after all, what we have to decide is whether the Amendment should be made. I would like, first, to say that it is perfectly true that no one likes the Bill. Some of us think that it has to be enacted if it can be. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, it is a sad necessity, but if we are right in thinking that it is a necessary Measure at this time the Government would be failing in their duty and their responsibility if they failed to tackle the problem.

In the course of my right hon. Friend's speech, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) asked for the figures to be split up, showing the number of immigrants from what I might call the principal Colonial Territories and those from the self-governing Commonwealth countries for which figures were available. I can give him the approximate figures of the net inward movement from both categories.

In 1958, there were 15,700 immigrants from the principal Colonial Territories and 14,600 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries; in 1959, the respective figures were 16,650 from the Colonies and 4,500 from the Commonwealth countries; in 1960, 49,000 from the principal Colonial Territories and 9,600 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries; for the first nine months in 1961, 54,250 from the principal Colonial Territories and 41,500 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries. The total has risen from just over 21,000 in 1959, to 58,600 in 1960 and 95,750 in the first nine months of 1961. We may be right or wrong, but that seems to us to indicate a marked trend towards much increasing immigration.

Mr. Diamond

Is it not fair to point out—and it is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) asked for these figures—that the trend is wholly in the direction of immigration from the Commonwealth, which is not covered by the Amendment, and that the figures for the immigration with which the Amendment is concerned have been more or less static for the past two years?

The Attorney-General

I do not accept that for one moment. I do not think that a difference from 16,650 in 1959 to 49,000 in 1960 and 54,000 in the first nine months of 1961 can be regarded as more or less static. However, there may be a difference of points of view. I think that the right hon. Member who asked for the figures will appreciate that we have done our best to supply them.

I was about to say that, rightly or wrongly, we believe that those figures show a trend of movement which has to be dealt with. The Committee has heard of the prolonged consideration given to this question of immigration into our country. It has gone on for many years and it is finally and reluctantly that we feel it incumbent on us not to prohibit immigration, not to prevent all people coming here, but to take power now to control immigration. After all, we are a thickly populated island.

It is one of the common arguments of an Opposition, an argument which I admit I have advanced several times in years gone by, to say of legislation introduced by Her Majesty's Government either that it is too soon or that it is too late. In this field, I believe that it is far better to be too soon in taking power to exercise control than to be too late in introducing such legislation. Once one has the power which the Bill seeks to give Her Majesty's Government, the power to exercise control, then I submit to the Committee that it is desirable that the control should be flexible and, indeed, that the House of Commons should know how the controls are being imposed and how they are being exercised.

The point I want to make, because there seems to be some misconception about it, is that the Bill as it stands applies to all Commonwealth citizens, except those who come within Clause 1 (2). It applies also to British-protected persons. They are brought in by subsection (4). They are not British subjects and so cannot come within subsection (2). By subsection (4) it is also applied to citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), to whose speech I listened with interest, when he says that unless controls are exercised in relation to the Southern Irish this would be, and was, a colour Bill. He said that no less than three times. I cannot accept that as a proper description of a Bill which applies to the whole of the Commonwealth. I simply cannot accept that that is a correct description of the Bill.

The effect of the Amendment would be simply this, that Commonwealth citizens of the independent self-governing territories would still be liable to control, because they would still be within Part I of the Bill, but the residents in the Colonies would not. I suggest that that would create an invidious distinction, and I crave leave to doubt whether it would be welcomed by such Commonwealth Territories.

I regard the Amendment as creating illogicality. It is not logical to provide that territories on reaching independence, should lose the freedom of access which the Amendment seeks to give them. The logical scheme is the one which seeks to distinguish, for purposes only of immigration into this country, between residents here and residents elsewhere, and that is what the Clause does. It is convenient to take the passport method, because, after all, the immigration officer can then have a document readily available on which he can act.

The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that all have similar passports. That is not the case. For instance, the passport would show whether it had been issued to a Jamaican by the Government of Jamaica. It is not the case that they have the same passports. The passport is an easy method of distinguishing, and if we are to have control on immigration we must distinguish between residents and nonresidents, and that is the easy way of doing it.

Mr. S. Silverman

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman importing a distinction which is not to be found in the Bill?

The Attorney-General


Mr. Silverman

There is nothing in the Bill to distinguish between residents and non-residents. Indeed, the very first exception, in Clause 1 (2, a) concerns persons born in the United Kingdom. They do not have to continue to be resident here; it is enough that they should be born here.

The Attorney-General

I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has taken that point. The easy way of putting it—the colloquial way—is by drawing a line between the "belongers" and the "non-belongers", but these are words that I do not like using. The hon. Gentleman has put a narrower construction on the word "residents" than I was intending to convey. I think that "belongers" and "non-belongers" is probably better. If we try to control immigration into this country in some way, we have to make that separation.

The point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that we are all—both the inhabitants of the Colonies, those who have their homes there and those in the United Kingdom—citizens of the United Kingdom and. Colonies, and that is so, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, under the Measure which he introduced in 1948. We will remain so, and that is not affected one iota by the passage of this Bill. The fact of this control will no more alter that than the fact that the majority, if not all, of the Colonial Territories have a power to control immigration from this country affects the status of persons resident in this country.

The House has accepted the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, and it is right, if we have to have it and if the principle is accepted, that we should have the power of control over the whole field of possible immigration into this country. That is all that Clause 1 seeks to secure, subject to the exceptions in subsection (2).

I will not say that the Amendment is a wrecking Amendment, for I should probably be called to order if I did, but I do say that it is certainly one that seeks to perform a major surgical operation on the Bill. It is one of a mutilating character, and I therefore ask the Committee to reject it.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I rise because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has risen, although I am fully aware that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are eager to speak and who have unquestionably very important contributions yet to make to this debate, and, of course, the evening is still young.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the House had accepted the principle of the Bill on Second Reading. Of course, that is so, but he will remember that many of his own hon. Friends gave rather conditional acceptance to this Bill. One of his hon. Friends specifically said that unless the Bill was changed in Committee in certain considerable respects he would vote against it on Third Reading, and I think that he was speaking for more than himself.

9.0 p.m.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated the sophistry—if I may use that word—launched upon us by his right hon. Friend in his argument that the Amendment would create a distinction between citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and Commonwealth citizens at large. As everybody knows, that is a consequence of the order of procedure of the House. We cannot help taking one Amendment at a time, and it was a very cheap argument to put forward. It was really unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his right hon. Friend.

I also thought that he took rather too far the argument that the Bill makes no difference to the Nationality Act of 1948. It is true that in form it does not. The Act remains—and I shall return to that point later. But the Bill makes a very great deal of difference in fact. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—a status created by the Measure introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in 1948 stall have the right of free entry into this country until this Bill becomes law. This is a very important part of the status of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Bill would take that right away, and to say that it makes no difference to the Act of 1948 is to talk in pure formalities. It makes a substantial difference. The Bill is full of facades of this kind. The treatment of the Irish is another of the facades, as is the pretence that it is not a colour Bill and that it does not affect the status of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

The Attorney-General seemed to be in doubt—and I think that doubt persisted from the moment his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke and throughout most of the speeches made by his hon. Friends—as to which leg he should rest on in arguing the case for the Bill. We should like to know which argument the Government are resting on. Is it necessary, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, and as some words uttered by the Home Secretary suggested, for us to take a dramatic step that would keep lots of them out? That is one of the arguments we have heard. The other argument is that this is a tolerant Bill which will make no difference; that it is just something in reserve.

On the whole, the Attorney-General seemed to come down in favour of the second argument, which was also put forward by the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington)—the argument that this is machinery for the future and is of really no great importance, and will not make any difference, but that things might happen and that we must therefore have the power in reserve. The argument is that it is much better to act quickly a long way ahead of any danger than it is to act too late. That is a most extraordinary doctrine for this Government, which in no other field have shown the slightest desire to move fast in connection with any kind of problem.

If the argument is that although the Bill is not needed at the moment it might be needed in the future, and that we must have powers to act in reserve, it is difficult to understand why the Bill has been brought in so hurriedly that the Government have not been able to discover a way in which the Irish can be effectively brought in. This was bound to cause trouble through the Commonwealth and in the Colonies. It has evoked feelings that this Bill is a colour bar. It would have been quite reasonable if the Government had introduced a Measure which imposed certain health clearances and certain rights to deport criminals, accompanied by real proposals to cope with the problem of over-crowding, which is the substantial problem that faces us.

But the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot rest on the argument that overcrowding is the real problem and then say that the Bill will not make any difference, and that it merely provides a power to hold in reserve. That will not do anything to prevent overcrowding. Indeed, it will make overcrowding worse. In order to prevent overcrowding we must either stop all immigration, which the Government do not want to do, or cope with the problem—

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

The right hon. Gentleman has already made a Second Reading speech once.

Mr. Gordon Walker

If the hon. Member does not want to hear me and leaves the Chamber, it will not break my heart.

I now turn to the question of consultation, about which the Home Secretary spoke in some detail. It seems to be established beyond doubt that the Government, on 13th October—a date of some importance, as I shall show in a moment—first informed the Prime Minister of the West Indies of their intention to introduce the Bill. They informed him in very broad terms without going into detail.

Clearly the Government regarded the critical date as 11th October. That was the date on which the Home Secretary announced the intention to introduce this Bill to the Conservative Party Conference, because the Prime Minister said to us—it is reported in HANSARD of 14th November at column 190—that Commonwealth Governments—by which the right hon. Gentleman meant fully sovereign Governments—had been informed some three weeks before the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement on 11th October. They therefore regarded 11th October, and the announcement by the right hon. Gentleman to the Conservative Party conference of the Government's intention to introduce a Measure of this kind, as the critical date.

The Government did not inform the Prime Minister of the West Indies until 13th October. Two days later—after the whole world knew of their intention to do this—they gave him no information, except a vague idea, apparently, that there would be vouchers used, with no possibility of commenting. It seems to me—in respect of a Commonwealth country like the West Indies, which is so intimately affected by this Bill—really callous and irresponsible. To fail to consult him in this way and to give information after the critical date in such a form that it was impossible to comment on it is almost a deliberate insult.

I should like to return to the point made by the Attorney-General about the Act of 1948, and, indeed, to the Representation of the People Act. I am not sure the Government fully realise what they are doing with this Bill and if we can amend it in this way we shall make it a good deal better. It is breaking up or rendering nugatory and meaningless the category of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This category was set up by the 1948 Act, and it is treasured. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour Party showed how this common citizenship is treasured in the West Indies and other Colonies, and, of course, it is logical.

We have done this, and we did it in 1948, because we have a responsibility for the Colonies. In the last resort we can govern them, we can over-ride their decisions, and therefore we must accept responsibility. This responsibility is now to be abandoned. We have the same power of Government as before, but we are rejecting and throwing away the responsibility. The way in which the Government are doing it is, I suggest going to infringe—this is to the best of my ability a legal argument, if I am wrong the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me—and interfere with the rights of some voters in this country and even some potential Members of Parliament in this country.

Section 4 the British Nationality Act. 1948, says that everyone born within the United Kingdom and Colonies is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That is the definition. Section 1 says that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are to be treated as British subjects. That is really what is established by the British Nationality Act, 1948. Anyone born within the United Kingdom and Colonies is a British subject. Then the Representation of the People Act, 1949. defined electors as British subjects resident for a certain time in this country. And, of course, British subjects, wherever they come from, are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and are capable of being elected to this House.

Therefore, this Bill and this Amendment dealts with people who are electors, or who could be electors, and many of them are eligible for election to this House. Were this Amendment not carried and they were admitted under conditions setting a period for which they could stay and relating to work and so forth, and if as under Clause 14 (3) they could be arrested without warrant if it was thought by the immigration officer rightly or wrongly that they had broken those conditions, they could then be sentenced by a court to six months imprisonment and, under another Clause, because that is a sentence of imprisonment, they could be deported.

It follows logically, I think, subject to correction, that we are now saying for the first time in our history that electors of this Parliament can in certain circumstances be deported at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Even someone who was a candidate for election to this House, or perhaps elected to it, at the discretion of the Home Secretary, can be deported under this Measure. When I pointed this out to the Prime Minister in Questions a day or two ago, he said that if it were true it would be a very disturbing and alarming interference with our normal procedures.

I do not say that it is likely to happen but that it could happen solely because the Government are introducing this Bill. If the Government come to the conclusion that that is a possible consequence of the Measure they are now asking us to pass, I urge them to think about it again and to try to find another legal way of achieving their purpose, because we certainly do not want voters, and possibly Members of Parliament, to be deportable. That would be a very grave departure from all our traditions.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) spoke, I thought, both relevantly and very powerfully about the effect of bringing this concept of United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship to those who are also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in our African colonies. Britons out there depend very much upon a multi-racial society which, as the Leader of the House knows, is growing. They depend on this idea that there is not a real distinction between citizens of the United Kingdom and of the colonies. When these countries are growing in this way and when British minorities there depend upon racial and legal distinctions not being made, it seems very hard to believe that the Leader of the House could really have understood what was happening when he gave his blessing to this Bill. It is something which is so much against our interests as a colonial Power bringing multi-racial societies to independence. It is so grotesquely against those interests that I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman brought himself to agree to a Bill which does this at this time.

A number of hon. Members, including the Attorney-General, have spoken about the bursting numbers of people in the West Indies having to go somewhere and all coming here. The hon. Member for Poole asked how many I thought should be the limiting factor. How that argument is compatible with the other argument that this Bill is not going to be used but is just a reserve power I leave the Attorney-General to sort out. He used the two arguments. I suppose that he thought they were far enough apart in his speech for us not to connect them. He used the argument about the bursting numbers and the terrible problem and yet said that the Government are not going to do anything but want the powers in case they should be necessary. He suggested that it is much too early, but it is better to act early. How he reconciles that with the argument about the bursting numbers, I do not know.

This question is put in a false form. The truth is that an expanding economy creates jobs and creates the need for jobs. We have to start from this point of view if we are seriously to tackle the problem. This has always been so. People from the Colonies could always come here. When India was a Colony, people from India could come here freely. It was always true that they had a backward standard of living and a relatively high rate of increase of population. We have a high standard of living. For many years since Lloyd George's reform we have had a better Welfare State than most outside countries and certainly a better one than any of them.

Mr. Ellis Smith (Stoke-on-Trent, South)

My right hon. Friend must not believe that.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker

It is certainly better than any the West Indies and India have. If people were likely to come from those countries solely because there was a higher standard of living and a better Welfare State here than they have at home, they would have come in the past. The truth is that they did not come in the past because we had mass unemployment. They are coming now in largish numbers because we have full employment. There is a direct demand sucking them in. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition showed that there has been an extrordinary close correlation between the demand for labour in this country and the number of immigrants coming here and staying. It is true that this year the correlation seems to have been somewhat broken. They are coming here a bit faster than the number of available jobs would lead one to suppose. The new factor this year is the Bill.

Mr. John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

The Bill has had a very small effect.

Mr. Gordon Walker

There has been the threat of and the agitation for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman himself said that there had been a factor of anticipation.

Mr. Eden

Very small.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I think that it has been considerable, but we agree that there is a factor of anticipation. To act as if it is certain that it is a small factor is dangerous. No one can be absolutely certain. It is dangerous to say, just because for the first time since records have been kept the correlation has been broken a little, that this is a great new trend. But the Attorney-General talked about a trend.

Mr. Eden

The Bill was announced in October. The figures my right hon. and learned Friend gave were for the first nine months of this year. The agitation for the Bill has continued for over seven years and I have taken part in it.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I agree. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent. He has agitated for seven years, but the chief agitation arose with great force in the course of this year. During the course of the last seven years nobody took the agitation seriously. This year all sorts of people have taken it seriously. Our Press, the foreign Press and the Colonial Press have taken it seriously. The trend at which the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look is that of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke, namely the correlation between the number of vacant jobs and the inflow of immigrants. This is the real trend. It has moved up and down. There has not been the great upward trend which the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to show by choosing merely a few years. If the Attorney-General had gone back further and checked the number of immigrants against the number of vacant jobs he would have found the most extraordinary correlation, except for this year when this new factor has entered the picture.

There is absolutely no evidence that there will be an appalling in-flow of immigrants. This is a figment of the imagination, as all the figures show. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must face this point. Some of them are honest enough to say that they want to stop immigration—not like the Attorney-General who stands on two legs here, first on one and then on the other.

The Attorney-General

I always stand on two legs. I spoke of controlling immigration, which is very different from stopping it.

Mr. Gordon Walker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman first spoke of a dangerous trend, an urgent need and appalling numbers. Then he asked us not to exaggerate the importance of the Bill. He said that the Government will use it moderately. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in one of his voices and other hon. Members opposite who are honest enough to say that they want to stop immigration and not merely take these powers, which might be used, must decide whether they are prepared to slow up our economy in order to do this. Or are they to get immigrants from elsewhere?

That is something they must face. If they are to shut off the present flow of immigrants, who come in because there are jobs for them and the economy cannot run without them, those who wish to stop that immigration must either slow up the economy, make it more stagnant or draw in immigrants from Ireland, Italy, or wherever it may be. We should be told which of those courses they are really prepared to adopt to achieve their end. If they say that they will draw immigrants from somewhere else, that is a naked colour bar attitude, and they should tell us. If they want to slow up the economy, to stop immigration without colour bar—just keep them all out—we should be told that, because we know that we would then head into a slump.

The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who made a very radical speech, should tell us which of these two courses he is prepared to adopt. That is what he would not tell us, and will not tell us, because both answers are very dangerous for him to give. Nevertheless, he must give one or the other if he is to be at all logical or consistent—and if he is prepared to give either answer now I am prepared to listen to him now.

Mr. Ronald Bell

The right hon. Gentleman is very kind, but I thought that I talked too long as it was, and I also made a Second Reading speech. I would be delighted to give the answer, but not in an intervention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I cannot deal with a subject like that by intervention, but I shall certainly seek an opportunity to do so in the course of the Bill.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I certainly look forward to hearing the answer. It is striking, though, that throughout this whole debate the answer has not been given by any hon. Member opposite who shares the hon. Member's view.

On the question of Ireland, both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General seemed excessively evasive. I want to make it perfectly clear that none of us on this side wants to keep out the Irish. Indeed, our intention is the opposite; we want them all in. We want them all to have the same present right to come in, but we say that it would be monstrous to give the Irish, who are not Commonwealth citizens, who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a preferential status over those who are.

The Secretary of State used some extraordinary arguments. He said that we had to leave the Irish out of the operation of the Bill because we had a very close association with them, because we had a common citizenship with them, and because they were voters in this country. That applies to all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We have with them the close association and the shared citizenship and, when they are here, they can vote exactly as do the Irish. That is no argument at all. His argument for keeping the Irish out of the operation of the Bill would apply in advocacy of our Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested, and I was staggered to hear it, that the Republican Government of Ireland were prepared—so I understood him to say—to apply a colour bar Bill to their own ports to keep out coloured Commonwealth citizens, including those from the West Indies, in order, apparently, to buy themselves off from a threat made by the right hon. Gentleman. That is what I understood him to say. There was the little characteristic ambiguity. We did not know how he knew what the Government of Ireland would do. We did not know whether he had read about it in the newspapers, or whether someone had rung him up. But we were told that the Government of Southern Ireland were to impose a colour bar immigration Bill which would apply at their own ports.

That, I cannot believe—I just cannot credit that the Irish Government will do that—but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly trying to force them to do that. He says, "If you do not do it, I will try to enforce this Bill. Under it, I hold powers in reserve, and if you yourselves do not impose a colour bar immigration Bill, we will bring all the powers of the Bill to work against you." I do not think that that is a threat which—

Mr. S. Silverman

The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Southern Irish Government did not do that he would consider measures to close the ports in this country.

Mr. Gordon Walker

Yes, he said that he would enforce the Bill, which would mean that it would be enforced at our own ports.

This is a threat which Southern Ireland should not take seriously, because the right hon. Gentleman has himself said that it would be impossible to operate it. Thus, they have been fully warned now that this is an "empty threat" and if, as I believe, they will have nothing to do with this sort of control at their ports, they need have no fear that the teeth of the Bill will be set into force against them.

Concerning this question of trying to force the Irish to impose a colour bar immigration Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) dealt with this dramatically in an intervention when he said, in effect, "The Government are saying that if the Irish immigration continues to be white they will let the immigrants in, but if black immigrants begin to come over the Atlantic they will try to keep them out."

After all, if Canadians come to Britain through Southern Ireland—a perfectly easy and natural way for them to come—does anyone think that the Government would try to enforce the Bill because Commonwealth citizens were coming in? Of course not. They would all be white and the immigration officers would not even notice them. But if Jamaicans or Barbadans start coming across the Atlantic, through Ireland to Britain, then that would be another matter.

When the right hon. Gentleman was asked what would happen if Jamaicans came to Britain through Ireland the right hon. Gentleman gave an extraordinary answer. He said that the Government were determined to keep out Commonwealth citizens and that they had to rely on the ingenuity of the immigration officers. That means that the immigration officers can tell, by appearance, a coloured immigrant—but not a white one. It cannot mean anything else. The immigration officer will not notice a Canadian—but he will notice a Jamaican.

We are getting used to the right hon. Gentleman's language. Ingenuity is becoming a synonym for the practice of the colour bar, for this is the only possible meaning that can be given to the use of that word.

A point which has not been mentioned in the debate so far, yet which seems to be of great importance, is that if the Amendment is rejected we will be the only Western country that has, or has had, colonial possessions to take this attitude towards the inhabitants of those Colonies or ex-Colonies.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember cases such as Holland, which has a common citizenship with the Dutch West Indies. The people can move about freely in that instance and people from the Dutch West Indies move easily to Holland. Further, the French West Indies are a part of metropolitan France. The people in this instance can vote and move about freely. The United States allow inhabitants of their islands to move about freely in large numbers and, indeed, enormous numbers of Porto Ricans go to New York.

As I say, we would be the only country of these Western nations to take this attitude towards our Colonies or ex-Colonies. And all the arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South should equally be related to Holland, the Dutch West Indies and to France, where the same population increases are taking place. Those countries have not taken this palliative measure. They have not listened to the pressure from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and certain newspapers. Only the British Government will be in that position.

Then, of course, if we enter the Common Market we will be in a grotesque situation. Let us suppose that we are in the Common Market. People from the Dutch West Indies can go to Holland and then come here. People from the French West Indies can go to France and then come here. Jamaicans cannot come here with the same freedom. People can go from the Dutch West Indies to Holland with absolute freedom; they can then move in the Common Market with practically complete freedom, and, after a few years, with complete freedom. They can come to this country with complete freedom, or, if not with complete freedom, with much more freedom than, if the Bill were law, Jamaicans could come here.

9.30 p.m.

It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads. Everyone knows that that is true. Many people suspect that this is one of the hidden reasons behind the Bill, that it is the sort of price, like getting rid of Commonwealth Preference, one has to pay if one wants to enter the Common Market. If the Amendment is not passed, we shall be in the extraordinary position of being unable to keep out a person of colour from the Dutch West Indies who goes to Holland first and then comes here, but we shall be able to keep out a Jamaican of colour who goes to Ireland first and then wants to come here in a similar way.

Indeed, I think that the same would apply, so far as I understand it, if he went to Paris; we should be able to exclude him under the Bill, or put him under all sorts of conditions, whereas, if he came from the French West Indies he would have much greater freedom of entry into this country. Such a situation would be grotesque.

Mr. John Harvey (Walthamstow, East)

The right hon. Gentleman should be careful. It is important that there should be no misunderstanding. While I am by no means happy about many of the provisions in the Bill, or about the haste with which it has been introduced—I think that it would have been much better if we had taken a little more time to think it out and debate it—I fear that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is in danger of leading to a great deal of misunderstanding.

Under the Treaty of Rome, someone wishing to move from one country to another may do so only if there is a vacancy for him to go to and if it is a vacancy for which he is qualified. For his first year of residence in the country, he has to stay in the job to which he went. Even if he has his term renewed for the second and third years, he must go on doing the job for which he is qualified. It is only in the fourth year that he may move to another comparable job, and only after the fourth year is he free to do anything.

If we were to give what the right hon. Gentleman apparently pretends is this freedom to people from our Colonies and from the Commonwealth, would it not follow that many of them could not come here at all because they would not be qualified to do jobs, whereas at the moment, and under the Bill, they would be able to come and work provided that any sort of job was open to them?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the way he put it and, indeed, for his views about the Bill. I think that I should be in agreement with him if I amended my first remarks to say that, after four years in the Common Market, the things I have described would be happening. I am quite prepared to do that. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that, after four years, there would be much freer entry.

Mr. Harvey

I do not want to detain the right hon. Gentleman, but four years is a long time. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will agree that, if, or when, this House has to enact new provisions about this matter as a result of our signing the Treaty of Rome—if, or when, we do—then the whole House would accept that it would be illogical for us to continue to discriminate against members of our Colonies and Commonwealth in some way quite different from the provisions of the Treaty.

Mr. Gordon Walker

I am quite prepared to accept that that is the genuine view of the hon. Member, but I would not put it beyond his Front Bench to do exactly what I fear. They are doing it now. While negotiating to enter the Common Market, they have picked this very moment to introduce the Bill. It shows their attitude.

Of course, after four years, which seems to be the time, they may well not be in office. But were they in office I should be very much alarmed that they would do just this. It is the whole character of the Bill, which has been hastily and ill-considered, to use the words of the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. J. Harvey). Why was it introduced in this hasty and ill-considered way? Why will not the Government do something just as hasty and ill-considered concerning the Common Market?

This is a very great Bill that the Government have introduced. It makes a tremendous change in our law. It is something which gravely offends people throughout the West Indies, for instance, who are devoted to this country and have a great attachment to it. It creates the impression throughout the world that we are introducing a new colour bar element into our legislation. The Bill has been introduced hastily and without consideration and, therefore, for motives which are not too easy to understand. It will be very greatly improved if this Amendment is carried. It will not solve everything in the Bill, but it will solve a great deal.

The Amendment would make the Bill a great deal less bad. It would not offend, for instance, the feeling of the people in the West Indies if this Amendment were carried. That would be a great gain, not only in the West Indies, but in many Colonies where there is a great attachment to their relationship with the United Kingdom which is embodied, not only in the 1948 Act, but in the force that we gave the Act by allowing people free entry.

I hope that hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter very carefully before they reject and vote against the Amendment. There are many hon. Members opposite who do not want to do harm to the Colonies or to the emerging countries of the Commonwealth. Many of them may be persuading themselves that the Bill will not do all the harm that we have said it will do. I ask them to think very carefully. There is much evidence now that it will do the sort of harm that we are alleging, evidence from observers and from leaders of the people about whom we are talking.

Hon. Members opposite have the majority at the moment. They have in their hands and in their care these things which we have treasured for so long that we almost took them for granted until the Bill was suddenly thrust on us. We never thought about altering these things; we thought that they were permanent. They ought to be permanent. The Government have suddenly thrown the matter into doubt. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember their very grave responsibility now and during later stages of the Bill. If it produces the sort of results that we think it will produce, they will be responsible. We can only argue; they can decide. They will be responsible if this sort of result is produced. I hope that before the Bill is finished, and it leaves Committee, and, indeed, on this Amendment, we shall be able to shake the Government so much that we compel them to think again.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Division No. 19.] AYES [9.38 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Farey-Jones, F. W. Loveys, Walter H.
Aitken, W. T. Farr, John Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Finlay, Graeme Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ashton, Sir Hubert Fisher, Nigel McAdden, Stephen
Atkins, Humphrey Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McLaren, Martin
Barber, Anthony Foster, John McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Barlow, Sir John Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Barter, John Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Freeth, Denzil MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Beamish, col. Sir Tufton Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. McMaster, Stanley R.
Bell, Ronald Gammans, Lady Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm) George, J. C. (Pollok) Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Gibson-Watt, David Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Biffen, John Gilmour, Sir John Maddan, Martin
Bingham, R. M. Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Maginnis, John E.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Bishop, F. P. Godber, J. B. Markham, Major Sir Frank
Black, Sir Cyril Goodhew, Victor Marlowe, Anthony
Bossom, Clive Gower, Raymond Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Bourne-Arton, A. Grant, Rt. Hon. William Marten, Neil
Box, Donald Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Green, Alan Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Boyle, Sir Edward Gresham Cooke, R. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Braine, Bernard Grimston, Sir Robert Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Brewis, John Gurden, Harold Montgomery, Fergus
Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter Hall, John (Wycombe) Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Brooman-White, R. Hare, Rt. Hon. John Morgan, William
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Morrison, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Buck, Antony Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Nabarro, Gerald
Bullard, Denys Harvie Anderson, Miss Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hastings, Stephen Noble, Michael
Burden, F. A. Hay, John Nugent, Sir Richard
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Hendry, Forbes Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hiley, Joseph Osborn, John (Hallam)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Carr, Robert (Mircham) Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wytnenshawe) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Cary, Sir Robert Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Channon, H. P. G. Hirst, Geoffrey Partridge, E.
Chataway, Christopher Hocking, Philip N. Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Holland, Philip Peel, John
Cleaver, Leonard Hollingworth, John Percival, Ian
Cole, Norman Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Peyton John
Cooke, Robert Hopkins, Alan Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Cooper, A. E. Hornby, R. P. Pike, Miss Mervyn
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame
Corfield, F. V. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Pilkington, Sir Richard
Costain. A. P. Hughes-Young, Michael Pilman, Sir James
Coulson, J. M. Hutchison, Michael Clark Pitt, Miss Edith
Craddock, Sir Berestord Iremonger, T. L. Pott, Percivall
Critchley, Julian Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver James, David Price, David (Eastleign)
Crowder, F. P. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Prior, J. M. L.
Cunningham, Knox Johnson. Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Curran, Charles Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Currie, G. B. H. Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Dalkeith, Earl of Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Proudfoot, Wilfred
Dance, James Joseph, Sir Keith Pym, Francis
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kaberry, Sir Donald Quennell, Miss J. M.
Deedes, W. F. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ramsden, James
de Ferranti, Basil Kerby, Capt. Henry Rawlinson, Peter
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kimball, Marcus Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Kitson, Timothy Rees, Hugh
Doughty, Charles Lagden, Godfrey Rees-Davies, W. R.
Drayson, G. B. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Renton, David
du Cann, Edward Leather, E. H. C. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Duncan, Sir James Leburn, Gilmour Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Robson Brown, Sir William
Eden, John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Roots, William
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Linstead, Sir Hugh Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Elliott, R. W .(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.) Litchfield, Capt. John Russell, Ronald
Emery, Peter Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) St. Clair, M.
Errington, Sir Eric Longbottom, Charles Scott-Hopkins, James
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Longden, Gilbert Sharples, Richard

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 207.

Shaw, M. Teeling, William Wall, Patrick
Shepherd, William Temple, John M. Ward, Dame Irene
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Webster, David
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Thomas, Peter (Conway) Whitelaw, William
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Speir, Rupert Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Stanley, Hon. Richard Tilney, John (Wavertree) Wise, A. R.
Stevens, Geoffrey Turner, Colin Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Woodhouse, C. M.
Stodart, J. A. van Straubenzee, W. R. Woollam, John
Storey, Sir Samuel Vane, W. M. F. Worsley, Marcus
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Tapsell, Peter Vickers, Miss Joan
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Walder, David Mr. Edward Wakefield and
Taylor,F.H.(M'ch'ter & Moss Side) Walker, Peter Mr. Chichester-Clark
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford N.) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Abse, Leo Gourlay, Harry Moody, A. S.
Ainsley, William Grey, Charles Morris, John
Albu, Austen Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mort, D. L.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Moyle, Arthur
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Mulley, Frederick
Awbery, Stan Grimond, J. Neal, Harold
Baird, John Gunter, Ray Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Noe1-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. P. J. Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Oliver, G. H.
Bence Cyril Hamilton, William (West Fife) Oram, A, E.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hannan, William Oswald, Thomas
Blackburn, F. Hart, Mrs. Judith Owen, Will
Blyton, William Hayman, F. H. Paget, R. T.
Boardman, H. Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Herbison, Miss Margaret Pargiter, G. A.
Bowles, Frank Hill, J. (Midlothian) Parker, John
Boyden, James Hilton, A. V. Paton, John
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Holman, Percy Pavitt, Laurence
Brockway, A. Fenner Holt, Arthur Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Houghton, Douglas Peart, Frederick
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pentland, Norman
Callaghan, James Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Plummer, Sir Leslie
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Popplewell, Ernest
Hunter, A. E.
Chapman, Donald Hynd, H. (Accrington) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Cliffe, Michael Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Probert, Arthur
Collick, Percy Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Randall, Harry
Cronin, John Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Rankin, John
Crosland, Anthony Jeger, George Redhead, E. C.
Crossman, R. H. S. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Reid, William
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rhodes, H.
Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Ross, William
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Kenyon, Clifford Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Deer, George Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Delargy. Hugh King, Dr. Horace Short, Edward
Dempsey, James Lawson, George Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Diamond, John Ledger, Ron Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Dodds, Norman Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Skeffington, Arthur
Driberg, Tom Lipton, Marcus Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Logan, David Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Loughlin, Charles Small, William
Edwards. Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacColl, James Snow, Julian
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mclnnes, James Sorensen, R. W.
Evans, Albert McKay, John (Wallsend) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Fernyhough, E. Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Spriggs, Leslie
Finch, Harold McLeavy, Frank Steele, Thomas
Fitch, Alan MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Fletcher, Eric Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Storehouse, John
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.) Stones, William
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Manuel, A. C. Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Forman, J. C. Mapp, Charles Swingler, Stephen
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mason, Roy Symonds, J. B.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Mellish, R. J. Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mendelson, J. J. Taylor, John (West Lothian)
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn) Millan, Bruce Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Ginsburg, David Mitchison, G. R. Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Monslow, Walter Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Thorpe, Jeremy Whitlock, William Winterbottom, R. E.
Timmons, John Wigg, George Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Wilkins, W. A. Woof, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin Willey, Frederick Wyatt, Woodrow
Warbey, William Williams, D. J. (Neath) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Weitzman, David Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Wells, Percy (Faversham) Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Williams, w. T. (Warrington) Mr. Charles A Howell and
White, Mrs. Eirene Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) Mr. McCann.

Questions put accordingly, That the proposed words be there inserted:—

Division No. 20.] AYES [9.49 p.m.
Abse, Leo Gunter, Ray Owen, Will
Ainsley, William Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Paget, R. T.
Albu, Austen Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne valley) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hamilton, William (West Fife) Pargiter, G. A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Harman, William Parker, John
Awbery, Start Hart, Mrs. Judith Paton, John
Baird, John Hayman, F. H. Pavitt, Laurence
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Herbison, Miss Margaret Peart, Frederick
Bence, Cyril Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pentland, Norman
Blackburn, F. Hilton, A. V. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Blyton, William Holman, Percy Popplewell, Ernest
Boardman, H. Holt, Arthur Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Houghton, Douglas Probert, Arthur
Bowles, Frank Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Boyden, James Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Randall, Harry
Braddock, Mrs, E. M. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, John
Brockway, A, Fenner Hunter, A. E. Redhead, E. C.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Reid, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Rhodes, H.
Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Callaghan, James Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Chapman, Donald Jeger, George Ross, William
Cliffe, Michael Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Collick, Percy Jones, Dan (Burnley) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Short, Edward
Cronin, John Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Crosland, Anthony Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Crossman, R. H. S. Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Skeffington, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Kenyon, Clifford Slater, Mrs. Hamlet (Stoke, N.)
Davies, Rt .Hn.Clement(Montgomery) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
King, Dr. Horace Small, William
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lawson, George Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Ledger, Ron Snow, Julian
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook) Sorensen, R. W.
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lipton, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Deer, George Logan, David Steele, Thomas
Delargy, Hugh Loughlin, Charles Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Dempsey, James Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stonehouse, John
Diamond, John MacColl, James Stones, William
Dodds, Norman McInnes, James Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent)
Driberg, Tom McKay, John (Wallsend) Swingler, Stephen
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Symonds, J. B.
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. McLeavy, Frank Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Evans, Albert Manuel, A. c. Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Fernyhough, E. Mapp, Charles Thorpe, Jeremy
Finch, Harold Mason, Roy Timmons, John
Fitch, Alan Mellish, R. J. Ungoed-Thomas Sir Lynn
Fletcher, Eric Mendelson, J. J. Wade, Donald
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Millan, Bruce Wainwright, Edwin
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mitchison, G. R. Warbey, William
Forman, J. C. Monslow, Walter Watkins, Tudor
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Moody, A. S. Weitzman, David
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Morris, John Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mort, D. L. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn) Moyle, Arthur White, Mrs. Eirene
Ginsburg, David Mulley, Frederick Whitlock, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Neal, Harold Wigg, George
Gourlay, Harry Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Wilkins, W. A.
Grey, Charles Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.) Willey, Frederick
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Oliver, G. H. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Oram, A. E. Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Oswald, Thomas Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Grimond, J

The committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 279.

Williams, W. T. (Warrington) Woof, Robert
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.) Wyatt, Woodrow TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Winterbottom, R. E. Yates, Victor (Ladywood) Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Woodburn, Rt- Hon. A. Mr. McCann.
Agnew, Sir Peter Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)
Aitken, W. T. Foster, John MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, s.) Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) McMaster, Stanley R.
Ashton, Sir Hubert Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)
Atkins, Humphrey Freeth, Denzil Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Barber, Anthony Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Barlow, Sir John Gammans, Lady Maddan, Martin
Barter, John George, J. C. (Pollok) Maginnis, John E.
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Gibson-Watt, David Manningham-Bulier, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Gilmour, Sir John Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bell, Ronald Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Marlowe, Anthony
Bennett, Or. Reginald (Got & Fhm) Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Godber, J. B. Marten, Neil
Biffen, John Goodhew, Victor Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Bingham, R. M. Gower, Raymond Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Grant, Rt. Hon. William Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Bishop, F. P. Gram-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Black, Sir Cyril Green, Alan Montgomery, Fergus
Bossom, Clive Gresham Cooke, R. Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)
Bourne-Arton, A. Grimston, Sir Robert More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Box, Donald Gurden, Harold Morgan, William
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John Hall, John (Wycombe) Morrison, John
Boyle, Sir Edward Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Braine, Bernard Hare, Rt. Hon. John Nabarro, Gerald
Brewis, John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Bromley Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Noble, Michael
Brooman-White, R. Harvie Anderson, Miss Nugent, Sir Richard
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hastings, Stephen Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Hay, John Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bryan, Paul Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Osborn, John (Hallam)
Buck, Antony Hendry, Forbes Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Bullard, Denys Hiley, Joseph Page, John (Harrow, West)
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hill. Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Burden, F. A. Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Partridge, E.
Butter, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.) Hirst, Geoffrey Percival, Ian
Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn) Mucking, Philip N. Peyton, John
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Holland, Philip Plckthorn, Sir Kenneth
Cary, Sir Robert Hollingworth, John Pike, Miss Mervyn
Channon, H. P. G. Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Pilkington, Sir Richard
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W) Hopkins, Alan Pitman, Sir James
Cleaver, Leonard Hornby, R. p. Pitt, Miss Edith
Cole, Norman Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Pott, Percivall
Cooke, Robert Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Cooper, A. E. Hughes-Young, Michael Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hutchison, Michael Clark Prior, J. M. L.
Corfield, F. V. Iremonger, T. L. Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Costain, A. P. Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Coulson, J. M. James, David Proudfoot, Wilfred
Craddock, Sir Beresford Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pym, Francis
Critchley, Julian Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ramsden, James
Crowder, F. P. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Rawlinson, Peter
Cunningham, Knox Joseph, Sir Keith Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Curran, Charles Kaberry, Sir Donald Rees, Hugh
Currie, G. B. H. Kerans, Cdr. J. s. Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of Kerby, Capt. Henry Renton, David
Dance, James Kimball, Marcus Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kitson, Timothy Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Deedes, w. F. Lagden, Godfrey Robson Brown, Sir William
de Ferranti, Basil Lanoaster, Col. C. G. Roots, William
Digby, Simon Wingfield Leather, E. H. C. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Leburn, Gilmour Russell, Ronald
Doughty, Charles Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry St. Clair, M.
Dray son, G. D. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Scott-Hopkins, James
du Cann, Edward Linstead, Sir Hugh Sharpies, Richard
Duncan, Sir James Litchfield, capt. John Shaw, M.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Shepherd, William
Eden, John Longbottom, Charles Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carahalton) Longden, Gilbert Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.) Loveys, Walter H. Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Emery, Peter Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Errington, Sir Eric Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Spearman, Sir Alexander
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. McAdden, Stephen Speir, Rupert
Farey-Jones, F. W. McLaren, Martin Stanley, Hon. Richard
Farr, John McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Finlay, Graeme Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Stevens, Geoffrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Ward, Dame Irene
Stodart, J. A. Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter Webster, David
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Storey, Sir Samuel Tilney, John (Wavertree) Whitelaw, William
Studholme, Sir Henry Turner, Colin Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Tapsell, Peter van Straubenzee, W. R. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Vane, W. M. F. Wise, A. R.
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter & Moss Side) Vickers, Miss Joan Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis Woodhouse, C. M.
Teeling, William Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Woollam, John
Temple, John M. Walder, David Worsley, Marcus
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Walker, Peter Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Thomas, Peter (Conway) Wall, Patrick TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Peel.

Committee report Progress.