HC Deb 13 February 1962 vol 653 cc1177-201

The provisions of this Act shall not apply to any Commonwealth citizen coloured or white who served or was wounded or maimed in the second world war or whose parents., brothers or sisters served were wounded maimed or killed in the said war.—[Mr. Lipton.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

I do not propose to take up the time of the Committee unduly, because there are other new Clauses which should be discussed before we part with the Bill. The new Clause with which I am concerned speaks for itself and I hope that it will meet with the acceptance of the Minister of State, who will, no doubt, tell us at an early stage the Government's reaction to it.

Surely it would not be right, notwithstanding all the arguments that we have heard on other Clauses, that this class of citizens of the Commonwealth, white or coloured, who have demonstrated their loyalty to this country and have made sacrifices in demonstrating it, should come within the provisions of the Bill.

Brigadier Sir John Smyth (Norwood)

I do not think that any hon. Member could accuse me of not being sympathetic towards the class of people who are dealt with in this new Clause, particularly since I have served with coloured troops for a great part of my life, but I think that we should consider the new Clause rather carefully and should realise what it means.

It would apply not so much to West Indians, but particularly to Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, Indians and Pakistanis and certainly to people in parts of Africa. The first question which strikes me is why we should confine the new Clause to people who served in the Second World War. What about the First World War? I cannot see how we could possibly exclude Far Eastern prisoners of war and internees. They might add up to a very large total, including parents, brothers and sisters, and, in any case, it would be very difficult to check on them. There is no question of barring these people any more than there is any question of barring Commonwealth immigrants of one class. The Bill merely seeks to impose a check on them.

Let us consider the Far Eastern prisoners of war on whose behalf I moved a Motion in this Chamber ten years ago, as a result of which our own ex-prisoners received about £5 million. We realised then it would be impossible to cater for all the prisoners of war and internees of India and Pakistan. That would have stultified the whole scheme absolutely and entirely. I therefore insisted that, in particular, India, Pakistan, Australia and New Zealand should make their own claims in respect of their own Far Eastern prisoners of war and internees. If we had not done that, we should have been swamped and our own Far Eastern prisoners would have received nothing.

6.15 p.m.

I feel very strongly about this matter. If we accept the new Clause, it will mean that we are holding out a particular encouragement to the people with which it deals to come to this country outside the ordinary provisions of the Bill. If we are to encourage these people to come here, I feel that we should accept some responsibility for them. For instance, we could not have a lot of war disabled people in this country and not provide them with houses, pensions and some means of subsistence. It would be very wrong if we did.

Mr. Fletcher

I am trying to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument, because I know of his interest in this matter. Am I not right in thinking that these people have been free to come here at any time since the end of the war? Is there any reason to think that if we exempt them from the provisions of the Bill it will stimulate them to come here? They could have come here at any time in the last sixteen years.

Sir J. Smyth

I think it will, because, in a sense, it is proposed to make special provision for them in this new Clause. It is proposed to make a special exception of them. I am in sympathy with the idea behind the Clause and would like to help all those who have been maimed or wounded in the cause of the Commonwealth if we could. But if we extend the welcome to them which is proposed in the Clause, we should have to ensure that they were properly looked after. It is not as easy and simple a matter as the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) made out.

Mr. C. Royle

I support the new Clause. I have been drawn to my feet by what the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth) said. Is not this an opportunity to show that we are sympathetic towards the people dealt with in the Clause? Our experience is that in many parts of the Commonwealth wounded ex-Service men are not receiving a pension and are relying completely on charity. I discovered that in the West Indies during the last few weeks. Surely we have some responsibility in this matter. If we have to carry the terms of the Clause to the extent envisaged by the hon. and gallant Member with regard to pensions, and so on, would not that be a good thing, and would not we be accepting a responsibility which is really ours?

I agree completely with the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood when he asks why the Clause should be restricted to those who served in the Second World War? I quarrel with my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) for having specifically named a particular war. I, too, am long enough in the tooth to have been a First World War soldier, and I am concerned about ex-soldiers of that war just as much as about those wounded or maimed in the Second World War.

Would you, Sir William, be prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment to delete the words "second world" in line 2 of the proposed new Clause, so that it might cover people maimed in any war on behalf of the Commonwealth?

The Chairman

No. I am not prepared to accept a manuscript Amendment at this stage, but the point can be fully discussed.

Mr. Royle

It seems to me that a manuscript Amendment might make this a better Clause.

Mr. Lipton

I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) that, if it is the desire of the Committee to make this Clause apply to all wars of which there are survivors, I should be most happy to alter it.

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

I wish to add one or two points, particularly in view of what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). I do not think that his arguments were persuasive. Even if this were a matter of encouraging more of these people to come here, I think that that would be a perfectly proper and reasonable thing to do. Surely, however, the main purpose of this Clause—it illustrates the squalid nature of the Bill that we should have to discuss such a proposal—is to avoid shocking scandals from damaging this country's good name. It would be a shocking scandal if persons from the Commonwealth, who had fought and been wounded in the cause of this country, were refused permission to enter. It would make them advertisements for the illiberality of the Bill.

I would have thought that the Home Secretary would agree to accept the Clause so as to avoid, or, at any rate, mitigate, the bad feeling that the Bill is bound to arouse. I cannot see how any hon. Member could properly vote for the proposition that people, or the close relatives of people, who fought for this country in the Second World War or any other war should be excluded from the right to come to this country.

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

I do not wish to make a speech, but I want to be clear, Sir William, about the answer you gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle). Before I ask you my question, however, I want to admit my share of the responsibility in this matter. This Clause has stood on the Notice Paper for days, and we could have taken action before now to extend it to cover people who served in other wars. We are, therefore, all responsible. Would you be good enough to reconsider whether you could not accept a manuscript Amendment, so that we could vote on the two things together?

The Chairman

My mind is never closed, but I have no intention so far of acceding to the hon. Gentleman's request. The Committee is well able to deal with the point in general. Amendments could be made at a later stage if that were desirable.

Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I think that the point that has been raised about a manuscript Amendment would be met if the Minister of State, in his reply, said that this Clause was a reasonable proposal and that he would take the opportunity at a later stage of amending it to include all wars. The whole point of our proposal is that anybody who has served in either of the major wars or in any other war in aid of our country should at least have the right to come here.

At a time of stress and strain, such persons served the country in a substantial way. With the greatest respect to the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth), for whom I have the highest regard, I cannot understand the strength of the argument he has put forward. After all, if a person has been injured in the service of the Commonwealth as a member of the Armed Forces I can see no argument which can properly be used to deny him the right of receiving some kind of compensation, and proper compensation, for the injuries that he has sustained.

When such a person was serving, he was doing so equally with everybody else in a certain cause, and in that cause, equally with everybody else, he was subject to the possibility of injury. How can we then say that we are not entitled to give, or that we should be prevented from giving, assistance to a man who has so served? I cannot see that the Government are, morally at least, justified in refusing to accept the Clause.

This is not a party matter, but one which all who served in the Armed Forces feel is of vital importance, to which the fullest consideration should be given, and to which a concession—if it is a concession—should be made. Up to now, anyone injured in the war could come to this country and receive certain compensations. Why stop that now?

Sir Jocelyn Lucas (Portsmouth, South)

The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the Dominions paid their own men while we paid the Colonial Service men. The two cases are, therefore, different. I would support this Clause for the men themselves but not for the relatives. Again, the Dominions also provided pensions. The Canadian soldier was paid by the Canadian Government and the Australian soldier by the Australian Government, as was the case with other Dominions.

Sir B. Janner

I know that, but it counteracts the argument that these people would flood into the country. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) is saying that some parts of the Commonwealth which were affected are already doing something equivalent to what we are doing here. That is all we are claiming in this Clause, and, consequently, it disposes to some extent of the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood, who was saying that we should not have this imposition placed upon us.

We regard ourselves as one Commonwealth unit when it comes to fighting for a cause. Any of these men or women could come to this country to join units here, in the same way as any person from this country could join a Commonwealth unit. It was all in the interests of the Commonwealth as a whole. I do not think that we should be heard to say that the question of compensation or assistance to such a person to regain his health or to maintain his condition of health is not one for us. Here is a moral claim. Say what they will, the Government are trying, at the least, not to give the same rights as we did before when a person had done his share in the common enterprise. There is no moral reason for the Home Secretary to resist this appeal to allow these people to come here.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Pavitt

I rise to make quite a brief point, but, before doing so, I should like to make a comment on the contribution of the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Brigadier Sir J. Smyth) to the debate. I felt that he had some sympathy with this new Clause, and I hope that he will find his way clear to give it his acceptance. I understand that the point he made is that he would like to see a provision enabling people to come to this country if they are adequately housed and have adequate facilities. This is the whole point of the Bill. If the Government had a housing policy which not only made provision for housing our own people adequately as well as Commonwealth immigrants, the Bill would probably be unnecessary. I think that the point that the hon. and gallant Member made about opening the floodgates is, after sixteen years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) said, quite irrelevant.

The small point that I wish to bring to the attention of the Committee is an extension of what I should like to see accepted in this Clause—a very liberal interpretation of the word "service" to include not only those who served in the Armed Forces, but also those people from British Honduras who came over here at a time when we were very short of manpower and were also particularly short of timber. Had it not been for the people from British Honduras being prepared to leave their own homes, go up to Scotland and live in very different climatic conditions, we might not have got the timber which was so vitally needed. I think that "services" should include not only service in the Armed Forces, but also those people who gave service in other parts of the economy at home which were very much needed.

I do not wish to raise again the arguments used so effectively by my hon. Friends. I see no moral justification for the Government rejecting this Clause. This is an iniquitous and shocking Bill, but this Clause will put some little humanity into it if the Government accept it.

Mr. Tom Brown (Ince)

I have no desire to prolong the discussion on this very important Clause, but I am stirred by the argument advanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). We all know the hon. Member's interest in the British ex-Service man and those wounded in war, and he was only extending and expressing his practical sympathy with those who, unfortunately, have been wounded and who come from overseas.

The consensus of opinion so far expressed in the Committee is that this Clause should be accepted, and your suggestion, Sir William, means that, perhaps on Report, if the Clause is now accepted, consideration will be given by the Home Office to extending its application to victims of the First World War. In this Clause we are asking for something that should be done without asking for it. From the Bill we are leaving out people who ought to be included.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) has just said, this is a bad Bill, but there is no reason why we should not put in here and there something that is good. The Clause is something that is good. It will affect not hundreds but thousands of coloured people who assisted this country by their great bravery and devotion in both the First World War and the Second World War. Surely we are not now to deny that right to them, because it is a right and they are entitled to it.

I hope that the Government will respond to our request, because already the consensus of opinion of hon. Members of the Committee is such that it is proved conclusively that we are in favour of the Clause being inserted in the Bill, subject to consideration being given between now and the Report stage to its terms covering those who served in the First World War.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), I think that there is something shocking in this. I feel a sense of national humiliation that the Government will not accept this Clause.

I should like to direct the attention of the Minister to the possibility of our having to rely upon Commonwealth personnel in the future to defend Britain. How can we ask them to defend this country, if that defence is necessary, when we are now saying to them that, irrespective of whether they were maimed in the last war or their fathers were killed in the last war, and irrespective of the consequences of that war, in which they were defending Britain, they are not allowed to come into this country?

It is pertinent to ask what would be the message which the Government would send to Commonwealth nationals if, in future, we required them to make the same type of contribution to the defence of this country because of external danger.

Mr. Renton

I cannot claim anything like the distinguished military service of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). Nor have I ever, like the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), taken part, as I believe he did, in a cavalry charge in the First World War. Having served in the Second World War with men from at least four countries of the Commonwealth, I should like to endorse most sincerely the tributes which have been paid to them today by hon. Members of this Committee. The fighting men from the Commonwealth played a very valiant and vital part indeed in our war effort.

The purpose of the new Clause is therefore one to which we are obviously sympathetic, and if it were feasible to devise a scheme which would give effect to it, we should be thankful to do so. Unfortunately, neither the provisions of this new Clause, to which I shall refer in detail in a moment, nor any of the other proposals which we have considered along the same sort of lines, forms a workable basis.

The more one considers the matter, the more serious do the practical difficulties of interpretation become. They are difficulties which do not at first meet the eye. I ask hon. Members to look at the terms of the Clause. I am sorry that neither of the hon. Members who put it dawn on the Notice Paper has taken part in this debate, because they might have been able to explain, as others could not so well, exactly how they felt it might work out.

There are various difficulties. In the first place, is it right to confine a right like this to members of the Armed Forces only, when, as the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) pointed out, there are civilians who did valuable work for the allied cause? One cannot help thinking of the civilian internees under the Japanese, who suffered very greatly. Then there is the question of length of service. Presumably, hon. Members who favour a proposal of this kind did not have in mind a period of a few days or weeks in a recruit training depot, but, as the Clause is drafted, of course, somebody with one day's service would qualify for complete exemption under the Bill.

We should not overlook the fact that there were some Commonwealth countries which had conscription for a great part of the war, notably Australia and New Zealand. A high proportion of men aged between, say, 35 and 50 in those countries would gain exemption, whereas there are countries which are now independent countries of the Commonwealth, such as Nigeria, where there was no such conscription. It might be regarded as discrimination in favour of those countries which had conscription if we were to operate in this way.

Then there is the question of wounding or maiming and what degree of injury constitutes a wound. How is an immigration officer to know whether an immigrant who claims to have been wounded in war was wounded on duty or on leave, for example? It is rather hard, as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Sir J. Lucas) said, even with the most generous approach to this matter, to come to the conclusion that the brother or sister of a person who was wounded should gain complete exemption. We believe that any attempt to base exemption from control on past records rather than on present circumstances would inevitably produce anomalies, and anomalies in these circumstances tend to be injustices and it would lead to great difficulties of interpretation of any provision which might be drafted.

I want to give the Committee one or two assurances, because we are sympathetic to the broad purposes of those who support the new Clause. It is easy to give the first assurance. It is that members of Commonwealth Forces, past, present, or future, will have no difficulty in gaining admittance as genuine visitors. That is not something to be overlooked, because there are many members of the Armed Forces who served in the war and who might wish to come here as visitors and who would be able to do so. Secondly, members of present Commonwealth Forces coming here on duty are exempted by Clause 17. My right hon. Friend has also asked me to say that immigration officers will be asked to deal sympathetically with any case in which it is claimed, and clearly appears, that the person concerned served our cause in either of the two great wars.

Mr. C. Royle

Will that be in the White Paper?

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who was making his first and very welcome intervention in our debates on this Bill—

Mr. Dingle Foot (Ipswich) rose—

Mr. Renton

I would rather answer those who have been present throughout the debate, but I would be glad to answer the hon. and learned Member later—suggested that this was a sort of quasi-civil right which could be claimed. I wonder whether he has appreciated that if we wrote it into the Bill as a right it would have to be proved as a right to the satisfaction of the immigration officer.

Might it not be much better, instead of putting people to strict and somewhat formal proof, that the immigration officer should hear what people have to say and then judge for himself the validity of their claim, bearing in mind the request that he should deal with such claims sympathetically? If we start writing specific rights into the Bill in the way suggested, we may be acting not so kindly and sympathetically as the hon. Member would wish.

Mr. T. Brown

The hon. and learned Member has misunderstood me. He is meeting trouble half way. These people had the right to fight for us and they fought nobly and courageously and with a great deal of devotion. Nobody should underestimate the patriotism manifested by people from the Commonwealth. Having boasted of our sympathy, we now have an opportunity of legalising that sympathy, so to speak, and making it a right for these people to have this concession.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Renton

If anything, the hon. Member's intervention has emphasised the point I was trying to make. If we make exemption a matter of right, and a somewhat legalistic matter, we shall have to devise methods of formal proof, and so on, as well as overcoming the various difficulties of definition and interpretation that I have mentioned. We felt that it would be as sympathetic and, in the sense I have explained, more sympathetic to allow these applications to be dealt with by immigration officers on the spot. I do not believe that there will be difficulty or injustice in dealing with the matter that way.

Sir B. Janner

The hon. and learned Gentleman is usually logical and impressive, but I cannot understand his logic on this occasion. Surely he is not suggesting that if there is a right of this kind, a person who does not have documentary evidence to establish the claim is to be prevented from coming here.

Mr. Renton

The hon. Member can have no idea of the complexities of definition and of proof which would be required if we formalised this too much. I have had to consider this matter very carefully and I assure the Committee that the difficulties of definition and of the arrangements which would have to be made have proved very complex and would be far more embarrassing than leaving the matter generously open.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Chigwell)

I do not mean to intervene for more than a few seconds between the two establishments. The situation to which the new Clause draws attention is one of the unfortunate effects of having departed from the general principle of free entry into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens.

Having said that, I appreciate the spirit of what my hon. and learned Friend has said and the assurances which he has given. I merely want to ask him whether he can extend the assurance he has given about the admission of Commonwealth citizens who have served in the two world wars to those who have served in any of the other wars. There may not be many such cases of other wars in which Commonwealth citizens have been engaged against the Sovereign's enemies, but there may be Commonwealth citizens who, for example, were engaged in the Anglo-Boer war, but were not subsequently engaged in either of the two world wars.

Mr. Fletcher

I feel just this amount of sympathy with the Minister of State. He was obviously reading a prepared reply to the Motion. He was turning it down before he had heard a series of passionate speeches in its support. It is for this reason that I think he is probably deserving of some sympathy, but the Home Secretary, who is able to take positive decisions, has listened to the debate, and I make this appeal to him. He has heard speech after speech from this side of the Committee, and one from the opposite side, a fairly sympathetic speech from the hon. and gallant Member for Norwood (Sir J. Smyth). Does he not realise that there must be some limit to the depths of degradation and shame to which this country will be drawn by the Bill?

Here is a perfectly simple, straightforward new Clause proposing not that ex-Service men who have served in any Commonwealth Army should be given any new rights, but merely that they should retain their existing ones. Nothing more than that. Any of them could have come here during the last sixteen years and would have been welcome.

Sir J. Smyth

I do not think that it is nearly as simple as the hon. Gentleman is trying to make out. For instance, the new Clause caters for the sisters of people who have been killed in war. If someone says, "I am the sister of so-and-so, who was killed three years ago", how is anyone to know whether that is correct? I have the greatest admiration for the Commonwealth soldiers who served in both world wars, but I think that the provisions of this Clause would be very difficult to carry out.

Mr. Fletcher

I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He has clarified his position, and it is right that we should deal with each category of case. There is the ex-Service man who has been wounded, and there is his relative. Let us, first, consider the ex-Service man. Surely he should have an unchallenged right to come here whenever he likes; and this should apply whether he is whole, or maimed, or incapacitated in any way. I hope that the Home Secretary will agree with this.

I cannot think that we are dealing with a large class of persons. I do not know whether the Government have made any attempt to ascertain even the possible number to which this new Clause could apply, but it must be very limited. If, as has been said, the new Clause will lead to a flood of immigrants, they could have come here already, and would have had the right to come. Why should we deprive those who fought in a Commonwealth Army for this country of the right which they have had to come here? It is this kind of refusal by the Government to accept a new Clause such as this which exposes the hollowness of their case for this Bill.

If anyone wants to know why the Bill is being supported in the country, he should read the speech which was made by the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) in his constituency. Opinion is being stirred up in the country by back benchers opposite. Not all of them, of course, but this is what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said: We have been attracting many, many thousands of people from other parts of the world who look upon England as an El Dorado. Now, none of us would mind if all these people were decent people. The people covered by the new Clause are decent people. But many are diseased, others are criminals, and others have come here for the specific intention of working for a while so that they can then enjoy the benefits of unemployment pay. He went on to say: England has always been the place for criminals fleeing from the law in other countries. Many of the people who come in from Pakistan and other countries are pimps—men who run brothels and organised vice. Those are the reasons being given by the Minister's supporters for the Bill. I do not say that they are the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman, but he says that the Bill is necessary and that the Government intend to carry it out in a humane, liberal, generous and benevolent way. To 'test his sincerity we tabled Amendment after Amendment which would enable him to do what he professes he wants to do. The new Clause suggests a class of person who should be entitled to come in.

All our Amendments have been rejected. On what grounds have they been rejected? On a lot of pettifogging bureaucratic grounds, that it will be difficult to distinguish between one person and another, and so on. But why attempt to make a distinction? The Minister of State said that someone may have fought in a Commonwealth Army for one day, and asked whether we should exclude him. What a pettifogging argument. If there is any doubt about the bona fides or eligibility of anybody who has fought for any length of time in any Commonwealth Army, give him the benefit of the doubt. Why argue about it?

The Home Secretary says that in addition to those who will come in as of right under Clause 2—students, those who have vouchers to do a job, and those who can support themselves—large numbers will be admitted under a quota. The ex-Service men and their dependants should have preferential rights under the quota, and if a mistake is made and somebody who does not come within the precise terms of some provision is admitted, what does it matter? Why not give him the benefit of the doubt? Surely that can be done if the Home Secretary is sincere in saying that he wants to carry out the provisions of the Bill in a humane and Liberal way. The hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments were inconsistent with that professed sincerity.

Sir J. Lucas

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman knows this, but after the last war the Civil Defence people who stayed in Malaya were to be given only three months pay, whereas those who were put into khaki received full pay. I had four interviews with Lord Attlee and eventually got these Civil Defence people an ex-gratia payment of up to £1,500, less 10 per cent. The point was that the money could not be paid to any Civil Defence worker who was Malayan or Chinese, because, although thousands of people might have said who he was, there was no proof. It was, therefore, an ex-gratia payment for the white planters who had not been allowed to leave the island, because there were no papers or anything to prove that the Malayans and others had served.

Mr. Renton

I have listened with great attention to the strong words used by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher). I think that he has entirely missed the point of my speech.

Mr. Fletcher

That is a matter for the Committee to judge. I appreciate what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. I have no doubt that it is true, and I have no doubt that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have genuine and sincere feelings about the Bill. This has been evident in some of their speeches, but I ask the Home Secretary to realise that in this Clause there is a serious point of principle which goes to the root of the good name of this country.

I ask him again whether he does not think that we have reached the limit of degradation and shame to which this Bill will bring us in the eyes not only of our own people but of the Commonwealth? If there is any doubt about the eligibility of some of these people to come here, give them the benefit of the doubt. We were told that the object of the Bill was only to control numbers. The argument now being put forward shows that the desire is to reject as many as possible. Is this the Government's intention?

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he would give certain assurances. I hope that the Home Secretary will concede our claim and accept the new Clause. Failing that, I should like two more assurances. Will specific directions be given in the instructions to immigration officers—which we are told will be published on Friday—that sympathetic treatment must be given to the class of person referred to in the new Clause? Will that be made expressly clear? Secondly, may we have an assurance that no wounded ex-soldier who has served in any Commonwealth Army will be refused admission to this country on medical grounds? If we get those two assurances, they will go some way towards redressing the harm which the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech has done.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. D. Foot

I intervene for only one moment, the more so as I have been reminded that I have not been present throughout the discussion.

It seemed to me that, in his reply, the hon. and learned Gentleman really put his finger on one of the principal weaknesses in the Bill. He was dealing with what everyone agrees is an extremely deserving class of person. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee feel that way and we all desire to help these people if we can. But the hon. and learned Gentleman could only say that instructions would be given to the immigration officers to deal sympathetically with this class of case.

The point I make is that there is no kind of safeguard in the Bill as to how these instructions are to be carried out. The Government have turned down any suggestion of appeal, or review of a decision of the immigration officers. The matter is left entirely in the discretion of the officer himself. He does not need to give any reason; he does not need even to discuss the matter with the immigrant concerned; the decision is his and for whatever reason he gives.

Whatever instructions may be given, there are bound to be very great discrepancies in practice between one immigration officer and another. We may well find that one immigration officer would give very great weight to the sort of considerations which are contemplated in the Clause and be disposed to admit any immigrant who had served in the Armed Forces during the war or a relative of any such immigrant. We may well find that another immigration officer will give less weight to these considerations. There are bound to be great discrepancies in practice between one offices and another and it may well be between one port and another. A great deal may depend on the part at which an immigrant presents himself. That is the fundamental weakness of the Bill as drafted. Although the Government may give all kinds of instructions, we shall never know how these apply and the way in which, or the extent to which, the instructions are carried out.

Mr. Thorpe

I hope that the logic of the argument which the Minister used in rejecting the new Clause will not commend itself to the Committee. His arguments really are incredible. He began by considering the Clause in detail. There may well be a case for saying that it would be preferable to drop the dependants, sisters, and so forth, but he, as a lawyer, will know that whenever one has a weak case one always starts by attacking one's opponent's pleadings.

What we are interested in is not whether the Government think that the Clause is perfectly drafted, but whether they agree with the principle that those who served in the Commonwealth Forces should have preferential rights in coming into this country. I am sure that he would not wish to press that as an argument for rejecting the Clause.

Another of the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments was that there would be discrimination between those who volunteered and those who served in the Army as a result of being conscripted. I cannot feel that was a powerful argument which would cause the Committee to feel that the Clause should be rejected on that ground. Then the hon. and learned Gentleman said, "It is difficult to get proof. How can we know whether or not a man served in a Commonwealth Army?" I ask the Government whether they are seriously suggesting to the Committee that it is beyond the wit of a Commonwealth Government to issue any form of certificate to show that one of their citizens served in the Armed Forces during the war. Is that really what they are saying, because that is what this argument comes to?

Even the French, who are not noticeably adroit in dealing with some of their administrative problems, have issued to every person who served during the war a certificate entitling that person to certain preferential treatment in trains, buses, and so forth. What the hon. and learned Gentleman is really saying is that it would be quite impossible for the Canadian Government, or the Indian Government, to issue to those coming to this country a certificate to the effect that for a certain period of time they served in the Armed Forces. That is really what he is saying and that is really the reason why he is asking the Committee to reject the Clause. That is a specious and fantastic allegation which shows little confidence in the administration of fellow members of the Commonwealth.

The Minister used another argument. He said that if formal proof had to be given this might make it more embarrassing. It might well be that the immigrant would have to go into much more detail. If a form of certificate were issued by Commonwealth Governments, which they all recognised and accepted, it seems to me that on presentation of such a certificate, entry would be merely a formality. Quite the reverse would obtain from the procedure which the hon. and learned Gentleman envisages.

I therefore beg the Government not to base their argument on the theory that there is a difference between conscripts and volunteers. Possibly the Clause could have been better drafted. But the hon. and learned Gentleman should come out fairly and squarely and say that the Government accept the principle of preferential entry for those who have been in the Armed Forces and that when this wretched Bill comes back for Report and Third Reading they will move an Amendment to that effect.

Mr. C. Royle

On a point of order, Sir Robert. Just before you occupied the Chair I raised with your predecessor in the Chair the question whether he could accept a manuscript Amendment to the new Clause. I had the impression that he was considering the matter while the debate was going on. I wonder whether a decision has yet been reached.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Robert Grimston)

The Chairman has spoken to me about that, and he has refused to accept a manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Renton

This discussion has proceeded on a broad basis and I shall certainly not hold it against the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) that the Clause does not refer to the First World War.

Mr. Lipton

I was hoping that we would have some further indication of the Government's view on the Clause before the debate ends. I am sorry that despite some of the arguments adduced in favour of the Clause the Government still seem to be adamant. The Home Secretary has, apparently, not seen fit to take part in the discussion or announce any progress beyond the completely negative attitude that has been displayed by his hon. and learned Friend, who attempted to give the Government's point of view on the Clause.

I do not think that we have ever heard such a tissue of weak and unrelated arguments against a Clause as those produced by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Here is a straightforward and simple issue. He says, in reply to our demand, "We shall consider it with sympathy." My attitude is: to hell with sympathy; we want a definite recognition of an elementary principle of justice that if a man is considered good enough to fight for a country he should be allowed to come into that country. This is the short point that the Clause seeks to establish.

I am quite willing to make whatever concession the Government may demand in respect of the relatives, whose relationship may be difficult to establish, but I must insist upon an assurance being given that a man who has served in the Armed Forces of the Crown in defence of this country—any Commonwealth citizen, white or coloured—shall not be subjected to whatever restrictions it may be considered desirable to impose in the case of other categories of Commonwealth citizen.

Unless the Government are prepared to say that the Bill shall not apply to ex-Service men, whether they have survived whole or in part, I shall ask all my right hon. and hon. Friends, and anyone on the other side of the Committee who is prepared to translate into practice the fine-sounding words that so many of them have used from time to time on behalf of men in the Services, to vote for the Clause. I hope that

every hon. Member to whom I make this last appeal will express his disgust with the Government's negative attitude to the Clause.

Mr. Fletcher

I take it that the Home Secretary's studied silence is a measure of his acute embarrassment. If he leaves the debate unanswered, I hope that he will not continue to tell us that the provisions of the Bill will be administered in a humane and liberal manner.

Mr. R. A. Butler

In response to the attractive invitation of the hon. Member I will only say that I have listened purposely to every minute of the debate, which, naturally, arouses great feelings of sentiment. I have nothing to add to what my hon. and learned Friend has said. He has undertaken to review the matter in the light of the instructions that we may give immigration officers. I am also quite ready to look into the question of wounds and medical fitness. That is a point of substance.

The other points which have been raised are extremely difficult ones. There is great difficulty in making legal distinction. One hon. Member has agreed that it is extremely difficult to find a way to include dependants, because immigration officers will not be able to act in this matter. If the hon. Member wishes to take the matter to a Division he must do so. I can do no more than say that we will consider very carefully all that has been said.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Can consideration be given to extending the administrative leniency which is to be given to ex-Service men from those who have served in the two world wars to those who have served in any Commonwealth war?

Mr. Butler

I would have to give consideration to that point. It is typical of the many difficult points that arise on the Clause.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 183, Noes, 223.

Division No. 85.] AYES [7.13 p.m.
Abse, Leo Baird, John Blackburn, F.
Alnsley, William Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.) Blyton, William
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Beaney, Alan Boardman, H.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics. S.W.)
Awbery, Stan Benson, Sir George Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Bowles, Frank Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. Hoy, James H. Probert, Arthur
Brockway, A. Fenner Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Proctor W. T.
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D. Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Randall, Harry
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.) Rankin, John
Brown, Thomas (Ince) Hunter, A. E. Rhodes, H.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Hynd, H. (Accrington) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Callaghan, James Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Ross, William
Cattle, Mrs. Barbara Janner, Sir Barnett Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Chapman, Donald Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Cliffs, Michael Jenkins, Roy (Stechford) Short, Edward
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Cronin, John Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.) Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Crosland, Anthony Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Skeffington, Arthur
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Kelley, Richard Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Deer, George Kenyon, Clifford Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Delargy, Hugh Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Snow, Julian
Dempsey, James Lawson, George Sorensen, R. W.
Diamond, John Ledger, Ron Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Dodds, Norman Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock) Spriggs, Leslie
Donnelly, Desmond Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Steele, Thomas
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. Lipton, Marcus Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Edelman, Maurice Loughlin, Charles Stonehouse, John
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stones, William
Evans, Albert MacColl, James Symonds, J. B.
Fitch, Alan McInnes, James Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Fletcher, Eric McKay, John (Wallsend) Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mackle, John (Enfield, East) Thomas, lot-worth (Rhondda, w.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mahon, Simon Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Forman, J. C. Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.) Thorpe, Jeremy
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Manuel, A. C. Timmons, John
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh Mapp, Charles Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Galpern, Sir Myer Marsh, Richard Wade, Donald
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Crmrthn) Mason, Roy Wainwright, Edwin
Ginsburg, David Mayhew, Christopher Warbey, William
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Mendelson, J. J. Watkins, Tudor
Gourlay, Harry Millan, Bruce Weitzman, David
Milne, Edward
Grey, Charles Mitchison, G. R. Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Monslow, Walter Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Grimond, Rt. Hon. J. Morris, John Whitlock, William
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Moyle, Arthur Wilkins, W. A.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley) Neal, Harold Willey, Frederick
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Hnnan, William Oliver, G. H. Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Hart, Mrs. Judith Oram, A. E. Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Hayman, F. H. Oswald, Thomas Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(Rwly Regis) Padley, W. E. Wilton, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Herbison, Miss Margaret Parker, John Winterbottom, R. E.
Hewitson, Capt. M. Paton, John Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.
Hill, J. (Midlothian) Pavitt, Laurence Woof, Robert
Hilton, A. V. Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd) Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Holman, Percy Peart, Frederick
Holt, Arthur Pentland, Norman TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Houghton, Douglas Popplewell, Ernest Mr. Redbead and Mr. Ifor Davies.
Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr) Prentice, R. E.
NOES
Agnew, Sir Peter Buck, Antony Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Aitken, W. T. Bullard, Denys Curran, Charles
Arbuthnot, John Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Currie, G. B. H.
Ashton, Sir Hubert Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden) Dalkeith, Earl of
Atkins, Humphrey Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Dance, James
Barlow, Sir John Carr, Robert (Mitcham) Deedes, W. F.
Barter, John Cary, Sir Robert de Ferranti, Basil
Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate) Channon, H. P. G. Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Chataway, Christopher Doughty, Charles
Berkeley, Humphry Chichester-Clark, R. Drayson, G. B.
Biffen, John Clark, William (Nottingham, s.) Duncan, Sir James
Biggs-Davison, John Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Eden, John
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel Cleaver, Leonard Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Bishop, F. P. Cole, Norman Errington, Sir Eric
Black, Sir Cyril Collard, Richard Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Bossom, Clive Cooke, Robert Farey-Jones, F. W.
Bourne-Arton, A. Cooper, A. E. Fair, John
Box, Donald Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K. Finlay, Graeme
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Corfield, F. V. Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Boyle, Sir Edward Costain, A. P. Forrest, George
Brewis, John Coulson, Michael Freeth, Denzil
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter Courtney, Cdr. Anthony Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Brooman-White, R. Craddock, Sir Beresford Gammans, Lady
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Critchley, Julian George, J. C. (Pollok)
Gibson-Watt, David Linstead, Sir Hugh Renton, David
Gilmour, Sir John Litchfield, Capt. John Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Goodhew, Victor Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) Ridsdale, Julian
Gough, Frederick Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral) Roots, William
Gower, Raymond Loveys, Walter H. Russell, Ronald
Grant, Bt. Hon. William Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Scott-Hopkins, James
Gram-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Seymour, Leslie
Green, Alan McAdden, Stephen Sharples, Richard
Gurden, Harold McLaren, Martin Shaw, M.
Hall, John (Wycombe) McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia Shepherd, William
Harris, Reader (Heston) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute & N. Ayrs.) Skeet, T. H. H.
Harrison, Brian (Maiden) Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.) Smith, Dudley(Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty) Smithers, Peter
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) McMaster, Stanley R. Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Hastings, Stephen Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) Stanley, Hon. Richard
Hay, John Maginnis, John E. Stevens, Geoffrey
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Hendry, Forbes Markham, Major Sir Frank Stodart, J. A.
Hiley, Joseph Marlowe, Anthony Storey, Sir Samuel
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe) Marten, Neil Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Mawby, Ray Tapsell, Peter
Hocking, Philip N. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Holland, Philip Mills, Stratton Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Hollingworth, John Montgomery, Fergus Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Hopkins, Alan More, Jasper (Ludlow) Temple, John M.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives) Morgan, William Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Howard, John (Southampton, Test) Morrison, John Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Hughes-Young, Michael Nabarro, Gerald Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Hutchison, Michael Clark Nicholson, Sir Godfrey Tiley, Arthur (Bradord, W.)
Iremonger, T. L. Osborn, John (Hallam) Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth) Turner, Colin
James, David Page, Graham (Crosby) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Page, John (Harrow, West) Vane, W. M. F.
Jennings, J. C. Panned, Norman (Kirkdale) Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Partridge, E. Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Pearson, Frank (Ciltheroe) Walder, David
Peel, John
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey Percival, Ian Walker, Peter
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green) Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek
Joseph, Sir Keith Pilkington, Sir Richard Ward, Dame Irene
Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Pitman, Sir James Webster, David
Kerby, Capt. Henry Pitt, Miss Edith Wells, John (Maidstone)
Kitson, Timothy Pott, Percivall Whitelaw, William
Lagden, Godfrey Price, David (Eastleigh) Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Leather, E. H. C. Prior, J. M. L. Wise, A. R.
Leavey, J. A. Proudfoot, Wilfred Woodhouse, C. M.
Leburn, Gilmour Pym, Francis Woodnutt, Mark
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Quennell, Miss J. M. Worsley, Marcus
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Rawlinson, Peter
Lilley, F. J. P. Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin TELLERS FOR THE NOES
Lindsay, Sir Martin Rees, Hugh Mr. Gordon Campbell and
Mr. Michael Hamilton.