HC Deb 05 December 1961 vol 650 cc1279-330

Again considered in Committee.

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

I call the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 17. I think that it will be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendments No. 4 and No. 5, both in page 1, line 17, and Amendments No. 31 and No. 32, both in page 2, line 34, except for the provisions relating to students.

Mr. R. J. Mellish (Bermondsey)

On a point of order. I do not know whether it is right to raise this matter in Committee, Sir William, but I understood the position to be that a Motion was moved from the Government Front Bench to report Progress, and that you then put the Motion concerning the suspension of the Standing Order. Most hon. Members on this side of the Committee were under the impression that the Motion moved was to report Progress. Either you were talking indistinctly, Sir William, or hon. Members on this side of the Committee need hearing aids. What was it all about?

The Deputy-Chairman

The normal position, if Mr. Speaker were occupying his Chair and if I, as Deputy-Chairman, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, were occupying this Chair would be that I, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, on vacating the Chair, would report to Mr. Speaker that we had made Progress. Mr. Speaker would then do what I did, namely, call upon the Prime Minister to move the Motion on the Order Paper referring to the Ten o'clock rule. What was carried out in this case was in order.

Mrs Eirene White (Flint, East)

Will you explain your statement that we are not to discuss the parts of the Amendments relating to students, Sir William?

The Deputy-Chairman

The position is that the provisions relating to students have not been selected by the Chair for discussion now, but they will be discussed at a later stage, which will be more convenient for the Committee. That has been published—and I think it has been generally agreed on both sides—in the notice setting out the Amendments that are to be called together.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

May we have this quite clear, Sir William? You have indicated that we can discuss with Amendment No. 3 Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and it is an integral and important part of both those Amendments that bona fide students should be totally exempted from the provisions of the Clause. We appreciate that the issues concerning bona fide students are somewhat different from the other issues raised in Amendment No. 3, but I should like it to be made quite clear that if we eliminate from the discussion on the Amendment you have called any reference to the position of bona fide students we can have a full and separate debate on their position when we debate the Amendments which are related to them in Clause 2.

The Deputy-Chairman

That is so. I can give the hon. Member that assurance.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Would that be in connection with Amendment No. 30, Sir William?

The Deputy-Chairman

The intention is to call Amendment No. 30 later, but not with this group.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert: (c) a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one; or (d) a person who has in the five years previous 1.o his entry to the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of two years; or (e) the spouse of a person who is expected under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection who is not living apart from such person under a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction or under a deed of separation; or any child, stepchild or adopted child (having been adopted in a manner recognised by law) under the age of twenty-one years, of such person. After the wide-ranging debate on the first Amendment we now turn to the consideration of some of the details and serious defects in this Bill. I preface my comments with two general observations. The first is that those who wish to see the Commonwealth flourish during the process of change from an Empire to a Commonwealth have striven to maintain the image of Britain as the mother country, and throughout the whole of the consideration of this Bill we should be continually asking ourselves, "Are we helping to maintain that image or to destroy it?" Secondly, we must recognise that some communities which form part of the Commonwealth owe their very existence as entities to Britain and to the British people. It is obvious from the speeches which have been delivered already that the West Indies provide a clear example of that.

I do not know how many slaves were originally brought to the West Indies. I am told the number is not less than 4 million. But today they regard themselves as British, and apart from the territories in which they live, these islands in the West Indies, their only other home is Britain. Furthermore, there are those people from this country, our own kith and kin, who have gone to live in the West Indies and are helping to create that community and to assist its economic advance.

It has been admitted by more than one hon. Member opposite that this Bill appears to have been drawn up hastily, and I agree. That becomes clear when one tries to apply the provisions of the Bill to what one knows happens when immigrants come to this country. There seems to be an assumption that immigrants always come as a family unit, but that is not so. Very often the father of a family will come here either because there is employment for him or in search of employment. Having established a home, he will send for his wife and children. Similarly, one who may have been born in this country and gone to another part of the Commonwealth may come back and establish a home here, and then send for his wife and family.

Surely this is something which we ought to encourage and not discourage, but I do not see that it has been considered at all in the drafting of this Bill. I draw the attention of the Committee to subsection (2) of the Clause. This exception is very narrow. The subsection reads: This section applies to any Commonwealth citizen not being"— this is the exception— (a) a person born in the United Kingdom; (b) a person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"— I leave out the reference to Ireland— (c) a person included in the passport of another person who is excepted under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection. That is to say, this exception applies to those born in the United Kingdom or who hold United Kingdom passports and are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I understand that as a general rule the names of members of the family do not appear on the same passport in the case of a man who comes to this country on his own in search of employment or to take up a post here and then later bring his family here. That would seem to create very real hardship which ought to be rectified.

The wording of the Amendment I have moved, in addition to the first two exceptions—those of the person born in the United Kingdom and the person holding a United Kingdom passport and being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—would add: a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one; or a person who has in the five years previous to his entry to the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of two years; There is another Amendment which is to be discussed with this one in which the period is one year. I say at once that I am quite willing to accept one year instead of two years. The third addition to the exception which we would add by our Amendment is: the spouse of a person who is excepted under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d). We also include: any child, stepchild or adopted child…under the age of twenty-one years, That surely is a reasonable addition. In the debate we have been told that there are far too many illegitimate children in the West Indies. I am not going to debate that. Surely we agree on one thing, that we should encourage family life and people coming here as a unit. If the father comes first, by all means let him be encouraged to bring his wife and children later.

One might sum up the grounds for this Amendments as follows. The present is too restricted. The Attorney-General used the expression "belongers and non-belongers". It would seem that under the Bill there is to be a further distinction betwen belongers and the families of belongers. Under the Bill as it stands, I understand a distinction would be made between one who is born in this country and another who is not born in this country but has lived here for many years. It may be that such a person will be temporarily out of a job. If I correctly wrote down what I understood the Home Secretary to say, the result might be deportation.

The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the Irish and said that if nothing was done we might find that deportation was the only action possible for some wretched Irishman who finds himself without a job. Those were the words I wrote down when the Home Secretary was speaking. What about the poor wretched Jamaican who finds himself out of a job? What is to be the position if the father is in a job and his son is out of a job? That is not clear on the wording of this Clause. Surely we should include those who are ordinarly resident in this country even though they have not United Kingdom passports. The test should not be where one happens to be on a particular day when this Bill comes into force.

Secondly, this Bill should not be retrospective in its effect. If a man has been living here for a number of years and goes abroad he should not be penalised because he happens to be abroad when the Bill comes into effect. Thirdly, we should not do anything which would break up family life. If we are to have this Bill, let us make it as humane as we can.

Mr. Chapman

I understand that the Amendment in my name, in page 1, line 17, is being discussed with the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). In this set of Amendments we offer the Government a set of alternatives which could be amalgamated or taken apart and put together in a different way so as to amend Clauses 1 and 2. I want to make it clear that we must also consider a distinction between the Amendments to Clause 1 and those to Clause 2.

I will deal first with the Amendments to Clause 1. Here we are dealing with exceptions from the purpose and operation of the Bill. Our argument on this series of Amendments is that the definitions put into the Bill so far by the Government are unduly narrow. We say that not every person who is a relative of someone exempt from the operation of the Bill will be stated on that person's passport. This is a very important point, because there is no necessity for a wife and children to be on the passport of the breadwinner or the man of the family.

It is very unlikely that the families of men who are already here and who want their wives and children to join them will be on the breadwinner's passport. Therefore, it is very important that subsection (2, c) should be extended so as to cover families, which I think is the intention of the Government. As the Clause stands, it cannot cover the families of men who are already here and who are exempt from the operation of the Bill. That is why we try in this series of Amendments to Clause I to extend the definition of "family" to cover what subsection (2, c) was meant to cover.

We add to that two other main categories. One is the person who has been over here for some time and who might go abroad. From now on, he will have no right of re-entry under the Bill as drafted. If any of the thousands of West Indians and others who are already in this country return to their homeland for a while and then want to re-enter, they will no longer be exempt. They will not be able to establish a right of re-entry. That is why we have included these words: a person who has in the five years previous to his entry into the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of one year. If this provision were written into the Bill, it would enable people who are already in this country to return to their homeland and after a while return to their jobse in this country.

Both the Amendment in page 1, line 17, which was moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, and the Amendment in my name in page 1, line 17, mention persons who are dependent on—

Mr. Thorpe

On a point of order. There is such a noise coming from the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that I can hardly hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Could it be suggested to the noble Lord that if he must converse in loud tones he should do it outside the Chamber and not inside?

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

I am bound to say that I could hear perfectly well what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was saying.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Chapman

You may be able to hear me, Sir William, but I am barely able to hear myself because of the rudeness of hon. Members opposite.

To continue what I was saying, another point arises in connection with the word "dependent." In my Amendment I have proposed the words "mainly dependent." In other Amendments the phrase is "partially dependent." We are trying to deal with what are known in the West Indies as common law wives—the persons who in the common law of their land are regarded as married, who probably, when they come to this country as they do in increasing numbers, to join their husbands, go through a form of proper marriage and conform to our customs.

It is very important for these family units, particularly when there are children involved, that such a person who is dependent on, in the sense of being a common law wife of, a person already in this country, should be guaranteed entry to join her husband.

The last point relates to the paragraph in my Amendment which refers to a woman who satisfies the immigration officer that she is coming to this country for the sole purpose of marrying someone already exempt under the Bill. In the two Amendments to page 2, line 34, we are not trying to make complete exemptions from the Bill but we say that when a person is admitted under Clause 2, under the voucher system or in any other way, after the beginning of the operation of this Measure, then his wife, family or dependants should be allowed to come and join him. I think it is important to make this distinction between total exemption in Clause 1 and allowing the entry of dependants and such people under Clause 2.

The Minister of State will, no doubt, say that he can deal with these questions under Clause 2 as it stands. Clause 2 (2) says: …nothing in this subsection shall affect the power conferred by this section to admit any Commonwealth citizen into the United Kingdom subject to conditions. We do not think that is good enough. There is a very important principle here of making sure that families can be united. We do not want a variation in practice around the ports. We do not want immigration officers to be left with discretion on matters concerning the uniting of families.

If the Government really mean that they propose to do all these things for which we ask, there seems no reason why they should not say so in the Bill. I believe that most of the representations that we have received from Commonwealth countries about this Bill have referred to this issue alone. People want to know definitely that families will be allowed to come to this country if their menfolk are either excepted from the provisions of the Bill or are admitted under Clause 2.

If the Government have good intentions, what possible harm can there be in accepting a form of words which will make it clear to everybody that the Government intend to admit the kind of people to whom I have referred? I trust that as these Amendments have been introduced in a constructive fashion, we shall be met with some constructive response from the Government.

Mr. S. Silverman

In order to see whether these Amendments should be accepted or rejected, it is worth while seeing what the position is under the Bill as drafted, without the Amendments.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) have both taken it for granted that it is common ground between the two sides of the Committee that the uniting of families is a desirable thing and that the policy of the Government is in favour of uniting them, not dividing them. That is a misconception. It is not a question of putting into the Bill words which will make certain that what is a common object shall not be left to anybody's discretion but shall be a statutory obligation on the Government, which is what my hon. Friend has pleaded for, but it is rather a question of bringing the Government's general policy on matters of this kind into line with what common humanity would seem to demand.

These may seem rather hard things to say, but the Home Secretary earlier today said that the scheme of the Bill might be understood if one grasped that it is now proposed to apply the scheme in operation for aliens to these classes of British subjects. Thus, in order to see what the position is, one has to see what Government policy now is with regard to the uniting of families in the business of a man being allowed to come here when he has no legal right to come and then bringing his family to join him after he has succeeded in getting over the difficult years and establishing himself in a position, in an occupation and in a home.

The present policy of the Aliens Department, as I understand it, is to prevent that very thing happening. As I understand the matter from recent correspondence I have had with the Minister of State, the position is this. A man may be a desirable immigrant by every standard commonly applied. He may apply for a job or be invited to take a job in this country in regard to which the Minister of Labour has no objection. He may thus, considered by himself and on his own merits as an individual, be a man who, within present aliens policy, would be granted a visa by the Home Office and a labour permit by the Ministry of Labour and be, therefore, entitled to come and reside and earn his living here. But that is not the whole story. It may be that such a man has dependent children in his country of origin.

Mr. Chapman

I have not the slightest interest in defending the Home Secretary, who knows very well what I think about his behaviour in regard to this Bill, but we are, in fact, in a better position than my hon. Friend thinks. On Second Reading, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the right hon. Gentleman said: Yes, the wives and children and he went on to say When we come to the Committee stage we shall have to consider other degrees of relationship, which is always a problem for the immigration service…I am able to say 'Yes' to the hon. Lady's question". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 696.] In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, the right hon. Gentleman gave us a definite assurance on the matter.

Mr. Silverman

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I was present on Second Reading. I heard the speeches. I know what assurances have been given in the course of the Bill so far. I will come back to that presently. For the moment, I am concerned with what is the present practice, because what the Home Secretary has said this afternoon, in spite of what my hon. Friend has quoted from his previous speech, is that it is proposed to apply to these British subjects the present practice with regard to aliens. I hope, therefore, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, to finish my description of the present position as applied to aliens which the Home Secretary, under the Bill, whatever he may have said on Second Reading, proposes to apply to British subjects.

Mr. R. A. Butler

My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be replying to this debate, and I hope that he will be replying helpfully. I do not quite recognise the statement of mine that I made this afternoon about aliens.

Mr. Silverman

If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I must look more carefully at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning, but I am strongly under the impression that it was said in the course of the debate this afternoon—I thought, by the right hon. Gentleman—that the scheme of the Bill was to apply in these respects to British subjects affected by the Bill the same policy as is now applied to aliens. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is not applying the same policy, that is another story. In that case, he will have to meet the point made by my hon. Friend and say why he does not make it clear in the Bill.

At the moment, I shall proceed on the basis that the Government are not drawing two lots of distinctions, one between British subjects who happen to be resident in a Colony as contrasted with British subjects who are resident in the United Kingdom, and the other a further discrimination between those people and aliens subject to the same kind, quality, class or category of restrictions as is now to be applied.

In the case that I have described, if the man were single, if he had no dependants, if he had no children, if he had no family, he could come. If, however, he has dependants, even though he is not asking to bring the dependants along with him, he is refused leave to land and refused a labour permit by the Minister of Labour, merely because he has in his country of origin dependent children whom he may, perhaps, some day, wish to bring to live with him. That is the present policy of the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour with regard to what my hon. Friend calls the unification of families and keeping the family together as a unit.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not intending that, he ought to accept one or other of the Amendments which have been moved, or, if he cannot do that, he ought to promise to put on to the Order Paper an Amendment which would make operative the passage in his speech to which my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield has just referred. That is my first point in support of the Amendments.

My next point is of a different kind. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West specifically refers to residents. Most of us were present and heard the Attorney-General make a speech at the conclusion of the debate on the last Amendment. He said that to understand the scheme of the Bill, one could roughly categorise the people who would be affected by it as against those who would not as the resident or the non-resident. When I pointed out that the Bill was not quite so drawn, the right hon. and learned Gentleman coined another phrase, the belongers and the non-belongers, opening vistas of speculation as to when a British subject ceased to belong to the British family.

10.45 p.m.

As far as I can see, under the law as it stands a British subject born and resident in Jamaica has exactly the same rights in all respects as a British subject born in Manchester. They all belong. What the Bill is then doing, according to this phrase of the Attorney-General's, is to expel or partially expel some members of the family. They no longer belong. They are not members of the family any more. They belong somewhere else. I do not think that the Attorney-General can really have meant that.

Let us go back then to his earlier explanation that the real distinction which the Government wished to draw was not between members of the family and others who were nevertheless British subjects, but between resident members of the family and non-resident members of the family. That was the real distinction which the Attorney-General asked us to accept as the line of discrimination. If that is so, there can be no reason whatever for not accepting the hon. Member's Amendment. All it does is to make that point of view explicit. If the Government are not willing to make it explicit and are not willing to give the same rights to members of a man's family as they give to the man himself if he is resident or born here, let them not grumble if the result of their policy is to increase every one of the evils, largely imaginary and illusory, on which they profess to base the whole of this discriminating policy. I hope that the Government spokesman will be able to give the hon. Member some satisfaction on the Amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

I am glad to say that the Government are in broad agreement with those who put forward these Amendments, to the extent that the various categories of people covered by the Amendments, we think, should be allowed, generally speaking to enter or re-enter the United Kingdom. The question, of course, is whether it would be appropriate or not for them to be dealt with under Clause 1, as envisaged in the first, second and third of the Amendments we are discussing, or dealt with under Clause 2, as the fourth and fifth Amendments envisage, or whether on the other hand they should be dealt with under Clause 2 in the way we have so far intended and have had in mind, namely by instructing immigration officers to admit most of these people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I ask the Committee to bear with me. This is a very important and interesting matter, and there is not quite so much gulf between us as might at first seem.

What we have had in mind so far is that they should be admitted under Clause 2 by the immigration officers, acting under instructions which my right hon. Friend will give them—in any event my right hon. Friend would have to give them instructions—and incidentally, will be in some ways slightly more liberal than some of the provisions in the Amendments. We shall see that as we go along.

For reasons which I shall explain, this matter is quite unsuitable for Clause 1. It may be that I can persuade hon. Members that there are great difficulties about writing elaborate definitions and instructions into Clause 2. But I say this—that we will keep an open mind about the possibility of writing some of the contents of these Amendments into Clause 2. We will consider the matter carefully between now and Report.

Equally, I would ask hon. Members in the interests of the immigrants themselves and in the interests also of having a smooth working machine which does not cause unnecessary delays at the ports, to keep open minds, at least to the end of this debate, for, believe me, it is not an easy matter. I will give an example of the sort of difficulties that arise. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), whom I do not see in his place, said he did not want immigration officers to have a discretion at all, but the strange thing is that the third Amendment we are discussing, to Clause 1, page 1, line 17, which stands in his name, would give a discretion to immigration officers, because it says: (f) a person who satisfies the immigration officer that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the sole purpose of marrying… It might perhaps be useful if I first of all summarise the categories to which, collectively, these Amendments refer. First, they deal with people ordinarily resident on 1st November, 1961; secondly, with people who, in the preceding five years, have been ordinarily resident for one or two years; thirdly, with spouses, children and other relatives and dependants; fourthly, those intending to marry; and fifthly, they deal with students—a category which, by general consent, is to be dealt with at a later stage.

The three Amendments to leave out paragraph (c) of Clause 1 and to insert various categories would give an absolute and unrestricted right of entry to anyone falling in any of these proposed categories—a right which, under Clause 1 as drafted, is given only to those born here or truly belonging to the United Kingdom. Surely it is important for us to note that, if these three Amendments were accepted, all people to whom they apply would have an absolute right to come here and remain here even if diseased, or with a criminal record, or if they were security risks.

It is, as I indicated, our intention that a large proportion of people covered by these Amendments should be admitted under Clause 2, but the question which immediately arises is whether they should be exempted altogether from control under Clause 1. In considering this question we have to consider the principle upon which Clause 1 is based. That principle is that every one who is born here, and most of those who hold United Kingdom passports, shall have an absolute right to enter here because they are, essentially, the people who are native to this country—our constituents. That principle is, of course, easy to apply in practice and is a much easier test than asking an immigration officer to decide whether a person has been ordinarily resident even for a long time.

The principle is easy to apply in practice, because every traveller, or nearly every traveller, already carries a passport, and every passport shows the place where it was issued, the Government which has issued it, and also the place of birth of the person or people included in it. Therefore, the immigration officer, in dealing with the people who have the benefit of free entry under Clause 1, has no discretion to exercise. He merely has to look at the passport to see either that the person was born in the United Kingdom or that the passport is a United Kingdom passport.

Let us see what would be the position if we included in Clause 1 any of the categories which are covered by these Amendments. We should get into a frightful muddle; something very different from the simple arrangements of passports about which I have already spoken. First, there is the point of principle, and that is that all people covered by the Amendment belong to and would have come from another Commonwealth country or territory and, therefore, do not come within the exemption of Clause 1, which is designed to facilitate the re-entry to our own country of our own people. Then, even if we departed from the principle or said that there was no difficulty in it, we should still have great difficulties in operation and definition.

The immigration officer would always have to ask questions and make difficult decisions. For example, if one scans the Amendments, one finds the expression "ordinarily resident" occurring in no fewer than six places in the first three Amendments. Now the term "ordinarily resident" has given a considerable amount of trouble to the courts, and there is a not inconsiderable amount of case law on it, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) knows from his own experience.

I should like to assure the Committee that we propose to instruct immigration officers to admit freely all those people who have been away from this country for less than one year, whatever the previous length of their stay had been. As to those who have been away for longer than one year, the instructions will cover the case and the immigration officer will have to consider how long the absence has been. —[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) wish to speak? I do not know if that is the way in which he intends to master the responsibilities of his new office, but he has been keeping up a running commentary. These are very important matters, matters which his own constituents might also consider as of great importance.

I was saying that when those who have been away for more than one year are concerned, the immigration officers will have to consider how long the absence has been and for how long any previous visit was and what was the reason for entry. I can tell the Committee that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to exercise this power in a liberal manner, and he takes note of the fact that those already here should have special consideration. If I might go on with this exercise of showing how this would work out if we followed the Amendments in relation to Clause 1, I would like to speak first of relatives and dependants. Those are very wide terms, the understanding of which varies in the different countries of the Commonwealth, and I assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that we are anxious that families should be united and that parents and children should have ease in getting together.

At the same time, it would not be right to have wives and children exempted by Clause 1, unless the head of the family was himself exempted. If he is exempt, of course his wife and children will be, if their names are endorsed on the passport, and that is the point of subsection (2, c).

Mr. Fletcher

Why should their right of entry depend on whether their names are entered on the husband's passport? Why should they not have the same right if they have independent passports?

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Renton

They would, indeed, have the same right if they had independent passports, and they would get that right under paragraph (b), but paragraph (c) is a matter of convenience so that the wife and children would not always have to have separate passports of their own.

Mr. Wade

If the wife did not hold a United Kingdom passport and if her name did not appear on her husband's passport, she would not be exempt?

Mr. Renton

I would like to consider that. If it needs adjustment—[Interruption.] These matters of nationality and passports, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) with his long experience of the Home Office knows extremely well, are very complicated. It is not only a question of the law which applies, for practice also enters into it. However, I would prefer to consider that point and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Ede

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that he has not previously considered that?

Mr. Renton

I know that this point has been considered, but I am not absolutely certain that I heard the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West correctly. It would be a great mistake incautiously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Repeat it."]—to give an answer which might not be accurate. It is much more sensible that I consider the matter and get in touch with the hon. Member.

Mr. Wade

If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear correctly, may I repeat it? It is very simple and it is clear enough. If the wife does not hold a United Kingdom passport and her name does not appear on the passport of her husband, will she be exempt or not?

Mr. Renton

It depends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on where she was born and whether she is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If she was born in the United Kingdom, it does not matter where her passport was issued. If she needs a passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, her duty would be to obtain a United Kingdom passport, which she would be able to do not merely in the United Kingdom but, if it was as defined in subsection (3), a passport issued—[An HON. MEMBER: "It says 'not being a passport issued'."] Let hon. Members wait. As I understand the position, it is possible for the Government of the United Kingdom to arrange for their own passports to be issued outside the United Kingdom, and I think that that is the crux of the matter which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West raised. As I have said, it would be much more sensible, in spite of the explanation which I have endeavoured to give, if I were to consider the point further and get in touch with the hon. Member.

The first three of the Amendments which we are now discussing would both conflict with the principle of Clause 1 and interfere with its practical operation, and if these considerations are to be dealt with, we say that they are better dealt with in Clause 2. I therefore come to Clause 2 and the possibility of dealing with them in that way. I must confine myself to the Amendments in Clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert:

"or (c) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of whole or part-time study; or (d) that he is a person who is related to or wholly or partly dependent upon a person resident in the United Kingdom". and in Clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert:

"or (c) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of whole or part-time study; or (d) he is the spouse, the child, stepchild or adopted child under the age of twenty-one of, of a person mainly dependent on a person admitted under this section; or (e) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom solely for the purpose of marrying another person admitted under this section". I have already dealt with the position of those who are resident and have said that my right hon. Friend wishes to have a liberal attitude towards them.

As to wives, the position seems simple to us in this country with our ideas of legal forms of marriage resulting in monogamous unions, but, as the hon. Member for Northfield pointed out, some immigrants, especially from the West Indies, contract so-called common law marriages. In fact these marriages do not have the binding force of law which common law marriages do, for example, in Scotland. Also, it is rare for there to be any documentary evidence of such marriages.

However, we are anxious for husbands and genuine wives, even common law wives, to live together, and so we propose that the immigration officers should strive to achieve this by admitting wives accompanying their husbands, and by letting in those who later wish to join their husbands. Clearly the immigration officer will have to ask some questions to decide whether the wife is what she claims to he. Fortunately her passport will generally show this, although that is not always so in the case of a common law marriage, and in a case like that further questions will be necessary.

As to children, I join those hon. Members who wish to see children and their parents remain together. In this context, children would include not only those begotten in wedlock, but also natural children, step-children, and adopted children. Generally there will be no difficulty about children, as they will be on the passport of one or other parent if they are under sixteen. That age happens to include all children of our present compulsory school-leaving age or below. It will be our practice to admit freely children under sixteen joining or accompanying their parents.

As to other relatives and dependants, the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 34, does not define the word "related", but one knows that in some parts of the world the word "cousin" is freely interpreted. Similarly, the word "dependants" can have a broad meaning. If we wrote anything into the Bill about other relations or dependants, we should at once be in great difficulty of definition, and surely it is more humane, as well as more practical and likely to lead to better administration, to give some detailed guidance to the immigration officers about how to deal with these cases.

Our instructions to them will be framed so as to enable them to deal appropriately with cases of hardship. I should remind the Committee that in practice the factor of hardship is often more important than the precise degree of relationship. We have to be rather careful about this question of relatives and dependants, because there could easily be rackets run to circumvent the system of labour vouchers by bringing in so-called relatives and dependants.

As to people who want to marry, we propose to instruct the immigration officers to allow people in for this purpose when one of the intended spouses is already here, provided that there is evidence that the parties are personally known to each other. [Laughter.] Strangely enough, it has been found that Cupid has done his work entirely through the post on some occasions. We find that with regard to the administration of aliens, and then there is the question of marriage bureaux here and abroad which has to he looked at very carefully.

We will insist that the parties are personally known to each other, and that the marriage will take place within a specified reasonable time, which we would normally regard as being three months.

I would point out that Amendment No. 32 is defective, because the man might be coming here to marry a woman who did not wish to marry him. In any event, I can assure the Committee that the experience obtained in the administration of the Aliens Order has been valuable and that it is quite capable of dealing with these matters.

Mr. John Baird (Wolverhampton, North-East)

On a point of order. The Minister is making a deplorable speech and obviously does not know what the Bill is about. In those circumstances, would it not be better if he withdrew the Bill and presented it once again next week?

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy)

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made a comparison between the Bill and the Aliens Order. The only important thing that the two have in common is that in each case a discretion is given to immigration officers. But the Aliens Order, as it is administered, is very much more stringent than the provisions of the Bill. I ask the hon. Member to bear that fact in mind in thinking further about this comparison.

We propose to consider, between now and Report, the various points which arise in the Amendments. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are in broad agreement that the vast proportion of people covered by the Amendments are people who should be allowed in, and any difference there may be between us is a difference of method.

Mr. Fletcher

I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member's speech has satisfied the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) or my hon. Friends, but it has certainly not satisfied me. The Minister seems to have done his best to cover the Bill with ridicule. He has confessed that the whole tenor of the Bill had not been properly considered before it was introduced. He admitted, as my hon. Friends have said in connection with an earlier Amendment, that this is a piece of hasty, ill-considered legislation.

The Minister had to admit that many of the problems raised in the debate had not been thought out. He said that he accepted the principle of the Amendments, but did not want to incorporate them into this Clause, and he gave a series of reasons why he could not incorporate them into Clause 2. He said that he would try to consider, between now and Report, whether he would be able to do something about the question at a later stage. But all he has really said is that he proposes to give instructions to immigration officers to administer the Bill in a liberal and humane way. That is not good enough. In a Bill of this kind, dealing with fundamental human rights and the traditional rights of entry into this country, the Committee is entitled to insist upon absolute safeguards.

As the Committee appreciates, the difference between this Clause and Clause 2 is that certain categories of persons are given absolute rights in this Clause, whereas everybody who can come into this country only under the provisions of Clause 2 is dependent upon the discretion—perhaps the arbitrary discretion—of the immigration officers. Everything the Minister has said has indicated that it will be very difficult for immigration officers to make a decision, in many cases. There is no certainty that any of the classes of persons that the Amendments seek to include will have the benefit of the of the arbitrary discretion of the immigration officers, if left to the tender mercies of Clause 2.

Having heard what the Minister has had to say, I think it essential that the provisions contained in the Amendments should be written into the Clause. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that there are certain classes of person who are entitled to have precisely the same rights as are given to those persons already included in the Clause.

11.15 p.m.

Clause 1 confers an absolute right on persons born in the United Kingdom, but we do not think that goes far enough. We think that that right should be conferred on persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom whether they were born here or not. People who have made this country their home and have lived here for any length of time, to use the phrase of the Attorney-General, belong to this country just as much as persons who were born here. Therefore, there is a class of persons which ought to have the fundamental right to come to this country whenever they want and to be able to have holidays abroad without a passport, and certainly without having to satisfy an immigration officer.

We think that the same rule should apply to their dependants. The Committee should notice the difference. Under Clause 2 dependants could be excluded on various grounds, for example, on medical or criminal grounds. No one who comes under Clause 1 can be excluded at all, and if a person is entitled to come to this country under the provisions of Clause 1 we think that his wife and dependants should have the same absolute right. They certainly ought not be be excluded on medical grounds.

The hon. and learned Gentleman and the Home Secretary paid lip-service to the principle of not breaking up family life. But that can be practised only if the dependants of the person who has a right to come here also have the absolute right to come, and cannot be excluded on medical or criminal grounds. It would be monstrous if a person with an absolute right to come here were to find that his wife were excluded either on medical or criminal grounds, or, I venture to think, on security grounds, because people who belong to this country ought to have the same right of entry as natural-born British subjects who have always lived here. That is why I hope that on principle my hon. Friends will press this Amendment to a Division.

It seems to me to raise the whole issue that the class of person who has the right to come here should be defined as widely as possible and that it should include not only those born in this country but those who have made their home here by residing here for a certain period of time; whether it be one or two years within the last five years does not matter. If there has been a monogamous marriage they should be able to bring their wife. If they have come from the West Indies where people have what are called common law wives under the law and system of marriage under which they have been living in Jamaica or other parts of the Caribbean or elsewhere, the same right should apply to them. There should not be any attempt to discriminate. I think that we should be failing in our duty to these people if we left them at the mercy of an immigration officer under the provisions of Clause 2, or if they were left to rely on some instructions which could be given, which might be administered humanely in a great many cases, but in certain cases, perhaps exceptional cases, would enable an immigration officer at his own discretion to exclude people from the right to enter this country. I hope that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) on how easy it would be to bring in under Clause 1 a family or spouse joining someone in this country. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made a good case by saying that it would add to the difficulties if we put this into the exceptions in Clause 1, but I think the Government should think again about leaving it merely to the instruction to the immigration officer under Clause 2.

I should have thought that where a family was joining up here it ought to be written specifically in the Bill. In addition, no doubt, the immigration officer should have discretion in other cases, but where a wife was joining her husband or a husband was joining his wife the Bill should make it quite clear because I know it is the intention of the Government that such a union should take place.

I have risen because I wish to put two other types of case which I believe should come under Clause 1. The first is where there is a Commonwealth or colonial citizen here now who wants to go on holiday, either back to his own country or it may even be to France. I am told that at present there is great consternation, certainly among West Indians, because they feel that if they go back to the West Indies for a holiday they cannot come here again. I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the Home Secretary that there should be this restriction on them going on holiday. They should be encouraged to go. They are welcome in the country and this Bill should not apply to them. It might be—I do not know, and I hope the Attorney-General can satisfy me on this—that in some provision of a Clause in the Bill which I have not found there is a complete right of re-entry for those Commonwealth and colonial citizens who are here now. I have not found it. I think that before we part with the Bill that should be made clear in Clause 1 and not left to Clause 2.

I am also concerned about a great number of people who may well have been born in the Commonwealth and been the sons of settlers and want to come back to this country. I believe those people, who have done a very good work, sometimes for the United Nations or sometimes for a Commonwealth Government, when they want to come back should come back as of right. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will have consideration for that very numerous class of people who regard Britain as their home and would hate to have to come back here subject to the scrutiny of an immigration officer. I should dislike seeing that class of person dealt with under Clause 2; they should be dealt with under Clause 1.

Mrs. Eirene White (Flint, East)

I do not think we should allow discussion of this subject to pass without having at least one woman speaking on it. It seems to me that the attitude of the Government to the Clause as drafted is derogatory to the female sex.

It is suggested that a woman should be included on the passport of her husband, but there is no reason at all why a woman should be so treated if she does not wish that. She need not necessarily herself be a United Kingdom subject. She may have dual nationality. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, there are complications in this matter, but the absolute principle is that if she is legally married under any nationality to a person who is exempt under Clause 1 she should have an absolute right to come in with her husband. "Those whom God hath joined together" are not for the Home Secretary to put asunder. There should be an absolute right with no question whatever. Whether the form of words in these Amendments is correct, could be discussed, but the principle should be absolutely accepted as that surely is the wish of the people of this country.

Similarly, there should be an absolute right for children, and not merely children up to the age of 16. So far as I recall the Minister of State made no reference to children between 16 and 21. A child might not necessarily accompany either of its parents. What is to happen then? These things should not be left to the discretion of immigration officers. They should be absolute.

I also consider that there should be an absolute right for mothers and fathers to come to join their children who have settled in this country. The principle of family life and its sanctity should be respected in a Bill such as this. We hear the most unctuous sentiments from Ministers of the Crown—from the Home Secretary, the Minister of Education, and others—about the need to cherish Christian ideals. Honour thy father and thy mother… That should appeal to the Government. They should give us an absolute assurance that people will not be separated from their mothers and fathers.

I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that this should be absolute. It should not be subject, for example, to medical certificates. Many of us have had to deal with refugees. We have had experience of trying to get families out of refugee camps when one member of a family had a medical disability. Sometimes years passed with no success because one member of a family could not pass the neces- sary medical tests, so the whole family was left lingering in a refugee camp.

It will be shameful if that kind of attitude is adopted in regard to the Bill. We must have an absolute assurance from the Government that they will write into the Bill a right in this respect. We have heard a great deal about the value of having a charter of human rights for various parts of Africa. Let us have a charter of human rights for this country. It should be written into the Bill.

It is not good enough to say that elaborate instructions will be given to immigration officers and that the Bill will be liberally interpreted, whatever that may mean. Several times we have been asked to trust the good intentions of the Government in administering the Bill. I do not need to remind the Committee where good intentions leave one. The whole attitude of the Government is that we should leave to them the administrative instructions, with which we may not be acquainted and which we cannot alter. The whole attitude is that we should trust the Home Secretary and his successors. Those of us who have had to deal with the problem of aliens find it very hard to place this unbounded confidence in the attitude of the Department.

It is humiliating to the House of Commons for the Government to present it with a Bill which has so clearly been inadequately thought out. The problems which we have discussed this evening are problems which any self-respecting Minister would have thought out thoroughly before he faced the Committee. It was obvious that they would be raised. The standing of the wife was clearly a matter which would be of interest to us. The Minister should have prepared his case more thoroughly.

I understand that some parts of the Amendments which we are discussing may need closer definition. I agree that the phrase "related to" is rather wide. In my country of Wales we have a fairly wide cousinship. We have an extended family. I appreciate that it may he necessary to define more closely the degrees of consanguinity. I do not think that any one of us would object if the hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government felt that there should be a closer definition of the degrees of relatives, that some people could come of absolute right, but that in the case of others it should be discretionary. But those whom we have mentioned, the immediate close family kinship, should be absolute. When their legal status is in some doubt I admit that we need some discretionary element if we are to have this Bill at all, but where the legal relationship is clear within the close family circles that I have described —father, son and so on—I think there should be no question whatever, and I cannot believe that the Committee would wish to pass this Bill without these guarantees written into it.

11.30 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I should first like to explain the reason why Clause 1 sticks so closely to what is shown on the passport. If we are going to have any system of control of immigrants, it is obvious that it must be one that is workable. The test that we have taken, as I indicated when I spoke earlier, is the passport ab initio. The immigration officer will be able to see straightaway from what appears on the passport whether the person seeking to enter comes within one of the exempted categories in Clause 1 (2).

The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has made a powerful plea for the female sex and sought to suggest that this provision as it now stands is derogatory of that sex. I assure her that that certainly was not the intention. After all, many wives have their own separate passports. Many wives of persons born in the United Kingdom will hold a United Kingdom passport and they will be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. So, if one bears in mind that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) deal with what appears on the passport, perhaps this becomes a little easier to comprehend.

May I go on to say that to write in other exemptions under subsection (2) will cause real practical difficulties in the administration of the scheme. While saying that, I do not want to be unsympathetic to the views which have been expressed; we are not unsympathetic. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made it clear that there is not much difference between both sides of the Committee as to what we want to achieve. The real problem is how it should be achieved.

A point was made about wives and children not on the passport. If the children are not on the passport and the wife does not have a separate passport, then obviously subsection (2) will not apply ab initio. That cannot happen. But what we certainly want to achieve is that wives will be able to come and join their husbands if their husbands are already here, and the same applies to children under 16 if their parents are already here.

The difficulty about that—and I should like the Committee to face it squarely—is this. It is quite wrong to say that we have not considered these matters. We have. We have spent hours going through this Bill and considering the various problems. I may say straightaway to the hon. Lady that the problems that she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) have raised are by no means novelties. What we thought—and the Committee may disagree with us—was this. One can make the position perfectly clear by instructions to the immigration officers. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said that is not good enough. But it has this advantage, which I would ask him to appreciate, that it gives a considerably greater degree of flexibility than a definition of "relative" inserted in the Bill, because, under a definition of that kind one is apt to have the borderline case and, if a case does not come within that category, the immigration officer may say, "That is laid down in black and white, and I have no power to go either way on it".

That was one approach. There is also the other approach of seeing, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, whether we can meet what are the wishes of both sides of the Committee and, indeed, our objective all through, by administrative means, securing that wives and children who do not possess passports or who are not entered on the passport are not refused admission. The same problem arises in much the same way in regard to holidays and the question of re-entry. We had it in mind to deal with it in that way and give a good deal of flexibility.

Taking, first, those who are here and who go out, there is power for them after a certain time to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and then, if they wish, obtain a United Kingdom passport. But, quite apart from that, if they do not take that step, if proof were established that they are people who have left this country and are seeking to re-enter—the matter of proof, if it were to be written into the Bill, would have to be considered carefully—we should certainly not be in favour of excluding them.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the question of settlers who want to come back and who regard Britain as their home. I apprehend that the vast majority of those are entitled to come in, possibly, under subsection (2). I say "possibly" because a lot depends on the particular circumstances of each individual. It is easy to talk about the British settler, but a British settler may have abandoned United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship and taken the citizenship of somewhere else. It is difficult to generalise.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke (Dorset, South)

What about Australians and Canadians? What are they to do?

The Attorney-General

If they were born in the United Kingdom they will come back. They will not be shut out. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) talked about people who have been in this country for some time and then go out. Anyone of that kind would have to satisfy the immigration officer that the facts in his or her case were as alleged. That is Clause 2(2), the subsection which deals with satisfying the immigration officer. There is no particular mystery about the word "examination". The burden would be, and would rightly have to be—because it could not rest on the immigration officer to prove a negative—on the applicant where it was not shown in the passport in what category he came. The applicant would have to satisfy the immigration officer that the facts were as alleged.

I assure the Committee that there is no real division of view as to what we want to achieve. The argument relates to the method. For the reasons I have given, bearing in mind the position of the immigration officer, it will not be possible, as I see it to make Amendments to Clause 1 to deal with this problem, but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State indicated, we shall give serious consideration to the wishes of the Committee and see to what extent we can meet them by making it clear in the Bill—because that, I gather, is the wish of the Committee—that if someone comes along and says to the immigration officer, "I am the wife of someone who is in this country at the present time", or, "I am of British ancestry", they should not be excluded. We do not want to exclude them, and none of us does. We want to see that if we have this control, it works satisfactorily. I can give the assurance that we shall seek to endeavour to put in what the Committee indicates it would not be content with in instructions, although I think that instructions would give more flexibility. We will see whether we can put in words which achieve what the Committee wants and yet retain that degree of flexibility that I believe to be desirable.

Mr. Thorpe

May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a point of information about what is meant by "United Kingdom passport". This is of importance, and I consider the drafting extremely ambiguous. By subsection (2, b) as drafted, those who have complete exemption are either those holding a United Kingdom passport, being citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or somebody who holds…a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland". In subsection (3), "United Kingdom passport" is defined as being a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport…issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom". If one tries to find out what is meant by "a Government outside the United Kingdom Government" and one tries to find out whether this means a Commonwealth Government which is completely independent, such as, for example, Australia or New Zealand, or whether it is a Government which is still dependent, such as Jamaica, upon this country for external affairs, one turns to the interpretation in Clause 21 and one gets no assistance.

For the purposes of subsection (3), does a Jamaican passport issued by a dependency or a passport issued in Zanbar, Kenya or Nyasaland qualify as being a United Kingdom passport, or are those dependencies Commonwealth Governments for the purposes of the Bill?

The Attorney-General

The answer is "Neither". This point arises more properly on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but if it is for the convenience of the Committee I will certainly deal with it now. The drafting is perfectly all right. It is rather tight drafting, I agree. The United Kingdom passport is, however, accurately defined as a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom— that is, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland— not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom. There will be passports issued to persons who have, say, come from Australia or Jamaica or any part of the Commonwealth, and who are in this country, in replacement of passports which may have been destroyed, lost or anything of that sort. Those passports will be issued on behalf of the Government of the country concerned—say, Australia or Canada. Therefore, the holders of those passports will not come within the scope of subsection (2). That has to be so, otherwise there would obviously be a gap in the scheme.

The hon. Member has drawn attention to subsection (2, b). That, again, is carefully drawn so that one gets the automatic exemption when one holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or…holds…a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland". The reason for those words, as my right hon. Friend explained—the hon. Member may not have been present—is that there are passports issued by the United Kingdom, for instance, to British-protected persons who are not even British subjects. I think that the wording is all right, but if the hon. Member has any further anxieties and cares to write to me about them, I will certainly give him as full an answer as I can.

Mr. Gordon Walker

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a rather conditional undertaking to try to write certain things into the Bill, but, clearly, to satisfy us he also relies in part on instructions to immigration officers. He laid great weight on the fact that a great deal that the Committee wanted would be achieved in this way. Would those instructions be known to the House, or would we have any way of telling that these things were being carried out?

The Attorney-General

I think the Committee would certainly want some information about that. It is common ground. We all want to know how it works. The people affected will want to know, but it is not a question for me to answer. On the question of the propel form in which this would be done I would prefer that the Committee asks my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler

In the course of my speech on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised this point, and at that time, basing myself on present practice, I said that there would be great difficulty in publishing such instructions. Since that date I have given the matter my personal consideration and, in my view, I would be right to depart from precedent and make these instructions available. The only thing I can do is to promise to make them available at a particular date. I do not think that they could be rushed during the Committee stage or anything of that sort. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) understands that. But they would be available before the Bill is again before the House. I think that that is a considerable departure from precedent, but it will show the type of instructions which we intend to give to immigration officers.

We cannot put these things in Clause 1. We can put them in Clause 2, but if we state them too rigidly, without flexibility, it may have unfortunate results. For example, in the case of children, suppose we say "children up to school-leaving age" what happens if we want to include a child of 17 in a particular case? We want to combine statutory form and instructions. The instructions will be liberal, but when they are put on paper in statutory form they will be a minimum, and therefore I think that we are probably giving the Committee more, and meeting the Committee more, than it has hitherto realised. We are trying to combine a liberal instruction with a basic statutory wording.

Mr. Gordon Walker

We want to know that the instructions are truly liberal. The right hon. Gentleman said that when he publishes them will give an indication of the type of instructions, but we want to know the actual instructions and know that we can debate them if we do not like them.

Mr. Butler

The question of debate is a matter which we shall have to consider, because that would raise a completely new form of Parliamentary debate. I will certainly consider that, and I foresaw that we should reach that question at this stage. If we discussed for hours on end in Committee the whole of our aliens administration we would find difficulty, whereas in the final result our aliens administration is liberal. In the final result the administration of the Bill will be more liberal than our aliens administration, and we wish to make it so. Therefore, I will do all I can to meet the wishes of the Committee, but I cannot go further on that than what I have said tonight.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

In connection with the Amendment to which I have attached by name, in page 1, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert five new paragraphs, I am still left in serious difficulty by the Government's assurance. We have been told that we shall be notified when instructions are given to immigration officers in respect of the persons covered by that Amendment, but the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have made it clear in dealing with this type of Amendment that they are not prepared to grant rights to these categories of persons under Clause 1 and that they must be dealt with under Clause 2. In my mind one difficulty stands out here. That is, even assum- ing wildly for the moment that the Home Secretary's instructions to the immigration officers will be really liberal in this respect, we are still left with the fact that any such instructions issued under Clause 2 will be subject to subsection (3) of that Clause. In other words, the admission of these persons will be subject to medical and security checks.

This is a very important point because of what the right hon. Gentleman has told us tonight. He tried to tell us that we and the Government were seeking the same aims but by different methods. For reasons which I found unconvincing, he said that the Government were not prepared to accept the method of putting them in Clause 1 but would put them in Clause 2. But the Government have shown that their aims are quite different from ours in the treatment of dependants and other individuals mentioned in the third Amendment we are discussing, because they wish to remove them from the category of people having an absolute right to enter the country. They want, instead, to put them into the category of those who have qualified right of that entry, being subject to medical and security checks.

If we accept the Government's method, we are accepting a piece of retroactive legislation. The Government have said that the reason for the Bill is to deal with a future problem of immigration, to check a flow which may become a flood. Therefore, by inference, we are not, under this Bill, interfering with the rights of existing immigrants. We are not dealing with the rights of people already resident here, or of people who have been resident here in a recent period and who have gone abroad for a holiday, as already mentioned by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The rights of these people should not be touched by the Bill.

Equally, we are not, by inference, dealing with the rights of persons already here—people who have already been admitted in the past—to bring their dependants over to join them. The Government say they are anxious that families should be re-united, but in the third Amendment we are not dealing with dependants of people who may be coming in the future for the first time, but with dependants of those who are or were ordinarily resident here on 1st November, 1961, or who have been resident here but whose residence has been temporarily interrupted.

These are the people who have, under our legislation to date, had an absolute right of entry, as have their dependants. This is not the future flow of immigrants which the Government are wanting to control. If the Government now say, "Yes, we agree that these people should be exempted from control in the future, and it is merely an argument between us as to the method by which it is to be done," then I reply that if these people are the ones who are to be exempted they are the people who should have an absolute right. But Clause 2 cannot give them an absolute right because, under subsection (3), they will be subject to medical, security and other checks.

This is, therefore, saying in effect that these medical and security checks, which are an innovation in dealing with Commonwealth citizens, will now retroactively deal with those already resident or who have gone on holiday. This is an intolerable interference with the absent rights of our Commonwealth citizens. The absolute right of Commonwealth citizens to enter this country is the status quo. The legislation which we are introducing is to modify and clarify that right and is something for the future.

The Attorney-General

I fear that I cannot have made clear to the hon. Lady what I was trying to say. I made the point that under subsection (2) of Clause 1 the passport is cogent evidence of the status of the person wanting to come in; that is easily done by the immigration officer. Under Clause 2 (2) one is dealing with the case where other evidence has to be relied upon by the immigration officer, for there we have categories about which the immigration officer has to be satisfied; where he is satisfied on certain evidence that there is an absolute right. So, there is the absolute right in Clause 1 or 2 and it is only a question of establishing how one is entitled to that right.

I hardly conceive it to be possible that one would want to submit wives or children of somebody resident here, who are coming to this country, either to a medical test of any kind—

Hon. Members

It is in the Bill.

The Attorney-General

Yes, but we have said that we would see if we could meet the views of the Committee by putting some words into Clause 2 which would cover that situation. If we do that we can at the same time make provision for dealing with the point on medical examination to which the hon. Lady refers. I thought that it would save the time of the Committee if I indicated that at this stage.

Mrs. Castle

The more I listen to the intentions of the Government as pronounced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the more clear it becomes to me that the Government plunged into this Bill without considering the meaning of the words. I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, but I can read. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that anybody is given an absolute right under Clause 2?

I would ask the learned Attorney-General to read subsection (3) of Clause 2. He says that he will find some form of words for that in order to give absolute rights to certain persons under subsection (2) of Clause 2. But that subsection says: Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of this section. … Really, I do suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he and I ought to change places. I believe that I am the most modest person in this Committee, but I must say that I am at a loss to understand how anybody with any claim to legal training should say that I should withdraw Amendment No. 5 which demands an absolute right in favour of a qualified right under Clause 2. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Withdraw it, for we will include these people, although, under Clause 2, by my own wording subsection (3) qualifies any rights which might be given under subsection (2)." He tells me that I am an ordinary lay person from the back benches and that I should withdraw my Amendment and leave it all to him.

The more I listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the more determined I am not to leave anything to the promises of this Government.

Mr. M. Foot

I want to comment on the remarkable statement of the Home Secretary. At a quarter to twelve, after we had had about two hours' discussion of these Amendments, the Home Secretary told us that in order to meet the wishes of the Committee he was prepared to make a completely new departure from the arrangements which the Home Office had previously made. He said that, contrary to all previous practice of the Home Office, he was prepared to declare to the House of Commons, in some unspecified manner, the instructions which would be given to immigration officers under the Bill.

12 m.

He said that he was doing so in order to meet the claims of hon. Members. But if the Government thought that the way to deal with these Amendments was to enable the House of Commons to discuss instructions given to immigration officers, it is very peculiar that the statement should have been made by the Home Secretary right at the end of the debate, following an intervention by the Attorney-General and following a longer speech by the Minister of State earlier.

The principal theme of our discussion has been whether the operations of the immigration officers were to be trusted, or whether we should include definite provisions in the Bill. If the Government's main defence was that they intended to lay before the House of Commons the instructions or advice which they were to give to immigration officers, and that the main reason why we should trust their claims was that that was their decision, it is extraordinary that neither the Attorney-General nor the Minister of State said so.

Neither seemed to be aware of it. The Minister of State spoke very ably for half an hour and went through the details of the matter and said that we should trust the immigration officers. If the Minister of State knew that the instructions to immigration officers were to be presented to the House of Commons, why did he not tell us? I ask the hon and learned Gentleman to say whether when he spoke he knew that it was to be the Government's policy that the instructions to immigration officers were to be declared to the House of Commons. Did he know?

Mr. Renton

I knew that my right hon. Friend was contemplating making a statement on the lines of that which he eventually did make.

Mr. Foot

Before I deal with that, perhaps I can put the same question to the Attorney-General. Was he aware that the Home Secretary was contemplating making a statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Sir Leslie Plummer (Deptford)

Did the Home Secretary know?

Mr. Foot

The position now is that the Minister of State knew that the Home Secretary was to make a statement, but he did not tell us. Perhaps the Home Secretary did not know, but I will deal with him in a moment.

I am sure that the Minister of State has done his best to get his right hon. Friend out of a difficulty. He is an honest fellow, but I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman had the foggiest notion that the Home Secretary was to make such a statement. I do not think that he had the faintest idea, because he is such an honest fellow that if he had known that the whole operation of the Bill was to be altered by an important statement by the House Secretary he would have told us. He would not have kept a trump card like that up his sleeve.

On top of all the other extraordinary events which we have had with the Bill, we have now had a situation in which the Home Secretary has told the Committee at a quarter to twelve that he is prepared to make a vital change in the practice of the Home Office. When the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement, he did not pass it off as if it were something trivial. He did not say, "I do not suppose that it matters tuppence one way or the other, but it so happens that I am going to tell you what I am going to tell the immigration officers".

He did not say that. He said, "I have been considering this matter very carefully ever since the Second Reading debate. I have been kept awake at night thinking about it. I have been wondering how I could get out of this hole. I have now decided that, contrary to the practice of the Home Office over the past forty years in operating the Aliens Order, I will accord to the Opposition and to the House of Commons the right to see the instructions we give to the immigration officers". The right hon. Gentleman asks us to believe that he thought over the matter so carefully that he did not even trouble to tell the Minister of State that he was going to make this announcement.

Nobody in the House believes the Home Secretary when he says that he had thought the matter over so carefully that he had not made his decision about five minutes earlier. I am not saying that he had not considered the proposition earlier, but it was only when he discovered that he was in something of a hole, or maybe that he was a bit light-headed, that he chucked this in to see how it would work. He is in such a muddle over the Bill. He probably said to himself, "If the Irish can be in one moment and out the next, let us see what we can do with this instruction to the immigration officers".

The truth of the matter is very simple. We know that the Home Secretary is not such a fool as all that. We know that he comes along here at night and smoothly says, "I will tell you what instructions I am going to give to the immigration officers", but when he tells us them they will not mean a thing, and if they do not mean anything they will destroy the whole case put by the Attorney-General, because he is saying, "You must be very careful. You must not destroy the flexibility of immigration officers. You must not interfere with them and prevent them from exercising their magnificent, magnanimous, liberal discretion. You must not do that because the Home Secretary is going to give them instructions".

Of course the instructions will mean nothing. Indeed, as one of my hon. Friends asked, how will these instructions be laid before the House? What Parliamentary procedure is there for this to be done? If they are not included in the Bill, how can they be debated? When are they to be discussed? How can we decide whether we want to alter the instructions to immigration officers? What are the Committee proceedings on Bills for, if not to settle matters like this? If the Home Secretary thinks that the Committee can be palmed off by his performance, he must think that we are a very innocent lot. He must think that we are prepared to accept the haphazard method he has adopted in dealing with this question.

The truth is that the Attorney-General says in effect, "You must trust the Government". That is what it adds up to. He says, "You must trust the Government, whether they publish the instructions to the immigration officers or not. You must trust the Government to act in a liberal fashion". If the Government had a strong, powerful, and sustained liberal record, there might be some reason for trusting them, but the only person who thinks that they have a liberal record is the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). His function in politics is to try to persuade people that the Government are really liberal. Nobody else believes it, and on this Bill we have had a whole series of illiberal actions. Why should we trust the Government?

Moreover, the Attorney-General says, "You must be very careful. If you write into Clause I the provisions which are demanded in these Amendments, if you say specifically that you are going to protect different categories of people, it will be more difficult to be flexible afterwards". It will not. We can protect all these people in the Bill, and still give discretionary powers to the immigration officers afterwards, even if we are going to send them instructions as well.

Mr. R. A. Butler

Those are exactly the words I used at this Box.

Mr. Foot

I am rendered speechless by that intervention. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is what he said, nobody else in the Committee accepts it. Moreover, if what he was saying is the same as what I have been saying, why does not he write these provisions into the Bill, and, over and above that, give a discretionary right to immigration officers? If he thinks that he was saying the same thing as I have been saying he should look at HANSARD tomorrow. It seems that he has come here in what is an extraordinary state for him. He has come in a mood very different from that which we expect from him. Perhaps the shedding of his responsibilities as Leader of the House has made him light-headed. But if he agrees with what I have just been saying he should be agreeable to writing into the Clause the categories of people who should be protected.

Mr. R. A. Butler

When I spoke I was referring to Clause 2.

Mr. Foot

I was referring to this Clause. That is the argument between us. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has already disposed of that argument. If we wish to protect these classes of British citizens we can write these provisions into the Clause quite well.

I want to say a few words about one section of the community which is dealt with in the Amendments but which has not been mentioned by any hon. Member. As has been said, the question of bona fide students is covered by the Amendments, and it would be quite improper if that question was not mentioned. [Interruption.] The question is covered by part of Amendment No. 4. I know that there is to be a further debate on this subject, but nobody can deny that it is covered by the Amendment. That was made clear when the Chairman called the Amendments.

The Chairman

We are discussing the question of students under Clause 2. It was thought much more convenient to have a separate debate about students.

Mr. Foot

Yes, but it was stated by you that we were discussing Amendment No. 4, which deals with bona fide students.

The Chairman

We are discussing Amendment No. 4, except in so far as it refers to bona fide students.

Mr Gordon Walker

Although it has been agreed that we shall not have a big debate about students, surely in a

Division No. 22.] AYES [12.15 a.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Biggs-Davison, John Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Aitken, W. T. Bingham, R. M. Brooman-White, R.
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Bishop, F. P. Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Allason, James Black, Sir Cyril Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian Bossom, Clive Bryan, Paul
Ashton, Sir Hubert Bourne-Arton, A. Buck, Antony
Atkins, Humphrey Box, Donald Bullard, Denys
Barber, Anthony Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Butter, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Barter, John Boyle, Sir Edward Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)
Batsford, Brian Braine, Bernard Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Berkeley, Humphry Brewis, John Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Biffen, John Bromley Davenport, Lt.-Col-Sir Walter Channon, H. P. G.

general way they would be covered by the Clause, and especially by Amendment No. 4.

The Chairman

It has been generally agreed by the Committee that we should have one debate about students on Clause 2.

Mr. Foot

I am prepared to reserve what I have to say about students for the later debate, although it was stated at the beginning of this debate that they were covered by it. Moreover, the Minister of State specifically drew attention to the fact that there had been no reference to the question of students, although he apparently came briefed on it if on nothing else. It is very disadvantageous to the Committee that we shall not be able to hear his speech on that subject.

I repeat that the Government's exhibition in dealing with these Amendments has been worse than their exhibition on the previous one, if that is possible, especially since the Home Secretary has sought to mislead the Committee by suggesting that he was making an important pronouncement—or an unimportant one. I am not sure which it was. If he was making an important pronouncement when he said that he would publish the instructions to be given to immigration officers, that pronouncement should have been made earlier by the Minister of State. If it was an unimportant pronouncement, which I suspect it was, it should not influence hon. Members at all.

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

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 202. Noes 123.

Chataway, Christopher Hollingworth, John Pitt, Miss Edith
Chichester-Clark, R. Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Pott, Percivall
Cleaver, Leonard Hopkins, Alan Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Cooper, A. E. Hornby, R. P. Prior, J. M. L.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P. Proudfoot, Wilfred
Corfield, F. V. Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Pym, Francis
Critchley, Julian Hughes-Young, Michael Ramsden, James
Curran, Charles James, David Rawlinson, Peter
Currie, G. B. H. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Rodmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Renton, David
de Ferranti, Basil Joseph, Sir Keith Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ridsdale, Julian
Drayson, G. B. Kimball, Marcus Roots, William
du Cann, Edward Kitson, Timothy Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Duncan, Sir James Leburn, Gilmour Russell, Ronald
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry St. Clair, M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shaw, M.
Emery, Peter Litchfield, Capt. John Shepherd, William
Errington, Sir Eric Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Skeet, T. H. H.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Longbottom, Charles Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)
Farr, John Longden, Gilbert Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Finlay, Graeme Loveys, Walter H. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Fisher, Nigel Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Storey, Sir Samuel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McLaren, Martin Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Tapsell, Peter
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.) Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Freeth, Denzil Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter & Moss Side)
Gammans, Lady MCMaster, Stanley R. Teeing, William
George, J. C (Pollok) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Temple, John M.
Gibson-Watt, David Maddan, Martin Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Gilmour, Sir John Maginnis, John E. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Godber, J. B. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Goodhart, Philip Markham, Major Sir Frank Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Goodhew, Victor Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Gower, Raymond Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Turner, Colin
Grant, Rt. Hon. William Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Green, Alan van Straubenzee, W. R.
Gresham Cooke, R. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Vane, W. M. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Vickers, Miss Joan
Gurden, Harold Monigomery, Fergus Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Hall, John (Wycombe) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Walder, David
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Morgan, William Walker, Peter
Hare, Rt. Hon. John Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Harris, Reader (Heston) Nabarro, Gerald Ward, Dame Irene
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Noble, Michael Webster, David
Harvey, Sr Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Osborn, John (Hallam) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Harvie Anderson, Miss Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Wise, A. R.
Hastings, Stephen Page, John (Harrow, West) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Hay, John Page, Graham (Crosby)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale) Woodhouse, C. M.
Hendry, Forbes Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Woollam, John
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Peel, John Worsley, Marcus
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount Percival, Ian Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Hirst, Geoffrey Pike, Miss Mervyn
Hocking, Philip N. Pilkington, Sir Richard TELLERS for THE AYES:
Holland, Philip Pitman, Sir James Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Whitelaw.
Abse, Leo Dempsey, James Hilton, A. V.
Ainsley, William Diamond, John Holman, Percy
Albu, Austen Dodds, Norman Holt, Arthur
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Driberg, Tom Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Baird, John Evans, Albert Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Fernyhough, E. Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Fitch, Alan Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Blackburn, F. Fletcher, Eric Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Bowden, Herbert W. (Letts, S.W.) Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Boyden, James Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Jeger, George
Brockway, A. Fenner Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Galpern, Sir Myer Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Callaghan, James George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn) Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. King, Dr. Horace
Cliffe, Michael Gourlay, Harry Lawson, George
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Greenwood, Anthony Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Cronin, John Grimond, J. Lipton, Marcus
Crosland, Anthony Gunter, Ray Loughlin, Charles
Crossman, R. H. S. Hannan, William Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Hart, Mrs. Judith MacColl, James
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hayman, F. H. Molnnes, James
Davies, Harold (Leek) Herbison, Miss Margaret MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Delargy, Hugh Hill, J. (Midlothian) Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Manuel, A. C. Randall, Harry Wade, Donald
Mapp, Charles Robinson,Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.) Wainwright, Edwin
Mellish, R. J. Ross, William Warbey, William
Mendelson, J. J. Short, Edward Watkins, Tudor
Millan, Bruce Silverman, Julius (Aston) White, Mrs. Eirene
Mitchison, G. R. Silverman, Sydney (Nelson) Whitlock, William
Morris, John Small, William Wilkins, W. A.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Snow, Julian Willey, Frederick
Oram, A. E. Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Oswald, Thomas Spriggs, Leslie Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Paget, R. T. Stewart, Michael (Fulham) Winter-bottom, R. E.
Pargiter, G. A. Stonehouse, John Woof, Robert
Pavitt Laurence Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.) Wyatt, Woodrow
Peart, Frederick Swingler, Stephen Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Plummer, sir Leslie Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Popplewell, Ernest Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Probert. Arthur Thorpe, Jeremy Mr. Redhead and Mr Ifor Davies.

Questions put accordingly, That that words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

Division No. 23.] AYES 12.24 a.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone) McMaster, Stanley R.
Aitken, W. T. Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Freeth, Denzil Maddan, Martin
Allason, James Gammans, Lady Maginnis, John E.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian George, J. C. (Pollok) Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Aston, Sir Hubert Gibson-Watt, David Markham, Major Sir Frank
Atkins, Humphrey Gilmour, Sir John Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Barber, Anthony Godber, J. B. Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Barter, John Goodhart, Philip Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Batsford, Brian Goodhew, Victor Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Biffen, John Gower, Raymond Maydon. Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Biggs-Davison, John Grant, Rt. Hon. William Montgomery, Fergus
Bingham, R. M. Green, Alan More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Bishop, F. P. Gresham Cooke, R. Morgan, William
Black, Sir Cyril Grimston, Sir Robert Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Bossom, Clive Gurden, Harold Nabarro, Gerald
Bourne-Arton, A. Hall, John (Wycombe) Noble, Michael
Box, Donald Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Hare, Rt. Hon. John Osborn, John (Hallam)
Boyle, Sir Edward Harris, Reader (Heston) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Braine, Bernard Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Brewis, John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Bromley Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Brooke, Rt. Hon Henry Harvie Anderson, Miss Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Brooman-White, R. Hastings, Stephen Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hay, John Peel, John
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Percival, Ian
Bryan, Paul Hendry, Forbes Pike, Miss Mervyn
Buck, Antony Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Pilkington, Sir Richard
Bullard, Denys Hirst, Geoffrey Pitman, Sir James
Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden) Hocking, Philip N. Pitt, Miss Edith
Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn) Holland, Philip Pott, Percivall
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hollingworth, John Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Car', Robert (Mitcham) Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John Prior, J. M. L.
Channon, H. p. G. Honkins, Alan Proudfoot, Wilfred
Chataway, Christopher Hornby, R. P. Pym, Francis
Chichester-Clark, R. Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon, Dame P. Ramsden, James
Cleaver, Leonard Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Rawlinson, Peter
Cooper, A. E. Hughes-Young, Michael Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. James, David Renton, David
Corfield, F. V. Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Critchley, Julian Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Ridsdale, Julian
Curran, Charles Joseph, Sir Keith Roots, William
Currie, G. B, H. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kimball, Marcus Russell, Ronald
de Ferranti, Basil Kitson, Timothy St. Clair, M.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Leburn, Gilmour Shaw, M.
Drayson, G. B. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Shepherd, William
du Cann. Edward Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Skeet, T. H. H.
Duncan, Sir James Ll!chfi5id, Capt. John Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. sir David Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Longbottom, Charles Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Emery, Peter Longden, Gilbert Storey, Sir Samuel
Errington, Sir Eric Loveys, Walter H. Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Tapsell, Peter
Farr, John McLaren, Martin Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Finlay, Graeme Maclay, Rt. Hon. John Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter & Moss Side)
Fisher, Nigel Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.) Teeling, William
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Temple, John M.
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Vickers, Miss Joan Wise, A. R.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Thomas, Peter (Conway) Walder, David Woodhouse, C. M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Walker, Peter Woollam, John
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek Worsley, Marcus
Turner, Colin Ward, Dame Irene Yates, William (The Wrekin)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H. Webster, David
van Straubenzee, W. R. Wells, John (Maidstone) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Vane, W. M. F. Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Whitelaw.
Abse, Leo Gourlay, Harry Oram, A. E.
Ainsley, William Greenwood, Anthony Oswald, Thomas
Albu, Austen Grimond, J. Paget, R. T.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Gunter, Ray Pargiter, G. A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hannan, William Pavitt, Laurence
Baird, John Hart, Mrs. Judith Peart, Frederick
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hayman, F. H. Plummer, Sir Leslie
Blackburn, F. Herbison, Miss Margaret Popplewell, Ernest
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Probert, Arthur
Boyden, James Hilton, A. V. Randall, Harry
Brook way, A. Fenner Holman, Percy Redhead, E. C.
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Holt, Arthur Robinson,Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Ross, William
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Short, Edward
Callaghan, James Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Cliffe, Michael Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Small, William
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Snow, Julian
Cronin, John Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Soskioe, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Crosland, Anthony Jeger, George Spriggs, Leslie
Crossman, R. H. S. Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Stonehouse, John
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Jones, Jack (Rotherham) Swingler, Stephen
Davies, Ifor (Gower) King, Dr. Horace Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Delargy, Hugh Lawson, George Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Dempsey, James Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Wainwright, Edwin
Diamond, John Lipton, Marcus Warbey, William
Dodds, Norman Loughlin, Charles Watkins, Tudor
Driberg, Tom Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson White, Mrs. Eirene
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John MacColl, James Whitlock, William
Evans, Albert Melnns, James Wilkins, W. A.
Fernyhough, E. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Willey, Frederick
Fitch, Alan Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Fletcher, Eric Manuel, A. C. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mapp, Charles Winterbottom, R. E.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mellish, R. J. Woof, Robert
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mendelson, J. J. Wyatt, Woodrow
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Millan, Bruce Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mitchison, G. R.
George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn) Morris, John TELLERS for THE NOES:
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Mr. Wade and Mr. Thorpe.
Mr. R. A. Butler

I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

I do so not because the Government are satisfied with the progress that has been made but in view of the very liberal approach that we have made, especially to the last Amendment. We have done a good deal of work, and in the circumstances I move this Motion.

Mr. Gordon Walker

We on this side of the Committee naturally agree to the Motion. We disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. We think that we have made very good and rapid progress on so important a Bill as this. We feel that we should be able to deal with it in a reasonable time, paying regard to its enormous and revolutionary importance.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.