HC Deb 22 February 1962 vol 654 cc669-87

(1) A tribunal to be known as the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal (and hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) shall be set up by the Secretary of State for the purpose of hearing appeals under section two of this Act.

(2) The Tribunal will consist of two divisions one of which shall be known as the general division and the other as the medical division.

(3) The general division of the Tribunal shall consist of not less than three persons appointed by the Secretary of State one of whom shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing.

(4) The medical division shall consist of three duly qualified medical practitioners or consultants appointed by the Ministry of Health.

(5) Any person aggrieved by any decision of an immigration officer under section two of this Act may appeal to the Tribunal.

(6) Any person aggrieved by any decision of the immigration officer or a medical inspector under paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of section two of this Act may appeal to the Tribunal.

(7) The Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe the manner and time in which appeals shall be brought under procedure to be followed under this section.

(8) Regulations made under this section shall be laid before Parliament and subject to approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.—[Mr. E. Fletcher.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

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

The Chairman

It will be permissible also to discuss the Amendments, in page 2, line 37, after "officer", to insert: or on appeal from him, the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal"; in page 3, line 14, after "inspector", to add: or on appeal from him to the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal". In page 4, line 24, at the end to insert: (6) Where any person is dissatisfied with any decision of the immigration officer under section two of this Act he may appeal to the Commonwealth Immigrants Appeal Tribunal. (7) The Commonwealth Immigranst Appeal Tribunal shall consist of four persons to be appointed by the Secretary of State and a chairman who shall be a barrister or solicitor of not less than ten years' standing who shall be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. (8) Regulations may be made by the Secretary of State prescribing the manner and time within which an appeal shall be brought and the procedure to be followed at the hearing of the appeal.

Mr. Fletcher

We had a certain discussion on this matter in Committee, but we put the Clause down for discussion on Report for two reasons. The first is that we think that this is a vitally important matter, and the second is that the considerations which can be advanced in its favour are even stronger now than they were in Committee. I say that for two reasons. The situation has changed since Committee, in that the Home Office has published the draft instructions to immigration officers, which have, no doubt, been widely read by hon. Members and which will, no doubt, be even more widely read in the next few months by every intending immigrant to this country.

Whatever else may be said about the details of those instructions—and I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss them later—an observation which can be made at once and with which all hon. Members will agree is that the instructions recognise that there will be several doubtful or borderline cases. They also recognise that in these doubtful cases the decision will be left to the discretion of the immigration officer, subject only in certain cases to reference to the Home Office.

It is now becoming apparent to me and to my hon. Friends how the Bill will work out in practice. I think that we shall find that the change will be that while hitherto people have entered this country from the Commonwealth as of right, from now on there will be a control and limit on the numbers of immigrants. In future, nobody will venture to spend the fare and incur the other expenses of coming to this country unless he thinks that he has a reasonable chance of landing here. In order to decide that, he will study the draft instructions.

Therefore, there will not be many cases in which immigrants will venture to come here without having some prospect of landing when they arrive. We insist that there should be an appeal from the immigration officer's decision to a tribunal because we now think that there will be only a limited number of cases and that in those cases it will be particularly important that the decision of the immigration officer should not be final but that there should be a reference to an appeal tribunal.

We do not think that any of the reasons advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General when he resisted this proposal in Committee are valid any longer. For example, one of his arguments was that some delay would be involved and that there would be thousands of appeals and that there would be no room to detain persons awaiting the hearing of an appeal, and so forth. However, it now appears that the only cases in which an appeal will be required will be those doubtful cases, which the White Paper itself recognises will arise. They will arise when a person wants to come here partly to work and partly to study, when there will be the question of whether he is a bona fide student; they will arise under Clause 31 as to whether a relative falls within the category of near-relative which enables him to come into the country because he has a relative already here; they will arise with the case of the fiancée who wants to get married here but who may not want to do so within the stipulated three months; and there will be similar cases.

It is now recognised in principle that in legislation affecting the rights of property and, what is more important, the rights of personal freedom and liberty and status, it is not good enough to leave the decision to the arbitrary discretion of one individual. It has been recognised that there should always be a right of appeal to some tribunal. I am concerned not with the detailed machinery of how the tribunal should be set up. I envisage some appellate tribunal which could hear these cases and deal with them without delay.

There is another important reason why I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider the Government's attitude in Committee. One of the reasons the Attorney-General gave for resisting this provision was: In many cases admission may be refused not on acount of any personal idiosyncracies of the individual, but because sufficient numbers have already been admitted.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1962; Vol. 653, c. 354.] Surely that cannot be right. The only ground in the instructions on which an immigration officer has a right to refuse admission or attach conditions is because of something personal to the indidual applicant. It is quite irrelevant to say that a certain number of people have entered the country. I hope that the Home Secretary will make this clear, because what the Attorney-General said seems to be entirely inconsistent with what is now said in the draft instructions to immigration officers. I hope that as a result of this discussion it can go out that nobody qualifying under these instructions, or under the Bill, will be refused admission not because of some personal idiosyncrasies, but because of some other and quite adventitious reason.

Time is precious today and I have made the point which I wanted to make. I believe that a question of personal liberty is involved and that it can be dealt with adequately only if there is a right of appeal in all cases from the immigration officer to some appellate tribunal.

Mr. C. Royle

The Opposition have now realised that it is inevitable that the Bill will become a Statute and so the things which we said about it earlier have gone by the board and our object must now be to make the Bill as lenient as we can. It is, therefore, valuable to consider any question of justice in individual cases.

Throughout our national and Commonwealth life there are many ways in which appeal tribunals can be set up. It is asking very little to ask the Home Secretary to accept the new Clause, for it is a safeguard. Immigrants will be coming full of anxiety and worry and into a new atmosphere and new conditions. Many of them may find the questions which they are asked difficult to answer merely because of nervousness. Is it not right that, if the decision of the immigration officer goes against them, there should be some higher authority to whom they could appeal in order to have the opportunity of putting their claim to remain in the country?

I confess at once that I am much happier about the Bill now that I have seen the draft instructions to immigration officers, but the very existence of the draft instructions proves the necessity for a higher court of appeal. It is an acknowledgment by the Home Secretary that there will be individual difficult cases. I appeal to him with all the sincerity I can muster to give way on what at this stage of our consideration of the Bill we regard as a most important matter.

Dr. Alan Glyn (Clapham)

There is a certain amount of force in the arguments presented by hon. Members opposite. As my night hon. Friend the Home Secretary said at an earlier stage of the Bill, there are considerable practical difficulties about holding people whilst a tribunal sits. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will think seriously about meeting the wishes of the House in this matter.

I am sure that nobody likes to have the decisions resting with an immigration officer. That is not casting aspersions on the judgment of an individual officer. There is, however, a case for machinery for appeal if it could be devised simply without involving large numbers of people being held at the ports waiting for the tribunal to sit. I shall be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on this subject.

Mr. Donald Wade (Huddersfield, West)

I welcome the instructions that are being given to the immigration officers. The representations that have been made to the Government since the Bill was introduced have had good effect, and I am glad that the Government have given way to the extent of publishing the instructions before the Report stage.

Nevertheless, there will be occasions when intending immigrants may feel aggrieved. This may arise in two different ways: first, because of personal disqualification in the mind of the immigration officer; and secondly, for a more general reason—possibly, because a quota has been completed. The immigration officer may have received instructions from which he is led to believe that no more persons from the country in question should be allowed entry. On one or other of these grounds an immigrant may feel genuinely aggrieved.

I appreciate the point made by the Home Secretary in Committee that these problems can be dealt with more speedily by reference to the Home Office than by an appeal tribunal. The choice is not, however, a simple one between reference to the Home Office and consideration by an appeal tribunal. Surely, the tribunal would be called into being only as a last resort. In, perhaps, the majority of cases, the immigration officer would ask for a decision from the Home Office; the decision would be reached quickly and the would-be immigrant might be satisfied. There will, however, be a residue of cases in which the immigrant feels dissatisfied, in which there is a genuine grievance which he wishes to have decided by an authority other than Home Office officials. In these circumstances, it would be only right to have some kind of appeal tribunal. With that in mind, I support this proposal.

Mr. Weitzman

I add my support to the pleas made by all hon. Members who have spoken on the new Clause. The Home Secretary said something with regard to the instructions before they were issued. I forget his exact words, but the apparent intention was that they were to be made as wide and as humane as possible. Looking at them, one sees that they seek to carry out that object.

Nevertheless, the fact remains, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) said in moving the new Clause, that there may well be borderline cases in which there is room for doubt. This is a difficult matter to leave to the arbitrary decision of an immigration officer. It is true that he can telephone to the Home Office and put up a case and get a decision, but the fact remains that there may be a number of doubtful borderline cases.

We have always recognised in our judicial system and in every instance when rights are liable to be taken away from people that there should be a tribunal or right of appeal. The hon. Member for Clapham (Dr. Alan Glyn), who supported our proposal, mentioned the practical difficulties and one realises that they may arise. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East is not committed to the precise wording of the Clause. Let us, however, have a simple tribunal, devised if necessary by the Home Secretary, to meet the needs of the case but at least ensuring that the matter is not left to the discretion of an immigration officer and giving a right of appeal to the person who is likely to suffer.

5.15 p.m.

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

We considered this matter in Committee, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General spoke on that occasion and he drew attention to the fact that in dealing with individual persons immigration officers would be answerable to the Secretary of State, who is himself answerable to the House of Commons. Nothing that has occurred since the Committee stage has altered that chain of responsibility to this House, which is quite often exercised by the House, or the position of the Secretary of State, which is exercised with great responsibility.

The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) suggested that the situation had been somewhat changed by the publication of the White Paper giving the draft instructions to immigration officers. I should like to thank hon. Members who on consideration of the Bill have expressed their gratitude for the publication of this document and who, evidently, have accepted that it is drawn in liberal terms. I hope that we have made a little progress in that way. I notice that several hon. Members in this short debate have congratulated us on publishing the draft instructions both at this time and in this way.

The fact that the draft instructions have been well received by the House does not, however, make a fundamental difference to the problem of an appeal tribunal, about which I now wish to speak. To get the operation of the Bill clear, we must realise first that a large number of Commonwealth immigrants coming in under the Bill would come in under vouchers provided by the Minister of Labour or as dependants of voucher holders.

The hon. Member for Islington, East referred to c. 354 of 6th February, when my right hon. and learned Friend made some observations to which the hon. Member referred. I have already answered the hon. Member's point on that in Committee, but I will refer to it again. I am convinced that my right hon. and learned Friend was going no further than was set down in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanied the Bill on Second Reading and which stated: The intention is that vouchers for this purpose will be issued to persons who can show that they have a job to come to, to those who possess training, skill or educational qualifications likely to be useful in this country, and to applicants outside these categories subject to any limit which the Government may from time to time consider necessary. It is in the third and last category that there is a discretion with the Government in limiting the number if necessary in the light of the economic and social conditions of the time.

I am glad to see on the Notice Paper an Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out from "there" to "or" in line 43, which for the first time will give an opportunity to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour to explain in detail the granting of vouchers. By the efficient expedition with which hon. Members are approaching the various Amendments and Clauses, there is little doubt that we shall reach that Amendment on this occasion. Therefore, I will not forestall description of the voucher system, which guarantees entry and about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General spoke in Committee. The men and women who come in on vouchers will get their entry in any event because they have their vouchers. The question of granting or not granting them a voucher is a question of policy and, in the view of the Government, is not justiciable.

Many other immigrants will come in with entry certificates. There is also a new Schedule—(Immigration Certificates)—to which Mr. Speaker referred in ruling that the first new Clause—(United Kingdom residence permits.)—was not in order but said that it could be discussed with the third Amendment in Clause 2, page 3, line 8. When we reach the new Schedule, if we have time we can explain the entry certificate system. By the end of the day, we shall have gone a long way in explaining exactly how the Bill works. That shows the advantage of our time-table system, because it gives time for these matters to be properly discussed. This very fair system will give us an opportunity of debating the subject, and the Minister of Labour and others can explain in detail how this scheme will work.

We do not think that those with vouchers or certificates need any right of appeal. If a Commonwealth citizen comes in with a voucher or an entry certificate and he is dissatisfied he has a right to complain to the port authority or to Her Majesty's Government and so through to the House. The man with a voucher comes in. In the case of discretion covered by the draft instructions to immigration officers, the categories largely are visitors, students, business men, dependants or relatives. Here a degree of discretion is left to the immigration officer in applying the instructions which I have given to the officers.

If the immigration officer feels doubt about a case of this kind he will consult his superior officers and they will have no hesitation in submitting the case to headquarters. At headquarters it is a common thing for Ministers to be consulted for the final decision. The Commonwealth visitor or citizen who is refused admission is not held incommunicado. He can telephone friends here, if he has any, or the official representative of the territory from which he has come. If anyone expresses the intention of making representations on his behalf, either to the port authority or to the Home Office, the case is held up for that purpose for a reasonable time.

We have had experience of operating the system. Anyone who has held office at the Home Office knows that those responsible are held to be on duty day and night to deal with any cases. We have had experience of aliens administration and we have cases referred back to us, for which we take the responsibility to the House. We do not think that for any of these categories a tribunal is necessary. Here again, these are essentially matters of policy and they are set out in the instructions to officers. We do not believe that a tribunal is the best way of handling doubtful cases. We think that they are better handled by the Executive and then brought to the House if there is doubt.

My right hon. and learned Friend was somewhat taken up and criticised in Committee for saying that there were practical difficulties. There can be no doubt that if an appeal system were set up there would be a plethora of appeals, human nature being what it is. I have no doubt that the operation of the Bill could be signally held up, and when my right hon. and learned Friend said that people would have to be detained pending appeal he made a relevant point. It would lead us for the first time in the administration of immigration laws to having to build or provide detention centres for people to await the result of an appeal. We think that that would be physically most unsatisfactory and we cannot see how it Gould be easily avoided if the appeal took a long time.

Lady Megan Lloyd George

What would happen to those borderline cases who would make an appeal, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to the superior officers and ultimately to the Home Office? Where would they be kept?

Mr. Butler

There is in the Schedules provision for a short detention on the occasion where there is some doubt or there is need for detention or isolation in medical cases. But we pride ourselves in the administration that the delay we impose will not make that detention a serious matter. It is not our intention that it should be for a long period.

If there is a system of appeal, that will not be the only difficulty. I do not think that it will be possible to have only one tribunal. If we had one it would be overcrowded by the number of appeals made to it. If, to take the other horn of the dilemma, we had a variety of tribunals, how could we correlate case law arising from appeals on these matters which are essentially matters of policy? Absolute confusion would arise from the great variety of appeals. This is a great physical hindrance to accepting the wishes of the House in this respect. Although we fully sympathise with the ideal behind the Clause and the spirit in which it is moved, we find the physical and other difficulties too great to accept it.

Mr. Ede (South Shields)

One of the difficulties under Which we labour this afternoon is that we are not favoured with the presence of the real promoters of the Bill. I should feel happier in discussing this point if I saw on the opposite benches the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden). I am not at all sure that they have not given the Bill up in disgust after reading the draft instructions to immigration officers and that they are not very interested in the price that the Home Secretary will get for the pup which he has managed to sell.

The Attorney-General mentioned the problem of quota when he dealt with this subject. The numbers might already have come in. I admit that when it comes to legal niceties I often find that the draftsman has outwitted me, but I do not find any reference in the Bill to a quota or to numbers from any given area, nor do I find anything in the instructions that seems to bear on that point. We know that some countries which have had problems of dealing with immigrants over a great number of years have invented quota systems which in some cases are subject to annual revision. The British quota to the United States at times has been a certain fixed number.

I put this question when we were dealing in Committee with the subject of numbers. If we have a quota system, what is to happen if there is one place left and on the same day three separate immigrants arrive, one at Southampton, one at Liverpool and one at London Airport? The Home Secretary appears to find it amusing.

Mr. Butler

No, Sir. I was only glad that with his usual perspicacity the right hon. Gentleman was bringing forward some of the difficulties which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour can answer when we come to the Amendment to which I have referred, in Clause 2, page 2, line 39, to leave out from "there" to "or" in line 43.

Mr. Ede

As we are working under a Guillotine, I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for hinting that an authoritative reply on this point will be delivered on a later Amendment. Much as I like to hinder Government time whenever I can, it is not advisable to mop up one's own time when one is under the Guillotine.

In my experience, immigration officers when I have had quite frequent contacts with them have always seemed to endeavour to interpret instructions in what I would call—and I might well frighten the Minister of State, Home Office—a liberal manner. I recollect the problem of the Americans who came here to carry on the Beaverbrae strike. We asked the immigration officer why they had been allowed in. He said, "It was not so very long ago that we had a circular from the Home Office urging us to be very polite and accommodating to Americans, so we let them in."

5.30 p.m.

I have regarded this problem of an appeal tribunal with some hesitation, because I believe that the best safeguard in this matter lies in our having the Home Secretary himself responsible to this House. For instance, there have been cases recently of people from various countries who, it was thought, were trying to seek political asylum here, and questions have been put to the Home Secretary. Any Home Secretary with a sense of responsibility will feel that it must finally be left to him to attempt to interpret the feelings of the House and the country on this matter.

As the point which I wished to make will arise later when the Minister of Labour is to reply, I leave it for the moment in the hope that somebody else will not so prolong the discussion that I shall not get an answer.

Mr. M. Foot

The Home Secretary is an extremely persuasive fellow when he puts his mind to it. He is so skilled at persuasion that sometimes one does not know which course he is seeking to persuade us to follow. I thought that today he was deadly in the attack on his own case, because at the end of his speech he said that one of the most powerful reasons why he could not carry out what is proposed was that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to co-ordinate the decisions of the different tribunals, particularly if he had to set up several of them in different ports.

Why is it more difficult to co-ordinate a few tribunals than all the immigration officers? His argument was advanced when we discussed appeal tribunals in Committee. He is leaving an enormous amount to the discretion of immigration officers all over the country. It would surely be much easier to ensure that a small number of tribunals acted in conformity than to ensure that immigration officers made uniform decisions. The argument which the right hon. Gentleman put forward does not hold much water.

Here we are primarily discussing doubtful cases which may affect visitors or students and a few other characters. We want to ensure that no visitor or student from the Commonwealth is unfairly treated. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Home Office moves swiftly and can deal quickly with such cases as arise. But even if he accepted this new Clause, an immigration officer would still be able to appeal to the Home Office, which would still be able to exercise its discretion swiftly.

The only question is whether the Home Office is to be judge in its own cases. This legislation is completely novel. Under it, British citizens will be denied rights which they have always had. If we are introducing such a novelty, we should at least also have the novelty of a second judgment as to whether the Home Office has behaved wisely in a particular case.

The other way in which the right hon. Gentleman destroyed his own case was where he pictured hordes of people going before tribunals. The Attorney-General's argument earlier, of course, was that all this would make it physically impossible to have appeal tribunals. Yet if the instructions which the Home Secretary has given to immigration officers are as liberal as he claims, then there will not be so many cases of this nature. Few doubtful cases will arise if the instructions are so liberal.

The right hon. Gentleman is not only persuasive. Occasionally, he can be moved. In introducing the Bill he did not have the idea of showing the House the instructions he is giving to immigration officers. The Attorney-General is a knowledgeable fellow, but he did not know that the Home Secretary was going to do that. Nor did the Government. The announcement came, to the Attorney-General's amazement, when he was speaking about a Clause in the Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was dumbfounded but was not silenced. He carried on with his speech.

We are grateful for having forced the Home Secretary to bring forward these instructions. The right hon. Gentleman's case is that his instructions will mean that there will be little difficulty. Therefore, all we ask is that there should be some other person to whom appeal can be made. The argument put forward by the Attorney-General, about the physical difficulty in accepting our proposal, collapses if the Home Secretary's instructions are as liberal as claimed by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary himself has put a very powerful case in favour of this Clause.

Lady Megan Lloyd George

The Home Secretary's persuasive powers have failed to make any impression on me on this occasion. I hope that he will reconsider his decision. He spoke about Commonwealth ctizens in what I call "clear cases"—those who come with employment vouchers or with training and skill which will enable them to be of use to the country—but what we are concerned with here is the borderline case where the immigration officer will have a considerable degree of discretion.

The right hon. Gentleman says that an immigration officer will consult his superior officer in case of doubt and that these consultations will go on up the scale until finally they reach the Home Secretary. But that will not happen in all doubtful cases. The immigration officer will first of all use the degree of discretion which he has as to which cases he will put before his superior officers and which he will not. This is where the importance of his discretion comes in.

None of us is making any charges, and has no cause or reason so to do, against immigration officers, but we must face the fact that we are giving great powers to officials in this Bill. We are creating a super civil servant, a sort of "Pooh Bah", a Lord High Executioner who may be able to dispose of a great many borderline cases without reference to his superior officers, or, eventually, to the Home Office. It is in that light that we must consider the Clause.

It was said earlier in the House today that every person quotes The Times when he agrees with it. I shall refer to it now, because its leader, commenting on the instructions to the immigration officers, said that it was staggered that there was to be no appeal tribunal at all. We are expecting too much of the immigration officers. We are not only giving them too much power, but we are expecting from them the wisdom of Solomon and Job. These are not ordinary qualities. I hope that the Home Secretary will reconsider. It is a matter of vital importance that borderline cases should be put before an appeal tribunal.

Mr. Fletcher

I rise to speak again only because I feel, like my hon. Friends, that whereas the Home Secretary sometimes is persuasive, I did not think this afternoon as I listened to him that he had even persuaded himself that this Amendment ought to be resisted.

The arguments for having an appeal tribunal are quite overwhelming. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) said, on the Home Secretary's own argument the new Clause is justified. The position now is that the Home Secretary has said that we are not dealing with the voucher system, but that we shall hear more about that from the Minister of Labour. There will be categories coming here with vouchers, and if they have vouchers they will be allowed in, and if they have not they will not be let in. We are dealing here with the much more limited class of case which is mentioned in the White Paper. Let us take the case of the student who seeks to come here. The immigration officer will have to consider paragraphs 12 and 13 of the White Paper. He will have to consider, among other things—and there will be some of these cases—whether the person coming in for part-time study combined with the object of doing some employment has study as his principal object. That will be very difficult. It will be a matter of judgment involving very great discretion, and there will obviously be borderline cases about it.

Let us look at paragraph 29, which has nothing to do with the Ministry of Labour. This deals with the case of a husband who wants to join his wife over here. The immigration officer is told: He should also consider refusing admission if there appears to be no reasonable prospect of maintenance for the man himself or for his family without recourse to public funds, or if he has reason to suppose that the wife does not want her husband to rejoin her. In doubtful cases, the immigration officer should take into account the strength of the wife's connections with the United Kingdom, including her length of residence here. How can a judgment on that kind of case be decided in a few minutes at a port of entry? If it is decided at all, how can we be sure that a right decision will be given? How can we rely upon an immigration officer weighing up nicely in a few minutes at some port of entry, and with other immigrants waiting, questions such as how long the wife has been in the United Kingdom, what the family resources are, what the prospects are and so forth? It requires the nicest judgment, and there is all the likelihood in the world that in some cases the wrong judgment will be given.'

It is said that if the immigration officer is in doubt, he can ring up the Home Secretary or someone at the Home Office. What sort of facts will he put over on the telephone in a situation like this? Ex hypothesi, he will not have the facts, which would involve a great deal of time in inquiring into the case. One cannot take spot decisions like that at ports, and, even if one can get any help from the Home Secretary, how will there be any guidance to the immigration officer on the telephone? It is precisely in that kind of case that provision for appeal is wanted.

The Home Secretary says that a person who is aggrieved by decisions of the immigration officer, if he makes it known that he has some friends and wants to make representations—I emphasise this, and it is some concession—will be able to get in touch with his friends by telephone and consult people who would be able to intervene on his behalf with the Home Office. I hope they would, and unless they do grave injustice will be done; but even that will take some time. It will involve delay, and the fact that a man will have to stay somewhere while his case is being examined disposes of the Home Secretary's argument that there will be technical difficulties in detaining him.

There will not be many of these cases. We are not dealing with the voucher cases. They are excluded; no voucher, no argument. It is among these students, these ex-Service men and these relatives that there will be a small number of marginal cases. There is no question of

security or of refusal on medical grounds. These are the cases in which we feel that unless there is some appellate machinery, very great injustice will be done. Unless the Home Secretary is prepared to reconsider it, I shall ask my hon. and Tight hon. Friends to express their view on the matter in the Lobby.

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

The House divided: Ayes 164, Noes 237.

Division No. 101.] AYES [5.45 p.m.
Ainsley, William Hayman, F. H. Paton, John
Albu, Austen Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis) Pavitt, Laurence
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Herbison, Miss Margaret Peart, Frederick
Beaney, Alan Hewitson, Capt. M. Prentice, R. E.
Bence, Cyril Hilton, A. V. Probert, Arthur
Benson, Sir George Holman, Percy Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Blackburn, F. Houghton, Douglas Randall, Harry
Blyton, William Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Boardman, H. Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Bowles, Frank Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire) Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Boyden, James Hunter, A. E. Ross, William
Brockway, A. Fenner Hynd, H. (Accrington) Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper) Hynd, John (Attercliffe) Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.) Irving, Sydney (Dartford) Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Jeger, George Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Callaghan, James Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Skeffington, Arthur
Chapman, Donald Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield) Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Cliffe, Michael Jones, Dan (Burnley) Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Cronin, John Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Small, William
Crosland, Anthony Jones, T. W. (Merioneth) Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice Kelley, Richard Snow, Julian
Darling, George Kenyon, Clifford Sorensen, R. W.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery) Key, Rt. Hon. C. W. Steele, Thomas
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) King, Dr. Horace Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Davies, Harold (Leek) Lawson, George Stonehouse, John
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Ledger, Ron Stones, William
Deer, George Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Dempsey, James Lipton, Marcus Swain, Thomas
Diamond, John Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Swingler, Stephen
Dodds, Norman MacColl, James Symonds, J. B.
Driberg, Tom McInnes, James Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C. McKay, John (Wallsend) Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Edelman, Maurice McLeavy, Frank Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling) Thornton, Ernest
Edwards, Walter (Stepney) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Evans, Albert Manuel, A. C. Wainwright, Edwin
Fernyhough, E. Mapp, Charles Warbey, William
Fletcher, Eric Marsh, Richard Weitzman, David
Foot, Dingle (Ipswich) Mason, Roy Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) Mayhew, Christopher White, Mrs. Eirene
Forman, J. C. Mendelson, J. J. Whitlock, William
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton) Millan, Bruce Wilkins, W. A.
Galpern, Sir Myer Milne, Edward Willey, Frederick
George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Crmrthn) Mitchison, G. R. Williams, LI. (Abertillery)
Ginsburg, David Monslow, Walter Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Gooch, E. G. Moody, A. S. Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C. Morris, John Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
Gourlay, Harry Moyle, Arthur Winterbottom, R. E.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley) Mulley, Frederick Woof, Robert
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly) Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.) Wyatt, Woodrow
Griffiths, W. (Exchange) Oliver, G. H. Yates, Victor (Ladywood)
Grimond Rt. Hon. J. Oram, A. E. Zilliacus, K.
Hale Leslie (Oldham, W.) Owen, Will
Hamilton, William (West Fife) Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Hannan, William Parker, John Dr. Broughton and Mr. Redhead
Hart, Mrs. Judith Parkin, B, T.
Agnew, Sir Peter Arbuthnot, John Barlow, Sir John
Aitken, W. T. Ashton, Sir Hubert Batsford, Brian
Allason, James Atkins, Humphrey Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Bell, Ronald Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Page, John (Harrow, West)
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Biffen, John Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd) Partridge, E.
Biggs-Davison, John Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.) Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Bishop, F. P. Harvie Anderson, Miss Peel John
Black, Sir Cyril Hastings, Stephen Percival, Ian
Bossom, Clive Hay, John Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Bourne-Arton, A. Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel Pitman, Sir James
Box, Donald Hendry, Forbes Pitt, Miss Edith
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. Hicks Beach, Maj. W. Pott, Percivall
Boyle, Sir Edward Hiley, Joseph Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Braine, Bernard Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk) Prior, J. M. L.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry Hirst, Geoffrey Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Othe
Brooman-White, R. Hobson, John Pym, Francis
Brown, Alan (Tottenham) Holland, Philip Quennell, Miss J. M.
Browne, Percy (Torrington) Hollingworth, John Rawlinson, Peter
Buck, Antony Hopkins, Alan Renton, David
Bullard, Denys Hornby, R. P. Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric Hughes-Young, Michael Ridsdale, Julian
Burden, F. A. Hulbert, Sir Norman Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Butcher, Sir Herbert Hutchison, Michael Clark Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden) Irving, Bryant Godman (Rye) Russell, Ronald
Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn) Jackson, John Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan
Carr, Compton (Barons Court) Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich) Scott-Hopkins, James
Channon, H. P. G. Jennings, J. C. Sharples, Richard
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.) Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle) Shaw, M.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.) Johnson, Eric (Blackley) Skeet, T. H. H.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.) Kerans, Cdr. J. S. Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)
Cleaver, Leonard Kerby, Capt. Henry Smithers, Peter
Cole, Norman Kerr, Sir Hamilton Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Collard, Richard Kershaw, Anthony Spearman, Sir Alexander
Cooke, Robert Kimball, Marcus Speir, Rupert
Cooper, A. E. Kirk, Peter Stanley, Hon. Richard
Cordle, John Kitson, Timothy Stevens, Geoffrey
Corfield, F. V. Lagden, Godfrey Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Costain, A. P. Lancaster, Col. C. G. Studholme, Sir Henry
Coulson, Michael Leather, E. H. C. Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Craddock, Sir Beresford Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Talbot, John E.
Critchley, Julian Lindsay, Martin Tapsell, Peter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver Linstead, Sir Hugh Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Cunningham, Knox Litchfield, Capt. John Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Curran, Charles Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral) Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Longbottom, Charles Teeling, Sir William
Dance, James Longden, Gilbert Temple, John M.
de Ferranti, Basil Loveys, Walter H. Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Digby, Simon Wingfield Lucas, Sir Jocelyn Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Doughty, Charles Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Thornton- Kemsley, Sir Colin
Drayson, G. B. McAdden, Stephen Tilney, John (Wavertree)
du Cann, Edward MacArthur, Ian Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Duncan, Sir James Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayre.) Turner, Colin
Eden, John Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.) Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) McMaster, Stanley R. Tweedsmuir, Lady
Elliott, R. W. (Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.) Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn Maddan, Martin Vane, W. M. F.
Farey-Jones, F. W. Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R. Vickers, Miss Joan
Farr, John Markham, Major Sir Frank Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis
Finlay, Graeme Marshall, Douglas Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Fisher, Nigel Marten, Neil Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Mathew, Robert (Honiton) Walder, David
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton) Matthews, Gordon (Meriden) Walker, Peter
Gammans, Lady Mawby, Ray Wall, Patrick
George, J. C. (Pollok) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Ward, Dame Irene
Gilmour, Sir John Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Webster, David
Glover, Sir Douglas Mills, Stratton Wells, John (Maidstone)
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham) Montgomery, Fergus Williams, Dudley (Exeter)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Goodhart, Philip Morgan, William Wise, A. R.
Goodhew, Victor Morrison, John Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Gower, Raymond Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles Woodhouse, C. M.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William Nabarro, Gerald Woollam, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R. Neave, Airey Worsley, Marcus
Green, Alan Nugent, Rt. Hon. Sir Richard
Gresham Cooke, R. Oakshott, Sir Hendrie TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Gurden, Harold Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. McLaren.
Hall, John (Wycombe) Osborn, John (Hallam)