HC Deb 13 February 1962 vol 653 cc1216-70

8.0 p.m.

Mr. MacColl

I beg to move, in page 15, line 14, after "information", to insert "in his possession".

We come now to what is really an extremely unpleasant part of the Bill. We have been having a pleasant and congenial discussion on the subjects of unversity education in Britain for Commonwealth students and the care and welfare of immigrants, and so on. But now we come right down into the sordid atmosphere of what I think, is in danger of becoming a police State. It is the atmosphere of finding oneself lined up in miserable queues being quizzed by an official before one can come into what one has regarded as being one's own country. All this is happening while the boat train is liable to go at any moment and, amid this atmosphere of rush and tension, one is suddenly asked all sorts of awkward questions to which one does not happen to have the answers.

The first part of the Schedule deals with the obtaining of information from intending immigrants and states that …it shall be the duty of every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may require for the purpose of his functions under this paragraph. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State, who is a distinguished lawyer, will no doubt say that it is possible for a person to apply to the divisional court possibly for a prerogative writ to prevent the immigration officer from asking for information on the ground that the officer does not require it for the purpose of his function.

It is not in this atmosphere that these matters are discussed. An immigrant in the position I have described does not discuss whether he might go to the Divisional Court, for the boat train might be waiting to leave and he desperately wants to know whether or not he is to be allowed into the country. Thus, we want to make it absolutely clear that it is not possible for an immigration officer to delay a person by asking for information which that person does not have. Naturally it is reasonable for him to ask for information which the person has, but obviously to seek information which he does not have is not reasonable.

While the Amendment is short it is by no means unimportant. I am asking that the words "in his possession" should be included after the word "information".

Mr. Renton

My advice to the Committee is to accept the Amendment. There can be no harm in making it clear in the Bill that no one should be required to produce information which he does not possess.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wade

I beg to move in page 15, line 14, after "may", to insert "reasonably".

I hope that this Amendment will meet with the same excellent result as did the previous one. At present, the Schedule reads that …every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may require… The addition of "reasonably", as suggested in the Amendment, would make those words read: …every such person to furnish to an immigration officer such information as that officer may reasonably require… The purpose of the Amendment is to add the word "reasonably" concerning the information which the immigration officer requires. This word is not unknown in our legislation and it would indicate that the officer should carry out his duties as fairly and reasonably as possible. It would help in the application of the duties required of him as a result of the Bill if the word "reasonably" were inserted.

It is unnecessary for me to pursue this further, because if the word is not inserted one can foresee circumstances where the immigration officer—perhaps being rather tired towards the end of the day—might act somewhat unreasonably. For the protection of immigrants this word should be included.

Mr. S. Silverman

It seems that this is not a purely verbal Amendment, because it is enacted in the Bill that to refuse information which the immigration officer requires is an offence. If the word "reasonably" is not inserted a defendant charged with such an offence would have no defence whatever once it was established that the immigration officer had, in fact, required the information.

If the Amendment is accepted the prosecution will have to prove that the immigration officer was not acting arbitrarily but reasonably. It is, therefore, a substantial and necessary Amendment.

Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)

Would this not be covered by the phrase, …for the purpose of his functions…"?

Mr. Silverman

The question is whether he is reasonable or not reasonable in thinking that it is for those purposes. The point is just the same.

Mr. Renton

My advice to the Committee is also to accept this Amendment. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has made a point that is worth repeating, for this is not merely a drafting matter.

It is inconceivable that an immigration officer would ask a question which was not relevant to his functions under the Bill, but there could be a dispute as to whether or not a particular question was strictly relevant to those functions. By adding the word "reasonably" we enable the courts to decide the matter more easily. For the reasons advanced by both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne it is right that we should make the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Fletcher

I beg to move, in page 15, line 19, after "required", to insert "in writing".

It is satisfactory to know that we are steadily improving this Schedule, although we have not made much improvement to the remainder of the Bill. I hope that the Government will feel disposed also to accept this Amendment.

The scheme of the Schedule is that the immigration officer may presumably examine anyone who comes in and then, if he wishes to, pursue a more detailed or more thorough examination. In this case he must, within 24 hours of the time when the immigrant landed, tell the immigrant that he proposes to submit him to further examination. Various consequences flow if the immigrant does not comply with such a demand.

To avoid any possibility of doubt arising, the object of the Amendment is to ensure that if the immigration officer is not satisfied and does not pass the immigrant at first sight—and wants to detain him for a period of more than 24 hours—he should tell the immigrant so in writing. Let there be no doubt about it. Let there be a formal notice so that the immigrant knows precisely where he stands, what he must do, where he must go and for what purpose he is to be examined.

It is not good enough to lay down by Act of Parliament that, provided a person is passed within 24 hours, he is free, subject to the conditions imposed, to stay as long as he likes but that someone else told to stand for further examination can be left in doubt about his position. There should be no doubt. He should be given a specific notice in writing telling him that he is supposed to stay behind, why he is supposed to stay behind and where he should go.

Mr. Renton

I am glad to advise the Committee that in our opinion this Amendment should also be accepted.

Clearly, if there is to be any dispute about whether or not someone was detained for further examination, then it is right from the practical point of view and possibly from the point of view of proof later on in the event of the matter coming to court that it should be put in writing. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the suggestion.

Mr. Chapman

I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I feel that the hon. and learned Gentleman might have been more forthcoming and said also that we wish to be sure that any immigrant who is detained at our ports in this way is not left at the end of a bureaucratic string for 24 hours not knowing why he has been detained. One good reason for having this put in writing is that anyone kept waiting will be fully informed, able to understand why it is done and what redress he may have at the end of it.

Mr. Renton

The reason for a person being detained for further examination will in any event have been explained by the immigration officer with his usual courtesy and understanding. Here we are dealing not merely with courtesy and understanding but with a specific power which may be important from the point of view of formal proof. We feel that, if somebody is to be detained in this way, it is right that the matter should be put in writing.

Amendment agreed to.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Wade

I beg to move, in page 15, line 21, to leave out sub-paragraph (3).

The Deputy-Chairman

Together with this Amendment we may discuss the following further Amendments: In page 15, line 34, to leave out subparagraph (4). In page 15, line 41, to leave out from "inspector" to the end of line 44. In page 15, to leave out lines 42 to 44. A Division will be called only on the Amendment which the hon. Gentleman has moved.

Mr. Wade

This is more than a probing Amendment. We are anxious to know the reasons for sub-paragraph (3). We have now made the major decisions on the Bill. We know that there will be control of immigration by Commonwealth citizens, but we are concerned with the procedure and we are anxious to know how it will work.

As I understand it, an immigrant will he called upon to show that he is entitled to enter He will be asked for his passport, for his voucher to show that he has a job, or for such other evidence as is required to satisfy the immigration officer. If the immigrant does not satisfy the immigration officer, presumably he will not be admitted, but I cannot understand why this further examination should take place. Why should he be called upon to declare whether or not he is carrying or conveying any documents"? It is not a reference to documents relevant to the question whether the person is an immigrant who should be allowed to enter; the reference is to any document of any kind. Further, it is provided that the power to examine any such person shall include power to search him and any baggage belonging to him or under his control with a view to ascertaining whether he is carrying or conveying any documents". This is a very wide power of search. We assume that these immigrants are not criminals. If they are suspected criminals, other factors come into play. They are not persons who, for security reasons, we think should not be allowed to enter.

We are dealing with the ordinary case of a Commonwealth citizen from 'the West Indies or wherever it may be who wishes to come to this country. For some reason or other, he does not satisfy the immigration officer that he has the proper papers. Why, for that reason, should the immigration officer have the right to call upon him to declare what documents of any kind he has in his possession and follow that up by searching all his baggage as if he were someone trying to evade the Customs? We are dealing here not with the evasion of Customs but with immigration. The Minister of State should give an explanation of the very wide powers which seem to be granted here.

Mr. Gower

It seems to me that there is a strong case to answer here. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) has said, the powers provided for seem tremendously wide. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be able to do without them in their present form or, alternatively will be able to give us a very powerful reason for their retention.

As the hon. Member said, the people to whom these powers will be applied are merely people seeking to come here, presumably, to take employment and reside here. They are not to be compared in any way with other persons who may come from foreign countries. The case seems to me to be very strong and, superficially at any rate, the wording is far too wide for the purpose for which I assume it to be designed.

Mr. S. Silverman

This is not merely a wide power, though I agree that it is that. Even if it were a narrow power, it would still be thoroughly objectionable. It is impossible to understand what documents the immigration officer would be looking for. Presumably, if a would-be immigrant has a passport, he will be glad enough to produce that himself. The same applies to a visa or a labour voucher. This power, presumably, will be used by the immigration officer only if he suspects that the immigrant has other documents, and if he has begun with that suspicion it is inconceivable that he would be content to accept a denial. We may, therefore, take it for granted that in every case, or in almost every case, where this power is used it will be followed by a search.

I am sure that the Minister of State will agree that of all the humiliating things to which authority can submit an individual the power of physical search is the most humiliating and the most objectionable. Unless there is a very good reason for having such a power, the Committee should reject it. What overwhelming reason can there possibly be for it?

I hope that the Minister of State will not talk about security reasons. A spy does not carry his credentials with him in his baggage. If he comes here for some nefarious or sinister purpose he will be very careful to ensure that nothing in his baggage, not merely documents, will tend to disclose his design to the lynx eyes of the immigration officer of Customs officer. I do not say that reasonable precautions should not be taken on security grounds. The fact that a man comes from the Commonwealth should not exempt him from loyalty and does not exempt the authorities from the duty of ensuring on reasonable grounds that in his case, as in the case of an alien, or in the case of any of us, that there is not some purpose of the kind. But how in the world this provision will enable a Customs officer to find out who is a spy and who is not I am utterly unable to understand.

This provision seems to have been put in the Bill almost automatically. It was known that Customs officers would be concerned with the Bill, and Customs officers can search for dutiable goods. But documents are not dutiable goods. As Customs officers were to act as special immigration officers for the purposes of the Bill, the Government had to look round and consider what powers they should give him. They decided on a power of search. This should not be the first thing of which one thinks. It should be the last. I therefore hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher

I support the Amendment. I hope that the Minister of State, who has already accepted three Amendments to the Schedule, which is indicative of how ill-considered, ill-digested and ill-prepared the Bill was, will also accept it.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, there can be justification for a power to search immigrants. The Bill has been introduced, according to the Government, because they want power to control the number of immigrants. It is supported by Tory back bench Members for a lot of other reprehensible reasons.

Mr. Diamond

Hear, hear.

Mr. Fletcher

On no count can a demand that immigrants should be searched be justified.

Can the Minister of State tell us what he thinks would have been gained from immigrants who have come to this country in the last year if there had been a right of search? What does he think the country has lost in the last twelve months by not having had in out legislation the power of search for which the Government now ask? The Bill deals with the control of the numbers of immigrants. Most individuals who come here as immigrants presumably bring very few documents with them. Such documents as they bring with them in future will be in the nature of credentials which they will inevitably wish to produce themselves.

Mr. Gower

Obviously, anyone coming into this country, including citizens of the United Kingdom who have been abroad for a holiday, is subject to the right of the Customs officer to ask him whether he has any goods which are subject to duty. We are all subject to that right. As the hon. Gentleman knows, power already exists under the Acts which empower Customs officers, to ask any of us to be searched in order to acquire that information.

Mr. Fletcher

I entirely deny the proposition that a Customs officer has the right to stop any British subject from coming into this country whenever he wishes. I entirely deny that he has the right to search any British subject. I assert that any British subject has the absolute right to come into this country whenever he likes at any time as a matter of common law without being subject to search. The same right has hitherto belonged to any Commonwealth subject.

Here the Government are asking for the right to search for documents. Documents are not contraband. They are not things which interest the Government except in so far as the individual bringing the documents will voluntarily produce them in order to show his credentials. Obviously he will not bring incriminating documents with him. Obviously no amount of documents which he may carry will affect the housing problem, which might be influenced by the fact, that according to the Government, we shall have too many immigrants. No document can affect the character of a person when he gets here. Surely the Minister cannot say that an immigration officer, in deciding whether an immigrant should be admitted or not, will form an opinion about his character by reason of the documents which he is carrying.

It seems to me that there is no possible justification for this provision and I hope that the Minister, since he has started to accept our Amendments with a view to improving the Bill, will follow that course and will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Renton

To have any immigration control is distasteful. We have made that clear from the beginning. But I doubt very much whether there is any immigration control in the world which is properly exercised in which these powers are not taken from the local legislature and used occasionally, as reserve powers at any rate.

We are discussing three powers on these four Amendments—the power to demand documents, the power to detain them, if necessary, only for a short time, and the power to search for them. I should have thought that it was obvious that these powers were needed.

With regard to the power to demand documents, we must draw on the experience that we have had with the aliens control. There is no reason why we should not draw on that experience from which this country has gained a reasonable reputation for fair dealing. It is found quite often that people try to evade the aliens control by putting forward a particular reason why they wish to come here, whereas their real reason is quite different. Their real reason is often disclosed by documents in their possession. Therefore, there needs to be a power to demand documents.

Mr. S. Silverman

It is quite true that, if an alien presents himself and asks for admission, even if he has a visa, he has to give a reason for coming. But there is nothing in the Bill to empower immigration officers to ask a colonial immigrant why he is coming. That is not among the grounds for prohibition, except in so far as it is defined in the Bill. It is not a general power. The Bill does not say to an immigration officer, "If you are satisfied let him in; if you are not satisfied keep him out."

Mr. Renton

The hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that, in order to get himself in on the grounds listed in Clause 2, the intending immigrant, or a person who wants to come here for a particular time, may put forward a story which, on the face of it, appears to the immigration officer to be untrue in itself. It may even be patently untrue. Rather than refuse the man straight away, the officer may say to him, "Have you any documents?" The officer therefore has the power to demand documents.

That is a reasonable power in itself, and is not any kind of an oppression. There may be other cases in which the immigration officer asks a person to produce documents not merely to support his story but because the officer has reason to believe that the story is false. In such cases there should equally be a power for documents to be demanded.

8.30 p.m.

The power to detain documents arises for a rather special reason. Unfortunately, even at present, and long before this Bill was introduced, we have had experience of a great many people coming here from Commonwealth countries on forged passports. These forgeries can be detected very often by means of an ultra-violet examination. It is necessary to detain the documents—it may be only for a short time, but it is technically a detention of the documents. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), with his knowledge of the law, will understand what I am getting at. This needs to be done in order to decide whether a passport is forged or not. The power is needed.

The power to search, on the face of it, appears to be a more stringent power, but fundamentally, of course, it is a necessary ancillary to the power to demand the documents because, if we say that there is to be power to demand documents—if somebody may be prosecuted for failing to produce documents on demand—then unless there is the power to search one cannot see whether the demand for documents has been complied with. That is the main reason why we need power of search.

I will avoid discussing the security reasons, as the hon. Member rightly asked me to. I do not rest my case on them, although, of course, we at the Home Office cannot ignore that factor. But there is the question, also mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, of the criminal who comes here. The hon. Gentleman suggested that criminals do not bring incriminating documents with them. I do not want to give too much publicity to the fact that they do, but it is remarkable the extent to which known criminals do bring incriminating documents with them.

We are often alerted to the fact that they are coming, and without the power to demand documents and to search for them a process of criminal detection might well be impeded. There is a good deal of crime which can be rightly described as international, and I am sorry to say that it takes place not only between this country and foreign countries but between this country and Commonwealth countries. This is a power which I must ask the House to let us have.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Chapman

I beg to move, in page 15, line 25, at the end, to insert: relevant to his admission to the United Kingdom under this Act". This small Amendment arises because there is, in my view, uncertainty about the extent to which the immigration officer can go in demanding documents under paragraph 1 (3) of the Schedule. My Amendment would insist that, if he demands any documents, he can only demand those relevant to the question of whether the person concerned should be admitted to the United Kingdom. The reply may be that the power of the immigration officer to demand documents is anyway covered by the limiting of his purpose under paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule; that is, that the immigra tion officer shall have the power under paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule to— examine any person…for the purpose of determining what action, if any, should be taken in his case under the said Part I; In other words, to some extent, therefore, the officer's power to examine at all is limited to discovering whether, under Part I, the immigrant is eligible for admission to this country. To that extent, there is this overall control over the power of the immigration officer to examine at all. However, it seems to me not at all clear, when one comes to paragraph 3, whether, in disputed cases, he shall be strictly limited and not generally limited to demanding documents which are relevant to that person's admission to the United Kingdom.

We are not, in this part of the Bill, dealing with the reasonable application of the Bill by humane Governments and humane immigration officers. We are dealing with the exceptional case which might arise, against which Parliament always has to provide, where immigration officers may be unreasonable and acting under unreasonable and tyrannical instructions from the Government. We want to be sure, as far as we can, that no Government and no immigration officer can usurp the power and demand things which should not be demanded for any reason at all. That is why we wish written into the Bill every possible safeguard that we can provide as we go along.

I am glad to say, to confirm what I had intended to convey earlier, although the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to regard it a little doubtfully, that I believed that our immigration officers are humane and act in a courteous way, and that we have every reason to be proud of the scenes at our ports in respect of the courtesy which intending visitors to this country have extended to them when they arrive. I am second to none in my admiration of that courtesy.

I am concerned that, in any extreme circumstances, no petty tyrant, no Government or immigration officer shall be in any doubt whatever as to how far these powers go. I therefore request the Government to write in at this point a particular and definite restriction of the powers, which may not be clear enough under the general restriction of powers in paragraph 1 of the Schedule.

Mr. S. Silverman

I do not want to detain the Committee very long over this. I sympathise very much with what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has said about the advisability of putting in any kind of restriction on the power to do objectionable and unnecessary things. I should like, however, to point out to the Committee how little that restriction is.

My hon. Friend said that we are not dealing with the case of a reasonable immigration officer or a reasonable Government. We are dealing with the possible case of an unreasonable Government or an unreasonable officer—an oppressive, malicious and vindictive officer. In such a case, what will he do if my hon. Friend has his way and the Amendment is accepted? Instead of, Have you any documents?" he would say, "Have you any documents relative to your application for admission?" During the course of his consideration, the immigrant would say, "No." When the immigrant says, "No," the immigration officer either says, or thinks, or acts as if he believes, "I do not believe you." He says, "I do not know about that; you say 'No', but I shall exercise my power of search", which we have just given him, deciding not to vote against it.

If he has once got the power of search and proceeds to exercise it, what will he do when he searches? Will he exclude from his search any documents not relevant to the application for admission? Of course, he will not. Once he searches, he will find, and what he finds he will take, and what he takes he will look at, and what he looks at he will use for any purpose which seems to him legitimate, useful, or profitable to him. Whether the Government accept the Amendment or not, the restriction which my hon. Friend thought that he was introducing on the power to demand documents seems to be very limited.

Mr. Chapman

I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). We need not go as far as that. There is an intermediate stage between an immigration officer easy to deal with and the one who goes the whole hog and has searches and everything that he can think of. The intermediate stage is the stage at which he demands the production of documents. We must put a check on petty tyrants at that point by saying that they have the right to ask only for some documents and cannot tell everyone who comes to the ports to empty his pockets on the table, as he might otherwise have power to do. That is what I want to prevent.

Why, at that intermediate stage, should someone have to empty his wallet, show personal papers, and empty his brief case on to the table? At this intermediate stage, the officer should have power only to ask for documents relevant to the immigrant's admission.

Mr. S. Silverman

Does my hon. Friend say that if the immigration officer wants to exercise the power of search the wallet and pockets will be excepted?

Mr. Ede

I express doubts about any legal opinion expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) with very great diffidence, but I do not yet think that we have yet granted the power of search. I think that that is covered by an Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) in page 15, to leave out lines 28 to 31. That is where the power of search is to be found.

I generally support the Amendment, but I hope that on this occasion the Minister of State, who has been accepting views from this side of the Committee very readily, will not accept the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne that we have already granted the right of search. I can think of no other occasion on which I would ask him to ignore the advice tendered by my hon. Friend, but that advice seems dangerous on this occasion.

Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North)

Despite the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. I was very alarmed, during the discussion on the last Amendment, to hear as justification for the right to search the statement that a criminal carries papers and that the right to search ought to be available to discover if a man is a criminal. I had gathered that the object of the Bill was not to discover whether an immigrant was a criminal, but to do what is set out in the Bill in respect of the rights of immigrants to enter this country.

If there is to be a right of search, it must be completely and absolutely limited to the one end—to relevant documents. I would strongly object to any right of search, but if there is to be such a right it must be strictly limited to the objective of the Bill, and, therefore, merely to documents which are relevant.

Mr. Renton

The hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman) has missed a very important point. There may be a criminal who is on the run from a Commonwealth country and subject to the Extradition Acts. The hon. and learned Member said that he hoped that the Bill would not be used to intercept such a person, but he must have forgotten the provision in Clause 2 (3), which says: if the immigration officer has reason to believe that he has been convicted in any country of any crime, wherever committed, which is an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts…". Two points arise. We have Extradition Acts with all the Commonwealth countries and it is only right that immigration control should be used as one means of fulfilling our obligations under such Acts. The second is that if someone has been convicted of a crime in certain circumstances—not all circumstances, as was explained earlier—that will be an obstacle to his immigration to this country. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman not to dismiss as utterly irrelevant to the purposes of the Bill the question of whether or not a person should be asked to produce documents which may be relevant in a criminal context.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman

Then it is a relevant document and comes within the Amendment?

Mr. Renton

I agree, and I will come to that, but I wanted to clear up that point first, which, in a sense, is subsidiary to the main point raised in the debate.

The point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) is one with which I have a great deal of sympathy, and I give him an undertaking to consider the point that he has raised with a view to putting down Amendments on Report. I think that the paragraph as drafted is a bit wider than it need be, and needs to be tightened up in the way envisaged by the hon. Gentleman. I am advised that he has not got it quite right, but do not let us discuss drafting matters. These are the things on which it is best for us to take the appropriate advice.

I give the undertaking that I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said to ensure that this power to demand documents—and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is right in saying that that is all we are after at the moment—is restricted to documents which may be relevant to the questions which arise on the decision as to whether or not a person should be admitted or refused admission, or admitted subject to conditions in accordance with the Bill.

In view of that undertaking, perhaps the hon. Gentleman may not wish to press the matter.

Mr. Diamond

The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to criminals being on the run from a Commonwealth country to this country. Can he say what powers the Government have at the moment for enabling security to be satisfied with regard to criminals on the run? Is he saying that without these powers he is powerless to protect the security of the country?

Mr. Renton

I am in a very difficult position. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press me too much. Perhaps I was incautious in jumping to the bait of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North. All that I think I should say in answer to the hon. Gentleman is that it seems absurd to be passing through Parliament a Bill dealing with immigration without ensuring that in that Bill we take such powers as are necessary to enable us to fulfil our obligations to other members of the Commonwealth where criminals are concerned.

Mr. Chapman

I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I intend to withdraw the Amendment, but I am a little alarmed about what he said just now. After all, the purpose of the Bill is not to discover for the purposes of extradition criminals who are on the run. The purpose of the Bill is to discover whether anybody who wishes to be admitted to this country is a criminal on the run. That is the only reason why we wish to give the Government the right to search for documents. It would be irrelevant, and outside the purposes of the Bill, to introduce anything else.

It may be that on the spur of the moment the hon. and learned Gentleman used a phrase which he did not intend to use, and that I am more dumb than anybody else and have not understood the position. This can be sorted out when we reach the next stage of the Bill and the hon. and learned Gentleman's own Amendment is put down. Then we can pursue this matter a little further. I am most grateful to him for what he said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Diamond

I beg to move, in page 15, to leave out lines 28 to 31.

These are the lines in the Bill which give the power to search a person and to search baggage. Searching is the greatest form of indignity, and I am asking that these powers be withdrawn because I want to do what I can to lessen the damage that is being done by the Bill and to deny to others the right of saying: "Here are the first elements of a police State creeping in under the pretext of a Bill to control immigrants from the Commonwealth". I shall not be satisfied—let me make this point clear straight away—by any unproved, detailed allegation that this power is needed for security.

Quite obviously, the State does not rely exclusively on this power to protect itelf. We do not know, and we do not wish to know, the detailed methods by which criminals are apprehended. We want to know that people who are not proved to be criminals have the rights under normal justice of any other person and to be absolutely satisfied that this indignity is not imposed unnecessarily.

Supposing that it were alleged that it this Amendment were accepted one undesirable person would get into this country. I still say that on balance of advantage it is immensely more important to see that human beings are not subjected to the indignities of a personal search, being stripped and left in the most powerless and embarrassing condition that any human being can be put in, just because they want to come to the Mother Country. On balance there would have to be absolute justification for that in far more cases than indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I say quite specifically that we should have these offending lines removed, particularly when it is borne in mind that the immigrant generally is a newcomer, coming here for the first time from a different country, different customs, often with a different coloured skin, feeling great uncertainty and with no confidence in himself or herself.

What on earth is to happen to this newcomer when the first thing that he or she is subjected to is close questioning, followed possibly by a search? The search of a person of a different coloured skin on coming into this country exposes him to the utmost sensitivity—I do not mean physically but psychologically. Therefore, I would do anything that I could to persuade the Government not to retain this power of searching. I repeat that it cannot be on grounds of security that this is proposed. It is only in television shows that all the criminals carry secret documents in the lining of their baggage or in the heels of their shoes. This is puerile stuff on which we do not want to waste time.

I want to direct the attention of the Government to the words of paragraph 1 (3), before the proviso: with a view to ascertaining whether he is carrying or conveying documents. Once this provision is passed there will be nothing to prevent an immigration officer searching an individual as a result of any whim or fancy on his part. He does not have to satisfy anybody else that this is the purpose of the search; it is the purpose in his own mind. This provision gives carte blanche to any immigration officer to say, "Come here and strip."

Surely this power is not required. Assuming that we must have some control of immigration but want to undo the damage done by the introduction of the Bill, the Government must surely want to help in that regard. I therefore appeal to them to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Renton

I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) was in the Chamber when we discussed an earlier Amendment dealing with the power to demand documents and to detain and search. I believe that the view I then put forward quite fully was accepted. At any rate, the Amendment was not pressed. If the hon. Member had heard my speech on that occasion I do not think that he would have made the speech to which we have just listened. I explained that, so far as we have been able to find out, these powers are contained in every immigration control scheme in the world, and it is inconceivable that we should have such a scheme without these powers, however distasteful they may be.

The Amendment is concerned only with the power to search, and that power is necessary for at least three reasons. First, the power to demand documents would be made useless without the power to search. A person could be prosecuted for refusing to produce a document on demand, but unless he had been searched we would not be in a position to show whether or not he was able to produce it. That is a purely technical but nevertheless valid reason.

Secondly, it is essential to have the power to cover criminal cases and security cases. As I said earlier, I do not want to go into these matters at all deeply, or to base my arguments solely upon them.

Thirdly, and more commonly, although hope the power will be regarded only as a reserve power and very rarely used, our experience in the administration of legislation with regard to aliens—and we have no reason to believe that this experience would not sometimes be repeated in the administration of the provisions of the Bill—shows that people tend to put forward one reason for gaining admission to the country when they have a fundamentally different reason for doing so, which documents in their possession would show.

Further, as I explained earlier, the power to demand documents is some times necessary to enable a person coming in to confirm his story, when it is obviously desirable that it should be confirmed. It is also sometimes necessary because the story seems to be quite inconsistent, or patently untrue. If the documents in the person's possession are revealed the immigration officer is able to show beyond doubt that the person concerned is not telling the truth. In the circustances, he has justification for refusing admission. I am sorry to bore hon. Members by repeating the speech that I made on an earlier Amendment, but it is essential to bear these matters in mind.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Weitzman

I have heard the Minister say on two occasions that there is no country with immigration laws where this power of search does not exist. That is supposed to be a justification for having the power here. The Minister should remember what we propose to do by the Bill. For the very first time we are denying to people the right to come to their Mother Country. For that reason we are placing certain restrictions upon them. I agree that this is one of the most disgraceful powers and one of the worst humiliations which could be placed upon an individual, to search him in this way and impose that indignity upon him. It is not justified by the Minister saying that he had explained matters during the discussion on a previous Amendment.

The Minister purports to advance certain reasons as justification for this. Let us examine them. He says that there is a power to demand documents which is made useless unless we have the right to search. I am against the right to demand documents, but, even were there such a right, what is it for? Suppose an immigrant comes to this country and the immigration officer is dissatisfied about whether he has established his right to enter the country. The immigrant is asked for documents which he refuses to produce. What is the right of demand for? Is it to make the immigration officer see whether he can, by force, establish a case on behalf of the immigrant? If the immigrant has documents and wishes to produce them, he will do so. What right has an immigration officer to go through the baggage of an immigrant to search for documents? That reason is entirely absurd.

The second reason, apparently, is that we must establish whether the immigrant is a criminal or should be refused admission for security reasons. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), and as I am quite sure the Minister knows, there are plenty of powers under which an individual and his documents could be examined, apart from any powers which it is proposed to insert in the Bill, which is not designed to find out whether a person is a criminal or should be refused admittance for security reasons. I deprecate that reason being advanced as a justification.

The third reason is extraordinary. The Minister says that we have had great experience under the Aliens Order and have found the power useful there. I do not care whether that is so or not. We are not here dealing with aliens, but with immigrants. Why should we expose them to this disgraceful indignity for that reason? It is too bad of the Government, having introduced this disgraceful Bill, to impose a further humiliation on people wishing to visit the Mother Country. I suggest that the Government should look at this matter again. I emphasise that it is disgraceful and humiliating. I can hardly think of words sufficiently strong to condemn it and I hope the Government will see reason and decide to dispense with this disgraceful power.

Mr. Ede

The real reason the Minister has given us for this provision is that everyone else has done it and, therefore, we should get in at the tail of the queue. I have always thought, with Milton, that it is the duty of this country to show other nations how to live. This is one of the occasions in which that can be done.

Mr. Renton

I did not say that I put this forward because everybody else had done it. I said that I did not conceive that it was possible for any immigration control in any civilised country to be made effective without these powers. I may have added that I presume that every other country has done it, but the great point is that no control could be effective, in our opinion, without these powers.

Mr. Ede

I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will read some of the things he has said this evening. Then he will find that I did not misinterpret what he said.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)

I wish to say a few words on this Amendment. The Minister is forgetting very important facts. This is an immigration Bill, not a Bill to search out criminals. If we required such a Measure it would be because we had had many more criminals in this country than has been shown by records up to the present.

The Minister and the Government ought to realise that this is a Bill which will be put into operation in the not too distant future. It will have a very damning effect on our nation in the eyes of every country in the world. I cannot see why the Minister should demand that this search should take place. If the person before the immigration officer is a criminal, the Government have other ways and means in the existing laws of making certain that he can be detained and searched.

Although probably the majority of immigration officers are the best type of person in the world, and capable of doing their job well, we may have the vicious type of officer who tries to show his authority. He would have power to create the impression among all immigrants that he was the kind of officer generally to be found in this country. That could do great harm to relations between this country and the Commonwealth and Colonies.

I beg the Minister and the Government to realise that every little action taken against the coloured people who belong to this Commonwealth is something which will damn us for ever. The future of the world may be greatly affected by actions of this kind. It would not be difficult to write this Amendment into the Bill. The Government should realise that the greatest problem in the world, far the greater than problems as between the Communist and the democratic systems, is racial relationships between nations. Every pin-prick of this kind will make it far more difficult to improve those relationships. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher

There are a number of other Amendments we are anxious to discuss before the Guillotine falls. Therefore, I do not propose to prolong this discussion. I merely register my extreme dissatisfaction with the Minister's reply and I hope my hon. Friends will support this Amendment in the Division Lobby.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

I think that we all respect the legal opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). We were impressed by the point made by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), but the fact remains that if we are to have an efficient immigration control we must have this sort of power. Although hon. Members opposite have made their point—we appreciate it—we must have an efficient immigration service.

The hon. Member for Dearne Valley cast slight doubts on the quality of our immigration officers. I must take him up on that, because in my view our immigration officers are very fine men. They do a very difficult job in an honourable, efficient and kindly manner. I therefore hope that the Committee will support the Government in rejecting the Amendment, because if our immigration officers are to be fully supported they must have an efficient system behind them.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 223. Noes 177.

Division No. 86.] AYES [9.11 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Drayson, G. B. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Aitken, W. T. Duncan, Sir James Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Arbuthnot, John Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Joseph, Sir Keith
Aahton, Sir Hubert Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) Kerans, Cdr. J, S.
Atkins, Humphrey Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Kitson, Timothy
Barlow, Sir John Errington, Sir Eric Leather, E, H. C.
Barter, John Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Leavey, J. A.
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Farey-Jones, F. W. Leburn, Gilmour
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Farr, John Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Finlay, Graeme Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Berkeley, Humphry Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lilley, F. J. P.
Biffen, John Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Lindsay, Sir Martin
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Freeth, Denzil Linstead, Sir Hugh
Bishop, F. P. Gammans, Lady Litchfield, Capt. John
Black, Sir Cyril George, J. C. (Pollok) Longbottom, Charles
Bossom, Clive Gibson-Watt, David Loveys, Walter H.
Bourne-Arton, A. Gilmour, Sir John Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Goodhew, Victor McAdden, Stephen
Brewis, John Gough, Frederick McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Bromley-Davenport. Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Gower, Raymond Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Brooman-White, R. Grant, Rt. Hon. William MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. McMaster, Stanley R.
Buck, Antony Green, Alan Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Bullard, Denys Gresham Cooke, R. Maginnis, John E.
Bullus, Wing Commander Erie Gurden, Harold Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden) Hall, John (Wycombe) Markham, Major Sir Frank
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Marten, Neil
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mawby, Ray
Cary, Sir Robert Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Channon, H. P. G. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Mills, Stratton
Chataway, Christopher Hay, John More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Chichester-Clark, R. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Morgan, William
Clark, William (Nottingham, s.) Hendry, Forbes Morrison, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Hiley, Joseph Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Cleaver, Leonard Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Nabarro, Gerald
Cole, Norman Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Collard, Richard Hocking, Philip N. Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Cooke, Robert Holland, Philip Osborn, John (Hallam)
Cooper, A. E. Hollingworth, John Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Hopkins, Alan Page, Graham (Crosby)
Corfield, F. V. Hornby, R. P. Page, John (Harrow, West)
Costain, A. P. Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Partridge, E.
Coulson, Michael Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Peel, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford Hughes-Young, Michael Percival, Ian
Curran, Charles Hutchison, Michael Clark Peyton, John
Currie, G. B. H. Iremonger, T. L. Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Dalkeith, Earl of Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Pilkington, Sir Richard
Dance, James Jackson, John Pitman, Sir James
Deedee, W. F. James, David Pitt, Miss Edith
de Ferranti, Basil Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Pott, Percivall
Digby, Simon Wingfield Jennings, J. C. Prior, J. M. L.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Doughty, Charles Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pym, Francis
Quennell, Miss J. M. Speir, Rupert Turner, Colin
Rawlinson, Peter Stanley, Hon. Richard van Straubenzee, W. R.
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin Stevens, Geoffrey Vane, W. M. F.
Rees, Hugh Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R. Stoddart, J. A. Vickers, Miss Joan
Renton, David Stoddart-Scott. Col. Sir Malcolm Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas Storey, Sir Samuel Walder, David
Ridsdale, Julian Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury) Walker, Peter
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley) Talbot, John E. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, s.) Tapsell, Peter Wall, Patrick
Russell, Ronald Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.) Ward, Dame Irene
Scott-Hopkins, James Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side) Webster, David
Seymour, Leslie Taylor, W. J, (Bradford, N.) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Sharples, Richard Temple, John M. Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Shaw, M. Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury) Wise, A. R.
Skeet, T, H. H, Thomas, Peter (Conway) Woodhouse, C. M.
Smith. Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton) Woodnutt, Mark
Smithers, Peter Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin Worsley, Marcus
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood) Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren
Ainsley, William Hayman, F. H. Popplewell, Ernest
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Healey, Denis Prentice, R. E.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Awbery, Stan Herbison, Miss Margaret Probert, Arthur
Baird, John Hewitson, Capt. M. Proctor, W. T.
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Hill, J. (Midlothian) Randall, Harry
Beaney, Alan Hilton, A. V. Rankin, John
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Holman, Percy Redhead, E. C.
Benson, Sir George Holt, Arthur Rhodes, H.
Blackburn, F. Houghton, Douglas Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Blyton, William Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Boardman, H. Hoy, James H. Robinson, Kenneth(St. Pancras, N.)
Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S. W.) Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Ross, William
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Bowles, Frank Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Short, Edward
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hunter, A. E. Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Brockway, A. Fenner Hynd, H. (Accrington) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Skeffington, Arthur
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Jeger, George Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield) Snow, Julian
Callaghan, James Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Sorensen, R. W.
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Chapman, Donald Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Spriggs, Leslie
Craddock, George (Bradford, s.) Kelley, Richard Steele, Thomas
Cronin, John Kenyon, Clifford Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Stonehouse, John
Davies, Harold (Leek) Ledger, Ron Stones, William
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Symonds, J. B.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Deer, George Lipton, Marcus
Delargy, Hugh Loughlin, Charles Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Dempsey, James Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Diamond, John MacColl, James Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Dodds, Norman McInnes, James Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Donnelly, Desmond McKay, John (Wallsend) Timmons, John
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Edelman, Maurice Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) Wade, Donald
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Manuel, A. C. Wainwright, Edwin
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mapp, Charles Warbey, William
Evans, Albert Mason, Roy Watkins, Tudor
Fitch, Alan Mayhew, Christopher Weitzman, David
Fletcher, Eric Mendelson, J. J. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Millan, Bruce Whitlock, William
Forman, J. C. Milne, Edward Wilkins, W. A.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Mitchison, C. R. Willey, Frederick
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Morris, John Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Galpern, Sir Myer Moyle, Arthur Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Neal, Harold Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Ginsburg, David Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gourlay, Harry Oram, A, E. Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Grey, Charles Oswald, Thomas Winter bottom, R. E.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Owen, Will Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Padley, W. E. Woof, Robert
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Parker, John Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Paton, John
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Pavitt, Laurence TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Mr. Charles A. Howell and
Hannan, William Peart, Frederick Mr. Lawson.
Hart, Mrs. Judith Pentland, Norman
Mr. D. Foot

I beg to move, in page 15, line 35, to leave out "such time as he thinks proper" and to insert: a period not exceeding thirty days". The effect of the Amendment is perfectly clear. Instead of giving the immigration officer unlimited discretion to hold documents for as long as he chooses, the Amendment puts a time limit on it. I do not propose to argue the merits of the Amendment at any length, because it speaks for itself. Assuming that we must give powers to the immigration officer, they should not be unlimited powers. If we give him the power to take documents, the time during which those documents may be retained should not be so extensive to amount to confiscation of them, because that is what is meant if no time limit is inserted. The Amendment goes quite a long way and proposes that a lengthy time limit of 30 days shall apply, but we are also saying that after the lapse of those 30 days the documents should be handed back.

Mr. Renton

The Amendment appears to us to be acceptable in principle for the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman but, as drafted, would enable the immigration officer to detain documents for much longer than is really necessary in most cases for examining them. Thus, what we consider is needed is an Amendment which combines the merit of the phrasing of the Bill and the merit of the phrasing of the Amendment so that we would have something which reads somewhat as follows: "An immigration officer may examine and may detain, for such time not exceeding 30 days as he thinks proper, for the purposes of examining any documents produced."

If the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to withdraw his Amendment—and I am grateful to him for moving it—we will see to it that an Amendment is tabled on Report which, as I say, combines the merit of his views and ours.

Mr. D. Foot

In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Harold Garden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I beg to move, in page 15, line 41, after "inspector", to insert: and shall include power to examine a person by X-ray for medical purposes, and also to make an examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether vaccination for smallpox has been successful". The idea behind this Amendment has been put to me principally by the British Medical Association, which has been worried for some time about the number of immigrants suffering from tuberculosis, many of them, unfortunately, having the disease in an advanced stage. The difficulty is not so much that they cannot be dealt with. The difficulty is in identification. We do not know how many people have come into the country suffering from tuberculosis. This is the trouble. If they were all identified, good medical advice could be given to them and they could be directed for medical attention.

Medical officers of health also have emphasised to me the seriousness of the situation. For some years, the medical officer of health for chest diseases in Birmingham has been concerned, and he told me that as many as 8 per cent. of immigrants from Asian Commonwealth countries suffered from tuberculosis. Recently, of course, there was the very sad case of a girl who arrived in this country suffering from the disease in an advanced stage. Without the provision which the Amendment contains, these people, as I see it and as the British Medical Association sees it, will continue to come into the country, though there will be no power of examination to identify the sufferers.

We have included words covering vaccination against smallpox. Most of the people who came in recently were, we hope, identified, but here again we are not quite sure how many came from Pakistan and other places without being properly vaccinated. When I visited the airport I found that the medical officer was not aware of the powers which he has or, at least, the powers which the Home Office tells us exist at present. He was, of course, doing grand work and matters were quickly put right, but on questioning him I found that he was not sure what the law was. We hope that the Amendment will be accepted to clear matters up.

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

Which airport?

Mr. Gurden

London Airport. I am glad to see the hon. Member here, because he has made clear in correspondence that he supports the health protection aspects of the Bill. I hope that we shall have his support and the support of other hon. Members opposite for the Amendment.

I am glad to see the hon. Member present for another reason. He has been absent for a considerable part of our debates and Divisions, yet he went out of his way to point out that I was not here for part of a debate the other day at a time when I was having a meal. His remarks were widely reported, much to his delight, no doubt. I have, in fact, been here for all our debates right from the beginning. We are glad to see the hon. Gentleman here now and we look forward to receiving his support on this Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

I do not think that there can be much argument about the Amendment, except perhaps, its drafting. It appears that even those people who have considerable opposition to the Bill as a whole, which I quite understand, seem to be in no doubt that they would lend support to a Measure which afforded health protection and certainly one, at any rate, which caused people to be identified if only for the sake of treatment.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon (Greenock)

The hon. Gentleman said that the authorship of the first part of his Amendment came from the British Medical Association. Will he confirm that the second part of it is not sponsored by the Association?

Mr. Gurden

I am not responsible for the first part, but I should have thought that the second part was sponsored by common sense.

Mr. Denis Howell

I am grateful for the opportunity of being almost invited to participate in this debate by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), whose dinner hour, I now observe, takes a considerable time, in view of his lengthy absences from our deliberations. I do not begrudge him a hearty appetite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Get on with it."] I intend to get on with it, but if I have many interruptions from hon. Members opposite I shall take twice as long.

In presenting his information to the Committee, the hon. Member for Selly Oak omitted to give the figures for tuberculosis in Birmingham. It is an inconvenient fact that the city has now broken down the nationalities of people in our hospitals suffering from this disease. It is an inconvenient fact that last year Irishmen were at the top of the list. Unfortunately, 97 Irishmen are now in Birmingham hospitals suffering from this disease. People from Asia were next on the list, but people from the West Indies were a long way down the list. In fact there were only 20, or under 20, people in Birmingham hospitals suffering from the disease.

Although I am in favour of health checks, like my hon. Friends, I am not in favour of health checks which discriminate in the way suggested by the Amendment. We are in favour of health checks which apply to everybody. As the Amendment and the Bill, on the showing of the Government, are not to be applied to the Irish, it is clear that X-rays for medical purposes will not be applied to the people from the country most affected, namely, Southern Ireland.

Mr. Gurden indicated dissent.

Mr. Howell

The hon. Member for Selly Oak shakes his head, but that must be the case. If the Bill is not to be applied to the Irish, this particular part of it will not be applied to the Irish. On his own showing, the hon. Member for Selly Oak is prepared to allow to come into this country without health checks the people on whom they should be made.

The same applies to vaccination. I agree very much with the hon. Member for Selly Oak that the Ministry of Health has been very recalcitrant in this matter. When I examined the situation in Birmingham, I found that no information about it has been sent to medical officers in the various cities. I tried to question the Minister of Health the other day in the House about an aeroplane which was diverted to Elmdon from Manchester carrying passengers from a part of Europe seriously affected by the recent smallpox epidemic.

There were no preparations at Elmdon Airport for the reception of those passengers. The matter was left purely to the initiative of a Customs officer who rang up the medical officer of health of Birmingham and said, "Do you think anything should be done about these people who have just arrived? Should I let them in or not?" The medical officer of health turned out on a Saturday afternoon and said, "I will come down. Keep them there".

On the aircraft, he found a Chinese gentleman who had travelled across the world, as far as one could find out, visiting every place affected by smallpox. The medical officer of health said to him, "You do not come a yard further until you have been immunised". The gentleman was courteous and cooperative and agreed to be immunised. But the medical officer told me later, "I did not know what power I had to insist that he was immunised, but I did insist".

The Ministry of Health had no machinery at all. The Royal Dermatological Survey, with a weekly record of figures, showed that in November and December last year there were 300 cases of smallpox and 30 deaths a week in Karachi. That information was never drawn to the attention of any medical officer of health. It was not until the medical officers themselves drew the Ministry's attention to this disturbing information that they received any help or guidance from the Ministry. Then the Ministry woke up and steps were taken which made this Amendment unnecessary, because the kind of information the hon. Gentleman wants is being asked for at the ports of entry now.

Whilst I support the ideals which he has in mind in this respect, I do not think that this Amendment is the way to tackle the problem. In any case, to tackle the problem on the basis of this Bill will exclude from the provisions of such medical checks the very nationals who should be most subject to such safeguards.

Mr. Renton

This Amendment would do two things. It would give power to a medical officer to examine a person by X-ray for medical purposes, and it would also give power to make an examination to ascertain whether a vaccination for smallpox had been successful.

It has always been our intention that medical officers should have the oppor tunity of examining people by X-ray in cases where it seemed to be desirable. To that extent, in order to put the matter beyond doubt, we are prepared to accept, in principle, the part of the Amendment which deals with that aspect. I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) will not mind my saying that his drafting does not quite suit the occasion, but we will be glad to consider a suitable Amendment for the Report stage which will cover the point.

It is not necessary to put anything down about examination to ascertain vaccination in the terms suggested by my hon. Friend because, under public health legislation, medical officers already have power to carry out just this sort of examination.

Mr. Fletcher

Is there similar power to examine, by X-ray, aliens when they arrive in this country?

Mr. Renton

It is very much a question of how one interprets the present Aliens Order. Aliens have been examined by X-ray in pursuance of the medical officers' general power to examine for health purposes under the Aliens Order, but we feel that it is better to put the matter beyond doubt and accept my hon. Friend's suggestion of a specific power written into the Bill.

Mr. Fletcher

May we take it that, as a result of what the hon. and and learned Gentleman is to do in this matter, there will be greater powers in this respect over Commonwealth immigrants than there are over alien immigrants?

Mr. Renton

I would not be prepared to say that. But as a matter of fact we are dealing with this Bill and it is right that we should get it correct. I would prefer to have notice of the hon. Member's question, in order to be able to give the answer with surety.

Mr. Denis Healey (Leeds, East)

Can the Minister say whether the Home Secretary proposes to introduce legislation to ensure that aliens are covered by the same regulations as he proposes for Commonwealth citizens? As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) has pointed out, the problem of tuberculosis probably arises more with aliens than with Commonwealth citizens.

Mr. Renton

We are dealing here with Commonwealth citizens, and I would remind the Committee that there are very wide powers under the public health legislation for examining anyone arriving in this country, even someone normally domiciled and resident here.

Dr. Donald Johnson (Carlisle)

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), who sponsored this Amendment, and myself welcome very much my hon. and learned Friend's acceptance of the Amendment in the terms in which he made it. I am quite sure that my profession as a whole will welcome the step that he proposes to take by introducing some specific powers this Bill, first, so that medical officers at the ports will know exactly what their powers are, a matter which appears to have been in some doubt recently over smallpox entries, and secondly, because of the problem created throughout the country by these cases.

I hope that I will not appear to detain the Committee if I try to impress the point by giving particulars of one or two cases, which have been supplied to me by the medical officer of health in Carlisle, which I think should be on the record of this Committee while we are debating it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because in Carlisle, while we have possibly had immigrant problems in the past in the city, we have not been seriously affected by this particular one. In fact, I imagine that we had no problem at all until I received a lettter from my medical officer of health drawing my attention to three cases in the city.

Mr. S. Silverman

On a point of order. Is it right that when the principle of an Amendment has already been conceded, when there is a guillotine Motion in operation and when we are getting very rapidly towards the time when the Guillotine falls, an hon. Member should take up the limited time we have in order to push at an open door?

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. Horace King)

It is not a point of order which the hon. Member refers to me. It may be a point of substance, but it is not a point of order.

Dr. Johnson

I will be as brief as possible in giving the particulars of these cases. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are three cases. First, a Chinese, aged 20, who had four months previously arrived from Hong Kong and who was found suffering from extensive disease of the right lung. He was employed as a waiter in a restaurant frequented by many young people in the City. The second case, as a result of contact examination, was that of a Chinese cook aged 44, who had been——

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that this is the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and that the Amendment is to deal with Commonwealth citizens.

Dr. Johnson

Surely, if Hong Kong is in the Commonwealth—[HON. MEMBERS: "But a Chinese?"] Yes, from Hong Kong. I should hope that hon. Members opposite are aware that most of the population of Hong Kong is Chinese—of Chinese race.

This second case also came from Hong Kong. He was employed at the same restaurant as the previous patient and was also found to be suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. The third case, an even more pointed one, was that of a Pakistani who was referred to the chest clinic by his doctor, and was found to have extensive disease of both lungs. He had been in the United Kingdom since October, 1961, a matter of three months, and had been employed as a weaver in a local factory which had been the subject of regular surveys by a mass miniature radiography unit. In the days before this patient was engaged, the unit had paid one of its periodic visits, but there were no cases at the factory. As the result of this man's employment, some 200 employees at the factory are now having to be examined as contacts.

I think that this last case makes the point in particular, because I was talking to our medical officer in Carlisle, who emphasised the fact that whereas before this factory was quite clear of tuberculosis and only needed visiting perhaps once a year by the unit, he would now have to visit it every three months for the next couple of years to examine for contacts. We do not have the resources in our Health Service to cope with that kind of thing. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell) said that there were no figures for Birmingham, but if we have instances like that in Carlisle—

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell

I do not want to interrupt, but I gave the figures for Birmingham.

Dr. Johnson

I apologise if I am wrong. I understood that the hon. Member said that there were no figures for Birmingham which separated Commonwealth citizens from others. If these are instances in Carlisle, where the number of immigrants can almost be counted on the fingers of two hands, what must be the position in Birmingham and Nottingham and other places where Asiatics have come in comparatively large numbers? That is why I thank my hon. and learned Friend for accepting the Amendment. I am glad to have had the opportunity to place these facts on record.

Mr. Gurden

I very much appreciate the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend and I see the difficulty about the drafting of the Amendment. Despite the opposition from the hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Denis Howell), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Hon. Members


Amendment negatived.

Mr. D. Foot

I beg to move, in page 16, line 6, after "writing", to insert: which shall set out the reasons for such refusal. I hope that the purpose of this Amendment will be clear on the face of it. Pursuant to Clause 2, an immigration officer can refuse admission to the United Kingdom and does so by notice in writing. The Amendment provides that the notice shall set out the reasons for the refusal. My hon. Friends and I have tabled the Amendment because it seems to us to raise an important point of principle. When a Commonwealth citizen comes to this country and is denied the right, which up to now he has enjoyed, of free entry into the country, he is entitled to know the reasons for the refusal.

The Amendment takes the Committee back to Clause 2 and I ask hon. Members to remind themselves of what that Clause contains. Subsection (1) contains a general power to refuse any immigrant the right of admission to the United Kingdom. It is true that certain rights are given under subsection (2) and that if a man wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of employment and has a voucher, or is in a position to support himself, he is entitled to be admitted. But he is entitled to be admitted only if he can satisfy the immigration officer of one or other of those conditions.

The matter still remains in the discretion of the immigration officer from whose decision there is no kind of appeal. If the immigration officer says that he is not satisfied that the immigrant's purpose in entering the United Kingdom is for employment here, or if he says that he is not satisfied that the immigrant is in a position to support himself, that is the end of the matter. The immigration officer does not need to say so. All he needs to do is to give a blank refusal and all that the immigrant will know is that his application for admission has been turned down.

Then we go on to subsection (3, a): if it appears to the immigration officer, or to a medical inspector, that he is a person suffering from mental disorder… He may not be suffering from mental disorder. The immigration officer may not be competent to judge mental disorder, but he is to be made the judge in this case, and if it appears to him—whether it is well founded or not—that the man is suffering from mental disorder, that is the end of it.

The subsection is even wider, because it goes on to say: or that it is otherwise undesirable for medical reasons that he should be admitted. What is the test of undesirability? We do not know whether it has to be a contagious disease, or a serious disease, or what the test is to be. In each case the immigration officer will apply his own standard. We were told earlier today when we were dealing with the question of ex-Service men who had fought in the war that immigration officers would be instructed by circular to deal sympathetically with such cases, but there is no means of finding out how they will carry out their instructions, because in each case it is the immigration officer who will be the final judge, and I repeat that there will be no appeal from his decision.

I go on to paragraph (b), which says: if the immigration officer has reason to believe that he has been convicted in any country of any crime, wherever committed, which is an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts… It is conceivable that there may be a mistake. The man may not have been convicted at all. It may even be a case of mistaken identity, but who is to know, because the immigration officer does not have to give particulars? He does not have to give his reasons. All that he has to do is to issue a notice in writing refusing admission.

It ought to be observed also, that even then the immigration officer can apply his own standard. He is not bound to keep out an immigrant because he has been convicted of an extraditable offence. The subsection says that the immigrant may be refused admission, and it is for the immigration officer to satisfy himself not only that an extraditable offence has been committed, but to apply some tests of his own to decide whether that offence which he believes to have been committed is such as to justify exclusion from the United Kingdom.

I go on to what, in my view, is even more serious, because paragraph (c) says: if his admission would, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, be contrary to the interests of national security. As I observed on an earlier Clause, the Secretary of State does not proceed on his own knowledge. He has to proceed on a report which is presented to him, a report which may be drawn from all kinds of sources, some perhaps reliable, and others perhaps unreliable. It may be that the Secretary of State, or the officer who advises him, will be misled, and those who have had anything to do with security matters know how easy it is to make a mistake. One is not dealing with certainty but with reports that come from all kinds of sources, and some of them may be rather doubtful sources.

Here is this test as to security, because paragraph (c) continues: contrary to the interests of national security. Suppose that the report which is laid before the Secretary of State is misconceived. Suppose that it is based on false information. The immigrant has no means of knowing. He has no opportunity of making an answer at all, and, therefore, we may do a considerable injustice simply because no reasons are given. All that we have is the fiat of the immigration officer, and that is the end of the matter.

If the Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, it will enable the immigrant to have some kind of safeguard. He will be able to say, "Your grounds are misconceived", or, "I am not suffering from this disease", or "I was not convicted of this offence", or "Your sources of information are misleading". He will be able to say that provided the reasons for refusing him admission are furnished to him. He will be able to come to a Member of Parliament who will be able to pursue the matter, but it will not be possible to deal with the case if no reasons are given. I suggest that this provision runs contrary to the whole trend of our modern legislation.

Only a year or two ago we passed the Tribunals and Enquiries Act, which was the culmination of a struggle that had gone on for a good many years in this House, dating from the early 1930s—the struggle to make Ministers give reasons for their decisions. The Departments resisted over a very long period of time. They resisted when it was first proposed in the days of the Committee on Ministers' Powers, but they did not resist quite so strongly in the days of the Franks Report, and eventually we passed legislation through this House saying that where Ministers took decisions as the result of an inquiry and those decisions affected the rights of individual citizens, the Minister must give reasons for what he did. That was, I believe, a very considerable advance.

The decisions referred to in Section 12 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act are mostly decisions affecting property rights. Here we are dealing with something that is even more important than property rights, we are dealing with the rights hitherto unchallenged of a Commonwealth citizen to come here, to make his home here, and to earn his livelihood here. We say that is no less important, and, indeed, more important than the kind of right which was contemplated under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act.

It seems to me that what we are doing is to give an almost unfettered discretion to an official. If we do that, at least his mental processes ought to be revealed, and, as a matter of elementary justice, if a man is told that he cannot come into this country, he ought to know the reason.

Mr. Weitzman

I support the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) for the reasons that he has given. It is extremely important to note that nowhere in the Bill is there any obligation on the part of an immigration officer to communicate to the immigrant the reasons for refusal. It is important to have these reasons, and that is why I support the Amendment.

Mr. Fletcher

I support the Amendment for reason in addition to the weighty reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stoke Newington and Hackney, North (Mr. Weitzman). It is important to remind the Committee and, in particular, the Attorney-General that it is open to the immigration officer to refuse an immigrant permission for none of the reasons given by my hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, for no reasons relevant to the immigrant himself, but to something totally different. Last week, on 6th February, the Attorney-General said: In many cases"— not an isolated case— permission 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.] Surely it is only just that if an immigrant is refused admission through no fault whatever of his own—nothing to do with a criminal record, or a security risk, of medical reasons, or because he has not a proper voucher, but because sufficient numbers have been admitted for that particular time—he should be told why he has been refused admission.

This is the most monstrous injustice created by the Bill. The immigrant will not be told why he has been refused admission. He will not be told whether it is because of some personal idiosyncrasy on the part of the immigration officer, or because some quota fixed by the Government, the terms of which may or may not have been communicated to the immigrant's home country, or to the House, has been filled.

It is unjust that the immigration officer should have power to refuse entry on these grounds. It is doubly unjust when the immigration officer does not have to communicate to the immigrant the reason why he is not being permitted to enter. For these reasons I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

10.0 p.m.

Dr. Mabon

Many patients come to doctors' surgeries full of anguish because, after applying for a certain position, they have been turned down because they have not passed a medical test, and because no medical reasons have been given them. I have had that experience many times myself. These people come to their doctors seeking advice about a condition from which they did not know they suffered. It is one of the most agonising experiences anyone can go through, especially if there is a long interval between the examination and refusal, and their seeking advice to find out what has to be cured.

I suggest that when persons appear in this country for the first time, having travelled long distances, and are then turned back without any reason being given them, it causes them a great deal of unhappiness. It seems wrong that we should not admit these people for treatment here, although that may be a sentimental and unpractical point. Nevertheless, some explanation should be given to these people. They should be told whether they are suffering from a severe form of tuberculosis, or whatever it may be, and given some kind of certificate describing the findings of the medical men who have carried out the examination.

It seems rather pointless to spend a great deal of money at the ports providing facilities for medical men to arrive at certain conclusions if we are then unwilling to tell the unfortunate wretches who fail to pass the examinations that they are suffering from certain diseases and that the sooner they are treated at home the better. As I say. it seems a pity to me that they should be sent back home and not allowed to take advantage of our excellent Health Service. These people are not foreigners; they are our own people, from the Commonwealth.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller)

I have listened with interest to the debate and to every word uttered in support of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) made reference to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act, and I am glad that he recognised that it was a good Measure, introduced by this Government.

I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members opposite, but I must tell them that it would not be right to accept the Amendment. It imposes a general obligation in all cases to set out in writing the reasons for the refusal of admission. I can think of cases where that would not be desirable. They may form a small minority, but I do not share the hon. and learned Member's view that it is desirable to provide information even if the refusal is on the ground that admission would be contrary to the interests of national security.

There may be other cases where it is not even desirable in the interests of the immigrants. This may be so in the case of mental disorder. The Amendment provides that it should be a statutory obligation to provide that information in writing on every occasion. I hope that the Committee will not think that it follows from the argument that I am advancing that an immigrant who is refused admission by an immigration officer will never be told for what reason the officer finds it impossible to admit him. I am advised, and it is my belief, that in the vast majority of cases that information will be supplied. To that extent the substance of the hon. and learned Member's point will he met. But it would be going too far, and would be wrong in the circumstances, to accept a statutory obligation to be placed on every immigration officer to give those reasons in writing in every case. For those reasons I cannot but advise the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Weitzman

Would it be possible to insert some provision in the directions given to the immigration officers that, unless they are given instructions to the contrary, reasons in writing ought to be given to the immigrant?

The Attorney-General

I do not think I can go so far as to say that. If we gave reasons in writing in some cases and not in others it might point to the reason in the other case. But I will consult my right hon. Friend to see whether some guidance can b:: given to immigration officers to give reasons orally wherever possible. I know that that is not likely to satisfy all hon. Members opposite. But I think that it goes some way to meet the, hon. and learned Member for Ipswich who was wrong in suggesting, or in thinking, that immigration officers would, as he said, have almost an unfettered discretion. In fact, they will be given guidance by their superior officers at the Home Office.

Miss Jennie Lee (Cannock)

I have listened with astonishment to the reply of the Attorney-General. Obviously, the right hon. and learned Gentleman found himself in rather a difficult situation. He had listened to arguments about the situation of someone who might be rejected because the quota had been filled. He listened to arguments about the unhappiness and worry which might be caused to someone who was given a vague answer that there might be something wrong with his health.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has listened to all kinds of arguments, and the only one he singled out was that it might be that the immigrant was suffering from some form of mental disorder. Surely, therefore, we are being asked to believe that in other circumstances an immigrant will be told the reason why he cannot enter. Anyone who is not told the reason will think that he must be suffering from some form of mental disorder. I have never heard such a flimsy excuse for rejecting a very reasonable Amendment.

Mr. S. Silverman

I should have thought that the reasons given by the Attorney-General for rejecting the Amendment added force to the argument of my hon. and learned Friend to conduct it to a Division. I can imagine nothing more mischievous or damaging than to say that a man should be told orally the reasons for his rejection, but should not have the right to have those reasons put into writing or to have any evidence of them. A man sent back to his country after having made all arrangements might find it regarded as a reflection upon him when he arrived home that he was refused admission. It might be thought that it was for some reason involving some moral culpability or guilt.

Surely such a man is entitled to be able to produce evidence from the officer who rejected him to show that the rejection was through no fault of his own. But to tell him orally, and not enable him to prove it when he gets back home, is a monstrous argument.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Isle of Thanet)

I wish to support what has been said by the Attorney-General. There are additional points which I should like to make, and the first is that there is such a diversity of reasons for which this administrative decision is taken.

There may be policy reasons for refusal or personal reasons. Personal reasons might be in relation to the character of the individual or the medical standard of the individual. There might be security reasons or, on grounds of policy, reasons entirely having regard to the numbers concerned. They may even relate to the age of the person, admitting those who are students and not those who are older. There is a diversity of reasons, and it seems unsatisfactory that they should be given in writing. It would impose an undue burden on the immigration officer for there might be a mixture of a number of these reasons given at one and the same time. That might lead administratively to the officer giving a compendious reason which would not be what those putting this Amendment forward would want.

I think it better to give an oral reason. I entirely dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) that any question of a moral stigma will attach to a person not achieving entry to this country. I think there is a clear line of demarcation between the question of entry on a purely administrative matter and the conduct of Ministers responsible to Parliament. There is a distinction between that and what I might call the matters upon which evidence was given in great detail before the Oliver Franks Committee and then adopted. The Franks Committee never suggested that there should be any change in the ordinary position regarding aliens.

It is true that this is a new Bill, but we have little doubt that had it been before that Committee it would have included this within the ambit of its considerations. If this were included and reasons were given there would surely be great pressure for the same to be carried into the Aliens Orders. I think it would be very unsatisfactory in Aliens Orders. I do not think that every time someone is refused at the port of entry for policy or other reasons the matter should end in a debate in this Chamber. For all these reasons, I support the Government in this matter.

Mr. Roderic Bowen (Cardigan)

I intervene only because of the observations just made by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr Rees-Davies) and the reference to the Franks Committee. To the best of my recollection we never considered on that Committee the position under aliens orders. I am certain that the Franks Committee would not have appreciated this argument that the person affected by these regulations and refused permission should be told orally the reasons and the immigration officer should not be prepared to commit those reasons to writing.

It seems utterly ridiculous if it is envisaged that the immigration officer should give the reasons orally but not be required to give those reasons equally in writing, if it were only to avoid any possible confusion between the potential immigrant and the immigration officer as to what had precisely transpired between them. I could understand an argument in support of saying that in the circumstances the immigration officer should not be required to give reasons, but I would not support him. I could understand that argument from an administrative point of view, but I do not support it.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I do not think the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) was present when the point was dealt with by the Attorney-General.

Mr. Bowen

Yes, I was.

Mr. Rees-Davies

I should therefore correct him. There is no requirement to give oral reasons or to state anything. No doubt in circumstances where a dispute might arise no such reason would be given, but if reasons are given purely informally that is quite different from their being given legal sanction.

Mr. Bowen

The hon. Member is quite incorrect. I was present and heard what the Attorney-General said. The Attorney-General will correct me if I am wrong. He said that it was envisaged that, in general, reasons would be given orally. If that were the general practice, I fail to understand what conceivable objection there is to those oral reasons being put in writing and supplied to the person involved.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Pavitt

It is intolerable that we have to discuss such an important question as the freedom of the individual under the shadow of the Guillotine. I shall not delay the Committee any longer. The whole weight of the State and the law is to be put on a poor little immigrant. One of the things on which the Commonwealth has prided itself is the fact that we have been able to preserve the rights of the little man against the huge State. This is one of the things which will cease to be true, unless the Amendment is accepted. Unless we in the House of Commons are able to show that justice is done, and able to show it to the indvidual concerned, I cannot see how we can sustain our high standards in this respect.

Question put, That those words be there inserted:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 170, Noes 228.

Division No. 87.] AYES [10.16 p.m.
Alnsley, William Calpern, Sir Myer MacColl, James
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) McInnes, James
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Ginsburg, David McKay, John (Wallsend)
Awbery, Stan Gourlay, Harry Mackie, John (Enfield. East)
Baird, John Grey, Charles Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Manuel, A. C.
Beaney, Alan Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Mapp, Charles
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Mason, Roy
Benson, Sir George Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mendelson, J. J.
Blackburn, F. Hamilton, William (West Fife) Millan, Bruce
Biyton, William Hannan, William Milne, Edward
Boardman, H. Hart, Mrs. Judith Mitchison, G. R.
Bowden, Rt. Hn, H. W.(Leics. S.W.) Hayman, F. H. Morris, John
Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Healey, Denis Neal, Harold
Bowles, Frank Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Herbison, Miss Margaret Oram, A. E.
Brockway, A. Fenner Hill, J. (Midlothian) Oswald, Thomas
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hilton, A. V. Owen, Will
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Holman, Percy Padley, W. E.
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Holt, Arthur Parker, John
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Houghton, Douglas Pavitt, Laurence
Callaghan, James Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Peart, Frederick
Chapman, Donald Hoy, James H. Pentland, Norman
Cliffe, Michael Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Prentice, R. E.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Cronin, John Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Probert, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hunter, A. E. Proctor, W. T.
Davies, Harold (Leek) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Randall, Harry
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Rankin, John
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Janner, Sir Barnett Redhead, E. C.
Deer, George Jeger, George Rhodes, H.
Delargy, Hugh Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dempsey, James Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Diamond, John Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Dodds, Norman Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Ross, William
Donnelly, Desmond Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Edelman, Maurice Kelley, Richard Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Kenyan, Clifford Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Skeffington, Arthur
Evans, Albert Lawson, George Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Fitch, Alan Ledger, Ron Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Fletcher, Eric Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Lewis, Anthur (West Ham, N.) Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Forman, J. C Lipton, Marcus Spriggs, Leslie
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Loughlin, Charles Steele, Thomas
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Stone house, John Wade, Donald Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Stones, William Wainwright, Edwin Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John Warbey, William Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Symonds, J. B. Watkins, Tudor Winter bottom, R E.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield) Weitzman, David Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Woof, Robert
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.) Whitlock, William Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline) Wilkins, W. A.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.) Willey, Frederick TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Timmons, John Williams, D. J. (Neath) Mr Sydney Irving and Mr. Short.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Agnew, Sir Peter Gammans, Lady Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Aitken, W. T. George, J. C. (Pollok) Mills, Stratton
Arbuthnot, John Gibson-Watt, David More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Ashton, Sir Hubert Gilmour, Sir John Morgan, William
Atkins, Humphrey Goodhew, Victor Morrison, John
Barlow, Sir John Gower, Raymond Nabarro, Gerald
Barter, John Grant, Rt Hon. William Oakshott, Sir Hendrie
Bell, Ronald Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Osborn, John (Hallam)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Green, Alan Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Berkeley, Humphry Gresham Cooke, R. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Biffen, John Gurden, Harold Page, John (Harrow, West)
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Hall, John (Wycombe) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Bishop, F. P. Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Partridge, E.
Black, Sir Cyril Harris, Reader (Heston) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Bossom, Clive Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Peel, John
Bourne-Arton, A. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Percival, Ian
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Peyton, John
Brewis, John Hastings, Stephen Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Brooman-White, R. Hay, John Pilkington, Sir Richard
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pitman, Sir James
Bryan, Paul Hendry, Forbes Pitt, Miss Edith
Buck, Antony Hiley, Joseph Pott, Percivall
Bullard, Denys Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Prior, J. M. L.
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden) Hocking, Philip N. Pym, Francis
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Holland, Philip Quennell, Miss J. M.
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hollingworth, John Rawlinson, Peter
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Hopkins, Alan Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Cary, Sir Robert Hornby, R. P. Rees, Hugh
Channon, H. P. C. Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Rees-Davies, w. R.
Chataway, Christopher Hughes Hallett, vice-Admiral John Renton, David
Chichester-Clark, R. Hughes-Young, Michael Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Hutchison, Michael Clark Ridsdale, Julian
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Iremonger, T. L. Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye) Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Cleaver, Leonard James, David Roots, William
Cole, Norman Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Russell, Ronald
Collard, Richard Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Scott-Hopkins, James
Cooke, Robert Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Seymour, Leslie
Cooper, A. E. Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Sharples, Richard
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Shaw, M.
Corfield, F. V. Joseph, Sir Keith Shepherd, William
Costain, A. P. Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Skeet, T. H. H
Coulson, Michael Kerr, Sir Hamilton Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Kitson, Timothy Smithers, Peter
Craddock, Sir Beresford Leather, E. H. C Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Critchley, Julian Leavey, J. A. Spearmon, Sir Alexander
Crowder, F. P. Leburn, Gilmour Speir, Rupert
Curran, Charles Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Stanley, Hon. Richard
Currie, G. B. H. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stevens, Geoffrey
Dalkeith, Earl of Lilley, F. J. P. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Dance, Jameg Lindsay, Sir Martin Stodart, J. A.
d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Linstead, Sir Hugh Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Deedes, W. F. Litchfield, Capt. John Storey, Sir Samuel
de Ferranti, Basil Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfleld) Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Longboottom, Charles Talbot, John E.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. Loveys, Walter H. Tapsell, Peter
Doughty, Charles Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Drayson, G. B. McLaren, Martin Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Duncan, Sir James McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Temple, John M.
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Errington, Sir Eric McMaster, Stanley R. Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Farey-Jones, F. W. Maddan, Martin Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Farr, John Maginnis, John E. Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Finlay, Graeme Manningham-Buller. Rt. Hn. Sir R. Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Markham, Major Sir Frank Turner, Colin
Forrest, George Marten, Neil van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Vane, W. M, F.
Freeth, Denzil Mawby, Ray Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Vickers, Miss Joan Wall, Patrick Woodhouse, C. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.) Ward, Dame Irene Woodnutt, Mark
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone) Webster, David Worsley, Marcus
Walder, David Wells, John (Maidstone)
Walker, Peter Williams, Dudley (Exeter) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek Wise, A. R. Mr. Whitelaw and
Mr. Michael Hamilton.
Mr. Fletcher

I beg to move, in page 17, line 12, at the end to insert: Provided that the costs of complying with any directions under this sub-paragraph shall be defrayed by the Secretary of State. We now find ourselves in this position. There are five minutes to go before the Guillotine falls. The Government have already accepted four Opposition Amendments to this ill-conceived, ill-digested Schedule to this ill-considered Bill. There are several other Amendments which would be discussed if time permitted and which, no doubt, would be accepted by the Government in order to improve their Bill. But there is only time to discuss this one Amendment.

This Amendment is designed to qualify the position with regard to the cost of sending back to his own country the immigrant who arrives here and who is refused admission by the immigration officer. Consider, for example, the case of the Chinese laundryman from Hong Kong cited by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) who has spent his savings coming here and who is found upon medical examination to have tuberculosis.

Or what about the person who—and according to the Attorney-General there will be several of them—is sent back and refused admission by the immigration officer, not through any personal idiosyncrasy or ineligibility of his own, but because the quota has been exhausted? In such cases who will pay the cost of sending him back? The Amendment suggests that it should be paid by the Secretary of State. There is a similar provision in a later part of the Schedule and I hope, in fairness, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Renton

I am glad that the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) has drawn attention to the fact that at a late stage in our proceedings—on this the last day of the Committee stage—the Opposition have put down

Amendments which, at last, we have been able to accept. Their efforts on the earlier parts of the Bill were not so successful.

The reason why we make the shipping or aircraft company take people back who are refused admission is that without a financial sanction of this kind there would be nothing to stop them from bringing here immigrants who had neither vouchers nor entry certificates or valid reasons for coming. The carrying companies understand this position perfectly well, even if the Opposition do not.

Without labouring the point, I am afraid that this is a proviso which we could not accept. There was one later Amendment which we were prepared to accept and perhaps we shall be able to deal with that on another occasion.

Mr. Fletcher

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how what he has said applies to the immigrant who has a perfectly good reason for coming here and who is refused admission through no fault of his own but because the quota is exhausted?

Mr. Renton

If the quota had been exhausted a person would not get a voucher. But if a person has obtained a voucher then he is to be admitted by the immigration officer, subject only to questions of health and criminal record which can quite well be found out before he considers journeying to this country.

Amendment negatived.

It being half-past Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to Orders, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.

Question put, That this Schedule, as amended, be the First Schedule to the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 224, Noes 167.

Division No. 88.] AYES 10.30 p.m.
Agnew, Sir Peter Ashton, Sir Hubert Barter, John
Aitken, W. T. Atkins, Humphrey Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Arbuthnot, John Barlow, Sir John Berkeley, Humphry
Biffen, John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pilkington, Sir Richard
Bishop, F. P. Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Pitman, Sir James
Black, Sir Cyril Hastings, Stephen Pitt, Miss Edith
Bossom, Clive Hay, John Pott, Percivall
Bourne-Arton, A. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Prior, J. M. L.
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J, Hendry, Forbes Proudfoot, Wilfred
Boyle, Sir Edward Hiley, Joseph Pym, Francis
Brewis, John Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Brooman-White, R. Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Rawlinson, Peter
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Hocking, Philip N. Redmayne, Rt, Hon. Martin
Bryan, Paul Holland, Philip Rees, Hugh
Buck, Antony Hollingworth, John Rees-Davies, W, R.
Bullard, Denys Hopkins, Alan Renton, David
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hornby, R. P. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden) Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Ridsdale, Julian
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Hughes-Young, Michael Robinson, Rt. Hn. Sir R. (B'pool, S.)
Cary, Sir Robert Hutchison, Michael Clark Roots, William
Channon, H. P. G. Iremonger, T. L. Russell, Ronald
Chichester-Clark, R. James, David Scott-Hopkins, James
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Seymour, Leslie
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Sharples, Richard
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Shaw, M.
Cleaver, Leonard Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Shepherd, William
Cole, Norman Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Skeet, T. H. H.
Collard, Richard Joseph, Sir Keith Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Cooke, Robert Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Smithere, Peter
Cooper, A. E. Kerr, Sir Hamilton Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Kitson, Timothy Spearman, Sir Alexander
Corfield, F. V. Leather, E. H. C. Speir, Rupert
Costain, A. P. Leavey, J. A. Stanley, Hon. Richard
Coulson, Michael Leburn, Gilmour Stevens, Geoffrey
Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Craddock, Sir Berestord Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stodart, J. A.
Critchley, Julian Lilley, F. J. P. Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Crowder, F. P. Lindsay, Sir Martin Storey, Sir Samuel
Curran, Charles Linstead, Sir Hugh Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Currie, G. B. H. Litchfield, Capt. John Talbot, John E.
Dalkeith, Earl of Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield) Tapsell, Peter
Dance, James Longbottom, Charles Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry Loveys, Walter H. Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, moss Side)
Deedes, W. F. Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
de Ferranti, Basll Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Temple, John M.
Digby, Simon Wingfield McLaren, Martin Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M. McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Doughty, Charles Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Drayson, G. B. MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Duncan, Sir James McMaster, Stanley R. Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne, N.) Maginnis, John E. Turner, Colin
Errington, Sir Eric Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. van Straubenzee, W. R.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J. Markham, Major Sir Frank Vane, W. M. F.
Farr, John Marten, Nell Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Vickers, Miss Joan
Forrest, George Mawby, Ray Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Freeth, Denzil Mills, Stratton Walder, David
Gammans, Lady More, Jasper (Ludlow) Walker, Peter
George, J. C. (Pollok) Morgan, William Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Gibson-Watt, David Morrison, John Wall, Patrick
Gilmour, Sir John Nabarro, Gerald Ward, Dame Irene
Goodhew, Victor Oakshott, Sir Hendrie Webster, David
Gower, Raymond Orr-Ewing, C. Ian Wells, John (Maidstone)
Grant, Rt. Hon. William Osborn, John (Hallam) Whitelaw, William
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Green, Alan Page, Graham (Crosby) Wise, A. R.
Gresham Cooke, R. Page, John (Harrow, West) Woodhouse, C. M.
Gurden, Harold Partridge, E. Woodnutt, Mark
Hall, John (Wycombe) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe) Worsley, Marcus
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Peel, John
Hams, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.) Percival, Ian TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Harris, Reader (Heston) Peyton, John Mr. Finlay and
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Mr. Gordon Campbell.
Ainsley, William Blackburn, F. Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Blyton, William Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Boardman, H. Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Awbery, Stan Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W.(Leics, S.W.) Callaghan, James
Baird, John Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan) Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Bowles, Frank Chapman, Donald
Beaney, Alan Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Cliffe, Michael
Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Brockway, A. Fenner Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Benson, Sir George Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Cronin, John
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Hynd, H. (Accrington) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, Ifor (Cower) Janner, Sir Barnett Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Jeger, George Ross, William
Deer, George Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Delargy, Hugh Jones, Rt, Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Dempsey, James Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Diamond, John Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Skeffington, Arthur
Dodds, Norman Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Donnelly, Desmond Kelley, Richard Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Edelman, Maurice Kenyon, Clifford Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lawson, George Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Ledger, Ron Spriggs, Leslie
Evans, Albert Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Steele, Thomas
Fitch, Alan Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Fletcher, Eric Loughlin, Charles Stonehouse, John
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stones, William
Forman, J. C. MacColl, James Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) McInnes, James Symonds, J. B.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh McKay, John (Wallsend) Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mackie, John (Enfield, East) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.) Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Ginsburg, David Manuel, A. C. Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Gourlay, Harry Mapp, Charles Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Grey, Charles Mason, Roy Timmons, John
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Mendelson, J. J. Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Millan, Bruce Wade, Donald
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Milne, Edward Wainwright, Edwin
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Mitchison, G. R. Warbey, William
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Morris, John Watkins, Tudor
Hannan, William Neal, Harold Weitzman, David
Hart, Mrs. Judith Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hayman, F, H. Oram, A. E. Whitlock, William
Healey, Denis Oswald, Thomas Wilkins, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rly Regis) Owen, Will Willey, Frederick
Herbison, Miss Margaret Padley, W. E. Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hill, O. (Midlothian) Parker, John Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Hilton, A. V. Pavitt, Laurence Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Holman, Percy Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Holt, Arthur Peart, Frederick Wilson, Rt. Hon, Harold (Huyton)
Houghton, Douglas Pentland, Norman Winterbottom, R. E.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Prentice, R. E. Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Woof, Robert
Hoy, James H. Probert, Arthur Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Proctor, W. T.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Rankin, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Redhead, E. C. Mr. Sydney Irving and Mr. Short.
Hunter, A. E. Rhodes, H.

Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

Then The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order. [25th January.]

Bill reported, with Amendments: as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]