§ Nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to limit or deny political asylum to any person seeking refuge in the United Kingdom from racial or political persecution.—[Mr. Hooley.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
1664§ Mr. HooleyI beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The Government will be aware that 1968 is the 20th anniversary of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of which Article 14 states:
Everyone has the right to proceed to and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.This country in general has an excellent record of granting political asylum to people from other countries, both individually and, at various times, when there has been a mass exodus from political persecution. For the citizen of a foreign country the position is fairly clear. He has no right to come to this country. He may simply ask for asylum and it is within the discretion of the Home Secretary to grant it, or withhold it.However, the Bill will create a somewhat different situation for United Kingdom citizens who are suffering from persecution and who apply for asylum in this country. He may be told that he need not be granted asylum, because he has the right to come here, although that right may not be exercised until next year, or the following year or 20 years hence, that he has the right, but cannot exercise it at once.
4.45 a.m.
I should like this ambiguity cleared up, so that the Act cannot be used to refuse a United Kingdom citizen asylum. The peculiar position of these people under the Bill is that if they sought political asylum they could be told that they were trying to avoid the controls and that, with that right of entry, they had no need of the grace of the authorities. This worries me and I should like it cleared up.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe legal concept of political asylum is not affected by the Bill, and there is therefore—this must be my logical advice—no need for the new Clause. Historically, political asylum has been overtly granted only to aliens. It is not referred to in any Statute or Statutory Instruments but is granted by administrative practice under the Aliens Order. It was not mentioned in the 1962 Act, which is important, considering how far the Bill's terms and provisions are woven into that Act.
1665 Some technical points could be raised here, and I do not suggest that they are more than that. There is the question whether political asylum can arise for holders of United Kingdom passports. There is something paradoxical in the concept of a country giving political asylum to its own citizens. I do not want to be too metaphysical, but there are difficulties of logic and law which it would be wrong to under-estimate.
The practical test of the matter of political asylum, according to well-settled practice, is that it is granted only if it is reasonable to suppose that the result of refusing entry into this country would mean the return of an alien to a country in which he would face danger to life or liberty, Dr persecution of such a kind as to render life insupportable by reason of race, religion, nationality or membership of a political group or opinion. The Committee may think that we are far from that area in dealing with this Measure. My recommendation would be not to agree to the new Clause for the reasons I have adumbrated, and mainly because the treatment of political asylum has been thus far so confined. It has not been referred to in our Statute law or in Statutory Instruments and there is no reference to it in the 1962 Act.
In the circumstances, I invite the Committee to take the view that it is better not to have an overt treatment of this concept of political asylum in the Bill.
§ Sir D. RentonFrom my experience of having to consider applications for political asylum, I have no hesitation in supporting what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. In practice, and within its definition, political asylum is a somewhat narrower concept than is often believed and, as he said, it has been applied only to aliens.
The hon. and learned Gentleman was candid when he said that, in considering the position of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies carrying British passports who will have no right to enter this country once the Bill is passed, he was being somewhat metaphysical. Undoutedly that is the position. He was being somewhat metaphysical, but there is the dilemma that if he were otherwise and if he were to accept the concept of political asylum as rather broadly stated in the new Clause, he would be undermining the foundation of the Bill. He 1666 therefore had no option—some of us might regret this; I certainly do—but to advise the Committee not to accept the new Clause because the foundation of the Bill would be undermined.
§ Mr. Edwin Brooks (Bebington)I had not intended to intervene at this late hour, and because it is so late I may be more confused than usual. What has been said has left me totally bewildered. Of course, in the past the concept of political asylum has been relevant only to aliens, and when my hon. and learned Friend said that there was something illogical in considering the granting of political asylum to citizens of the United Kingdom, I could not, in normal circumstances, agree with him more. But the illogicality is confounded in the circumstances of the Bill, for we are, in effect, not only putting citizens of the United Kingdom in a position where they are possessed of no more rights than aliens, but are putting them in a position where they might be possessed of fewer rights than aliens.
It seems to me to be extraordinary that if, say, a citizen of the United Kingdom resident in Kenya who is subjected to racialism or political persecution continues to hold his United Kingdom passport he thereby does not qualify for political asylum because he is such a citizen, but if he then decides to burn, perhaps publicly, his passport in the main square in Nairobi so that he becomes stateless—I am not sure whether he then becomes an alien but, presumably, he is no longer a citizen of the United Kingdom because he has abrogated the contract which we accept can be abrogated by either party as a result of the Bill—he does qualify to be considered sympathetically for political asylum.
I have a vision, even in my befuddled mood at 5 o'clock in the morning, of a vast concourse of citizens of the United Kingdom publicly burning their passports in Nairobi so as to qualify thereby for sympathetic treatment by a Government who can no longer honour the obligation to them as citizens of the United Kingdom that they should be protected from racial or political persecution.
There comes a time when, no matter how sympathetic one may be to what is undoubtedly a dilemma of government—a dilemma which is rooted in many years of uncertainty and, to some extent, in 1667 honourable motives that have been overtaken by events—and no matter how far one can accept that there must be a restriction on immigration to this country—and that is a point I certainly do accept—one must ask whether by producing a Bill which is capable of the sort of idiotic confusion that I have tried, no doubt very inadequately, to illustrate, one is really helping any purpose known to a democratic assembly, or any purpose which could possibly in the long run solve this gnawing agony of racialism in the modern world.
I should have thought that if there was no reason to assume that the Bill would in any way limit that spirit of generosity that has been shown for many generations in this country to victims of racial and political persecution, if there is nothing in the Bill which implies that, there is no harm in making the point quite explicit. For that reason, I am bound to find myself in support of the proposal contained in the new Clause.
§ Mr. Richard Wainwright (Colne Volley)From this side of the Committee I feel very much obliged to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) for tabling his new Clause. I hope that it will be accepted, and accepted with good grace. It may be said that it is tabled out of a great abundance of caution, but the distressing events of the last few days have proved to the House how much an abundance of caution is necessary in order that some residual rights may be protected.
I found it quite impossible to accept, or even fully to follow, the consensus arguments of the two Front Benches. The Solicitor-General was careful, and candid, to remind the Committee, as I understood him, that political asylum is not embodied in any Statute, but is a concept. That may be a situation of which, as so often happens, we should take advantage here. If there is a concept, there is no reason why it should not be a developing concept and be made to meet the quite unprecedented and unfortunate situation with which the Committee is faced. It is a concept that might be suitably adapted to new circumstances in which a class of persons who might be described as semi-alien is being created. The right hon. and learned 1668 Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) suggested that this Clause might undermine—I think he said "would undermine"—the whole purpose of the Bill.
§ Sir D. RentonI said it could.
§ 5.0 a.m.
§ Mr. WainwrightI accept that and ask whether he therefore thinks that the main purpose of the Bill can also be undermined by the statements made by the Home Secretary earlier during these proceedings when he is reported to have said:
If a man is thrown out of work, if he is ejected from the country, we shall have to take him in.If that is a correct report of what the Home Secretary said, surely the right hon. and learned Member must believe that the main purpose of the Bill is already likely to be undermined and that it will not suffer any more seriously from this new Clause.
§ Sir D. RentonThat seems to go beyond the scope of this Amendment.
§ Mr. WainwrightThis Clause, in the light of the quite unprecedented problems which have been pushed upon us in the last few days, would at least provide some modest protection for possibly a small class of persons, and in the position in which we are placed the possibility of redeeming the fortunes of even a small class of persons ought not to be overlooked.
§ Mr. HooleyI am not much reassured by the cheerful unanimity of the two learned Gentlemen on the two Front Benches. The argument that this provision does not apply in the principal Act is quite beside the point because the principal Act did not create the absurd situation which this Bill seeks to create.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI was not aware of unanimity on this matter between the two Front Benches. We may have arrived at the same conclusion, but it seems that we reached it by very different roads.
§ Mr. HooleyAt this time of the morning I cannot worry about the roads by which the learned Gentlemen arrived wherever they did arrive. The Solicitor-General said they arrived at the same 1669 conclusion. That appears to be more or less unanimity.
It is beside the point to argue that there is nothing of this kind in the principal Act, because the principal Act did not create the kind of situation that this Bill seeks to create in which United Kingdom citizens may be debarred from entering the country of their citizenship. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said there was a certain illogicality in talking about political asylum for anyone other than aliens. That is because of the illogicality of the Bill. We are creating a pseudo-logical category for people who are our citizens. I would
| Division No. 76.] | AYES | [5.5 a.m. |
| Anderson, Donald | Higgins, Terence L. | Mendelson, J. J |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Hooley, Frank | Mikardo, Ian |
| Bessell, Peter | Hooson, Emlyn | Pardoe, John |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.) | Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.) |
| Body, Richard | Hunt, John | Scott, Nicholas |
| Brooks, Edwin | Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh) | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Johnston, Russeli (Inverness) | Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy |
| Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.) | Judd, Frank | Tllney, John |
| Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) | Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham) | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Ellis, John | Lestor, Miss Joan | Whitaker, Ben |
| Fletcher, Raymond (likeston) | Lubbock, Eric | Winnick, David |
| Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich) | Macdonald, A. H. | Winstaniey, Dr. M. P. |
| Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale) | Madennan, Robert | |
| Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth) | McNamara, J. Kevin | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Haseldine, Norman | Maddan, Martin | Mr. David Steel and |
| Heseltine, Michael | Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) | Mr. Richard Wainwright. |
| NOES | ||
| Allan, Scholefield | Fernyhough, E. | Mapp, Charles |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Forrester, John | Marks, Kenneth |
| Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.) | Fowler, Gerry | Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test) |
| Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice | Fraser, John (Norwood) | Montgomery, Fergus |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Ginsburg, David | Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Goodhart, Philip | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) |
| Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) | Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Morris, John (Aberavon) |
| Bishop, E. S. | Grant-Ferris, R. | Moyle, Roland |
| Blackburn, F. | Grey, Charles (Durham) | Murray, Albert |
| Bradley, Tom | Gurden, Harold | Oakes, Gordon, |
| Bray, Dr. Jeremy | Harper, Joseph | Ogden, Eric |
| Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Hazelt, Bert | O'Malley, Brian |
| Brown, Bob(N'c'tie-upon. Tyne, W.) | Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret | Oswald, Thomas |
| Buchan, Norman | Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough) | Page, Derek (King's Lynn) |
| Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James | Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Cant, R. B. | Hoy, James | Pentland, Norman |
| Carmichael, Neil | Huckfield, Leslie | Perry, Ernest G. (Battertea, S.) |
| Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara | Hughes, Rt. Hn. Ciedwyn (Anglesey) | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Chapman, Donald | Hunter, Adam | Probert, Arthur |
| Coe, Denis | Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) | Pym, Francis |
| coleman, Donald | Johnson, James (K'ston- on-Hull, W.) | Rees, Meriyn |
| Concannon, J. D. | Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham,S) | Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David |
| Dalyell, Tarn | Jones, T. Atec (Rhondda, West) | Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon) |
| Davidson, Arthur (Accrlngton) | Leadbitter, Ted | Robinson. Rt. Hn. Kenneth(St.P'c'as) |
| Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford) | Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) | Rodgers, William (Stockton) |
| Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.) | Loughlin, Charles | Ross, Rt. Hn. William |
| Davies, Harold (Leek) | Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Dobson, Ray | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Doig, Peter | McBride, Neil | Small, William |
| Dunnett, Jack | McCann, John | Snow, Julian |
| Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter) | MacColl, James | Stainton, Keith |
| Eadie, Alex | McGuire, Michael | Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) | Swingler, Stephen |
| English, Michael | Mackie, John | Taverne, Dick |
| Ennals, David | MoMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C) | Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart) |
| Eyre, Reginald | Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg) | Thornton, Ernest |
| Farr, John | Manuel, Archie | Tinn, Jamee |
§ have welcomed an assurance from my Front Bench that, whatever the precise legal definition, if a case of genuine political persecution arose relating to a United Kingdom citizen whose right of entry had been barred as a consequence of this Measure, he would be given sympathetic consideration for asylum here and that the actual provisions of this Measure would not be invoked to deny asylum on strictly political grounds
§ Question put,That the Clause be read a Second time:—
§ The Committee divided:Ayes 44, Noes 122.
| Urwin, T. W. | Whitlock, William | Yates, Victor |
| Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley) | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) | |
| Walker, Harold (Doncaster) | Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Wallace, George | Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard | Mr. Eric G. Varley and |
| Welts, William (Walsali, N.) | Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A. | Mr. loan L. Evans, |
§ The Deputy ChairmanThe next new Clause selected is new Clause No. 3, with which we can discuss new Clause No. 4:
Citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies holding United Kingdom passports shall, for a period of ninety days after the passing of this Act, have the right to appeal to the Secretary of State for the Home Department against the refusal of admission by an immigration officer. or the conditions of admission imposed by an immigration officer.new Clause No. 5:For a period of ninety days after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State for the Home Department shall decide on appeals against the decisions of immigration officers made under this Act; during that period of ninety days the draft of an order establishing a Commonwealth Immigrants Appeals Tribunal must be laid before Parliament.and new Clause No. 6.The following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (6) of section 2 of the principal Act:—' (6A) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against any decision of an immigration officer or diplomatic agent under section 2 of this Act based on a disputed issue of fact or of the interpretation of this Act '.If the Committee should require it, we may have a Division on new Clause No. 6.