§ Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Clement Davies (Montgomery)
The more I consider this Bill, and particularly this Clause, which is the operative part of the for the rest of it is merely the machinery by which the operation can be carried out, the more disappointed, the more distressed, and the more bitter I become about it.
I have been in public life for well over half a century. This is the most retrograde Bill that has even been introduced during my time in this House. It is against the whole trend of modern thought and action. Since the end of the war it has been the desire of us all to help those in distress. For this purpose the Food and Agriculture Organisation was set up under the United Nations, and those in distress received the wonderful help of Marshall Aid.
People in the West Indies are in distress, and instead of going to their assistance and helping them, it is proposed to otiose the door against them. This is against the whole trend of modern thought and action, and against the trend of previous legislation. How contrary this is to the act of our ancestors a hundred and twenty years ago, when this House, in its poverty after the Napoleonic wars, voted £20 million to set these people free, and yet here they are today still in a position where they cannot live on these islands. They desire to live there, but no help has been given them to enable that to be done, and now the door is to be barred against them coming here.
237 This is our special responsibility, because these people have always been associated with us. Their only language is English. If someone asks what nationality they are, they will always say that they are English. The United States is barred to them, and now we are to bar them, too.
What puzzles me is that when the Bill was brought forward, as it obviously was, as a panic Measure, did no one in the Cabinet ask what was to happen to these people? Did no one ask why they wanted to leave? Did no one inquire about whether there was enough work for them on the islands, and whether we could do something to take industry to them and help them to stay at home?
I understand that these people cannot go to the United States, and it is now proposed to stop them coming here. What is to happen to them? Did no one in the Cabinet consider the position of these people? That question ought to have occurred to members of the Cabinet, and particularly to the Prime Minister himself. Instead of seeing what could be done for them, this panic Measure has been introduced.
When I remember the services rendered by these people, especially during the war, it seems to me that the attitude of the Government is, "Save me from my friends". I do not remember hearing such a phrase from anybody in this House or elsewhere during the war when these people volunteered in their thousands to help us. What is to happen to them now?
I leave the matter in that way, except to refer to our attitude towards the Irish. It is right that I should say what I feel about this. Had the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) still been at the helm, and in control, that part of the Bill dealing with the Irish would never have been brought forward. I well remember the day when Mr. Attlee—as he then was—as Prime Minister, called the right hon. Member for Woodford and me to No. 10, Downing Street, and told us that the Irish were to turn themselves into a Republic, All three of us felt that nothing could be done, and that we would have to accept the decision. But what remains so poignantly in my mind is the emotion with which the right hon. Member for 238 Woodford then spoke. He said, "We cannot treat them differently from ourselves."
Here, in this Bill, his successors—who were with him at the time of which I have spoken—are now about to treat them differently. That is why I object so strongly to the Bill, and feel so bitter about its introduction.
§ Lord Balniel (Hertford)
Now that we are speaking on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", we come, once again, to the principles lying behind the major part of the Bill. I want to make it clear that I accept the fact that some form of control of immigration is, perhaps unfortunately, now necessary. We are a densely populated country. We have only a limited geographical area, and do not have unlimited resources for the creation of new social capital in respect of housing, educational and medical facilities.
This is particularly a problem in that when immigrants come to this country they are not diffused throughout the length and breadth of the land. They do not form just 1 per cent. of the total population, but are channelled into one or two focal areas where they form 10 per cent. or even 20 per cent. of certain localities. In those localtities the amount of social capital, in the shape of houses, schools and medical facilities, is clearly inadequate to meet the needs either of the immigrants or of the local population.
It is probably quite accepted within the Commonwealth that Britain should impose some form of control on immigration. As long ago as at the 1918 Imperial Conference it was unanimously agreed among Commonwealth countries that some form of control over immigration was acceptable, and every Commonwealth country has some form of immigration control. Far from negatively accepting the need for immigration control, however, I positively, although reluctantly, feel that some form of control is in the interests not only of our own communities, but of the immigrants themselves, and that there should be some control of the rate, time, and level of immigration, so that immigrants can be absorbed without creating new social tensions and hatreds, and so, also, that we do not create in our midst an 239 unprivileged class, marked out by its colour, which is acceptable in times of economic prosperity but regarded as dispensable in times of economic difficulty.
§ Mr. Llywelyn Williams (Abertillery)
Since the hon. Member presumes to speak in the name of the people most affected by the Bill, and insists that it is in their interest that they should not come to this country uncontrolled, will he tell the Committee how many representations he has received from the people concerned to that effect?
§ Lord Balniel
If the hon. Member will contain his impatience for a moment he will probably agree that our views are not so very far apart. It seems to me that the "open-door" policy, magnificent, proud and fine as it was in its day, is of little value to immigrants if we allow them unlimited immigration and cannot guarantee them a warm welcome or social and economic security. I suggest, regretfully, that in certain localities we cannot guarantee to an unlimited flow of immigrants social and economic security, or hospitality.
Although I agree that some form of control is probably necessary, I also agree that any control of immigration strikes at the very root of the British tradition and the Commonwealth; that no such control should be imposed unless the most careful consultation has taken place within the Commonwealth, and that even then we should move very carefully. Furthermore, as the Mother Country of a multi-racial Commonwealth we must be scrupulously careful—it behoves us to be so, in our interests—to ensure that there is not a scintilla or taint of colour prejudice in any action that we take.
I do not associate myself with some hon. Members who have taken part in these debates, or with comments outside the House, that in introducing this Measure my right hon. Friends are activated by any sense of colour prejudice. Their record of liberal administration in Africa, and their determination and courage in establishing multi-racial Governments within the Commonwealth, provide a total rebuttal of any such accusation. My regret is that whatever the motives of my right hon. Friends and however noble their 240 intentions, the Bill is wide open to the charge of racial discrimination.
My right hon. Friends say that the Clause is non-discriminatory in character. It brings within its scope both the black immigrants from Jamaica and the white immigrants from Southern Ireland. I agree that it is general in character, but what I cannot do is to take the next step which the Government ask us to take. Much as I should like to, I cannot follow the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General——
§ Lord Balniel
—when, on 12th December, he said:This is a general Bill giving general powers, and its character is not altered by the manner in which the powers are exercised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 253.]I cannot accept that argument. It seems a constitutionally sound argument if it is argued in a vacuum and in isolation, and treated as a purely academic exercise. But we cannot treat it as that. In Committee, we have to consider how the Bill will be implemented in practice. We are told that in practice, solely for the sake of administrative convenience, the Bill will not be applied to the Southern Irish. For the sake of administrative convenience—and surely this is the least trustworthy guide that we can possibly take in great matters—we shall tear at the great principles and practices to which we should adhere if we possibly can. We are prepared to tear at principles to which we should adhere as ordinary human beings, and at practices to which we should adhere as members of the Conservative Party.
The first of these is the principle that all men should be treated alike, irrespective of colour, and that we should judge the quality of our legislation by its generality in character and operation. We should judge the practice of the matter in the light of the fact that, in this imperfect world, when we have to choose between different communities and between different men, we in the Conservative Party almost instinctively give preference to members of the Commonwealth.
241 4.0 p.m.
I should like, briefly, to look at the two questions arising in Clause 1—the question of colour and the question of the Commonwealth. There are two main groups of unskilled labour immigration into this country. One is the black unskilled labour—66,000 of them—corning from the West Indies. The second is the white unskilled labour—numbers unknown—coming from Southern Ireland. It seems to me that if there is to be a limitation on numbers the diminution in numbers insisted on should be borne fairly equally between those two main groups. This would seem the absolute minimum of justice as between different groups of men, and that minimum becomes of paramount importance when one group is black and the other white.
When we impose restrictions and controls on the black group and allow totally unrestricted immigration by the white group, how can we possibly preach racial tolerance, for instance, in the interests of economic well-being in Kenya? How can we possibly go to the mineworkers' union of Southern Rhodesia and tell the mineworkers to bring racial tolerance to their industry? How can we possibly have the temerity to preach to the Government of South Africa, with their vastly greater industrial racial problems, what their standards ought to be?
How can we even tell the West Indians that they should tear down the discriminations between their own islands? What I fear about this matter—whatever the motives of my right hon. Friends, and I accept at once that they are completely honourable—is that when we come to preach racial tolerance our enemies will dress us in the clothes of Tartufe, and we must be careful that those clothes do not fit us.
I wish to say a word about the Commonwealth argument, that we are giving preference to non-British subjects over the members of the Commonwealth. It appears to me that my right hon. Friends are saying slightly different things to different bodies of people. They are saying to hon. Members in this Committee, "We must keep the Southern Irish in the Bill because that keeps the Bill generally in character, although we are not proposing to use these reserve powers 242 because they are almost impossible to exercise. And, also, we must keep these reserve powers in the Bill in case there is a change in the economic climate of the country, or in case the principles of the Bill are undermined by Commonwealth immigration coming to Southern Irish ports and flowing from Southern Ireland into this country." At the same time, my right hon. Friends are turning to the Southern Irish Government and saying, "You can have totally unrestricted, unimpeded immigration into this country, provided you pass legislation controlling Commonwealth immigration into your own country."
I accept that that is a gross oversimplification, but I do not think that it is a distortion of what the Government have said. Perhaps I may again be permitted to quote, this time my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, Who said, referring to these reserve powers:Our attitude will be guided entirely by the nature of the type of legislation introduced by the Government of the Irish Republic. Meanwhile we have the reserve power in our own Bill. I hope and believe that the nature of their legislation will be such that no such power will be needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th December, 1961 Vol. 651, c. 332.]I find this a slightly unhappy picture. We are asking non-British citizens to act as policemen against Commonwealth citizens, and, at the same time, we are saying to them, "If you do your job well, if you control Commonwealth immigration effectively, you will be allowed unrestricted, unimpeded, uninterrupted access to this country. But if you do not do your job well, we are proposing to impose these reserve powers on the Southern Irish."
§ Mr. Chapman
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that later, I think on 12th December, the Attorney-General repeated this, I should think at least six times, and that many people, I am sure, felt that I was not being offensive deliberately when I said that I could not refrain from saying that this was so obviously blackmail on the Southern Irish Government? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible to read that into it?
§ Lord Balniel
The hon. Gentleman is entitled to choose his own words, and I will choose mine. I said I felt that this was rather an unhappy picture which we have presented.
243 My right hon. Friend, admittedly it was in a humorous aside, said that this is an Irish question. I do not agree. This is a Commonwealth question, about which deeply emotional feelings are held. I know that the cynics may scoff at these emotional feelings, but it is these feelings which, almost alone in the postwar years, have held the Commonwealth together. We are engaged in the task of trying to transform the old Imperial mission into a new Commonwealth, and I believe that the provisions in this Clause will make it harder for us in Africa, in Asia and in the West Indies.
At the same time as we are attempting to transform the old Imperial mission into a new Commonwealth, we are also abandoning the preferences which instinctively should be given to the Commonwealth by a Conservative Government. Not only that, but we are also handing the preferences to non-British citizens.
I agree with the article in The Times which complained about this disparity of treatment and maintained that the effect, the damage, emotional, economic and political, which it is likely to do to the already fragile fabric of the Commonwealth can hardly be exaggerated.
I find the Bill impossible to support at any stage. However, I want to conclude on a constructive note rather than with negative criticism. At this stage, I am sure my right hon. Friends will appreciate that it is extraordinarily difficult for back bench Members to put forward constructive ideas. It is certainly extremely difficult for us to put forward original ideas. All I can do is repeat the plea reiterated time and again from these back benches, that my right hon. Friends should look once again at the question of the Ulster-Eire border. We are told that this question was examined and rejected during the war, but then the situation was utterly different.
While the Commonwealth and Ulster were fighting at our shoulder, the Government of Southern Ireland were neutral. At that time the passage over the border of one spy would have been very dangerous to the integrity of this country. At that time it was impossible. But are we really saying that now it is impossible to impose an immigration control over what I imagine must be the 244 shortest land border in the entirety of Europe? It is 180 miles long. Every European and continental country imposes immigration control over far longer distances.
The United States-Mexico border is about 1,500 miles long. The Canadian-American border is about 5.000 miles long. I accept that it is possible that one or two, perhaps 100 or 500 people, might slip across in the dead of night. But is it really so terrible, is it really so damaging to the economic well-being of this country?
It is true, and I accept the arguments of my right hon. Friends, that this would be administratively rather inconvenient. It might be administratively slightly expensive, but these arguments of administrative convenience weigh very lightly against the fact that we are being asked to compromise on principles which we hold most dear.
§ Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)
The Committee is in a dilemma. The dilemma arises from the rather cowardly, tyrannical and quite unnecessary Guillotine on an important constitutional Measure. The dilemma is that while this is the central part, the operative part, of this whole Bill and, therefore, justifies a full-length examination on a Second Reading scale, the Committee could only do that by further limiting its opportunities as the Committee stage progresses by introducing some kind of constructive Amendments.
We have to strike the best balance we can. I shall be quite short in my speech, but I do not think that without further examination we could agree to pass Clause 1. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) made a very interesting speech. He made his devastating attack on the Government and their Bill with the utmost tact and discretion—so much tact and so much discretion that for a time I was wondering on which side he would ultimately come down. I do not go along with him in the last part of his speech. I do not believe that if he had every inch of his way in regard to the Ulster border this Bill would be one scrap better or more acceptable than it is. I do not believe that he thinks so either, but in his general attack on the Clause he has made almost the most devastating critical analysis that has been made so far.
245 If, as I hope, this Clause is to be challenged in the Division Lobby, we shall all welcome the noble Lord in voting with us in an effort to see that this Clause, which he hates so much, is not carried. It is of very little constructive value to take up the limited time of the Committee under a Guillotine in order to express criticisms and opposition to a Clause and then to withhold constructive support for the only way of dealing with the Clause in pursuance of the criticism of it that has been made. I therefore hope the noble Lord will not hesitate, but will come with us into the Lobby.
I wish to make my criticism of the Clause, and this is the first contribution I have made to these debates. I am left at the end of these discussions—all of them, on Second Reading, Committee stage and everything—wondering why the Government have introduced the Bill.
§ 4.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Silverman
I do not even know whose votes they want to catch. They have expressly disclaimed any kind of colour bar. This is not to be a discriminatory Bill and is nothing to do with the colour bar. They have disclaimed any question of urgency. The figures, which they rather reluctantly and belatedly produced in response to pressure from this side of the Committee, show that so far from there being any emergency of any kind there has been more migration out of this country than into this country over all the relevant periods. So it is not an emergency about population. It is not a question of colour. It is not a question, they have disclaimed it expressly, of bad behaviour. It is not, they have disclaimed it expressly, a question of disease.
One hon. Member who suggested that it was un-Christian to subject immigrants to the kind of housing conditions that they would meet in Birmingham was effectively answered by an interjection from this side of the Committee by an hon. Friend of mine who wanted to know if that hon. Member thought it was Christian to subject the present population of Birmingham to those conditions. All these imagined reasons for the Bill have been expressly disclaimed by the 246 Government one after the other. What are we left with? That it is not a question of controlling immigration. The noble Lord said that he conceded the necessity to control immigration. Unless and until we enter the Common Market we control immigration now very effectively indeed. What we are concerned with is not immigration but migration, the movement of populations, the free movement of British citizens. For most of this century the economics of this country have been bedevilled by distressed and special areas. In Lancashire, in Northumberland, in North Wales, in South Wales and various other parts of the country there has been a drift of population towards London, towards the South, towards the Midlands. That has gone on for almost fifty years——
§ Mr. Silverman
Much more than fifty years, but it has been accentuated in this century.
When I first came into this House we had regular and frequent debates about control of industry, depopulation and Highlands devastation, but did the Government do anything about it? Did they think it right to control industry, which put a fetter or limitation on migration or devastation of areas in our country? Not at all. Their reason for not doing it was that we cannot put any kind of limitation on a citizen's right to move about freely in his own country.
This which we refuse to do within our own borders, controlling our own people, the Government propose to apply where there is no urgency or pressure from outside for British citizens for reasons which remain a complete mystery and are completely incomprehensible after all the debates we have had about them. In the discussions which have been held in the House and in the country over a matter which it would not be in order to discuss now—the Common Market—both sides, those in favour and those against, assert that they are vitally concerned with the preservation, the advancement, the progress of the Commonwealth. All of them do it. All of them make that assertion.
It is true that in every other part of the Commonwealth each of the constituent countries or Powers has the right 247 to exercise, and does exercise, migration control in its own area. But, expressly and deliberately, when those powers were granted in 1948 Parliament refused to take them for ourselves. We said, "This is the heart of the family, here in the United Kingdom. This is the heart of the Commonwealth. This is home for everyone. Therefore, we renounce the right which we are granting to other component parts of the Commonwealth to prevent people moving freely in and out as citizens of a great Commonwealth, because we are the heart, because we are the home, because everybody is entitled to be home here".
I refuse, and I think that many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will refuse, to encourage the Government in this unpatriotic, inhuman procedure, because when all comes to all the position is this. The Government may disclaim colour bar and colour prejudice from now till doomsday, but nobody will believe them. In the absence of any other comprehensible reason, nobody will believe them and every one of us here in the Committee today and outside, if he answered the question honestly, could give only one answer to the question, "If all immigrants from the Commonwealth were white, would this Bill ever have been heard of?" The answer is an emphatic, "No."
§ Sir Thomas Moore (Ayr)
I have not spoken on the Bill before, because I always dislike opposing such an excellent Government as we have today and also such a humane and sympathetic Home Secretary, but I dislike the Clause intensely, just as I dislike the Bill intensely. Last November, The Times, in a leading article, described the Bill as a bad Bill. I entirely agreed with the newspaper. I endeavoured to confirm my agreement by writing a shattering letter to The Times, which it refused to publish because those responsible believed that they had expressed themselves better than I had.
The reason why I dislike the Clause and the Bill is very simple. I cannot make any consistency out of it. We are told often—indeed, day after day—that there are about 400,000 jobs in this country waiting for applicants to fill them. Yet we propose in the Clause and 248 in the Bill to exclude the people to fill them. We are told, again, that we need about 400,000 houses a year. Yet we propose under the Bill to exclude those sturdy Irish labourers that every building contractor would give his soul to get. Therefore, the Bill does not make sense.
If the Government are going to say that they include the Irish in the Bill simply because they do not want it to be a colour-bar Bill, they are doing something which they know they cannot carry out, because without the Irish labourer our functions in this country could not be fulfilled. What about the hospitals? Where are the nurses to be found to fill the places in our hospitals—those Irish nurses who are so welcome, so cheerful and so tactful? What are they going to do on the Underground without their polite West Indians? What are they going to do in the factories without their Pakistanis and East Indians? Some industries with which I am concerned have had to go out and recruit Italians because we cannot get enough Irish labourers into this country to fill the jobs for which they are required.
We might well consider, also, the domestic situation in some of our homes. Many of us would like to see our wives relieved of the cooking for a time, of cleaning the kitchen range, and of the various other jobs which fall to the lot of every wife today. How delighted we are when a couple of nice Irish maids come along and relieve us of some of this burden.
If we enter the Common Market, this Bill will mean that our former enemies will be free to come here as they like and that neither our trade unions nor our Government can forbid them. Yet our friends who have fought with us and died with us and for us on many occasions will be excluded. The whole thing reeks of inconsistency and, like my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), I cannot support it. Keep out the criminals, the parasites and the infectiously diseased, certainly. We do not want them, from wherever they come, but do let us preserve this country as a welcome sanctuary for all those who have for generations regarded it as home.
§ Mr. Chapman
The Committee must be sorry that we have not had the robust contribution of the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) earlier in the proceedings on the Bill, because it would have enlivened them. I have to tell him that he has got the story of the Irish under the Bill quite wrong. They are being excluded from the operation of the Bill by the decision of the Home Secretary. They are, in fact, to be allowed in free.
§ Mr. Chapman
The hon. Gentleman has missed all our previous proceedings, in which the Home Secretary said that he could not apply that part of the Bill to the Irish. I hope that it does not change the hatred the hon. Gentleman has for the Bill when he finds that the Irish still are to come in free. We on this side welcome his support.
I had not intended to intervene, because we have a large number of very important Amendments to Clause 2. It is on that Clause that we have the best possibility of improving the Bill and making it less harmful to the Commonwealth. We all hope that we can get through Clause 1 very quickly, have a vote on it, and proceed to Clause 2.
I am tempted to intervene because of what the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) said. I say this to him in all friendliness and sincerity. I hope that he will not take it amiss. I spent the whole of my time during the Recess travelling in the West Indies to assess the effect of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord and other hon. Members opposite will take this as a compliment. There has been no greater help, other than the attitude of the Opposition, towards the cause of the Commonwealth in the West Indies in the last few weeks than the strong feelings expressed by a certain number of hon. Members opposite. I have been proud to pay some tribute to them in the West Indies and say that this has shown that there is a deep conscience in these matters, not just on the Labour side of the House of Commons, but on the Conservative side, also.
The hatred, anxiety and deep concern that sprang up in the West Indies over the Bill have been very strongly modified by the strong stand taken not only 250 on this side of the Committee, but by very sincere hon. Members on the Conservative back benches. I disregard the Government in this. I treat them with utter contempt, because I do not think that they ever tried to assess the terrible effects of the Bill. However, a few of us on both sides of the Committee have shown to areas like the West Indies that this deep conscience of the Mother Country runs strong in some of us.
This has had an enormous effect in the West Indies. I "chanced my arm" to say that the effect of the opposition there plus the opposition on both sides of the House of Commons in this country, will be that the Bill will be bound to be interpreted benignly by the Government. I have done my best in those areas by saying, "Do not worry too much. We still hope that tens of thousands of you will get in". It is the spirit of the House of Commons which has done more good out there in these trying days than anything else which could have happened after this dreadful Bill was introduced. I want very sincerely to say to the hon. Member for Hertford and his hon. Friends who have been with us on the Bill that they have done a great deal of good to the Commonwealth in the last few weeks.
As the Home Secretary is now bound to make at least some reply to a very short discussion, I wonder whether he can give us the next stage of the story about the Irish. In the original Bill they were in. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that he could not apply it to the Irish; they were out. Later in the debate the Minister of Labour said that they were in. In Committee, the Home Secretary said that they were out again. We have had this game of ins-and-outs, which has done no good for the idea of British legislation during these last few weeks. It has been almost a charade, ending in an attempt by the Attorney-General to put pressure on the Irish Government to introduce legislation, which would, he said, render it unnecessary for us to do anything to restrict the Irish.
Can we know whether this pressure, which has been frankly put by the British Government on the Irish Government, has produced results? Is the Home Secretary now able to say whether the Irish Government will introduce 251 legislation to restrict Commonwealth citizens landing at any of the Irish ports? Does this mean that the Government have finally made a firm decision not to apply the Bill to the Irish? Can we have the next instalment of this very unhappy, and, I would say, legislatively sordid story?
Cannot the Home Secretary take this opportunity—I say this with deep sincerity and no one, I think, doubts my own sincerity about the Bill—to give us information which would do a great deal of good for the Commonwealth? Can he tell us now, and tell the Commonwealth now, the sort of figure that he has in mind for entry in the coming year? This is the crucial issue now.
We have killed the spirit of the Bill. Hon. Members on both sides have managed to do that in recent weeks. The Bill is half dead, as I said in the West Indies. All that we want to know now is: what are the figures? Can the Home Secretary tell us whether he has in mind allowing in 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 West Indians, plus other figures for other parts of the Commonwealth, and can he say whether the figures for 1959–60 will be taken as reasonable by the Government, that is, about 30,000 to 80,000 Commonwealth immigrants coming in every year?
Is this what the Government hope to see happen in future years as opposed to the high figures, or what they may think were the high figures, in 1961? If he can say something like that, he will have undone some of the harm which this dreadful Bill did when it was first introduced.
§ Mr. Norman Pannell (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
Much of the debate on this Clause has revolved round the question of Irish immigration and the inability, as expressed by the Government, to apply the Bill to Irish immigrants. I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and other hon. Members in expressing my grave disquiet on this. I was much impressed by the argument of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) in the earlier stages of the Bill.
252 I think that if the will and the determination were there the Government could apply the Bill to the Southern Irish. Having said that, I must add that I do not think that the exclusion of the citizens of Republic of Ireland from the Bill vitiates its intention or renders it a colour bar Measure. I cannot help feeling that hon. Members who have stressed this point seem to have a complex about the colour bar, and it can do no service to the Commonwealth to import into the debate arguments which should never be there.
I should like to put the Irish question in perspective. Many figures have been mentioned during the debate, but I would refer to those given by the Economic Intelligence Digest, which has made a profound study of this immigration question. It gives a figure of about 25,000 a year net immigrants from the Republic of Ireland. I remember that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfields (Mr. Chapman) said, in an earlier stage of the debate, that the figure was over 70,000. He referred to their being practically half the total immigrants into this country.
If, however, we take into account the immigration from those Commonwealth countries of which the Home Office has given me details we have a total 136,000 in 1961. That did not include the Irish but, if we add them, and the Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders, who account for another 25,000, we find that the Irish accounted for roughly only one in six of all immigrants from Ireland and the Commonwealth——
§ Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)
My hon. Friend will no doubt recollect that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave a figure of 50,000 or 60,000 a year.
§ Mr. Pannell
I understand that those figures were from the Ministry of Labour and represented those who registered here for employment. They do not take account of those who went back. We must take account of the loss of population in Ireland, which is put by the Republic of Ireland at something less than 30,000 a year. If that figure is correct, I do not see how more immigrants than that can enter this country.
There is another point which has not been mentioned, or, if it has, it is worth 253 repeating. The Republic of Ireland is the only country that offers the citizens of the United Kingdom reciprocal advantages in relation to immigration. We can go there without let or hindrance in exactly the same way as they can come here.
One of the aspects of the Bill that distresses me is that we are applying the same regulations to Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders. One might have thought that immigrants from those countries, many of whom are descendants of people born here, had special rights and privileges, and might be admitted on that account. Whether or not we think that, it is not being done.
I accept, although it distresses me, that if we are to be impartial in the matter, we must apply the Bill's regulations equally to Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders as to West Indians, Indians and Pakistanis. I accept that, but surely it renders the Bill impartial. Hon. Members opposite must agree that if, without distinction, we apply the provisions of the Bill to those who are tied to us by blood, the Bill has no colour bias.
I would go further and say that if all the immigrants into this country were white, this Bill would still be necessary. It has been said, and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) repeated it, that emigration is greater than immigration. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had the advantage of seeing the Ministry of Health's Annual Report for 1960——
§ Mr. S. Silverman rose——
§ Mr. Pannell
When I have concluded this argument I shall be only too pleased to give way to the hon. Member, but perhaps he will allow me to finish it before he intervenes.
The Report, after giving the estimated increase in the population of the United Kingdom as 369,000 from mid-1959 to mid-1960, states:The increase of population from mid-1959 to mid-1960 consisted largely of a natural increase"—that is, an excess of births over deaths—of 251,000, partly of an inward balance of migration of 108,000 and a small residue, 10,000, which is caused by other movements of the population.254 It goes on:The inward balance of migration was also the largest for many years. Since 1954–55 the balance which was previously outward has been increasingly inward. In the calendar year 1960 the inward balance is estimated to have exceeded the natural increase.
§ Mr. S. Silverman
I cannot deal with the figures to which the hon. Gentleman calls my attention. I am not an expert on migration, and I am not a statistician. I accepted the figures offered by the Home Office. There is the Home Secretary—they are his figures, and if the figures that the right hon. Gentleman gave me were right, my statement was right. I accepted those figures. Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that I should not have done so?
§ Mr. Pannell
I was giving figures from an official Report which, I believe, was published after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his statement.
It has been suggested in this House, in reply to Questions, that the net influx was 108,000 in 1960. Hence, almost certainly, the figure was higher in 1961, because the number of immigrants from the Commonwealth countries to which reference has been made was 134,000 in 1961 as compared with 60,000 in 1960——
§ Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)
It may he that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary can assist us on this. If confusion arises, is it possible for him to say whether the figures my hon. Friend has just given include aliens as well as the immigrants from the overseas Commonwealth?
§ Mr. Pannell
There is no distinction, but immigration applies more to the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland than to aliens. I have not the breakdown, but we know it to be indisputable that if the increase in population due to immigration, apart from the natural increase, was 108,000 in the year in question, it must have been more in 1961, since 134,000 net came in from the tropical Commonwealth countries——
§ Mr. S. Silverman
When the hon. Gentleman talks of a figure of 108,000 as being, as it were, an adverse balance of immigration, is he talking of immigration as a whole or of immigration from the Commonwealth?
§ Mr. Pannell
I am answering the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). Perhaps he will listen to me; I have listened carefully to him. He said, without distinction of Commonwealth or alien immigration, that the figures showed that emigration was greater than immigration——
§ Mr. S. Silverman
Then perhaps I may make explicit what I mistakenly thought to be implicit. Since the Bill does not alter the Government's power to control immigration, and as it is a Bill about Commonwealth immigration only, I was speaking—as, I think, the Home Secretary was—of Commonwealth immigration, which is the only relevant figure.
§ Mr. Pannell
The hon. Gentleman really loses sight of the main purpose of this Measure. It applies restriction to Commonwealth immigration, but restriction no less onerous than that already applying to the immigration of aliens. His point is, therefore, quite irrelevant.
Since 1955, instead of a net emigration, this country has had a net immigration, and it is increasing in numbers. The country was finding it difficult enough, with a net balance of emigration, to get rid of the slums, provide better housing, and so on. The problem became even more difficult when the two figures reached equality. How much more difficult will the task be if we have a net immigration figure of anything up to 200,000 a year?
If we assume 3½ people for one dwelling we would, on a net immigration figure like that, have to find nearly 70,000 extra houses a year. We must remember, however, that the immigrants are usually of marriageable age, and it would not be an exaggeration to assume that if that net immigration figure continued at 200,000 a year we would have to find an extra 100,000 houses annually to enable them to dwell decently.
Another point that I am sure has not escaped notice is the recent increase in the unemployment figures. They are higher than they have been for a long time and, in the last month on record, they rose by 70,000——
§ Mr. Pannell
I do not say who is responsible for the situation; I merely say that it exists, and we have to face the facts.
That situation must be seriously aggravated if there is an influx of unskilled workers seeking jobs, That is the reason for the Bill, it has every justification, and I should have thought that the deteriorating labour situation would have impressed even the most bigoted hon. Member opposite of its necessity.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
As has been pointed out, we are in a real difficulty in working under the Guillotine, because Clause 1 has already been discussed in Committee for nearly two whole days as well as for part of today. On Clause 2, which we shall come to in a moment, there are a large number of Amendments—20 of which have been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means—some put down in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, others put down by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, and some put down by right hon. and hon. Members opposite and by my hon. Friends below the Gangway.
It is, therefore, in the interests of the whole Committee that we should as soon as possible approach in a constructive way the consideration of those Amendments, some of which, at any rate, we hope the Government will accept, because they are all intended to improve a Bill that has been condemned in every part of the House of Commons as being a bad Bill, a distasteful Bill, and an unnecessary Bill. That being so, I propose to speak very briefly at this stage.
My right hon. and hon. Friends have earlier indicated haw this Bill and, in particular, this Clause, which is the forefront of the Bill and contains its principle, offends the most deeply felt principles of those on this side of the Committee as well as—as we have heard this afternoon—those of a number of hon. Members opposite. In fact, it is significant that of the three hon. Members whom we have heard from the benches opposite, two—the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore)—have condemned the Bill outright, while the hon. Member for 257 Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has described it as being thoroughly distasteful.
We thought from the beginning that this was a distasteful, bad and unnecessary Bill—an unjustifiable Bill, and one that we regard as humiliating to us as a nation because it betrays one of our most cherished traditions, the tradition of admitting citizens of the British Commonwealth to this country as of right, regardless of colour, creed or numbers.
If numbers are the justification for the Bill, perhaps the Home Secretary will clear up some of the mystery. We have been confused by all kinds of figures. The Home Secretary gave us some, and the Minister of Labour gave us a totally different set of figures about migration, immigration and emigration. If it is the net number of immigrants in recent years that is worrying the Government, what do they regard as an optimum figure? What number will they admit over and above those who are to be allowed by the Bill to come into the country as of right; those with jobs, students, those who can support themselves, and so on? How many does the Home Secretary expect will be excluded by the operation of this Measure?
If the other justification for the Bill is, as has been suggested, the housing shortage, what proposals have the Government for solving this problem? That seems to be the only possible excuse for this attempt to control immigration into this country. I admit that there is a housing problem in parts of London and in many of our big cities, but that is the fault of the Government. It represents the colossal failure of the Government to deal with the problem over the years. It is the subject on which my hon. Friends have been attacking the Government year in and year out during the ten years that the Conservatives have been in office.
One evil does not justify another. One cannot justify something which is bad by saying—as the Government say—that there is a housing problem. "We have failed to solve it and, therefore, we must try to solve it by controlling immigration," they are arguing. If more houses were built the problem would not exist. Whatever the position with regard to the Irish, I hope that today the Home 258 Secretary will say candidly and definitely just which answer he intends to use now. We were told, first, that the Irish were covered by the Bill and, therefore, that the Bill did not discriminate against coloured people. Then it was admitted that the Irish could not be included in the Bill. Then we were told that it was necessary to retain the powers in the Bill as reserve powers to exclude the Irish—even, presumably, though they could not be used.
Which argument is to be used today? Whatever the position is regarding the Irish, and whatever motives the Government might have, the Bill is regarded as being based on a colour bar. It is regarded throughout the Commonwealth as introducing the principle of racial discrimination. There is no doubt, whatever the Home Secretary may say, that it will be so interpreted throughout the Commonwealth—and indeed, the world—as being such and that it will be administered in that way.
With the best of good will on the part of immigration officers it must obviously be easier to exclude coloured people from the coloured parts of the Commonwealth than people from Ireland, Canada, Australia, and so on. It is no use the Attorney-General arguing—in his legalistic fashion—that formally there is no colour discrimination in the Bill. Everyone knows that it is based on racial discrimination and that it will lead to racial discrimination. It will, therefore, undermine the principles on which our multi-racial Commonwealth has been built and do enormous harm to the Commonwealth.
As I have said, the Bill betrays some of our deepest principles. We oppose the principle of Clause I. We shall vote against it and we are anxious, as soon as possible, to amend some of the objectionable provisions of Clause 2.
§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that there are many important ways in which we can improve Clause 2, not least through the Government Amendments which appear on the Notice Paper. I hope that it will be seen that those Amendments were put down as a result of discussion we had on Clause 1 and that they are 259 useful Amendments so far as the method of operating the Bill is concerned. I hope, therefore, that we may quickly bring this preliminary discussion to an end in the interests of the whole of the Bill.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) used some rather extreme language which I must correct, although I intend to speak for only a short time. He used three expressions: that by the Bill we should close the door against them, that our friends in the West Indies would know that the door was barred to them and that the Bill would stop them coming here. All of those expressions are grave exaggerations. There is no question of stopping them coming here. We want them to come here.
In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore), who referred to the work of West Indian girls in our hospitals and the need for West Indians, Pakistanis and others in our transport system. I very much hope that we shall continue to see them. When we come to discuss Clause 2 my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour will be able to explain the manner in which vouchers will be issued to those who have jobs, those we need in this country with skill and others who will be let in over and above them. As I say, some of the language which has been used is quite exaggerated and gives a totally wrong impression of the Bill. I say that that, and that alone, I hope, will have done a service to the passage of this Bill.
§ Mr. C. Davies
Assuming that a certain number will be allowed to come here because jobs can be found for them, what about the small islands that are involved? The people who live on them cannot emigrate to the United States beyond the figure that will be allowed. What is to happen to the others who cannot emigrate? Will the Government go to their assistance or allow them to starve?
§ Mr. Butler
I was about to refer to the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to British investment and help to the West Indian Islands, both in the past and now. I would remind him that for the West Indies alone about £50 million has been 260 granted under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act and about £13 million by the Colonial Development Coroporation. The Government believe that out of our economy, which is already heavily strained the more we can make available for these islands for the purposes of development and to help save them from their real difficulties, the better. These difficulties were referred to by the Prime Minister of Jamaica in a Committee upstairs last night. They are difficulties with which we deeply sympathise, and we are doing our best to help.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), who has been touring the West Indies, and has taken a great interest in the Bill, hoped that it would be operated benignly. I can assure hon. Members that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to operate the Bill benignly and I hope that it will be apparent from its operation—by the time that it has to be renewed—that what we have done is to operate it benignly.
I have also been asked to give the exact figures of the numbers who will be let in. That has already been denied by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. It is impossible to give the exact figures, for the whole question of the voucher system depends on future developments and, if I may use an expression which was used by an earlier speaker, we want to guarantee to all immigrants, wherever they come from, social and economic security. That will be our guiding light. If we can guarantee them that I have no doubt that substantial numbers of them will be able to come here, relieve unemployment difficulties in their own countries and help us with our own economic and social difficulties.
I hope that my remarks at this stage will do something good to illustrate the manner in which the Bill will be operated. There have been references to statistics and while I do not want to speak for too long I must give one or two statistics in answer to the Hon. Member for Islington, East. I have with me the last, the seventh, report of the Oversea Migration Board. These are based on the most informed estimates that can be made of the differences 261 between the total population of the United Kingdom at the beginning and end of the calendar year, in so far as it is due to movement in and out of the country and not to any excess of births over deaths.
The Minister of Labour gave some of these figures on Second Reading. He said that, according to his estimate, in 1957 the net outward balance was 72,000. In 1958, that had changed to a net inward balance of 45,000 and, by 1960, it had increased to 82,000. I can now tell the Committee that indications are—the information we have received—that the figure for 1961 is likely to exceed 160,000—and that is double the previous figure. This is an important figure and gives an extra reason why—taking those figures alone—the Government have been justified in considering, to use the words of my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) "some form of control over immigration."
§ Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas (Leicester, North-East)
Can the right hon. Gentleman break those figures down and say what proportion of the 160,000 came in since the Bill was introduced and what proportion before?
§ Mr. Butler
No. I cannot give exact figures. I was ready for that question, but I regret that I cannot give the answer to it.
§ Mrs. Castle
Is there not a footnote in the Report of the Oversea Migration Board making clear that these figures include immigrants from all countries including Ireland and overseas visitors? Therefore, the figures may be temporarily swollen by factors which have nothing to do with the Bill. They may, for instance, be due overwhelmingly to Irish immigrants.
§ Mr. Butler
The hon. Lady is quite right in saying that. I was going on to give further information on the nature of the statistics.
We in the Home Office have for some years been doing our best to record the inward and outward movement of passengers to and from certain Commonwealth countries, those in Asia, the Mediterranean, East and West Africa and the West Indies. These are the figures of total movements of all kinds including short-term visitors, but, since 262 the short-term movements in both directions must roughly cancel one another out, the net balance gives a very fair idea of the extent of immigration from these countries. The figures have been given before. The net inward balance, which had fallen to 22,000 in 1959, rose to 58,000 in 1960 and to 136,000 in the year just ended. These figures, I think, are a further justification for the Government having decided to take action in this matter.
There have been several questions about Ireland. The Hon. Member for Northfield spoke about what he described as the latest position. In the first place, I deny that there has been any doubt about the latest position, nor will I attribute to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour a statement that at one moment the Irish were in the Bill and at another moment they were out. The position has been clear from the start.
There is a power in the Bill to include the Irish. We still have that reserve power in the Bill, but for reasons which I and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General have given, we have found it too difficult to include the Irish in the Bill, not only for administrative reasons, but also for reasons of our relations with the Government of Northern Ireland. We have come to that conclusion, and there has been absolutely no alteration in our policy.
§ Mr. Fletcher
Does that mean that the powers that the Home Secretary is retaining in the Bill with regard to the Irish are quite useless?
§ Mr. Butler
No. I am coming on to speak about that matter.
I think that it is a good thing to keep the reserve power in the Bill. I did not say that it was useless. I said that it was very difficult to operate. I think it wise to keep the reserve power as it is in the Bill, all the more so since the Bill by an Amendment to Clause 5 which the Government have put down is to be susceptible of renewal at the end of 1963. The Government hope by that time to have rather fuller information about the nature of migration to and from the Republic of Ireland.
§ Mr. S. Silverman
I am not quite clear to what powers the right hon. Gentleman is referring when he describes them as 263 reserve powers. Under what machinery in the Bill can he discriminate between immigrants who are otherwise subject to the provisions of the Bill? Has the Petition of Right been suspended?
§ Mr. Butler
No. There is a power in the Bill to apply the Bill to the Republic of Ireland. We have decided not to use that power. It remains in the Bill for use if necessary at any time. That is the exact statutory position in relation to the Republic of Ireland.
§ Mr. Butler
I think that in the in-interests of the Committee, working under a Guillotine, I ought not to give way any more. I have made perfectly clear that there is this power which can be used in reserve.
I was coming on to say that we hope, before the Bill comes up for renewal—that will be, under the Amendment to Clause 5, to which I have referred and which will be moved by me on behalf of the Government—to have obtained fuller information than exists at present about the scale and make-up of immigration from the Republic of Ireland. We are taking steps to obtain this information in a variety of ways.
First, we intend to carry out an analysis of National Insurance records which will give us accurate information not only about how many people from the Republic come here for employment, but about how many remain in employment at the end of one or two years and can thus be regarded as having settled in the United Kingdom. Also, we shall obtain more information about the number of workers from the Republic of Ireland registered as unemployed and the number in receipt of National Assistance. These figures would come from official records.
We now have it in mind to supplement that information by obtaining much more complete and accurate information than is at present available about the total number of people travelling between the Republic of Ireland and this country and about their reasons for making the journey. We would do this by employing what is technically termed 264 a sampling procedure, by means of interviews. This procedure would be operated on the steamers and aircraft coming from the Republic and from Northern Ireland. It would be done administratively and would be an extension of an arrangement already in operation for obtaining statistical information about travel between this country and abroad.
§ Mr. Butler
Until we see how this works, we will take no further decision about whether we use the powers or not, about whether we use the landing card procedure referred to in the Bill, or whether we consider doing anything at the border. I simply say at present that we reserve the right to do so if we should find it necessary.
We hope, in these various ways, to obtain fuller information than we have had before about the movement of Irish labour, and we hope in that way to be able to meet the Committee, or the House as it may be, when the time comes for the Bill to be renewed.
§ Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)
Can my right hon. Friend say whether the sampling procedure means that every traveller will have to give information, or will just a selection be taken?
§ Mr. Butler
Sampling procedures are already used on sea routes and they have proved very successful. It is done by the Social Survey and consists in taking a certain proportion of those travelling for interview with a view to obtaining a sample, and that is why it is called a sampling procedure. I think that it is a most efficient and sensible way of trying to obtain fuller information before the Bill comes up for renewal.
I have answered some of the points about the figures, about the statistics, about the method of administering the Bill and, indeed, many of the points which have been raised. I hope that the Committee will be ready to let Clause 1 pass. The Clause has been considered for at least two days in Committee. It has great importance, but I agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East that Clause 2 is the one which controls the 265 operation of the Bill. I hope, therefore, that we may be able to come to a decision on this matter.
The Government approached the introduction of the Bill with due care and responsibility. I have never underestimated how deeply feelings are moved by the Bill in Committee and in the House. I have felt those feelings myself, and I have come to the conclusion that the Bill is right partly because of the figures of the trends which I have given and also in agreement with my noble
§ Friend the Member for Hertford, that some degree of control is necessary. There have been difficulties in perfecting this form of control. The Committee can make the control better by examining the Bill in more detail. We shall be very ready to examine it in that spirit, and I hope that it will be in that spirit that the Clause will now be passed.
§ Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 262, Noes 186.269
|Division No. 63.]||AYES||[5.9 p.m.|
|Agnew, Sir Peter||Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Kerby, Capt. Henry|
|Aitken, W. T.||Emery, Peter||Kerr, Sir Hamilton|
|Ashton, Sir Hubert||Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Barber, Anthony||Errington, Sir Eric||Kirk, Peter|
|Barter, John||Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.||Kitson, Timothy|
|Batsford, Brian||Farey-Jones, F. W.||Lambton, Viscount|
|Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)||Finlay, Graeme||Lancaster, Col. C. G.|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Leavey, J. A.|
|Bell, Ronald||Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)||Leburn, Gilmour|
|Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)||Freeth, Denzil||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry|
|Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.||Linstead, Sir Hugh|
|Biffen, John||Gammans, Lady||Litchfield, Capt. John|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Gardner, Edward||Longbottom, Charles|
|Bingham, R. M.||Gibson-Watt, David||Longden, Gilbert|
|Bishop, F. P.||Gilmour, Sir John||Loveys, Walter H.|
|Black, Sir Cyril||Glover, Sir Douglas||Lucas, Sir Jocelyn|
|Bossom, Clive||Godber, J. B.||Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh|
|Bourne-Arton, A.||Goodhart, Philip||McLaren, Martin|
|Box, Donald||Goodhew, Victor||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&N.Ayrs.)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.||Gough, Frederick||Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Grant, Rt. Hon. William||MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)|
|Braine, Bernard||Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.||Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)|
|Brewis, John||Green, Alan||Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)|
|Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter||Gresham Cooke, R.||Maitland, Sir John|
|Brooman-White, R.||Gurden, Harold||Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.|
|Brown, Alan (Tottenham)||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Markham, Major Sir Frank|
|Browne, Percy (Torrington)||Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)||Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest|
|Bryan, Paul||Hare, Rt. Hon. John||Marshall, Douglas|
|Buck, Antony||Harris, Reader (Heston)||Marten, Neil|
|Bullard, Denys||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||Mathew, Robert (Honiton)|
|Bullus, Wing Commander Eric||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)|
|Burden, F. A.||Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)||Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Butcher, Sir Herbert||Harvie Anderson, Miss||Mawby, Ray|
|Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)||Hastings, Stephen||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)||Hay, John||Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward||Mills, Stratton|
|Channon, H. P. G.||Hicks Beach, Maj. W.||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)||Hiley, Joseph||More, Jasper (Ludlow)|
|Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)||Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)||Morgan, William|
|Cleaver, Leonard||Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)||Nabarro, Gerald|
|Cole, Norman||Hirst Geoffrey||Neave, Airey|
|Collard, Richard||Hobson, John||Nicholson, Sir Godfrey|
|Cooke, Robert||Hocking, Philip N.||Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard|
|Cooper, A. E.||Holland, Philip||Oakshott, Sir Hendrie|
|Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.||Hollingworth, John||Orr-Ewing, C. Ian|
|Corfield, F. V.||Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John||Osborn, John (Hallam)|
|Costain, A. P.||Hopkins, Alan||Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)|
|Coulson, Michael||Hornby, R. P.||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Craddock, Sir Beresford||Howard, John (Southampton, Test)||Page, John (Harrow, West)|
|Critchley, Julian||Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John||Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)|
|Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver||Hughes-Young, Michael||Partridge, E.|
|Curran, Charles||Hulbert, Sir Norman||Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)|
|Dance, James||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Peel, John|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Iremonger, T. L.||Percival, Ian|
|de Ferranti, Basil||Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)||Peyton, John|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Jackson, John||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.||James, David||Pilkington, Sir Richard|
|Doughty, Charles||Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)||Pitman, Sir James|
|Drayson, G. B.||Johnson, Eric (Blackley)||Pitt, Miss Edith|
|Duncan, Sir James||Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Pott, Percivall|
|Eden, John||Joseph, Sir Keith||Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Kerans, Cdr. J. S.||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Prior, J. M. L.||Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher||Vane, W. M. F.|
|Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho||Spearman, Sir Alexander||Vickers, Miss Joan|
|Profumo, Rt. Hon. John||Stanley, Hon. Richard||Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)|
|Proudfoot, Wilfred||Stevens, Geoffrey||Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)|
|Pym, Francis||Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)||Walder, David|
|Quenneil, Miss J. M.||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm||Walker, Peter|
|Ramsden, James||Storey, Sir Samuel||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek|
|Rawlinson, Peter||Studholme, Sir Henry||Wall, Patrick|
|Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin||Talbot, John E.||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Rees, Hugh||Tapsell, Peter||Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold|
|Renton, David||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Webster, David|
|Ridley, Hon. Nicholas||Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Robertson, sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)||Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)||Williams, Dudley (Exeter)|
|Robinson, Rt Hn Sir R. (B'pool, S.)||Taylor, w. J. (Bradford, N.)||Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)|
|Robson Brown, Sir William||Teeling, Sir William||Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)|
|Roots, William||Temple, John M.||Wise, A. R.|
|Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard||Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Russell, Ronald||Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard|
|St. Clair, M.||Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)||Woodhouse, C. M.|
|Scott-Hopkins, James||Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Seymour, Leslie||Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)||Woollam, John|
|Sharples, Richard||Tilney, John (Wavertree)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Shaw, M.||Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon|
|Simon, Rt- Hon. Sir Jocelyn||Turner, Colin||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Skeet T. H. H.||Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.||Mr. Chichester-Clark and|
|Smith, Dudley (Brentf'd & Chiswick)||Tweedsmuir, Lady||Mr. Whitelaw.|
|Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Abse, Leo||Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)||Mellish, R. J.|
|Ainsley, William||Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)||Mendelson, J. J.|
|Allason, James||Grimond, Rt. Hon. J.||Millan, Bruce|
|Awbery, Stan||Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)||Milne, Edward|
|Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)||Halt, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)||Mitchison, G. R.|
|Beaney, Alan||Hamilton, William (West Fife)||Monslow, Walter|
|Bellenger, Bt. Hon. F. J.||Hannan, William||Morris, John|
|Bence, Cyril||Hart, Mrs. Judith||Mort, D. L.|
|Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Hayman, F. H.||Moyle, Arthur|
|Benson, Sir George||Healey, Denis||Neal, Harold|
|Blyton, William||Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)||Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)|
|Boardman, H.||Herbison, Miss Margaret||Oliver, G. H.|
|Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S. W.)||Holman, Percy||Oswald, Thomas|
|Bowles, Frank||Holt, Arthur||Owen, Will|
|Boyden, James||Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)||Paget, R. T.|
|Braddock, Mrs. E. M.||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hoy, James H.||Pargiter, G. A.|
|Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.||Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pavitt, Laurence|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)||Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)||Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)|
|Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)||Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)||Peart, Frederick|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hunter, A. E.||Pentland, Norman|
|Callaghan, James||Hynd, H. (Accrington)||Plummer, Sir Leslie|
|Castle, Mrs. Barbara||Hynd, John (Attercliffe)||Popplewell, Ernest|
|Chapman, Donald||Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)||Prentice, R. E.|
|Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)||Janner, Sir Barnett||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Crosland, Anthony||Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas||Probert, Arthur|
|Darling, George||Jeger, George||Randall, Harry|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement(Montgomery)||Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)||Rankin, John|
|Davies, Harold (Leek)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Redhead, E. C.|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Deer, George||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Delargy, Hugh||Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Dempsey, James||Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)||Ross, William|
|Diamond, John||Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)||Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.|
|Dodds, Norman||Kelley, Richard||Short, Edward|
|Driberg, Tom||Kenyon, Clifford||Silverman, Julius (Aston)|
|Ede, Rt. Hon. C.||Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.||Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)|
|Edelman, Maurice||King, Dr. Horace||Skeffington, Arthur|
|Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)||Lee, Frederick (Newton)||Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)||Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)|
|Edwards, Walter (Stepney)||Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)||Small, William|
|Evans, Albert||Lipton, Marcus||Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)|
|Fernyhough, E.||Loughlin, Charles||Snow, Julian|
|Finch, Harold||McCann, John||Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank|
|Fitch, Alan||MacColl, James||Steele, Thomas|
|Fletcher, Eric||McInnes, James||Stewart, Michael (Fulham)|
|Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)||McKay, John (Wallsend)||Stonenouse, John|
|Formart, J. C.||McLeavy, Frank||Stones, William|
|Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)||Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)||Strachey, Rt. Hon. John|
|Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Manuel, A. C.||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)|
|George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn)||Mapp, Charles||Swingler, Stephen|
|Ginsburg, David||Marsh, Richard||Symonds, J. B.|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mason, Roy||Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)|
|Grey, Charles||Mayhew, Christopher||Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)||Weitzman, David||Winterbottom, R. E.|
|Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)||Wells, Percy (Faversham)||Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.|
|Thorpe, Jeremy||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)||Woof, Robert|
|Timmons, John||Wilkins, W. A.||Yates, Victor (Ladywood)|
|Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn||Williams, D. J. (Neath)||Zilliacus, K.|
|Wade, Donald||Williams, Ll. (Abertillery)|
|Wainwright, Edwin||Williams, w. R. (Openshaw)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Warbey, William||Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)||Mr. Lawson and|
|Watkins, Tudor||Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)||Mr. Sydney Irving.|