HC Deb 13 February 1962 vol 653 cc1125-61

3.33 p.m.

The Chairman

The first Amendment selected is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), It will be possible also to discuss with it the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in page 11, line 22, to leave out subsection (1), but a vote may be taken only on the Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 23, to leave out from the first "State" to the end of line 26.

The effect of Clause 16 as it stands is that immigration officers should be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that, in addition, the Secretary of State may make arrangements with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise for the employment of Customs officers to act as immigration officers under the Bill. The Amendment seeks to delete the power to enable Customs officers to act as immigration officers.

For the Committee to appreciate the significance of this Amendment it is, perhaps, necessary for me to say something about the duties that will fall upon immigration officers when the Bill is enacted. Unfortunately, as a result of the Guillotine, we have not yet had full clarification of what those duties will be, or how immigration officers will act. We shall not know precisely what their functions will be until we see the instructions which the Home Secretary has promised to make public as soon as the Committee stage has finished and before the Bill reaches its Report stage.

On principle, I should have thought it unnecessary and undesirable to give to Customs officers the very wide and sweeping powers that will be given to immigration officers. We should, at least, know to what extent the Home Office intends to enrol Customs officers to supplement the work that will fall upon immigration officers.

For example, is it contemplated that this will be merely a casual, an occasional, use of Customs officers, and that it will arise only if immigration officers are themselves overworked? Or is it intended that Customs officers should be generally available to do the work of immigration officers at the ports? Can we have an assurance that the instructions to be given to immigration officers will be made available also to Customs officers?

The Committee will appreciate that I am not making any reflection on the admirable performance of their duties by Customs officers; any traveller returning from abroad can vouch for the fact that they perform their functions extraordinarily well. On the other hand, we must remember that Customs officers are primarily detectives; their primary duty is to stop smuggling, to stop contraband coming into the country. They are responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

If they are to be enrolled as supplementary immigration officers, will they be responsible to the Home Secretary? Will they, in respect of their functions under the Bill, have the same opportunities, when doubt arises, of quick and free access to the Home Secretary? I should also like to know whether any consultation has been had with them as to their preparedness to undertake these additional duties, which are totally different in kind from those they have hitherto been used to perform?

One reason why I think it objectionable that Customs officers should have this duty thrust upon them is that, as the Bill now stands, an immigration officer will have very sweeping powers. He will have the power to examine any immigrant. He will have the power to call for documents. He will have the power to search. There is a special provision that a woman immigrant cannot be searched except by a woman. Are there any women Customs officers? Are any women to be employed as Customs officers in order to deal with women immigrants?

I would remind the Home Secretary that in our debates last week the Attorney-General stated that it was proposed to use the powers given to the Government by the Bill not so much for attaching conditions to immigrants with regard to the duration of their stay and the kind of work that they could take, but chiefly for the control of immigration. The Attorney-General recognises—as I am sure does the Home Secretary—that very great responsibilities will devolve on immigration officers in the large number of borderline cases that will arise as to whether a particular immigrant should or should not be admitted.

One of the reasons given by the Attorney-General for rejecting the strong plea made by my hon. Friends that an immigrant should have the right of appeal either to a tribunal or an independent person was that immigration officers would have very wide experience in dealing with these matters and could be relied upon to reach the right conclusion in the case of every individual immigrant. But will the Customs officers have anything like the same experience? If the duties of deciding admission or rejection are to be devolved by the Home Secretary on Customs officers, how can it be said that they will have the wide experience which is required so that justice is done to Commonwealth citizens who want to come here?

In a number of cases where admission is granted and conditions are imposed, the decision—as to what kind of conditions, what limit shall be placed on the man's stay, if any, and what conditions there shall be about his work—will obviously call not only for a great deal of experience and judgment, but also for a considerable amount of tact in handling these matters. How can it be argued that Customs officers will be able to discharge these duties, considering the great experience that is required of immigration officers?

There is a further point I must put to the Home Secretary and which, I hope, he will clear up. As the Bill stands, certain categories of person under Clause 2 will have the right to come to this country provided that they satisfy the immigration officer—not the Customs officer—about their bona fides: first, those who have vouchers and can show that they have work to do; secondly, those who come here to study; and, thirdly, those who show that they can support themselves or can be supported by relatives. Any of those who can establish prima facie any of those three conditions have the right to come, subject only that they might be excluded on health grounds, because they have a criminal record or because they are a security risk. Such cases, I would imagine, would be very small in number.

In addition to those classes who have the right to come here, I understand from the Home Secretary that it is also contemplated that many other immigrants will be admitted under what is broadly called a "quota system." The Home Secretary made it clear on Second Reading—as it is clear from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill—that those who are to be admitted will not be limited to those who have a job to come to, to students or to those who can support themselves or can be supported by their relatives.

Others will be able to come here to seek work, if they so desire, up to prescribed numbers which, one may assume, will vary from month to month and probably from country to country. It is important that the Home Secretary should say something further about this, for we must look at the operation of the Bill as it will affect immigrants who want to come here and who are in doubt whether, if they come, they will be admitted or rejected.

I can appreciate that the mere passage of the Bill into law will have a deterrent effect. Whereas a great many people now come here knowing that they must be admitted as of right in future a large number of immigrants—not only from Canada and Australia, but, more particularly, from India, Pakistan and the West Indies—will be in doubt as to what their position will be if they get on a boat and arrive at Southampton.

3.45 p.m.

As the Bill stands, they are by no means certain about whether they will qualify because the decision to admit or reject them will, presumably, be taken on the spot, perhaps suddenly, by an immigration officer. Thus, great problems of human freedom and rights are involved in these questions and it seems chat unless some justification—which I cannot see at the moment—is given it will be difficult for the Home Office to delegate these responsible duties to anyone other than experienced immigration officers.

Another matter arises out of an observation, which astonished me, which was made by the Attorney-General in our debates last week. We were then arguing that there should be an appeal tribunal so that anyone rejected and refused admission under Clause 2—and who claimed to be a bona fide student, or who had a job to come to or whose relatives would support him—would have the right, if rejected, to appeal to some appellant tribunal. The Attorney-General said, when resisting an Opposition Amendment: In many cases admission may be refused"— and we were dealing only with people coming under Clause 2— not on account of any personal idiosyncracies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.] In other words, the Attorney-General seemed to be saying that even if people qualified under Clause 2 for admission to the United Kingdom, and should not be refused admission, nevertheless admission could be refused not on any personal ground relating to the applicant himself, but for a totally different reason for which the applicant could not be responsible, namely, that sufficient numbers had already been admitted to the country for that particular time.

I hope that the Home Secretary will qualify that today. I am tempted to say that I hope he will repudiate it, because it seems to make nonsense of the whole basis on which we were examining Clause 2 last week. I hope that it can be established that anyone who satisfies the requirements of Clause 2 can come here and that, over and above that, others will be admitted up to a given number.

There may be cases about which an immigration officer will have to decide. But how will he decide? How will the immigrant know from month to month whether sufficient numbers from a particular locality have or have not been admitted? There is another type of case for which it seems important that the discretion should be strictly confined to experienced immigration officers and should not be deputed to those who have no familiarity with immigration problems, but whose job it is to prevent contraband from being smuggled into the country. It was made clear last week that a large number of people will be coming to the United Kingdom in the hope of getting a job on the understanding that they are intending to do part-time work and act as part-time students.

In recent years large numbers of people have been coming here—deserving immigrants—who could be termed part-time students. Perhaps such an immigrant wants to do some work during the day and spend his evenings at the Peckham Institute, or some other place. Would such a student have the same rights as a Rhodes scholar or another accredited student coming to a university? These sort of matters will call for decisions to be made on the spot by immigration officers unless a number of immigrants are to be turned away.

It will be most important, if we pass the Bill, that it shall be administered as sympathetically as possible. The Home Secretary has more than once intimated that that is his intention. He could implement that intention if he made clear that in discharge of these responsibilities he will be served by experienced immigration officers only and that the duties will not be delegated to a wider class of person.

Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne)

I support the Amendment, largely for the reasons which my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) gave. My own Amendment goes a little further. I should have preferred to see the whole of subsection (1) taken out rather than just this part of it. It may possibly be that, in practice, there is no difference because, if I were to hazard a guess, it would be that the Home Secretary's intention in taking power to appoint immigration officers for the purpose of the Bill was intended only, as it were, as a preliminary to the power to make the Customs officers those special immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill. But, of course, that is not what the Clause says and, even if it were, it would be subject to the devastating criticism which my hon. Friend has just made of it.

The Clause as it stands is extremely odd. With or without the Customs officers, is it the Home Secretary's intention to appoint immigration officers with limited powers? The Clause says: Immigration officers for the purposes of this Act". If he appoints an immigration officer under this Clause, will that officer be an immigration officer for all purposes, or will he be an immigration officer only "for the purposes of this Act", as the subsection appears to say?

Not only does that seem to be the proper interpretation of the words, but it is reinforced by another consideration. If it were only a question of increasing the number of immigration officers because of the hordes of Commonwealth citizens who might try to scrape through, the Home Secretary already has power to appoint as many immigration officers as he likes. He would not need a Clause in the Bill to appoint more. I am driven to the conclusion that what he is seeking to do is appoint a new class of immigration officer who will have none of the ordinary powers of the immigration officer to control the immigration of aliens, but who will have powers only for the purposes of the Bill.

If that be so, how is such an officer to be identified? Will he wear a special kind of uniform, wear a special badge, or produce a special kind of warrant? Moreover, if immigration officers of a special class are to be appointed for the purposes of the Bill, will they have exclusive powers under the Bill, or will the ordinary immigration officer act as well? None of this has been explained either on Second Reading or in any of our discussions in Committee so far. The Home Secretary will realise that the Clause as it stands requires a good deal of explanation.

As my hon. Friend pointed out, among the extraordinary powers under the Bill which the immigration officer will have there is a power to arrest without warrant. For certain purposes under the Customs and Excise Acts, a Customs officer already has a fairly wide power to arrest without warrant, but, although it is a wide power, it is limited to offences under those Acts and he may not exercise it for anything else. Is it intended to give him a wide power of arrest without warrant for the purposes of the Bill added to the other purpose? Is the ordinary run-of-the-mill immigration officer to have a power of arrest without warrant under the Bill, or is it to be limited to this special kind of immigration officer who is neither a Customs officer nor an ordinary immigration officer but in a special class?

I hesitate to use the expression "secret police", because they will operate in the open. But how will they be identified? How will an immigrant be able to ascertain whether the officer has power to arrest and detain him without warrant? This is unexplained, but it is important.

There is another point, on the assumption that Customs officers are either to be all or some part of the special immigration officers appointed under the subsection. As my hon. Friend said, at some time or other, but not yet, we are to be told about the instructions which will be given to immigration officers. We know that there will be a great number of them. We know also, because the hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State intervened in an argument on another Amendment to make the point clear, that the instructions will not be exhaustive, that the officer will be able to act according to instructions but with some discretionary power reserved to him.

The hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out how desirable it was that the immigration officer, Customs officer, or whoever it will be, should not be too circumscribed by the instructions. Thus, there will be the instructions and, over and above the instructions, there will be discretionary powers, undefined except that they must come in some way within the ambit of the Bill.

If a Customs officer has to discharge these duties, he will add a great deal to what he has to do. His duties are fairly onerous as they are. He will be asked to read, learn and inwardly digest a volume of instructions, about which the Home Secretary, after he has these powers, will tell us. He will have to learn them and apply them and, somehow or other, he will have to acquaint himself with all the purposes of the Bill and the public policy behind it at any given moment, including, as my hon. Friend said, the number of immigrants who have already come in and the maximum number to be allowed. When is he to do this? Are we to set up special schools to instruct the officers charged with these duties how to keep British subjects out of Britain?

I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider this matter. Certainly, no such powers ought to be delegated to Customs officers, and there is no necessity for setting up a new class of special immigration officer without experience of any kind. If these powers have to be exercised, let them be exercised by the immigration officers who already have considerable experience. They will have enough added to their job as it is, but at least they will be able to co-ordinate it with and relate it to the powers they have been exercising in the past. If it is really necessary in order to make this Bill operate effectively and to do the things contemplated by this subsection, then it is merely one more formidable reason for saying that the Bill should never have been introduced.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Donald Chapman (Birmingham, Northfield)

May I say without offence to anyone that I hope we shall be very brief today. It will be a tragedy if the Committee stage of the Bill finishes without the Schedules being discussed. That is a grave danger that we are in. I shall, therefore, try to keep my speech as brief as possible.

Our general reputation as a country depends on the Bill as a whole, but our immediate reputation, the way in which the world looks at British immigration policy, will depend on how we arrange things under the Bill at the ports. For that reason, I wish to put three points to the Home Secretary.

First, may we have an assurance that the immigration officers who will be appointed under this subsection will not be uniformed? One of the good things about our immigration system is this. If we pass through it at London Airport or at the docks, as we come in we are met by people in civilian clothes, who hand us our passports. I do not want Britain to follow other countries in having, as it were. a Gestapo-like ring round our ports and airports of uniformed people who appear to have a great deal of power, perhaps a great deal of power which they should not have, because they are wearing uniforms. I hope that we shall continue the strong tradition of having courteous men dressed in civilian clothes to meet us at the ports and to meet immigrants.

Secondly, I should like an assurance that as soon as this system is operating there will be a check to make sure that there are enough such men. One of the tragedies in all countries is to see the queues of people at immigration desks at ports and airports. We as British citizens, when we land here, go through the Customs fairly quickly, because it is merely a matter of making sure that we are British citizens and that we are not on a stop list. But imagine the difficulty which will be created when all British passports have to be examined separately. It will be terrible if we have those long queues of people which sometimes pile up at ports and airports in many other countries.

May we have a specific assurance that things will be worked out properly so that they go like clockwork when people from the Commonwealth come here? If only one entry permit or passport is in dispute, that may mean delaying 50 to 200 people. If, as I have often seen, only one man is dealing with one aeroplane-load of passengers—it is not the fault of the officials; it is merely the way in which things often work out at London Airport—then some people may have to wait for an hour before getting through. This sort of thing must not happen.

My last point concerns Customs officers. Unless I am ill-informed, I am under the impression that the Customs service has not any spare men. I understand that it is not over-manned, like those highly-paid, lucrative positions in our society which are attracting an excess of labour. I do not want passengers and travellers other than immigrants to be delayed because Customs officers who can ill be spared are seconded to do the work of immigration officers. That will only give us a very bad reputation in the world.

If we can have a general assurance that every attempt will be made to show humanity, speed and efficiency at the ports combined with assurances on the three points which I have raised, we may be able to feel a little happier that this system will work without too much difficulty

Mr. Laurence Pavitt (Willesden, West)

I do not wish unduly to delay the Committee, but merely to follow a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I do not wish to repeat the arguments which have been advanced for the exclusion of this provision, but I think that we should have same assurance about how the Customs officers will be selected.

My hon. Friends have made it clear that the job of Customs and Excise officers is quite complicated, and one for which the men concerned have to have a considerable amount of training. If some of them are taken from their Customs work to become immigration officers, the Government must either alter their training so that every Customs and Excise officer is trained as an immigration officer as well, or there must be a different grade of Customs and Excise officer who is capable of doing immigration work. A change from the present procedure is proposed, and it seems unworkable.

I should like an assurance from the Government Front Bench that they have considered the implications of retaining this part of the Clause and have some specific ways and means whereby, if the Home Secretary decides that he should have recourse to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, he knows what he will ask for and that the men he asks for will be qualified to do the job for which he wants them.

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

The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) did a useful service by tabling his Amendment. It does not raise such momentous matters as he would have led the Committee to believe, but I am glad of this opportunity to explain how this matter of using Customs officers will work. The practice of using them to do this work has been tried for many years under the Aliens Order. It has been found satisfactory and helpful. May I say at once, to remove any misconception, that they will not be used generally. They will be used only casually and occasionally.

Under existing arrangements, Customs officers act on behalf of immigration officers at some small seaports and at same airports which take mainly internal traffic, and they are employed at those seaports and airports because enough goods arrive from abroad to make it worth while having a Customs officer at them. But not a sufficient number of aliens arrive at those ports to make it worth while having an immigration officer there. We should not expect that enough Commonwealth citizens would arrive at those small ports to make it worthwhile having an immigration officer.

May I give examples of the ports involved? I have two examples, Ramsgate, in Kent, and Par, in Cornwall. Valley, in Anglesey, is an example of a small internal airport at which there is an immigration officer. There are one or two other examples. When Customs officers are acting casually and occasionally in those places they receive the same administrative instructions from my right hon. Friend as the immigration officers receive. In future, they will receive instructions in the same way.

With the aid of those instructions, they are able to deal with the straightforward cases, but they refer cases of doubt, by telephone in the first instance, to an immigration inspector. An immigration inspector is merely one of the grades above an immigration officer. An important point to remember is that we have a definite rule, which we shall continue to operate, that no Customs officer may refuse anyone leave to land in this country without consulting an immigration inspector.

I now turn to one or two of the detailed points which have been raised. I was asked what consultations there have been with the Customs officers. Of course, we would not deal directly with them. We have had consultations with the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.

I was also asked about searches of women. The hon. Member for Islington, East was quite right in saying that women should be searched only by women. In this respect, in a sense, the Customs Service has an advantage over the Immigration Service, because it employs women specially for searching women for Customs purposes. These women are also available for search for immigration purposes.

Mr. S. Silverman

I am not quite clear on this point. The Customs authorities make their own arrangements, but under the Bill only the immigration officer is to have power to search. Presumably he will not be allowed to delegate that power. My hon. Friend's question has not been answered by the Minister.

Mr. Renton

I know that there has been no difficulty about this in practice, because there has been authority under the Aliens Order for the immigration officer to employ women police or women officials for the purpose of searching women. I will make sure on this point in order to satisfy hon. Members that the arrangements are properly tied up in the same way for the purposes of the Bill.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

I wish to be clear about this matter. Sub section (2) of the Clause deals with immigration officers and not with Customs, although it provides for Customs officers to be used as immigration officers. What are they to search for if they are Customs officers acting as immigration officers? What is the search about?

Mr. Renton

If the hon. Gentleman refers to paragraph 1 (3) of the First Schedule, he will see that it contains a power to search for documents.

Mr. Fletcher

Before we leave this question of search by women officers, is the hon. and learned Gentleman telling us that there are women Customs officers at Par and other outlying places in Anglesey and elsewhere?

Mr. Renton

Yes. I understand that wherever the Customs has arrangements for examining goods coming into the country—wherever there is a Customs officer—there is a woman officer employed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to carry out any searches of women which may be necessary.

Mr. Fletcher

The hon. and learned Gentleman refers to a "woman officer". Is she a Customs officer? Unless she is, she will not come within Clause 16, and there is the risk that women immigrants will be stripped and searched by men unless there is a woman Customs officer.

Mr. Renton

She is not a Customs officer, but a woman employed by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. It is a very fine distinction.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has fully appreciated our point, or perhaps we are at fault. In the aliens law, there is no doubt that a search will be carried out by a woman officer employed or directed by an immigration officer to do it. It is conceded that it is the Government's intention that under the Bill a woman shall not be searched except by a woman. The doubt that arises is whether, in the Bill, there is any power to implement that intention, because it says that only a Customs officer can search. Unless there are women Customs officers, this cannot be carried out.

Mr. Renton

This is quite a simple point and it is all in order. I must not anticipate too much, but if hon. Members will turn to the First Schedule they will see that paragraph 1 (5) deals with a number of matters concerning the powers of an immigration officer, including the question of search, and that it says that his powers may be exercised also…in the case of the powers of search conferred by sub-paragraph (3), by an person acting under the directions of an immigration officer. I think that that clears the matters up.

4.15 p.m.

The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) asked how a Customs officer or an immigration officer was to be identified as a person who has the right to exercise the powers under the Bill. A warrant of authority to act in accordance with the Bill will be issued. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) asked a related question about the wearing of uniforms. He suggested that there is a tradition of courtesy on the part of officials wearing civilian clothes, but rather implied that it was different when officials were wearing uniforms.

Mr. Chapman


Mr. Renton

I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member will agree that British officials are no less courteous when wearing uniform than when wearing civilian clothes.

Mr. Chapman

Are these officials to wear uniforms?

Mr. Renton

The hon. Gentleman also said—and I hope that he was in order—that he wanted these arrangements to go like clockwork. He has almost taken the words out of our mouths in saying that. We also want them to go like clockwork, but he gave London Airport as an example of a place where passengers coming in are examined by one official per plane. If that has been true in recent years, it is not true now. It is a long time since that happened. If he cares to come with me on any day he likes to name, and without warning, he will see that the arrangements are working like clockwork, handling an increased amount of traffic.

Mr. Chapman

I agree.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Gentleman also asked about staffing. He will see, from the description I gave earlier, the very limited amount of work under the Bill that Customs officers will have to do. They are the people who are at these small ports. Indeed, no additional Customs officers will be required, but more immigration officers will be needed.

Mr. Chapman

What about uniforms? The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered that question.

Mr. Renton

Immigration officers have never worn uniforms and will not do so. Customs officers have worn uniforms and will continue to do so.

We can summarise this interesting and useful discussion by saying that, if we were to accept the Amendment, we should be faced with a considerable dilemma. Either we would have to post immigration officers to places where there was not nearly enough work for them to do because there would not be enough passengers—in which case it would be wasteful to employ them there—or we would have to leave these places completely unmanned by anyone to carry out the power of examining immigrants. That might well become an attractive way of circumventing the control. It is best to let the Customs men have the power they have used so carefully and without trouble for so many years.

Mr. S. Silverman

Will the hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that I was right in my interpretation that it is not the Home Secretary's intention to appoint a special class of immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill, except on those occasions when he appoints Customs officers to do the job?

Mr. Renton

Yes, that is quite true.

Mr. Fletcher

I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's reply to mean that normally Customs officers will not act as immigration officers—in other words, at none of the great ports or airports will they ever have to act as immigration officers—and that the use of Customs officers will be limited to these out of the way places. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Pavitt

I beg to move, in page 11, in line 27, at the end to insert: being duly qualified medical practitioners. This is a small but an extremely vital Amendment, and I hope that the Government will accept it. The provisions of Part I of the Bill have made it quite clear that one of the most important aspects of the Bill is the ability, for health reasons, to stop Commonwealth citizens from coming into this country. This is an extremely vital thing for the person wishing to come here.

We have discussed previously in Committee the effect which this could have on the whole livelihood and future of a man and his family by the fact that when he reaches our shores he finds that, for health reasons, he is excluded. Therefore, it is vitally important that every safeguard we can possibly insert into the Bill shall be made to make sure that, if a Commonwealth citizen is excluded for health reasons, those reasons are extremely valid ones. Although, in Clause 16, we use the term "medical inspectors" it is obvious that if a medical examination has to be made, and a medical decision has to be reached, it must be done by a qualified medical practitioner.

It might be thought that this could be taken for granted, but I am surprised at the way in which, in other fields, some unqualified medical practice takes place. I was even surprised recently in the House to find that a medical service for hon. Members is the responsibility, in the first instance, of the Metropolitan Police, worthy though they are, being trained in first aid.

In consequence, I am rather concerned lest we shall have a situation at ports or airports in which a State registered nurse—and, again, I defer to nobody in my appreciation of the work which State registered nurses can do—or people with these qualifications, shall have to decide whether or not a person is fit on medical grounds to enter this country under the provisions of the Bill.

One of the provisions specifically mentioned in Part I deals with mental disorder, and it seems that, even if we have a qualified medical practitioner, it is extremely difficult, in the case of a person coming into this country, to diagnose within a short time whether mental disorder is present or absent. The question of normality has been discussed from time to time, and the question of how many of us are normal or abnormal. It has been suggested that any person who arrives at this place must be a little bit out of the ordinary; otherwise, he would never come here.

People wishing to enter this country, if they are to be examined as to mental stability, need to be examined by people who are qualified to declare in that respect. Already, in other aspects of public life, we have very sure safeguards in legislation passed from time to time about due qualifications, and these are inserted to safeguard the individual from a wrongful decision.

The other question that arises here is the fact that there is at present a shortage of doctors. It could be that, in the same way as we have learned from the discussion on the previous Clause that there may be a shortage of immigration officers, who will have to be buttressed by Customs and Excise officers, so there may be, whatever the intentions of the Government, a shortage of qualified doctors, who will have to be buttressed by medical orderlies of one description or another, who will be given charge in certain circumstances and be doing this specific job.

It will be extremely unjust and unfair to immigrants coming to this country if it happens that, merely by chance or accident, at the place at which one arrives, he may get a fully qualified medical practitioner, while in another place it is a medical orderly, a State registered nurse, or somebody with some medical knowledge but who could not, in any sense of the term, be called a qualified medical practitioner.

This is rather aggravated when, at the moment, we rely, in the National Health Service particularly, on doctors who are coming from the Commonwealth countries to serve in our hospitals, or in general practice, or with the local health authorities. It would be the height of folly to ask somebody from Pakistan or Jamaica to come here and accept a post as senior hospital officer or junior registrar, and, when he gets here, to find that he is excluded by a medical orderly or somebody who is not as qualified medically as he himself may be.

For these and other cogent reasons, with which I do not want to weary the Committee—I do not want to go into the whole question of the General Medical Council and all the other aspects that can arise in connection with people described as fully qualified medical practitioners—I think that the case is sufficiently made for the Amendment. We should have the absolute assurance that in no circumstances shall a situation arise at any time or at any place in which an immigrant can be excluded from entering this country by somebody who is not a fully qualified medical practitioner.

Mr. Renton

My advice to the Committee is to accept this Amendment. There is a very short point which I should put in advising the Committee to accept it. The Amendment refers only to "duly qualified medical practitioners". There is a precedent for using that expression in statutes, and we are not likely to go wrong in using it here. Strictly speaking, it would have been better to have referred to "registered medical practitioners", but, as there is precedent for both expressions, there can be no harm in accepting the one which the hon. Member chose.

Amendment agreed to.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. C. Royle

I beg to move in page 11, line 36, at the end to insert: The power to give intructions under this subsection shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any statutory instrument setting out such instructions shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. We have discussed two very important Amendment this afternoon, and I am grateful that the Home Secretary has seen fit to accept the one which has just been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt). Here, I think it fair to say, we come to something a little more important than the two previous ones, because there is involved here a parliamentary principle which we on this side of the Committee desire to press.

I personally have been so concerned about the Bill from the moment that it was mentioned in the Queen's Speech that I made up my mind that I would have a look at the situation in some of the countries from which our immigrants come. Accordingly, I spent the Christmas Recess in Jamaica and in the West Indies generally. I was amazed by the terrible confusion in that part of the Commonwealth about the terms of the Bill.

Time after time the Home Secretary has spoken of a liberal application of the Bill. We take his word for it, but, at the same time, there is deep anxiety. The Amendment is designed to achieve another important safeguard. Parliament has been concerned about the new principle of erecting barriers against immigrants from the Commonwealth, and it is only right and proper that it should have an opportunity of saying something about the instructions which are to be given to imigration officers. Here we are dealing not with the actions of immigration officers, but with the instructions which the right hon. Gentleman will give to them.

The right hon. Gentleman has said that before Report he will tell us what those instructions are to be, but that is hardly sufficient, for this is a very important matter on which Parliament should have an opportunity to express itself. While many of us trust the right hon. Gentleman implicitly, and hope that his instructions will be in accordance with the liberal application of which he has spoken, it is not unfair to ask that those instructions should be presented to Parliament. I know of our rush to get things through, and I do not want to talk too long, but a major principle is involved and I want Parliament to have an opportunity of being able fully to debate the instructions which the right hon. Gentleman will ultimately give to his immigration officers.

Mr. Chapman

I support the Amendment by referring to Clause 17 (4)—from which the words of the Amendment under discussion are taken, so that there can be no misunderstanding about drafting—under which the Secretary of State's powers to grant exemptions are to be exercised by means of a Statutory Instrument. The power to give instructions to immigration officers, by which whole sections of people in borderline cases will be excluded, is on all fours with the sort of exemptions which the Home Secretary will be able to make under Clause 17 (4). If it is right for the power to make exemptions to be contained in Statutory Instruments, and thus subject to consideration by Parliament, these important instructions should also be the subject of a Statutory Instrument.

It is not a bad thing to have every possible Parliamentary safeguard and opportunity to raise these matters. If, after a few months' operation, there are amendments to these instructions, as there may be, and an amending Statutory Instrument has to be laid, it is important that we should have the opportunity as well as the safeguard of raising the subject of the administration of the Bill in Parliament.

We have already taken the Home Secretary with us a long way in that he has finally agreed to publish these instructions. I hope that he will now go a step further and agree that there would be no harm if we formalised them so that these important issues of British citizenship and Britain's reputation in the Commonwealth and the rest of the world could be discussed in the House, and so that the House could have the opportunity of annulling the Statutory Instrument containing the instructions.

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

I have already undertaken that the general instructions to immigration officers about categories of persons to be admitted shall be published as a White Paper between the Committee and Report stages of the Bill. I take this opportunity to tell the Committee that I hope that that White Paper will be available on Friday. I think that that implements my undertaking.

The Amendment would go further than that and would require all instructions to take the form of a Statutory Instrument, which would be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. The proposal is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the instructions. They are, in the nature of things, working rules as to the actions which immigration officers should take in certain specified circumstances and, as hon. Members will see when they read these instructions before the weekend, they are not expressed in legal or formal language. They would be useless for their purpose if they were. It has been a considerable departure from precedent to publish them at all, although I have been only too glad to do so. But I think that some informality in the relationship between the Secretary of State and his officers should be preserved.

It will also be necessary from time to time to adjust the instructions in the light of experience of working the Bill. Anybody who has held the office of Secretary of State must know of the particularly intimate relationship between the Secretary of State and his officers. It would not even be fair to Parliament to have to go through the formality of making a Statutory Instrument every time a minor change in the instructions was made. I recognise the interest of hon. Members in the instructions, and information about changes of any consequence which are to be made will always be made known to Parliament, but I think that the Statutory Instrument form is inappropriate.

We are waiting until the end of the Committee stage to publish the instructions so as to be able to amend them up to the last minute in the light of points which arise in our debates. Final approval will be given by myself late tonight, or early tomorrow morning, when we have concluded the Committee stage of the Bill. The Amendment as drafted refers to all instructions, whether general or particular, but the instructions which we are publishing will not cover absolutely every case. The Committee will realise that we would not publish instructions in cases of security. Otherwise, however, they would generally cover all the points, in which hon. Members have shown interest, namely, those relating to students, wives, residents, and the way to handle all types and categories who come in.

I hope that the instructions will be of value to the Committee. I recognise the legitimate interest in them which hon. Members have shown and I hope that the steps I have taken are appropriate for a discussion by the House, for, presumably, the instructions will be able to be discussed either on Report or, as I hope, if the Chair so rules, on Third Reading. It is a matter for the Chair, but I do not see why such discussion should not be in order on both occasions, if further discussion is desired.

I consider that it would be wrong to take this action by Statutory Instrument and I hope that I have already met the wishes of the Committee by agreeing to publish the instructions.

Mr. Fletcher

I regret that the Home Secretary has not accepted the Amendment, because, as our discussions on the Bill have shown, we attach the greatest importance to what is contained in these instructions, and we think that we should have the fullest measure of parliamentary control over them.

We appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has met us to some extent by saying that he will publish the instructions before the Report stage, but since they are not to be laid in a form that will be available for normal discussion, such as a Statutory Instrument, this is the only occasion before they are published to put certain points to the Home Secretary about them.

The right hon. Gentleman said last week, and repeated today, that one of the reasons why he is holding up publication of the instructions to immigration officers is that he wants to take account of what is said during the Committee stage, and, therefore, I invite him to clear up a point I made a little while ago with regard to the highly ambiguous statement of the Attorney-General last week.

The Attorney-General, in resisting our Amendment that there should be an appellate tribunal to decide finally whether an intending immigrant was eligible under Clause 2 (2), because he was student, or because he had a job to go to, or because he could prove that he had some means of supporting himself in this country, said: In many cases, admission may be refused not on account of any personal idiosyncrasies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted to the country for that particular time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.] Will the Home Secretary therefore please take this opportunity of saying whether he accepts or repudiates that statement?

Are we to understand that some perfectly deserving eligible immigrants will be told that they will not be admitted for reasons which have no relation whatever to their personal claims, and, as I submit, their personal rights to admission, but will be rejected because, in the opinion of the Home Office, sufficient numbers have already been admitted? Will the Home Secretary please take this opportunity of telling us whether the number of immigrants who will be allowed in over and above those who are entitled to come in under Clause 2 will be announced in these instructions to the immigration officers and whether the number will be made public to the House, and how the immigrants will know whether they will be refused admission?

As the Attorney-General said that they may be refused permission to enter not because of personal idiosyncrasies, but because of the totally adventituous fact that a certain number of people have already been admitted in the last month, or last quarter, or whatever period the Home Office may decide. This is something about which we must be informed.

Mr. S. Silverman

With a great deal of reluctance I am constrained to admit that there is some force in the Home Secretary's argument about making these instructions subject to annulment in some kind of statutory form. I am not sure that it establishes the case anything like completely to the satisfaction of my hon. Friend, but I see some point in it.

I cannot follow the right hon. Gentleman in what he said about the opportunity to discuss the instructions when he has published them in the form of a White Paper. He concedes by his argument the desirability that the House should have an opportunity of discussing them, and on that we are in agreement, and there is no need to take up the time of the Committee to argue it further. But having conceded the desirability that the House should have that opportunity, I find myself unable to follow the right hon. Gentleman in his prognostications of how the opportunity will arise.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that it would be a matter for the Chair, and far be it from me to try to impose further limitations on our debate. I should like to think that the Home Secretary is right and that they will be so discussed, but for the moment I cannot see how. On Third Reading, we are limited to discussing matters which are in the Bill, and, as the Home Secretary has insisted throughout our discussions that these instructions cannot be in the Bill, it is difficult to follow his reasoning when he says that we will be able to discuss them on Third Reading. If the right hon. Gentleman carries his point that the instructions shall not be in the Bill, he is, by implication, saying that we cannot discuss them on Third Reading. I say no more about that, because at the moment I cannot see any reply to that argument.

4.45 p.m.

The other opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman suggested for discussion was on Report, On Report, we do not have the opportunity of any general discussion on the Clauses. We have only a set of Amendments on the Notice Paper, and even these are subject to selection by the Chair. Unless, on Report an Amendment designed to bring the instructions into the Bill is tabled—and this, ex hypothesi, is excluded already—there cannot be such a discussion. I am, therefore, at the moment at a loss to understand how on Report, or on Third Reading, the House will have the opportunity which the Home Secretary concedes that it ought to have to discuss the instructions when he has published them after the conclusion of the Committee stage.

It seems to me that there is an incapacity in the House to do what everyone, including the Home Secretary, wants to do, namely, to have a general opportunity of debating as a whole and in detail the instructions that are to appear in the White Paper and which the Home Secretary is ultimately to give.

I am ready to be satisfied that there will be an opportunity to discuss the instructions, but before expressing an opinion as to whether my hon. Friend should divide the Committee on his Amendment, I should like to hear a good deal more of how this opportunity for discussion will arise.

Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)

I hope that there will be adequate opportunity to discuss these instructions. I should have thought that it would have been possible to discuss them on Third Reading, or on Report if the appropriate Amendment were tabled, and I hope that the opportunity will arise.

The question I want to put to the right hon. Gentleman arises out of the observations of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). Would not it be practicable to make same distinction between instructions dealing with the day-to-day duties of the immigration officers, and those involving important questions of policy? In the latter case, surely it is not sufficient merely to inform the House. I am thinking of an instruction involving quotas, to which the hon. Member for Islington, East referred. Surely the quotas should be decided by the House.

There should be some procedure, perhaps by way of an affirmative Resolution, whereby the House could express an opinion, but I recognise that it would be difficult to deal with instructions relating to day-to-day duties by Statutory Instrument. Can some way be found of drawing a distinction between those two types of instruction?

Mr. R. A. Butler

The hon. Member for Nelson and Come (Mr. S. Silverman) paid me the compliment, I think for the first time for some years, of agreeing with what I said. He went so far as to say that there was some force in my argument, and I therefore feel very much flattered.

The hon. Gentleman raised a good point about the opportunity for debate. I hasten to repeat what I said about a debate on Third Reading, that it is entirely a matter for the Chair. My experience is not as great as that of the Chair, but I believe that it will be possible to discuss this; but it is, of course, a matter for the Chair.

On Report, it will be possible for an hon. Member on either side of the House to table an Amendment which would bring the discussion of these instructions into order. I do not know whether the Opposition now intend to serve on the Business Committee which will consider the Report stage of the Bill. If their objections to the Bill are so strong that they cannot bring themselves to attend the Business Committee, I will make myself available for discussions with them on how this can be done.

It is clearly in the interest of the Committee and, when we come to all the considerations, in the interests of the House that hon. Members' views on this document, which is not very long, should be taken, and they would be of great value to the Government and to myself. I shall make myself available for any discussions with hon. Members on both sides of the House in relation to an opportunity on Report, leaving the question of an opportunity on Third Reading to be decided by the Chair. I hope that hon. Members will regard that as a fair offer at this stage.

I do not think that all the arguments of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) were in order on this Amendment. I am perfectly ready to answer them as best I can, provided that we do not get into a general discussion of Clause 2, which I hope will be further discussed on Report stage. I hope that in arranging our business for the Report stage we will give more time to Clause 2. The hon. Gentleman referred to the remarks of the Attorney-General, and I can only say that, in column 354 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, if he will turn to the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill, he will see the following words: The intention is that vouchers for this purpose will be issued to persons who can show that they have a job to come to, to those who possess training, skill or educational qualifications likely to be useful to this country, and to applicants outside these categories subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary. It is this last quota, as I understand it, to which my right hon. and learned Friend was referring. If that enlightens the hon. Gentleman in any way, that is the best answer that I can give at short notice on this point. I underline the words in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum: …subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary. We must reserve this as a Government decision, and that is the answer to the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).

Mr. Fletcher

In order that the immigrants may know where they stand, will the Home Secretary tell us when he will announce what these numerical limits are to be? Will they also be made public so that we in the House of Commons and the intending immigrants may know what the quota is to be?

Mr. Butler

I cannot take that further an this occasion, or indeed for a long time ahead, because it must be according to circumstances. As I said in an earlier speech in Committee, we wish to ensure for these people socially and economically a good position in these islands, and we can only decide these things when we take these matters into consideration at the time. I cannot give any particular figures at this stage.

Mr. Fletcher

Surely these figures will be given to the immigration officers or they will not know when the limit has been reached which will entitle them to refuse admission. Are these instructions to immigration officers about the numbers to be contained in these instructions, and is this information to be made public?

Mr. Butler

We cannot reach a decision about the exact total number of immigrants that may be desirable until we have seen the first operations of the Act and the workings of categories A and B, that is the person who can get a definite job, the person who is skilled and the person who is educationally qualified. We cannot say how the Bill will work and what the internal situation in the country will be until the Bill is in operation. We intend to operate it in a liberal way, but we cannot lay this down ahead.

Mr. George Brown (Belper)

In saying that, the Home Secretary is giving away the case for the Amendment. If he is allowed to do this administratively at any stage he may choose, or for any reasons he may choose and for any number he may choose, and there is no way by which the House of Commons may call him to book and ask him to explain or defend, we are handing over to the Executive an enormous power.

The Home Secretary has not told us why he should be entitled to do this. It seems to me that he has done this deliberately because he could not possibly avoid, in any other way, the argument being put from this side. If the instructions to be given under the subsection have in some form to come before the House of Commons, then the Home Secretary, who may well think that he is being liberal, but may not quite appear in that guise to everybody else, has to prove his liberality. If the instructions do not have to come before the House of Commons, then there can be enormous room for hole-in-the-corner methods.

It does not seem to me that the Home Secretary has made his case at all. It may be that there is a case for him having this power. I express no opinion on that, but if he thinks that there is surely he must be prepared to defend its exercise. He cannot be asked to defend it unless his exercise of it is made subject to a discussion in the House of Commons.

The Amendment is not of a very revolutionary kind. It asks that any instruction given in this way shall be subject to annulment, that is, to the negative Resolution procedure. We were all very touched with the anxiety with which the right hon. Gentleman accepted the accolade from the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but that I was not very clear from the way in which it was bestowed, that it was an accolade and I think that the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman rather emphasised his isolation at this moment.

There is not much in the Amendment. It merely asks that the Home Secretary shall be able to issue his instructions, shall be able to make his decisions and shall, if the House of Commons calls upon him to do so—this is what the annulment procedure means; it does not mean that he has to come here to do it—be ready to defend them.

The Attorney-General, who is apt to lurch rather more bluntly into these things than the Home Secretary does in his more deliberate way, made it clear on 6th February that there will be many cases, not some, not the odd case but many cases, where admission may be refused on issues which have nothing to do with the individuals, but have to do with the Government's decision about the number of people who may be admitted. I should have thought that there was no issue which the Government could more properly be called upon to defend than an arbitrary decision that a certain number is the right one.

I ask the Home Secretary to look at this matter again. So far, he has put forward no argument in its defence. He used the words "at this short notice", so I presume that he meant that he had not thought about it before. We are very sorry about that and we are prepared to give him more time to think about it. All that he has said is that at this short notice his decision is that this matter should not be challengeable in the House of Commons. I ask him, as a House of Commons man with a great feeling for this place, whether he can think of any other issues which ought to be as challengeable in the House of Commons as this. I ask him to think again about this and to give us an opportunity to challenge any decision which the Executive may make about numbers by allowing us to make this subject to the negative Resolution procedure.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the Amendment. If he cannot do so this afternoon, I hope that he will keep in mind the possibility of incorporating it in the Bill on Report. My right hon. Friend said that my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) conferred the accolade on the Home Secretary. I can only say that when the sword gets near him it will be moving horizontally and not vertically.

I do not believe that the House will be without its resources, even if the Home Secretary is obstinate, because every one of these acts will be an administrative act, and it will always be possible on a Supply Day to raise the question of his salary and to devote some time to a consideration of any action he takes under this provision. Parliamentary Questions are nothing more than nuisances to a Minister; I want to be able to do something that will put him in jeopardy—the sword moving horizontally.

Let us suppose that we have a quota system, and that we have reached the last two vacancies, and that one immigrant appears at Liverpool, another at Southampton, and a third at London Airport. A servant of the Minister will have to decide how to deal with that position. The possibilities of administrative difficulty are so great that it would obviously be wise if the Amendment were embodied in the Bill at some stage, so that we could have a proper discussion in a general way.

Mr. S. Silverman

I am not sure that I follow all the geometrical arguments advanced by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I know nothing about accolades. I do not want to add to anything that I have said, or to derogate from it. The difficulty about the Amendment, in relation to the argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown), is that it would not meet his point.

It is true that such an important matter as this should be subjected to the opinion of the House and, if possible, to a vote—and it ought to be possible to defeat the Government if they arrive at the wrong quota, or administer the provision in the wrong way. If we accept the Amendment we would certainly oblige the Government to put all their instructions into a Statutory Instrument and submit them to be discussed here, but a discussion is all that we would get, because under the procedure of a Motion to annul a Statutory Instrument we can cast out the lot or accept the lot, but we cannot amend. We should never succeed in getting a vote on the point which my hon. and right hon. Friends wail to be dealt with.

There is a great deal of force in what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) said about trying to find some way of distinguishing between one class of instruction and another, so that all the administrative points can be dealt with in the way the Government want, subject to the House's finding the opportunity of discussing them at some stage before we part with the Bill, while the other class of instructions, which go to the root of the matter and involve important questions of policy, will have to be introduced by way of Statutory Instrument, one by one, and separately.

Mr. G. Brown

I am following my hon. Friend's argument with great interest. As I understand it, he is asking the Committee not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Silverman

indicated dissent.

Mr. Brown

As I understand it, he is saying that the Amendment would not do what we want it to, which I take it to be advice to the Committee not to accept it. Does not my hon. Friend agree that if the Amendment were accepted there would be a Parliamentary opportunity to discuss it, whereas if it is defeated there will be none?

Mr. Silverman

My right hon. Friend was not here during the earlier part of the discussion or he would not have fallen into the error that he has made. I have never advised the Committee not to accept the Amendment. If it decides to divide upon it I shall support it, and vote with hon. Members on this side of the Committee. All I said was that over a wide area of these instructions the argument of the Home Secretary had some force in it.

What I am now trying to do—and I am trying to be helpful—is to find some way in which we can distinguish between those instructions which ought to be discussed by the House but which nevertheless are administrative matters for the Minister, and those which involve important questions of policy, in connection with which the House rather than the Government should have an opportunity not merely of discussion but of decision.

Mr. Chapman

The unfortunate thing is that under the guillotine procedure an Amendment which would have done precisely what my hon. Friend wanted was never discussed. It was an Amendment to Clause 2, which would have subjected to this Statutory Instrument procedure all decisions concerning the number of vouchers and the quota. I hope that my hon. Friend will now tell the Home Secretary that while he agrees with him about not being able to have detailed instructions in the form of Statutory Instruments, the right hon. Gentleman should nevertheless keep his mind open to the possibility of accepting an Amendment on Report concerning the Statutory Instrument procedure and the quota system under Clause 2.

Mr. Silverman

My hon. Friend is quite right. I will go a little further than he is inviting me to go. If the Amendment it withdrawn the Home Secretary should undertake, on Report, to accept some such Amendment as that to which my hon. Friend has referred. Then everybody would be satisfied. We would have a general opportunity of discussing the broad field of all instructions, and an additional legislative opportunity to deal with these special matters which involve important questions of policy, as and when the Government make up their mind about what powers they want. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept that suggestion.

Mr. C. Royle

I confess that I am very unhappy with the reply of the Home Secretary. He read his answer, which was most unusual for him. The impression I received was that he had got something in writing that he was going to say before he heard the arguments put forward by hon. Members on this side of the Committee. I very much regret that fact.

I want, first, to deal with the quota question. When I was in Jamaica one of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends made a statement to the Press there saying that it was the Government's intention to have a quota of 40,000 immigrants. I do not know how this could possibly be worked, but I got the impression that a supporter of the Government had some knowledge of their intentions in the matter. If a Conservative back bencher can think of a set figure I have a feeling that the Government also have that figure in mind.

My other point concerns procedure. I am a member of the Chairman's Panel, and I cannot think for a moment that Mr. Speaker would agree to our discussing something of this character in a Third Reading debate. It is not contained in the Bill, and it will not be

contained in it when we reach the Third Reading.

It is obvious that another Amendment will have to be moved on Report. What is the use of our arguing about it now? Why cannot the Amendment accepted, instead of our having to wait for the Report stage? We have had no assurance that the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to put down such an Amendment, even if the wording is changed. Unless we can have this assurance I must ask my hon. Friends to press the matter to a Division.

Question put, That those words, be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 191, Noes 256.

Division No. 83.] AYES [5.10 p.m.
Abse, Leo Gourlay, Harry Mayhew, Christopher.
Alnsley, William Grey, Charles Meillsh, R. J.
Albu, Austen Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mendelson, J. J.
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Millan, Bruce
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Milne, Edward J.
Awbery, Stan Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mitchison, G. R.
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hamilton, William (West Fife) Monslow, Walter
Beaney, Alan Hannan, William Morris, John
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J. Hart, Mrs. Judith Moyle, Arthur
Bence, Cyril Hayman, F. H. Neal, Harold
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Healey, Denis Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Benson, Sir George Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Oliver, G. H.
Blackburn, F. Herbison, Miss Margaret Oram, A. E.
Blyton, William Hill, J. (Midlothian) Oswald, Thomas
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.) Hilton, A. V. Owen, Will
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Holman, Percy Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Bowles, Frank Holt, Arthur Parker, John
Boyden, James Houghton, Douglas Parkin, B. T.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Paton, John
Brockway, A. Fenner Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Pavitt, Laurence
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hoy, James H. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Peart, Frederick
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Pentland, Norman
Callaghan, James Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Popplewell, Ernest
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Hunter, A. E. Prentice, R. E.
Chapman, Donald Hynd, H. (Accrington) Probert, Arthur
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Proctor, W. T.
Cronin, John Janner, Sir Barnett Randall, Harry
Crosland, Anthony Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Rankin, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jeger, George Redhead, E. C.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Rhodes, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Deer, George Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Ross, William
Delargy, Hugh Kelley, Richard Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Dempsey, James Kenyon, Clifford Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Diamond, John Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Short, Edward
Dodds, Norman Ledger, Ron Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Driberg, Tom Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Skeffington, Arthur
Edelman, Maurice Lipton, Marcus Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Loughlin, Charles Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Small, William
Evans, Albert McCann, John Snow, Julian
Fletcher, Eric MacColl, James Sorensen, R. W.
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) McInnes, James Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Spriggs, Leslie
Forman, J. C. MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Steele, Thomas
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mahon, Simon Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Stonehouse, John
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Manuel, A. C. Stones, William
Ginsburg, David Mapp, Charles Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mason, Roy Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Symonds, J. B. Warbey, William Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Watkins, Tudor Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) Weitzman, David Winter bottom, R. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Wells, Percy (Faversham) Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Woof, Robert
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) Whitlock, William Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Thorpe, Jeremy Wilkins, W. A. Zilliacus, K.
Timmons, John Willey, Frederick
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Williams, D. J. (Neath) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wade, Donald Williams, LI. (Abertillery) Mr. Sydney Irving and
Wainwright, Edwin Williams, W. R. (Openshaw) Mr. Lawson,
Agnew, Sir Peter Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Litchfield, Capt. John
[...] W. T. Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.) Errington, Sir Eric Longbottom, Charles
Allason, James Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Longden, Gilbert
Arbuthnot, John Farey-Jones, F. W. Loveys, Walter H.
Atkins, Humphrey Farr, John Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Barber, Anthony Finlay, Graeme Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Barlow, Sir John Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McAdden, Stephen
Barter, John Forrest, George MacArthur, Ian
Batsford, Brian Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Freeth, Denzil Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton Gammans, Lady Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.)
Bell, Ronald Gibson-Watt, David Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Gilmour, Sir John MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Berkeley, Humphry Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) McMaster, Stanley R.
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald Goodhew, Victor Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Biffen, John Gough, Frederick Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Biggs-Davison, John Gower, Raymond Maddan, Martin
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Grant, Rt. Hon. William Maginnis, John E.
Bishop, P. P. Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Black, Sir Cyril Green, Alan Markham, Major Sir Frank
Bossom, Clive Gurden, Harold Marten, Nell
Bourne-Arton, A. Hall, John (Wycombe) Mawby, Ray
Box, Donald Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J- Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Mills, Stratton
Boyle, Sir Edward Harris, Reader (Heston) Montgomery, Fergus
Braine, Bernard Harrison, Brian (Maldon) More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Brewis, John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Morgan, William
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Morrison, John
Brooman-White, R. Hastings, Stephen Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hay, John Nabarro, Gerald
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Bryan, Paul Hendry, Forbes Nugent, Sir Richard
Buck, Antony Hiley, Joseph Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Bullard, Denys Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Osborn, John (Hallam)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden) Hocking, Philip N. Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Holland, Philip Page, Graham (Crosby)
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hollingworth, John Page, John (Harrow, West)
Cary, Sir Robert Hopkins, Alan Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Channon, H. P. G. Hornby, R. P. Pearson, Prank (Clitheroe)
Chataway, Christopher Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Peel, John
Chichester-Clark, R. Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Percival, Ian
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Peyton, John
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Hughes-Young, Michael Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hutchison, Michael Clark Pilkington, Sir Richard
Cleaver, Leonard Iremonger, T. L. Pitman, Sir James
Cole, Norman Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye) Pitt, Miss Edith
Collard, Richard Jackson, John Pott, Percivall
Cooper, A. E. James, David Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Prior, J. M. L.
Corfield, F. V. Jennings, J. C. Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Costain, A. P. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carilsle) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Coulson, Michael Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pym, Francis
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Quennell, Miss J. M.
Craddock, Sir Beresford Joseph, Sir Keith Rawlinson, Peter
Critchley, Julian Kaberry, Sir Donald Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Rees, Hugh
Currie, G. B. H. Kerby, Capt. Henry Renton, David
Dalkeith, Earl of Kerr, Sir Hamilton Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Dance, James Kitson, Timothy Ridsdale, Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lagden, Godfrey Robertson, Sir D. (C'thn's & S'th'ld)
Deedes, W. F. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Roots, William
de Ferranti, Basil Leather, E. H. C. Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Digby, Simon Wingfield Leavey, J. A. Scott-Hopkins, James
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Leburn, Gilmour Seymour, Leslie
Doughty, Charles Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Sharples, Richard
Drayson, G. B. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shaw, M.
du-Gann, Edward Lilley, F. J. P. Shepherd, William
Duncan, Sir James Lindsay, Martin Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Eden, John Linstead, Sir Hugh Smithers, Peter
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Walder, David
Spearman, Sir Alexander Thomas, Peter (Conway) Walker, Peter
Speir, Rupert Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Stanley, Hon. Richard Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Wall, Patrick
Stevens, Geoffrey Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.) Ward, Dame Irene
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Tilney, John (Wavertree) Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Stodart, J. A. Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon Webster, David
Storey, Sir Samuel Turner, Colin Wells, John (Maidstone)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Tweedsmuir, Lady Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Tapsell, Peter van Straubenzee, W. R. Wise, A. R.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John Woodhouse, C. M.
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) Vickers, Miss Joan Woodnutt, Mark
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.) Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis Worsley, Marcus
Temple, John M. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.