REPEALS

HC Deb 17 June 1971 vol 819 cc729-78

Amendment made: No. 92, in page 55, line 6, column 3 at end insert 'Section 2(1).—[Mr. Sharpies.]

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Sharples

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This is the last stage of the Bill's progress through the House until we reach the consideration of Amendments from another place. I share the feeling of a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides that we have lived with the Bill for a very long time. I have almost grown to feel that I shall miss it when it passes on.

The Bill's main purpose was described by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his opening speech on Second Reading. It was to replace by a single, comprehensive and definitive Statute the existing temporary and piecemeal legislation governing the entry of foreign nationals and Commonwealth citizens. In so doing, we have safeguarded the rights of those entitled both by birth and by parentage to come here. We have also intentionally retained an element of discrimination in favour of the citizen who comes from the Commonwealth whether to work here or as a visitor, or for any other purpose. We have retained that discrimination whether he comes from the old or the new Commonwealth.

The Committee stage was pretty long by the standards of the House. The discussion throughout was constructive and a number of useful suggestions were made from both sides. These were carefully considered, and we have been able to include quite a number in the Amendments which the House has been discussing. As my right hon. Friend and I have said at various points during the Report stage, further Amendments will be included when the Bill reaches an- other place to meet points which were made by hon. Members on both sides and which were very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and myself.

The most important changes made in the Bill since it was introduced are those designed to make absolutely certain that the position of those already here and accepted for settlement will not be prejudiced in any way. There is no question of those who are settled here having their rights taken away from them. It is for every one of us, no matter where we sit in this House or what interest we represent, to make absolutely clear, if we have the interests of the community truly at heart, the fact that those who are settled here are not affected by the Bill. Let us be clear that there are those who are trying to make out that this Bill is a vehicle for harassment of immigrants already here or to come. They do no service to the cause which they purport to represent.

I want to say a few words about registration with the police, which has not come up on Report. We had a very full discussion on this in Committee. It would not be realistic for me to pretend that no doubts remain. I would like to say how grateful I was to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), whom I see on the Front Bench opposite, for letting me see an advance copy of the constructive memorandum put forward by the Police Federation on this subject.

The fact that I had it early—the hon. Member took the trouble to send it to me by hand—enabled me to give careful consideration to what the Federation had to say. I have had time to examine the alternative proposals which the Federation put forward and I have come to the very firm conclusion that neither of the alternatives which it suggests would be workable or would provide the necessary degree of control. The first—registration at the port of entry—would present real difficulties, not the least of which would be the necessity, which the Federation accepted, of having to restrict the entry of those not having the right of abode in this country to a limited number of entry points where registration facilities existed. This would certainly mean fewer points of entry than those envisaged in the Bill. The second alternative put forward by the Federation was registration at employment exchanges. This is a subject which we considered in considerable detail during the Committee stage. There is no need for me to put forward those arguments again except to say that I do not see this, for the reasons I gave then, as an effective alternative means of control. If we look at the existing situation for the alien, I do not think there is any doubt—and this has not been disputed on either side in all of our discussions—that the system that we have has worked very well. At the moment there are 170,000 aliens, including a large number of people of non-European descent, who are registered with the police.

It is a tribute to the work of the police that we hardly ever have any complaint about the working of the system. I do not see that there is any real problem in adding to the present number of those required to register a small additional number of Commonwealth citizens, making it quite clear that this does not apply to those already here. One point which emerged clearly, and I think it was accepted in Committee, was that whatever system of registration we adopted it should be the same for both those Commonwealth citizens and those aliens who were required to register. There was no serious suggestion that there should be two separate systems.

It is not the registration that matters so much; it is the fact that in the final event, when something goes wrong, it is the police, and only the police, who can take the necessary action. When something goes wrong, when someone deliberately or by mistake fails to register or is suspected of having evaded controls, tension can be aroused, and it is then that there has to be direct contact between the policeman and the person being asked whether he has registered. No matter what system of registration we have, it is, in the last event, the policeman who has to do the work for us. In many respects, the police have a great deal of difficult and sometimes embarrassing work to do on our behalf. We respect them for it and for the way in which they do it.

There is a positive advantage in the newcomer to this country having early contact with the police in the normal course of events. He may well find that the relationship here between the police and the public is very different from that existing in the country from which he has come.

One other matter I have to deal with is the time of the coming into operation of the Measure. Part IV, dealing mainly with the welfare provisions, comes into operation upon Royal Assent, together with Clause 35(3) dealing with provisions for the prosecution of certain offences. Clause 25, which creates the new offence of assisting illegal entry, comes into force one month after Royal Assent. All the remaining provisions come into force on a single day to be appointed by my right hon. Friend. It is clear that this cannot be until several months after Royal Assent. In the meantime, the existing system of control is continued under powers contained in Clause 35(4).

The enemy of good community relations—and, after all, this is a Bill which to a large extent is about community relations—is fear. For the immigrant it is fear of discrimination in jobs, housing, schools and so on, the things which affect him most closely. Already both sides of the House have done a great deal to try to remove this real fear from the immigrant who has settled here and whom we accept as a full member of our community.

But let us not forget that there is in certain areas, fear among the indigenous population which it would be foolish to ignore or reject, of a return to large-scale and uncontrolled immigration. This Bill, by finally settling the question of immigration control for, I hope, many years to come, will of itself make a positive contribution to communal harmony, and I recommend it to the House.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

Until the early 1950s, despite the influx of Jewish refugees at the turn of this century and in the 1930s from the hateful excesses of German Nazism, and despite the Polish soldiers in 1946, we in this country have always thought of ourselves as a source of emigrants rather than a receiver of immigrants. It is, therefore, not surprising that, as a nation, we have made heavy weather, with much heart-burning, of instituting a means of control of immigration, or indeed have got round to it in the first instance. Very few people have been right on this. It could have been easy only for the relatively few on either extreme—the "everybody outs" or the "everybody ins"—it is easy to be logical if one has a simple answer.

There are no simple answers for the Commonwealth if only because the heavy hand of history clouds the issues. As witness of this I invite the House to read the debates on the British Nationality Act, 1947, 24 years ago—it might be a hundred years ago judging by the sentiments that underlay a great deal of what was said by both sides.

There had to come a time when the Government of the day had to look at immigration. To illustrate the difference between the two sides, our General Election manifesto said: We now propose to review the law relating to citizenship. This indeed has been the great difference between the two sides throughout our discussions. Our review of nationality and citizenship would have been on a Commonwealth basis, as was the earlier review of 1947 which was carried out by the then Permanent Under-Secretary to the Home Office with the then independent Commonwealth countries sitting round the table and evolving a common policy. If Commonwealth countries do not wish to discuss immigration, either with this country or with any other country, that is their own business, but they must discuss citizenship.

I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say earlier today that discussions on citizenship had not been wanted by the Commonwealth countries. I was under the impression that under the convention of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences there has to be common agreement to discuss immigration, but that citizenship is different from immigration. It may be that the disagreement on the parliamentary question earlier today is indicative of the disagreement we have had all the way through our discussions on the Bill.

Our main criticism of the Bill is that it attempts to change immigration control without looking at citizenship. The Short Title says: Amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law …". It should have been the other way round. The Bill deals with citizenship only because the Government was driven to do so by the need to change the law on immigration.

Then there is the foolishness of patriality. If, as the Home Secretary says, since the war privileges have been given to white descendants of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, that is one thing, but to enshrine expediency as a pillar of immigration law is another, and in our view wrong. I agree that a country has the right to pass on its citizenship for whatever period it wishes if it so desires after discussion, but citizenship should have a meaning in terms of duties and privileges and, given what has been done by the Bill, this would still be possible.

Patriality is an immigration control concept which is linked to citizenship. In Committee we have removed for Commonwealth citizens —and there is no sign of it coming back—the grandfather element from Clause 2(1)(c) for Commonwealth citizens. Patriality meant here that we had decided to choose between certain Commonwealth citizens. That is different from choosing between citizens who hold our citizenship. By that provision we were saying that certain Commonwealth citizens in, for example. New Zealand, being descendants from a person originating from this country, were to be treated differently on entering this country. This was offensive to the Maoris and to many New Zealanders. But there will be trouble from this concept of patriality. This is not a definitive Bill, as it was claimed to be by the Minister of State. This is not the end of the matter.

Our other concern has been with the work permits—the terms of which we shall eventually be told—which arise from the Bill. The door to full understanding of the implications of this in terms of numbers will be opened only when we have details of the new system which is legally provided for in the Bill.

On reading all the material I have collected over the years on this subject, the Prime Minister's speech before the General Election and the Conservative Party manifesto, I can only say that there is a constant mixing-up of "work permit" and "employment voucher". These are essentially different, but there is confusion all the way through. In 1962 there were employment vouchers for Commonwealth citizens which were a form of immigration control and gave rights to wives and families, with a classification of type. There were employment vouchers A, B and, at one time C, with proportions for various Commonwealth countries. These have gone. Nothing has been put in their place and we await details. It may be that we shall have to wait until the current European negotiations are fully revealed.

We learn from the Home Secretary's recent statement that the Government intend to reduce the number of East African Asians entering to take up employment from 4,000 to 2,000. There are to be no more A vouchers except for Malta. If the aim of the Government had been to reduce numbers, there was no need for an Act of Parliament; this could have been done under the existing system. The cut-down in vouchers for Commonwealth citizens was done in advance of this legislation, which shows that the Bill is not necessary for this purpose.

The Minister of State said again this afternoon that large numbers of Commonwealth citizens will not be coming into this country. In what way have the numbers been reduced since the Government came into office, apart from what was said a fortnight ago? In what way does the Bill deal with this? We do not know what the new work permit scheme is to be. If that is the purpose of the Bill, we have no knowledge how it will operate. What was done a fortnight ago, as the right hon. Gentleman told me at Question Time, was done under the existing rules.

In this important respect of work permits, the Bill gives a blank cheque. We have every right to ask probing questions when the Government introduce a Bill which gives them a blank cheque. The delay in getting information—which I presume has something to do with Europe—is a reason why the Bill should have been delayed. Since such a vast change will take place in the concept of immigration for work purposes if we go into Europe, and given the fact that there has been no change of numbers, apart from that announced a fortnight ago in the number of East African Asians, the Bill should have been delayed so as to give time to get the citizenship aspect right. If we do not sign the Treaty of Rome there will be even more reason to wait—

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

We will not.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, who is a senior Conservative, has inside knowledge. It is possible to learn things even in a debate.

Another blot on the Bill is the right to deport families who themselves may not have committed a crime. This arises from the change from employment vouchers to work permits. Employment vouchers gave a statutory right to the families to come, but work permits do not. The Government, therefore, in future will be bringing in a number of temporary workers on the European model—what number we do not know. The Government want to be sure that families will be able to return to the country of origin. I learnt while I was in office—and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has written about this—that the motives of Commonwealth citizens for coming to this country are profoundly different from the motives of those who come from the territories of Europe. The administrative need to provide machinery for dealing with what the Government regard as a problem under work permits has given rise to a fundamental change in the law so that people can be deported for something which they have not done.

We had hopes, after the remarks of the Home Secretary on Second Reading, that there would be a change in the matter of registration, but we have learned that this is not to be. The pattern of the movement of labour on work permits from the southern belt of Europe and the movement of labour to this country from Asian countries are essentially of the same type, but the latter is affected by our former Empire and our rules of citizenship.

It is vital that we should have information on why people come here and on employers who ask for them to come. The T.U.C. in its evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration said that registration for this purpose would be valuable. It would enable the local Department of Employment to get in touch with a worker to make sure that he knew about his trade union rights and to indoctrinate him socially about his work place. We had hoped that it would be possible to use these means rather than registration with the police in the first instance.

The Department of Employment has gained a high reputation and, after perhaps a slow start, has done quite a lot here. Whatever information is collected should be available to the Department of Employment and particularly to the Department of Manpower Planning. Laissez faire in the movement of labour may be an excellent economic doctrine for the maximisation of profits, but it may be the most devilish thing to the people themselves who are moved around, with the oscillating economic forces. I speak personally with some feeling about this.

I know the difficulties of registration. I was approached yesterday on behalf of a young United States girl who had read in the paper what was going on. She had been here for a long time and had not registered. I was asked what she should do. I advised her to go quickly, because she was in serious trouble with the law. She is due to leave these shores within 14 days. Only recently did she find that she had been breaking the law, and I suspect there are others in a similar position.

In one sense registration is not as good as we like to think. This is not anybody's fault; it is a most difficult task. The follow-up is also difficult. Commonwealth citizens come here with the right to vote, with the right to be justices of the peace and with all the rights of citizenship because they are Commonwealth citizens. Registration with the police, given the fact that the Government, quite rightly, have decided they shall keep this citizenship, is wrong.

There has been talk of numbers—which is unproven—there has been talk about repatriation, which we have not got, because it is not repatriation which we have been discussing today. The shadow of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West lies behind the Bill. The Bill was born out of a desire to tap prejudice without condoning it; it was also born out of a desire to win the last General Election. As a result we have not only a misconceived Bill, but a bad one.

Despite the remarks by the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, particularly the remarks made this afternoon about deportation and about repatriation, which were heartening to hear and which will play a great part in damping down opinion on this Bill, what we complain about is the concept which was behind the Bill in the first instance. It has done harm to race relations, which is a tender plant difficult to understand. For this reason and because of these inconsistencies, we shall vote against the Third Reading of the Bill.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. Powell

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoilt an agreeable speech—indeed, many of his contributions throughout this Bill have been agreeable and often important—by attributing absurd motives to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Whatever else can be said for or against the Bill, what is clear is that for the most part it carries out undertakings which have been given officially on behalf of the Conservative Party not merely at the General Election but for a number of years before. That is the simple reason for this Bill. With all its failings, such as they are, it carries out what we said we would do in the way in which we said we would do it.

I shall not detain the House for many minutes, since I speak in the mood of a Third Reading debate whereby, under the rules of order, we are limited to what is in the Bill itself. It is right that at this stage note should be taken of some of the important things which the Bill does and of the important changes that it makes. Although I cannot share the hope of my right hon. Friend that it will prove to be in any sense definitive, the importance of some of the changes is that they may lead the way and open the door to further changes.

The first point to which I would draw attention is the improvement of control for the future. There is no doubt that this will contribute to the prevention of illegal entry or stay, as contrasted with control of numbers. The provisions for registration in particular will help administration. There can be no excuse for a system which allows evasion on a substantial scale. I believe that in future evasion will be very much harder and that those ill-feelings, which the existence of evasion tends to create, will be less as a result of the control provisions in this Bill.

Valuable are also the extension of time limits, the creation of new offences in connection with illegal immigration, and the higher penalties for breach of the Immigration Laws. I am sure that all this will contribute to limit and curb what from every point of view is a scourge and a blot, the trade of illegal immigration. It ought to be set down for virtue to the Bill that it will make the crime of illegal immigration, and the aiding and abetting and organisation of illegal immigration, more difficult and more dangerous than they were before.

So far as future non-patrial immigrants are concerned, deportation will now be available as long as they are in this country, unless and until they become patrial by status. I believe this remedies for the future—unfortunately, in my view, only for the future—something which has caused a good deal of heartburning and a sense of unreasonableness, namely that after a certain number of years a person who was not patrial and who did not belong to this country, who had chosen not to belong to this country, was not liable to be deported, however heinously or repeatedly he broke the laws of this country. For the future those who enter this country and who are permitted to stay here and to settle here will, unless and until not only by their own act but by permission of the Government they become "belongers", still be liable to deportation. This commends itself to a sense of what is right and proper.

I may not carry the same degree of agreement when I refer to the power to remove the Republic of Ireland from the common travel area. This is one of the aspects of the Bill where nothing is actually to happen in the present but where provision is made for a contingency in the future. It is not widely known, but hon. Members will be aware that citizens of the Republic of Ireland are at present subject to control under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts, and they remain subject to control under this Bill, apart from the existence of the common travel area. I have no intention of opening the question—which is indeed a question of citizenship and not one of immigration—of the status in the United Kingdom of the citizens of the Irish Republic. The Bill makes it possible, if circumstances require and if policy changes, for the control which has always existed for the last 9 years in posse to be exercised in esse by the alteration of the boundaries of the common travel area.

I come to two very much larger matters. One is that undeniably the Bill removes the automatic right of admission to this country of the dependants—as statutorily defined—of immigrant parents already here. That right, which was in the 1962 and 1968 Acts, has ceased to be a statutory right. Of course my right hon. Friend has made it clear, and it appears in the draft rules, that he intends by rule to secure approximately the same effect as was secured hitherto by statute. Nevertheless, it is an important change that this right of admission has ceased to be a statutory right and has become a right accorded by administrative practice under the rules.

Mr. John Mendelson

It is a loss.

Mr. Powell

It is certainly a change. At certain stages it has been argued, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, that there is no important change or difference here. I do not agree. I recall the Minister of State yesterday, in another connection, arguing that if something had been in the words of a statute it would not have been possible to change administrative policy, to alter administration, as promptly as might have been desired. Undoubtedly, where a right is accorded by statute, it is very much tougher than a right which is a matter of administrative practice in the rules. But later yesterday the House was carried much further by the interchange between the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, from which interchange it appeared that these rules, or important parts of them, which have been before us during consideration of the Bill would, if a certain decision were to be taken, have to be replaced by different rules. Thus already in the first few months of this new legislation my right hon. Friend is contemplating quite fundamental alterations in those rules to which in future the right of admission of dependants will be consigned.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe)

Despite the right hon. Gentleman's interesting argument, the reality is that the Government and the party in power which supports it remains firmly committed to allowing the dependants of these people to continue to arrive here and that they have no intention of stopping the right of admission of such people.

Mr. Powell

I know that very well. But through the change that has happened it is no longer necessary to alter the statute in order to alter that policy, if and when a decision to alter it takes place. I have made no secret of my opinion that this unconditional right ought not to be accepted; that it ought to be a conditional and discretionary right. I have made no secret of my belief that the present rate of inflow is much higher than ought to be accepted in relation to the dimensions of the existing problem. It has been pointed out that a great part of that inflow consists of dependants. Last night the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, ventured the prediction that there would be a day—I thought he was wise not to put a date to it, although I tried to tempt him—when the annual net inflow from the new Commonwealth would be only 8,000 per year. At the moment net immigration from the new Commonwealth is running at about 40,000 per year. Although we hear constantly about the fall in numbers admitted for settlement, the fact happens to be that net immigration from the new Commonwealth in the first quarter of this year was larger than it was last year and nearly as large as it was the year before.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

Could I put this point to the right hon. Gentleman? Some years ago at the Home Office it was the practice from time to time to give the net figure and it was used as some indication of the number that was left. In fact I assure the right hon. Gentleman that when one looks at this matter, as I have put to him before, it may be seen that the net figures must be different at different times of the year. The figures I have before me show a great drop in the number of dependants, and it is about dependants that the right hon. Gentleman is arguing at the moment.

Mr. Powell

I accept the hon. Gentleman's first point. I would not venture to use the net figure except in terms of comparison of years or substantial periods. I referred to the first quarter of this year only because of the deplorable practice, when the monthly figures appear, of making statements which are misleading against the background of the longer-term trend. Where, however, a net figure is a constant plus year by year I maintain that the net figure must be significant for knowing the build-up of the new Commonwealth population here.

On the second point, the hon. Gentleman is right: although the dependants are a substantial part of the net intake, they are not so high a proportion as they constitute of the figure, as it is called, "admitted for settlement". Nevertheless, I do not believe—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will disagree—that any large reduction in that net figure, which is the number which matters in practice, could be attained for a considerable time if we remain under this obligation to admit dependants automatically. Therefore—I will be candid about it—I welcome the fact that we now have the means, whenever we decide, to change this policy by administrative action.

Finally, I mention Clause 29. As has been pointed out this afternoon, as it stands in the Bill, whatever use happens to be made of it initially, it is quite wide in its ambit. It does not perhaps provide as much assistance in cases where assistance is applicable as I think may sometimes be desirable; but its ambit, in terms of the Bill, is wide.

My right hon. Friend has repeatedly said that he regards the scope for its application as narrow. I believe that he is mistaken both as regards the fact, and in what I feel is his wish and intention that the scope should prove to be narrow. I believe that the scope is substantial, that the advantage of those powers being used on a substantial scale would also be considerable, and that their net effect would not be the exacerbation of feelings in this country, but a reduction of the apprehensions which lie behind such dangerous feelings.

Mr. David Lane (Cambridge)

My right hon. Friend is fond of making statistical forecasts. However, I do not recall him ever telling the House—I may have missed it if he has—first, if his policy is to be effective, what kind of financial incentive he has in mind, and, secondly, what kind of increase in public expenditure over the years he thinks this will involve.

Mr. Powell

When we get the scheme from my right hon. Friend we shall see what his financial proposals are. We do not know how many will seek to avail themselves of those proposals; and without knowing how many will no computation can be made. I have at various stages referred to the unsatisfactory evidence, such as it is—and it is unsatisfactory—about the numbers of people who might in various circumstances be prepared to accept this assistance. My view is that the numbers would be substantial in the absence of any pressure, not to mention harassment, whatsoever. My hon. Friend will realise that, in the nature of the case, any estimate must be entirely speculative and that it would be foolish to attempt to put a figure to it.

I do not fail to understand the grounds—some of them were being advanced this afternoon—why some hon. Members and elements of opinion view with distaste certain implications both of the policy which could be implemented under Clause 29 and of the policy which could be implemented because the admission of dependants is no longer a statutory right. These matters, however, have to be viewed not in the abstract but in the light of that catastrophic error under the shadow of which everything we do or say and all our legislation upon this subject takes place. It is a catastrophic error of which the dimensions are seen to be larger the further away we get from it. Indeed, if the dimensions had been seen at the time the error would not have been committed. I noted the words of the hon. Member for Leeds, South that on this matter over the years very few people have been right.

The catastrophic error was that the legislation which took place in 1962 had been delayed for about five years. It was so little, and yet so large in its effect. The error lies behind us, the consequences lie before, and we all have a duty, from which we cannot without guilt slip out, to address ourselves to the magnitude of that error, as we are now coming to see it, and of the consequences. It is in that light that I welcome both what is deliberately done in the Bill, and the opportunities for a further development of policy which it opens up.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis

The fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has supported the Bill is, in my view, sufficient condemnation of it. He has said that it will not prove to be definitive. The fact is that we know that he will exercise great pressure on the Government to introduce further legislation affecting the rights of immigrants. That is the logic of what the right hon. Gentleman has been arguing for many years.

Despite the blandishments of the Home Secretary and the Minister of State, I believe that the Bill is shallow, empty, superficial, unnecessary and dangerous. It is a Bill which can only do great harm to race relations in this country. The distinction drawn between patrials and non-patrials can only be described as racialistic, as it will, in effect, discriminate against coloured Commonwealth citizens. Those are not my words, but the words of the Chairman of Pressure for Economic and Social Toryism. Those words were uttered when the Bill was published. I believe that the condemnation that was therein voiced was an effective indictment, and a true one.

But it is not only that organisation, it is not only the Labour Party, and it is not only the Opposition in this House who have condemned the Bill. It has been condemned by the British Council of Churches, and by community relations councils all over the country. I know of none which has given it any degree of support. It has been condemned by organisations which daily have to deal with the task of improving community relations. It has been condemned, if not wholly, certainly in many material respects by the organisation of which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler), happens to be President, the Board of Deputies of British Jews.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, the Bill was introduced because the Government were imprisoned by their own electoral slogans, and it is not enough that they have dressed the whole thing up in a bit of liberal tinsel here. The gaping holes are revealed underneath that tinsel, and the real indictment of the Bill is that it has already divided the nation, and will continue to do so, that it has sown fear, doubt and suspicion, as is evidenced by what community relations councils have said, and that it is a sop to racialistic opinions, as is evidenced by the support which racialist organisations have given to it.

The fact is that during the discussions on the Bill the Government have persistently said that the numbers are no longer a problem, though they might be a problem in the years ahead. There is no evidence to suggest that. The fact is that the Government have condemned the Bill out of their own mouth as being totally irrelevant. There can be little doubt that had it not been for the great pressures that were exercised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-west over the last couple of years the Bill would not have seen the light of day. What the Government wanted to do before the election was to foster the illusion that they were tough on immigration, that they were going to do something about it, so that perhaps the more extreme elements might feel that if this kind of legislation were introduced a very large number of black faces would disappear from our streets.

All this was unquestionably meant that a great deal of mischief has been done so far as a feeling of security amongst the black immigrant community is concerned in this country. I have seen it myself in my own constituency where we have a very large number of immigrants, more, proportionately, than in Wolverhampton, not only immigrants who are black but those who come from Europe and other areas of the world. My own community relations officer, for whom I have the greatest regard, was very disheartened and disquieted when this Bill was introduced, and his fears and anxieties have not been assuaged by the occasional tribute that has been paid to community relations officers by the Ministry of State.

The fact is that the work that he and his organisation has to do, the task of reconciliation, the constructive rôle of setting up play centres and all the work that has to be done in order to make the job of integration and harmonious relationships between the races effective, has been very gravely imperilled. In my own constituency perhaps the most important feature of creating harmony has been the way in which the police have worked with the community relations council. We have police officers attending every executive committee meeting and every full meeting of the council. They have given every evidence to the people of Hackney that they want to create a better situation. They want to remove the suspicion that unquestionably exists between black people and police in many areas and particularly in some areas of London.

The Hackney Community Relations Council had the full backing of the local authority. It has therefore been particularly hurtful to that community relations council, and, I believe, to many others, that the Minister of State refused categorically to give an undertaking that he would consult community relations councils about how the Bill was to work. He gave an undertaking to consult the police but not community relations councils.

I will read to the Committee a letter which I had received. I feel that it expresses better than I can the feeling that is expressed by a man of the character of Mr. Jak Baksi, the community relations officer, who, I believe, speaks for community relations officers up and down the country. This is what he said when the Minister refused to consult him: I am appalled that if the Government is to expend public funds to set up organisations ostensibly designed to look after community relations it should then refuse to consult them on matters which so vitally affect community relations, namely, the way in which registration is to operate in practice. I support your suggestion to have regional conferences of community relations officers so that there can be an effective dialogue between ourselves and the Minister. It is a big mistake to confuse what may be termed immigrant organisations' interests with the overall policy and strategy of community relations. It is well to remember in this connection that a Black Power organisation representing minor immigrant interests may well contrast with the fundamentals of multiracial harmony. Ours is a struggle against both extreme white and extreme black prejudice. To by-pass us is also to stab us in the back.

Mr. Sharples

I hope that the hon. Member would not want to misrepresent what I said. I said that the correct channel of consultation in a matter of this kind was the Community Relations Commission.

Mr. Davis

The Minister of State did say this, but he refused categorically to convene a meeting of those who are most directly concerned so that he could arrange a dialogue between himself and those who are in this field.

The Bill undermines those who are already here. The Minister was anxious to say that that was not so; but it is. Those who are here will be the kith and kin of those immigrants who are still to come. They will understand the opprobrious deportation laws that the Bill involves. They will understand the impact of deportation of families. They will be the relatives of those who will be subject to the humiliating probationary terms which the Bill imposes.

Most of all, they will all feel the effect of registration with the police and the sort of pass law system which will be set up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Hon. Members opposite may object, but the fact is that there will be police officers-only a minority of police officers, I am glad to say—who do not like black people. If hon. Members deny that this exists, they are burying their heads in the sand. There are bad police officers, there are mischievous police officers and there are police officers who will harass. This gives them the ammunition, the wherewithal, to do this.

That is why the Police Federation is so much opposed to registration. That is why important police officers in positions of great responsibility want to have nothing to do with registration. It will be imposed on them, but they are deeply sensitive to the problem which exists in places like Notting Hill.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Lewisham, West)

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that it is very important for all of us, in discussing this matter, not to use phrases which could easily stir up the kind of feelings which will not help racial harmony? Would he not, on reflection, agree that it is as important for him as for other hon. Members, on both sides of the House, not to use phrases like "pass laws" when he would object to similar phrases being used by other hon. Members?

Mr. Davies

I am representing a point of view which has been expressed very forcibly to me, and I believe that it is right to represent it while the Bill is still capable of change.

As for repatriation, when the right hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed it, that it was quite wide in its ambit, he was, of course, putting his own point of view forcibly and expressing the dangers which we tried to explain throughout the Committee stage. Similarly, when he spoke of administrative provisions and the disappearance of the statutory right of dependants, that was a sinister departure from the previous law. That is something which we tried to stress in Committee.

The realities are that we shall continue to have a large black population. It is a British population. There are children growing up here who want to be secure. What we need is a substantial programme of urban aid and renewal for the stress areas.

We want to give increased help to the community relations councils. Our survival depends on our ability to face these problems and accept the challenge of change which they involve. It also depends on our ability to rebuke the voices of hate and turn away from those who preach fear, despair and doubt, which will, and are intended to, divide the nation.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

It is, of course, possible to exaggerate the beneficial consequences of this Bill. It is also possible and easy to exaggerate the harm it may do. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis), who has contributed a great deal to our deliberations on the Bill, ended his remarks on that note.

The hon. Gentleman showed emphatically in Committee, as he has shown elsewhere, that he has the intellectual capacity to attack the Bill on perfectly legitimate grounds without resorting to a side kick at the police, one which was totally unjustified and may prove harmful.

Since I have been in this place Ministers representing the Home Office have stood at the Dispatch Box and promised—this has frequently happened when we have been discussing expiry laws continuance legislation—that permanent legislation would be introduced sooner or later. I have heard that promise made and broken for more than 20 years. I therefore congratulate my hon. Friend on having at last produced permanent legislation. As I say, it has been promised for many years, and I regard the last Schedule as not the least of the Measure's achievements.

I must utter a word of an ecumenical character. It is on an aspect about which I hope we have learned something and on which I feel strongly. Whatever may be said for or against the Bill, an enormously heavy burden of administration will fall on the public officials who are responsible for immigration and control. It will begin with the entry certificate officers overseas, continue to the immigration officers here and affect many Departments, notably the Department of Employment.

In opening the Third Reading debate the Minister paid an appropriate tribute to the work of the police. However, the police will not be the only branch of the public service to be heavily involved in the implementation of the Bill. The House has small conception of the degree to which we depend, have depended and will depend to an even greater extent when this legislation is passed on the work of public officials, on whom we rely to do many of the things about which we have been arguing.

I will not flatter my right hon. Friend by saying that the Bill will make their task easier. Indeed, it will make it a great deal harder. To an unusual degree, this legislation will place a tremendous burden on those who are responsible for considering, checking, vetting, passing or refusing, as the case may be, every case that may fall under this Bill. For example, the provisions of Clause 2 will fall to be dealt with by these officials, whose discretion will be decisive, however we seek to determine it here.

Hon. and learned Members have shown great concern in the interests of justice and particularly in the rights of appeal. There must, of course, be safeguards, and I appreciate what hon. and learned Members on both sides of the House have said. It is, however, misleading to believe in the sphere of administration that the judicial function will guarantee justice. The wrong decision taken by one of these public officials in a small office in Bombay, Delhi or wherever else it may be will not necessarily be corrected by one, two or more wise men sitting at London Airport.

In my experience, and I am firmly convinced of this, justice resides nine times out often with the administrative officials who have first responsibility, and under this Bill that will continue to an even greater degree. Those officials can determine the status of these individuals, and their determination will affect the lives of these people and of their families.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) referred to the likelihood of the Bill increasing our defences against illegal immigration. To a certain extent, he is right. I regard evasion of the immigration laws as a very great evil. I will not elaborate on that now. There have been channels through which evasion has been much too easy. But, whatever we may write into the Bill, in the end it will be the public official who will decide the degree of evasion which takes place.

Once or twice during the course of proceedings on the Bill I have been at pains to remind hon. Members that in seeking justice for the immigrants we should not lose our balance to the point of creating the greatest of injustices, which is a system which can be evaded, and thereby not only defeat our intentions but also defeat the intentions of many genuine immigrants who, in a sense, are beaten to the post.

My impression is that we have been very well served by these public officials. Humanity under the law is their job, and all that I have seen has very much made me feel that we are in their debt. But when we pass this fairly complex legislation, the House should be aware of the enormous degree of discretion which has reposed in them and will still repose, and we have to take that on trust. In passing the Bill and congratulating ourselves on our work, or not congratulating ourselves, nothing we have done should obscure that from us.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

In his speech introducing the Third Reading, the Minister of State talked about the Bill passing on. I do not know about passing on, but there has been a certain amount of passing off about the Bill. It was put before the electorate as the means whereby unrestricted immigration into Britain would be slopped. As has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), the power to stop immigration, to reduce it to a trickle—which is what it now is—has existed from 1962 and was increased in 1968. Nothing in the Bill reduces the amount of influx into Britain.

The Bill makes two major changes in our legislation which may in the future allow administrative changes of policy, one of which would reduce the influx and the other of which may enable those living here to be sent away. Both of them have been referred to by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It is significant that he should have picked upon these two matters; because, despite the known pretentions of members of the liberal wing of the Conservative Party who rose to interrupt him, he contemplates the Bill with satisfaction. So he should, because he has won a great victory in these two major changes. First, he has persuaded the Government to remove the automatic right of a dependant of an immigrant already here to enter this country to join the breadwinner. Now it depends entirely upon administrative policy and the tenor of the view in the Home Office at the time as to whether that right will continue. A change could be made by a new Home Secretary or by the existing Home Secretary under the pressure which could be whipped up by none other than the right hon. Gentleman himself.

It was significant, too, that when we were discussing earlier the so-called repatriation clause, he did not intervene in our discussion at Report stage, save only when my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) was referring to the publicity that might be given to this as a means of inducing people to go home. The right hon. Gentleman rose to ask why we should not give publicity to this provision and why we should keep it secret.

The right hon. Gentleman has no intention of keeping it secret. This will be the next stage in the downward campaign of the right hon. Gentleman in race relations. From now on I predict that he will make speeches in Wolverhampton and elsewhere pointing out to the community that the power now lies in the Home Office, to be made by a simple change of mind on the part of the Secretary of State and not referable to legislation which can be checked in the House. He will point out that all that is needed is a giant campaign amongst the public to put pressure on the Home Secretary.

Does any one of those liberal Members on the Tory benches think that we in those circumstances should be sanguine about the Bill? It is totally unnecessary to restrict numbers, but it introduces these two changes which could produce a deterioration in community relations, particularly if the right hon. Gentleman continues with his campaign.

Mr. John Hunt (Bromley)

Can the hon. Gentleman name one member of the present Government who is likely to support an aggressive repatriation campaign of the kind he foresees?

Mr. Lyon

Who could have said of those who were Shadow Ministers in 1966 that they would have ever contemplated Clause 29? Clause 29 came about largely because of the pressure of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. It has been framed in these terms to sell it to the country. There is a deterioration because of the campaign of the right hon. Gentleman. I do not think that it has yet ended. What I think has ended is the change in legislation, because now all the powers exist to give the right hon. Gentleman what he wants. This is deeply regrettable.

Mr. Michael Fidler (Bury and Radcliffe)

The hon. Member referred a little while ago, repeating what was said by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes), to assistance for those who want to "go home". Does the hon. Gentleman imagine that immigrants who are here do not regard Britain as their proper home but constantly think in terms of their countries of origin as their home? Or is he perhaps misusing the word and using it in inverted commas?

Mr. Lyon

I was not misusing the word. There was a good deal of rugged Scottish sense in what my hon. Friend said on this point. There is an ambivalence about the relationships of a first generation immigrant. There is a sense in which his domicile is both the country in which he was born and the country where he has come to live. Increasingly with the passing of years the domicile begins to change so that he begins to consider Britain home. There is a sense in which there is still a connection with the home land.

It is a point of semantics, because even if I were using the word in inverted commas in the sense that the hon. Gentleman has suggested the point simply is that pressure might be put on these people to go home rather than to face the realities of the situation around them, which has been gradually deteriorating over a period and which may deteriorate further if the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West continue in the same vein.

Therefore, I deeply regret that the Bill has been introduced. However, if we were to come to it with a fresh mind and to say that the old law was bad in many ways—for instance, it had two different codes—and that we wanted a rational code for all immigrants, I would prefer that we should look at the needs of those who come here when they come here as immigrants.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South touched on the nub of the problem. People who come to Britain come basically for one of two reasons. One category is composed of temporary, transitory workers. The other category is those who come here to settle. If a new coherent code were to be devised for all immigrants, it should distinguish between those who come here to settle and those who come only to work.

The virtue of the old system of having two codes was that by and large Commonwealth citizens came to settle and the others can come only as transitory workers. I know that that as a broad generalisation is faulty, because there were large exceptions. Therefore, I was content to continue with the dual code precisely because it met the dual needs of different people coming here.

If we were to start afresh with a new code, we would do well to make provision in the new code for these dual needs. This may come about if we start to reconsider the whole of our citizenship law. It is on this one point that I share common ground with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest. We must now consider whether we ought to have a United Kingdom citizenship law which is exclusive.

I differ from the right hon. Gentleman in this respect. Precisely because of the historic nature of our present citizenship law there are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are citizens of no other country but who were not born here and who have not so far lived here. They can claim relationship to no other country. Therefore, when we devise such citizenship we must take them in as well. That means going back on the 1968 Act. I am prepared to do so in order to start afresh with that citizenship concept.

Once we have that, we can go on to have the dual code for immigrants to which I have referred. Many people in that dual code would be those that have been described as belongers, people who have family links with this country. Some hon. Members, at least, feel that we have a special duty towards them. But I should be prepared to put them in the dual code with all other citizens from the rest of the world, whether commonwealth or aliens, who want to come here. Then, administratively, we should have to apply the dual code liberally. It would not be possible to make a distinction between the people who emotionally belong and those who emotionally do not. It would be necessary to exercise a general liberal attitude in the administration of the code to cope with those with whom we felt we had a special emotional connection.

It is for that reason that I support the idea of a citizenship law which is narrow and restrictive, which means that for the rest we have to be more liberal than we do under the system of patriality. Under the patriality system carte blanche is given to those to whom we thought we owed a duty, to those whom we wanted to have patriality, and for the rest it is possible to have a very restrictive administrative policy. It is for that reason that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West supports the patriality scheme. Not so me; I should have prefered that we had a much narrower citizenship and therefore a much wider administrative policy.

For those reasons, I find the Bill deeply regrettable. I am sure that in the end we shall all rue the day when it went through the House.

9.10 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett (Torquay)

Your very reasonable wish that we should be extremely brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, prevents me from dissecting as thoroughly as I should like the speech of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). Had he been a member of our Standing Committee, I do not think he would have said what he did about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who certainly did not show by his conduct, attitude or speeches in that Committee that he regards the Bill as a triumph in any way. The hon. Gentleman should have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of our proceedings. For instance he would then have seen that my right hon. Friend, whatever else may be said about his attitudes, opposed patriality in its entirety from the moment it was introduced in the Committee.

The hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) said that there were mischievous police and so on. He has already been reproved by a colleague more distinguished than I, but I must add that there are also mischievous Members of Parliament. We can all form our own conclusions as to who they have been throughout the passage of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoke very reasonably. We sat opposite one another for a long time in Committee. In disagreeing with us he did not for a moment suggest that we had in the Bill done anything different to what we had proposed in our election manifesto. It cannot be said of this Bill that the Conservatives have not done precisely what they said in that manifesto they would do when elected. The hon. Gentleman was unable to find one thing in the Bill that was a breach of the undertakings or exceeded them.

At the beginning of our consideration of the Bill there were several attempts to assert that it was racist. I do not think that any hon. Member who has read everything said by all those who have spoken any longer believes in his heart that it can in any sense be described as racist. Nor did it ever purport to be. It contains no racist sentiments from start to finish.

The only accusation made at any stage that has even theoretical force is in the context of patriality. I make no apology for feeling unhappy that we did not manage to go as far as we could to meet the desire of those of our own very close kith and kin with particularly close ties with this country—most of all those from New Zealand and Australia—to continue to come to this country to live. That, however, is not racist.

I believe that we owe a special duty to Australia and New Zealand and their citizens because they adopt a very special, generous treatment towards us. There are only two Commonwealth countries which allow the same facilities to our immigrants as we do, allow them to live freely in the community and to ovte as soon as they land. Those two countries are Australia and New Zealand. Even Canada has a regulation stating that a person has to reside there for five years and become a Canadian citizen before he can vote. Australia and New Zealand alone afford the same treatment to us as we do to Commonwealth citizens.

As for the treatment accorded to Commonwealth immigrants and aliens, most of us are satisfied that we still give some degree of "favouritism" towards Commonwealth immigrants where they ought to have it; that is, in their participation in the life of this country once they have come here. Where we have not made any distinction in their favour is in registration and deportation. I have no regrets about this. There was general unanimity, certainly on our side in Committee, that there should not be a distinction between Commonwealth citizens and aliens over registration and deportation. It would be strange if for some reason a Commonwealth citizen should feel insulted or hurt by the suggestion that he should register with the police when this has gone on for decades under successive Governments with regard to aliens and when, incidentally, it applies to every British citizen who goes abroad.

We are spending too much energy and thought on this matter of repatriation. We have only to think of the available shipping and air facilities to realise this. If every known method of transportation was utilised we could not start to make a dent in this country's social problems involving repatriation. We fool ourselves and our constituents if we think, no matter how generous the treatment we afford, that repatriation will solve the problems of large-scale immigration. It will not be the answer. It is a minor alleviation but I doubt whether it goes very far towards helping. It would be a pity if the Bill went through this House without someone pointing out that we have a tendency to go in for self-criticism on a scale which is not paralleled abroad. I have taken a good deal of trouble to check immigration policies elsewhere. I mention no names tonight but I tell hon. and right hon. Members without fear of contradiction that in a Commonwealth of free and equal nations, when this Bill is passed, we will still accord treatment to those who come to our shores which is fairer, more generous and more just than any other Commonwealth country.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. David Steel

The saddest conclusion I have reached at the end of our long discussions is that, regrettably, this was a thoroughly unnecessary Measure. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) that what was necessary and still is necessary is a revision of the 1948 British Nationality Act so that we can start from a basis of establishing a citizenship law.

This Bill does nothing about numbers, but the Government never pretended that it would. The need to tackle numbers arose purely from the pre-election statements made by the party opposite. We have only to look at the 8,500 vouchers which could be given, to note the 4,000 which were given, and which will be reduced to 2,000, to realise that. That is 2,000 people who will come here, in the words of the anonymous letters which I and no doubt others have received, to take our jobs and live on the dole—presumably in one and the same breath. This could hardly be described, except in terms of fantasy, as a flood of people continually coming to our shores. Yet that unfortunately was the spectre which the Conservative Party, through the wording of its manifesto and its pre-election pledges, allowed to remain in the minds of many people.

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) unwittingly does this side of the House a service in speeches such as the one he made tonight. Whenever the Home Secretary comes to the Dispatch Box and gives us, in a straightforward way, his view of what Clause 29 means and what will happen, we might be lulled into a sense of false security and think that it is not so bad, that the right hon. Gentleman means what he says, and so on. Having been lulled into that feeling, we are shaken out of our slumber by what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-west says. He brings before us and clarifies the real objections which we must have to the Bill.

I should like to mention one point about the proceedings in Committee. One aspect which we have not yet thoroughly examined, which I hope will be thoroughly examined in another place, is the transfer of rights of dependants from the Statute law to the administrative rules. We have not looked at that sufficiently. I hope that the noble Lords will consider that aspect very severely.

We made one major improvement to the Bill in Committee. We removed the grandparental qualification for free right of entry, which was obnoxious since it appeared to convey some racial priority. I hope that the Government will think again about the remaining illogicality. I agree with what was said yesterday by the hon. Member for York. We should retain the position of free right of entry only for those who were born here or whose fathers were born here—

Sir F. Bennett

rose—

Mr. Steel

—and there is a case for saying that we should extend it to those whose mothers were born here as well. What I cannot understand is to extend it to those whose mothers were born here, provided that they themselves were born in certain countries. That is an illogical situation which has been left in Clause 2 and I hope that it will be put right. I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Sir F. Bennett

The point I was going to raise concerned mothers and fathers. Apparently the hon. Gentleman sees no reason to differentiate between fathers and mothers.

Mr. Steel

In these days of women's liberation I have argued for extending the right to those whose fathers or mothers were born here. One can argue either case, but the Government's case is the worst.

There are three fundamental objections to the Bill which will cause my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself to vote against Third Reading.

The first is the deportation provisions. No one would dissent from the proposition that a citizen of another country who is a guest in this country must behave or be liable to be removed. That is a principle which we have always upheld and is not disputed. But now we have these new provisions requiring the removal of families. Students of 16 or 17 years of age engaged in study courses will be required to be deported if they are dependants of persons to be deported. That is a new and serious departure from our existing treatment of persons living in this country. Other parts of the deportation provisions say that we limit deportation to those guilty of imprison-able offences, nevertheless we set that aside for young and first offenders. Now, even if they are not punishable by imprisonment under other laws, they are to be liable to deportation. This seems to be treating people who, in other Acts of Parliament, we treat less harshly, with undue severity.

The second objection concerns registration with the police. I think that two facts should make the Government think again. One is that immigrant leaders are opposed to this idea and the other is that the police are opposed to it. One need produce no other argument. I need not go into the argument put forward by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). These two facts should make the Government pause and think again whether it would be possible, since we are going over to a work permit scheme for immigrants, to transfer registration to the Department of Employment. As the number of pre-1971 immigrants in relation to post-1971 immigrants decreases, this will become a growing problem and an area of potential and unnecessary conflict within our State. Coloured immigrants are easily identifiable by their skin, and not as to whether they are pre- or post-1971 immigrants. I suggest that this will give rise to real difficulties in future. I hope that even at this late stage the Government will reconsider the provision about registration with the police.

I believe that the provisions for repatriation are the most disastrous of all the provisions in this piece of legislation. Nowhere in Clause 29 does the word "voluntarily" appear, and that in itself is a mistake because, if I may quote what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said in Committee, one can see that the line between voluntary departure and departure following subjection to harassment is difficult to draw.

The right hon. Gentleman said: There is unemployment and social security. There is also sickness benefit, including long-term sickness benefit. There are many immigrant families receiving those payments who fall within the scope of the Clause. It is the duty of the Administration to maximise take-up, and to ensure that there is no-one who might decide to benefit by this scheme, when the terms of it are known, to whose attention it is not brought. I find objectionable the idea that people at counters—who are not senior civil servants, but often junior clerks—in the Department of Employment, in the Ministry of Social Services, or in the Supplementary Benefits Commission will be expected, by some people at any rate, to be put in the position of thrusting the opportunity of repatriation down the throats of those who come for the help to which they are entitled. That is an objectionable concept. And I know that the Home Secretary agrees that it is objectionable but, alas, that is the concept that is opened up under Clause 29, and the right hon. Gentleman was right when, three columns later, he said: We can play with the words 'voluntary' and 'involuntary'."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 25th May, 1971; c. 1324–7.] Indeed we can, and there is a narrow line between the giving of advice, the opportunity of drawing attention to the scheme, and consistent harassment to take advantage of the scheme.

Sir G. Sinclair

Would it not be a little fairer, in the interests of race relations in this country, if the hon. Gentleman were to quote not only what one person who does not represent Government policy has said, but also what the Home Secretary representing the Government's view has said?

Mr. Steel

I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman, but if in the future we have trouble over this provision it will be no good harking back to what the then Home Secretary, Reginald Maudling, said in the House of Commons in 1971. People will look at Section 29 of the then Act. That is what matters, and that is why we are entitled to object to it. We are not being asked to vote on whether we approve of the Home Secretary's speeches. If we were asked to do that, I should have no hesitation in doing so. We are being asked to give a Third Reading to Clause 29, and I am saying that it was the hon. Gentleman's leader who in 1968 said: … it remains an important part of our policy that those Commonwealth immigrants who wish to return to their countries of origin should be eligible to receive assisted passages from public funds. The vital words are an important part of our policy". That was said in the climate of 1968, and that is different from the tenor of the speeches of the Home Secretary, of which I very much approve.

My conclusion is that this rushed Bill was based on bogus promises made at the election. It is an illogical Bill, a rather nasty Bill, and a sad Bill to which this House is being asked to give a Third Reading.

9.29 p.m.

Mr. Roger White (Gravesend)

The other day my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was described as a liberal-minded man. I believe that to be true. However, he is not only liberal-minded but fair-minded, and that is true also of the other Ministers at the Home Department.

I very much object to some of the remarks made by some hon. Gentlemen opposite about the Government are being pushed from the rear into policies in which they and the bulk of the Conservative Party do not believe. The Conservative Party fought the last election on the promise of bringing in the kind of Bill that is now before the House.

I have a large immigrant community in my constituency and a very fine community relations council. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) about the work of the community relations councils. One of the more endearing aspects of my community relations council is that nobody has ever heard of it, for the simple reason that, happily, there is no racial tension in my constituency because people are co-operating with each other, and this is very important.

Whatever our views are on registration with the police—and I candidly acknowledge that there are fears about this part of the Bill—I am certain that once the Bill becomes law and registration is a fact, the police will be more than capable of carrying out their instructions. In my experience, the police have already handled, through the Aliens Order, aliens of all races, colours and creeds. They have done a magnificent job, and I am sure they will continue to do so.

My experience of the courts is that whenever they are dealing with issues of deportation, justices make a most careful examination before a recommendation is made. I am certain that the justices will continue to do this. We have in this country a fine reputation for our belief in freedom. As I said in my constituency some months ago in the presence of the India High Commissioner, we are regarded as a fair-minded people both in the immigrant community and beyond the seas. I am, therefore, confident that when the Bill becomes law it will pass into history as being not only a sensible Measure but a fair-minded one.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Callaghan

Having lived with the Bill, although not necessarily grown to love it, for so long, it is a little difficult for us to distinguish the wood from the trees and to see its total impact. Before getting on to that aspect, I express my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), my hon. and learned Friends the Members for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer), for the continuous hard work which they have put in and to the small team which slaved night and day in Committee. I should also like to thank Government Ministers who, in the face of continuous provocation from the Opposition, which they well merited, responded in an unfailing and unruffled manner. I thank them for the courteous way in which they met every charge we levelled against them.

The Bill seemed to be resolving itself, in the eyes of the Government benches, into the question: "Has Enoch won?" I do not quite know, having listened to the drift of the argument, whether or not that is true. My assessment of the Bill as it emerges from this House is that it has not gone as far as the impression given by Conservative spokesmen when they were in Opposition would suggest. The impression of the country was that the Conservatives would do such great deeds as to make men's flesh creep, whereas they have not gone so far as those speeches led us to believe.

On the major question of numbers, which was discussed before the election and had nothing to do with citizenship or with "patriality" which had not then been invented, but for which we are indebted to the Lord Chancellor, the Bill has done nothing. Not one person less will come to these shores as a result of the Bill. People may come in under different and more onerous conditions, there may be a sword of Damocles hanging over them while they rest here—and it is a matter of judgment whether it is a good thing to have a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of those who come to these islands—but not even the most ardent advocate of the Bill will claim that it will make any difference to the number who come.

If we are drawing up a balance sheet on that, although the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has attempted to prove to his larger constituency outside this House that he has had a great victory, I do not think that he has, because the Home Secretary and the Government have stood up to the pressure which was undoubtedly brought to bear that dependants should be excluded from these islands. I regret that the Government have taken away the statutory right of dependants to come here. This was an essential element in ensuring that dependants should feel that they could live here without the fear of any cat and mouse procedure being applied. As the debate this evening has shown, we are now dependent upon the Home Secretary and his colleagues being able to resist the undoubted further attacks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

I agree entirely with those who have said that if the attack is transferred to this ground the Home Secretary will not have the protection of the Statute. He must be able to stand up at his party meeting and say that he does not intend to alter the basis on which people come here. He will not be able to say that we must get a new Act of Parliament through. I believe the Home Secretary in his approach to this problem, and I have no doubt that he will endeavour to repel the further attacks that will be made on him, but the Government benches must also do the same if they share those views. A great deal depends on their attitude. I do not much care for that. I would far sooner that dependants' rights were written into the Statute and labelled. I very much regret what has been done.

I will not go over the ground which we have already covered on repatriation except to say that, for the sake of a very small number of people, the right hon. Gentleman is incurring a very large risk. This is typical of the whole of this legislation. There are small benefits to be gained, but large risks to be taken with race relations. I do not like the term "race relations"; it sounds too much like an industry; but I think I carry the great majority of the House with me when I say it is an obvious matter of fact.

Even putting the worst construction on Clause 29, it can only affect relatively small numbers of people. It will not affect the one and a half million people who have come to these shores since 1960 or thereabouts. Therefore, the great task before us is to see how we can live together. This is the most important thing. The Home Secretary has rejected the idea that there will be substantial repatriation and the legislation will support him in this. If there were a change of Home Secretary, there could not be repatriation of many people, even if he so wished.

I believe that it was not worthwhile to take this power for the sake of the small number of people who will be involved in repatriation since it will unsettle the minds of the one and a half million people who are here although they will not be affected by it. This is where the Government's judgment has been wrong. The argument which has been advanced for the Bill is, "We said we were going to do it and we have done it, thus carrying out our election pledge." This was specifically said in one of the Third Reading speeches—it was said that that is a good enough reason. Winston would never have tolerated that kind of sloppy thinking. It was Winston who said, "You stuff it in a manifesto and then forget it." It is a pity Winston is not alive today for this particular reason. What the Government have tried to do on the one hand is to quieten the fears of the indigenous population who were born here by indicating that they were to put great restrictions on entry. On the other hand, they have tried to convince the immigrant population that they are not going to do anything to harm them. I do not think the Government have got the balance right. My view is that the indigenous population had come to accept that there was a substantial measure of control and, although the Bill alters the measure of control, it does not alter the total number of people. The net effect of the Bill is that it has unsettled the minds of a great many of the immigrant population with whom we shall have to live in this, the next and in succeeding generations. It is for this reason, among others, that I believe the Bill should not have come forward.

On the question of patriality and citizenship, a number of interesting proposals, which we are not allowed to discuss on Third Reading, were put forward in Committee. I very much doubt whether the Minister of State is correct in saying that this legislation will survive for many years. There will need to be a more fundamental examination of the conditions under which people come into this country and leave it. We have in Clause 1 a definition of those who come here: All those who are in this Act expressed to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom shall be free to live in, and to come and go into and from the United Kingdom … In other words, whether or not one is an immigrant depends upon whether one is free to come and go, which surely is self-evident. It is this kind of definition of patriality which I find quite insufficient for the purpose of determining who belongs to this country and who should be regarded as such.

If people come to this country and are admitted here legitimately with the intention of settling here, it is in the best interests of those who are born here and who live here that those people should be encouraged to throw in their lot with us at the earliest possible moment and to the fullest extent. For this reason any provisions which make it difficult for them to do so are harmful to the cause of racial peace and to the creation of a coherent, cohesive society.

I regret that a number of provisions in the Bill take a step backward, namely in the matter of registration. A great deal depends on how the Home Secretary administers that provision, but as a matter of principle I do not believe it sensible for a host community, having allowed people to come to live among them, to make it difficult for them to throw in their lot completely. I believe that all our legislation should be bent in the opposite way.

I will not go over all the arguments about the police, except to put one suggestion to the Home Secretary. If the Home Secretary is saying that the police are the persons with whom the immigrants should register—despite opposition by the police themselves, and though very few, apart from those on the Government benches, are in agreement with this suggestion—I hope he will take steps to see that those police officers in the registration procedure who are brought into contact with immigrants—and they will be the first to have contact with them—will be given special training and instruction in their duties. The Government's case is that the police in this country are basically different from those whom the immigrants will have come across in other countries. It is important therefore that their first contact with officialdom in this country should be regulated. I take second place to no one in my admiration for the way in which the police carry out their work, and I have said that on many occasions. But nobody can deny the truth of what my hon. Friend has said, that the police, like the rest of us, are human and when there are 100,000 policemen around we find the same prejudices as are to be found in any other segment of 100,000 of the population. Therefore, this training is very important.

I regret the Bill. I believe it was unnecessary for the basic purpose advertised before the election, namely, the control of immigrants. I do not believe the definition of patriality will survive. I believe it has unsettled the minds of those immigrants who live among us, whom we want to throw in their lot with us because we are not sending them back; and for those reasons I shall invite my hon. Friends to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Maudling

I entirely accept that the last point made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) about training is very important, and I will do my best to follow up what he says. At the beginning of his remarks he paid tribute to those who have participated in our discussions. I follow him by, first of all, thanking my hon. Friend the Minister of State, who has carried by far the larger burden of the Bill, and those who have supported me; and, in particular, my colleagues in the Standing Committee who were so tolerant of the hours I had to inflict on them. I also thank, in turn, the Opposition, led by the right hon. Gentleman, for making our discussions, although a little prolix, always agreeable and almost always good-tempered. The way in which the Bill is passing through the House has been in accordance with the best traditions of the way that Parliament ought to consider a Measure of this kind. There is one further point that I would take from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman: he said it appeared to him that we were trying to do two things, to quieten the fears of the indigenous population and to convince immigrants that no harm would come to them. That is precisely and exactly what we intend. That is the purpose and object of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman may say that we have not succeeded in it, but certainly I would join him in agreeing that this seems to be exactly the right way to tackle the problem.

The fundamental problem is not so much immigration as community relations. This is a problem that we have in this country. It must not be exaggerated or minimised, and I believe we can solve it better than any other country in the world. I believe we shall do so, but we must recognise that it is a two-way affair and must have regard for both the legitimate fears of the immigrant population and the legitimate fears of our indigenous population. Therefore, I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's definition that our objective and basic purpose in bringing forward this Bill is to unify the law on these matters and assimilate conditions upon which citizens are admitted on a working basis for permanent settlement.

This is the extent of the change being made, and, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is in accordance with undertakings which we gave at the General Election. I still feel somehow, despite a certain scepticism on the other side, that there is a certain merit in carrying out one's election undertakings. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I thought that that might provoke a reaction. But the Bill does not affect visitors, Commonwealth students or working holidaymakers. It is, in effect, doing no more—apart from certain incidentals—than basically extending to Commonwealth citizens, who already when they came here to live were subject to control and often, in many cases, more severe control than aliens—a system which has operated for aliens for generations without, as far as I know, giving rise to any serious complaints. I still cannot understand why it is said that a system accepted by aliens for many years—not only Europeans but non-Europeans in large numbers—should somehow become such a bad system when applied to Commonwealth citizens. I do not see how we can accept that criticism.

The basis of the Bill is the concept of patriality, which has given rise to a great deal of misunderstanding. It seems an inevitable concept that if there is to be an immigration Bill one must define who is to be subject to control, and who is not. Those who are not subject to control are patrial. Those who are subject to control are non-patrial. No immigration Bill could ever do anything else but define who is controlled and who is not, and the concept of patriality means nothing but that.

Those who will be patrial under the Bill will be, broadly speaking, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies under Clause 2(1)(a) and (b), and citizens of Commonwealth countries whose parents were born in this country. This is extending to mothers a right which is already derived by Commonwealth citizens, and other aliens for that matter, through the birth of their father in this country.

This is the extent, on the broad field of immigration control, of the changes that the Bill is making. As I say, it is designed to give certainty and unification to our system of immigration control. I believe very strongly that this is part of the essential foundation of community relations policy.

If we are to tackle effectively the problem which matters most of all, which is that of community relations, we must, among other things, give a feeling of certainty and confidence, which has in the past, to some extent, been lacking, to the indigenous population that they will not face another wave of immigration on a scale, at a speed, and in a concentration which inevitably brought with it difficulties and social problems and social tensions such as we recognise in this House and are recognised in the country.

This Bill has been criticised in many ways inside and outside the House—criticised often, abused often—and I have seldom known a Bill which has been criticised on such flimsy grounds. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] For example, it has often been said that this Bill is abolishing the distinction between Commonwealth citizens and aliens and turning all Commonwealth citizens into aliens.

This is sheer and utter nonsense. There will be no change in the legal status of Commonwealth citizens in this country who remain British subjects; they will retain the fundamental difference between themselves and aliens—namely, they will have the right to vote as soon as they are here and to participate in the public life of this country, including the ability to become Members of this honourable House. This is the distinction—

Mr. Callaghan

And should we not add—and have the right to be deported once they have become Members of this House?

Mr. Maudling

I am sure that a Member of this House would not be deported, though I sometimes think that a few of them might be. [Laughter.] If that is out of order, I withdraw it immediately.

There will be no change in the position of Commonwealth students, who will continue to have a special position. Those coming from the Commonwealth who will be affected and who will be coming for permanent settlement are already subject to control through the quota, so the effect for any citizen of Australia or New Zealand is totally minimal. It would be wrong to suggest that we are assimilating the status of alien and Commonwealth citizens.

Second, the other side of the argument has been that this is a racist Bill. This I wholly reject and regard as totally unfounded. I never quite understood the basis for the argument, but it appeared to be that we were racists because we were according a special position on entry of this country to people who have an ancestral connection with this country, which has always been our law since the year dot, so far as I know. It has always been the law that someone born in this country or the child of a father born in this country has a special position. We are now extending it to mothers.

It is true that the vast majority of people who can claim this special position are white, because the vast majority of us are white. But it is turning the whole argument on racial discrimination upside down to say that we cannot accord a special position to people with a parental connection with this counrty. Every other country in the world does this. I cannot understand why the fact that we are doing it should be described as some form of racism.

It is deplorable the way that some people who are genuinely devoted to the cause of community relations should be saying things about this Bill which are totally untrue, the saying of which by them is calculated to do great harm to community relations.

Consider the question of harassment. It has been said time and again that the immigrants already here will be subject to a new harassment by the police as a result of the Bill. [Interruption.] This has been said, but it is totally untrue. However, the saying of it does enormous harm. It creates fears, tensions and anxieties which can only do damage, and I sometimes think that it is unworthy of those who advance the argument. There is absolutely no new power in this Measure which gives the police any opportunity to harass the immigrant community here.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

rose—

Mr. Maudling

I will not give way.

Mr. Kaufman

What the right hon. Gentleman has been saying is nonsense.

Mr. Maudling

I do not believe in this allegation of harassment of the immigrant population by the police. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Roger White) about the quality, bearing and conduct of our police. A policeman who wants to harass immigrants already has the opportunity to do so. Indeed, he could allege that an immigrant he saw came here totally illegally by crossing the beaches at night.

I do not believe that the number of such people is more than a very tiny fraction of our large police force. It is totally untrue to suggest that the Bill gives any new opportunity for harassment or that it will encourage harassment of the immigrant population on the part of the police. It does not take place now, and it will not take place in future.

Mr. Bidwell

rose—

Mr. Maudling

I must get on. It is important to recognise that we have taken great care not to change to their detriment the position of people already accepted for settlement in this country. During the passage of the Bill is has been pointed out to me that this principle, which I mentioned in the beginning, has not been fully carried out, and I have amended the Bill and the rules to ensure that it is carried out, for it is of the utmost importance that when we undertake that people already here will not be affected by the Bill, that undertaking should be carried out faithfully.

Another main subject which has received attention is that of repatriation, and I wish to repeat what I said earlier about the purpose of Clause 29. The Government do not accept the idea of a policy of repatriation on a large scale as an act of policy designed to change the balance of the population in this country. We do not, and will not, accept that concept.

We believe however—this seems sensible and humane—that where there is an immigrant family which has come here and finds that it is not able to settle

down—if there is no hope of it settling down and it wants to go home—it is sensible—and why not?—to help such people to go home. That will be good for them and good for society here. Is it not better that people in this position should be helped to go home than have to remain here unhappy, when they would perhaps rather have their neighbours and friends around them in their own society? I feel that the provision in Clause 29 is entirely sensible and should be accepted by the House in the spirit in which it is put forward.

Much has been said about the effect of the European Economic Community, and last night I was almost enticed into a discussion of the merits and demerits of Britain's entry into the E.E.C. I will only at this stage confirm that whatever decision is made by Parliament on this fundamental issue, it can be accommodated within the terms of the Bill without amendment.

I repeat that the most important problem is race relations. Difficulty in race relations arises from the speed of the arrival of immigrants and their concentration in certain areas. This has led to social changes being imposed on the people already living in those areas, who perhaps find it hard to accept them. One big element in this problem, as the Minister of State said, is the fear of the unknown on the part of those already here towards those coming here and, of course, on the part of those coming here about what they will find when they get here.

Let us unite to get rid of this fear. Do not let us have any more of this spreading of rumours about harassment. Let us build a new spirit in a community which wishes to have such a spirit, the encouragement of which I regard as my fundamental responsibility as Home Secretary.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 246.

Division No. 384.]	AYES	[10.0 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Atkins, Humphrey	Batsford, Brian
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Awdry, Daniel	Beamish, Col, Sir Tufton
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Bell, Ronald
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Balniel, Lord	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Astor, John	Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Berry, Hn. Anthony
Biffen, John	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Murton, Oscar
Biggs-Davison, John	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Neave, Airey
Blaker, Peter	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Body, Richard	Hannam, John (Exeter)	Normanton, Tom
Boscawen, Robert	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Nott, John
Bossom, Sir Clive	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Onslow, Cranley
Bowden, Andrew	Haselhurst, Alan	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Hastings, Stephen	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Braine, Bernard	Havers, Michael	Osborn, John
Bray, Ronald	Hawkins, Paul	Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hay, John	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Heseltine, Michael	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hicks, Robert	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Bryan, Paul	Higgins, Terence L.	Percival, Ian
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)	Hiley, Joseph	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Buck, Antony	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)	Pink, R. Bonner
Bullus, Sir Eric	Holland, Philip	Pounder, Rafton
Burden, F. A.	Hott, Miss Mary	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Hordern, Peter	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn)	Hornby, Richard	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Carlisle, Mark	Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Channon, Paul	Howell, David (Guildford)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Chapman, Sydney	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Raison, Timothy
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Hunt, John	Redmond, Robert
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Churchill, W. S.	Iremonger, T. L.	Rees, Peter (Dover)
Clark William (Surrey, E.)	James, David	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Renton, Rt, Hn. Sir David
Clegg, Walter	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Cooke, Robert	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Coombs, Derek	Jopling, Michael	Ridsdale, Julian
Cooper, A. E.	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Cordle, John	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Corfietd, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Kimball, Marcus	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Cormack, Patrick	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Costain, A. P.	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Rost, Peter
Critchley, Julian	Kinsey, J. R.	Royle, Anthony
Crouch, David	Kirk, Peter	Russell, Sir Ronald
Crowder, F. P.	Knox, David	Scott, Nicholas
Curran, Charles	Lambton, Antony	Sharpies, Richard
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Lane, David	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Shelton, William (Crapham)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ.-Gen.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Simeons, Charles
Dean, Paul	Le Marchant, Spencer	Sinclair, Sir George
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Dixon, Piers	Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Drayson, G. B.	Longden, Gilbert	Soref, Harold
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Loveridge, John	Speed, Keith
Dykes, Hugh	Luce, R. N.	Spence, John
Eden, Sir John	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Sproat, Iain
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	MacArthur, Ian	Stainton, Keith
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	McCrindfe, R. A.	Stanbrook, Ivor
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. N.)	McLaren, Martin	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Farr, John	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Felt, Anthony	McMaster, Stanley	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)	Stokes, John
Fidter, Michael	McNair-Wilsom, Michael	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	McNalr-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)	Sutcliffe, John
Fisher, Niget (Surbiton)	Maddan, Martin	Tapsell, Peter
Fletcher-Cookie, Charles	Mattel, David	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Maginnis, John E.	Taylor. Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Fortescue, Tim	Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Foster, Sir John	Marten, Neil	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)
Fowler, Norman	Maude, Angus	Tebbit, Norman
Fox, Marcus	Maudllng, Rt. Hn Reginald	Temple, John M
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Mawby, Ray	Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Gardner, Edward	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Gibson-Watt, David	MBIs, Peter (Torrington)	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Traflord, Dr. Anthony
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Mite hell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Trew, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Tugendhat, Christopher
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Moate, Roger	Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Goodhart, Philip	Molyneaux, James	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Goodhew, Victor	Money, Emle	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Gorst, John	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Waddington, David
Gower, Raymond	Monro, Hector	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Gray, Hamish	Montgomery, Fergus	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Green, Alan	Morgan, Geramt (Denbigh)	Wall, Patrick
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Ward, Dame Irene
Grylls, Michael	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Warren, Kenneth
Gummer, Selwyn	Mudd, David	Weatherill, Bernard
Wells, John (Maidstone)	Wolrige-Cordon, Patrick	Younger, Hn. George
White, Roger (Gravesend)	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William	Woodnutt, Mark	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Wiggin, Jerry	Worsley, Marcus	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Wilkinson, John	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.	Mr Jasper More.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Foot, Michael	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Albu, Austen	Ford, Ben	Mendelson, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Forrester, John	Mikardo, Ian
Allen, Scholefield	Freeson, Reginald	Milian, Bruce
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Garrett, W. E.	Milne, Edward (Btyth)
Armstrong, Ernest	Gilbert, Dr. John	Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, lichen)
Ashley, Jack	Ginsburg, David	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Ashton, Joe	Gourlay, Harry	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Atkinson, Norman	Grant, George (Morpeth)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Moyle, Roland
Barnes, Michael	Griffith", Eddie (Brightside)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Barnett, Joel	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	Murray, Ronald King
Beaney, Alan	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Ogden, Eric
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Hamling, William	O'Halloran, Michael
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	O'Maltey, Brian
Bidwell, Sydney	Hardy, Peter	Oram, Bert
Bishop, E. S.	Harper, Joseph	Orbach, Maurice
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Orme, Stanley
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Oswald, Thomas
Booth, Albert	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Heffer, Eric S.	Paget, R. T.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. W.)	Hilton, W. S.	Palmer, Arthur
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Horam, John	Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Buchan, Norman	Houghton, Rt, Hn. Douglas	Pardoe, John
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Huckfield, Leslie	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Butter, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	pavitt, Laurie
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Campbell, 1. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Pendry, Tom
Cant, R. B.	Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Pentland, Norman
Carmichael, Neil	Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)	Perry, Ernest G.
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfletd)	Jamier, Grevilte	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Ecoles)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Prescott, John
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Price, William (Rugby)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Probert, Arthur
Cohen, Stanley	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Rankin, John
Concannon, J. D.	Johnson, Walter (Derby, s.)	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Conlan, Bernard	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Richard, Ivor
Crawshaw, Richard	Jones, T. Aloe (Rhondda, W.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Kaufman, Gerald	Rot"erts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caemarvon)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Kelley, Richard	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)	Kerr, Russell	Roderick, CaerwynE.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Dalyell, Tam	Kinnock, Neil	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davidson, Arthur	Lambie, Davies	Roper, John
Davies Denzil (Lianelly)	Lamond, James	Rose, Paul B.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Latham, Arthur	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Lawson, George	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Lead bitter, Ted	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)	Leonard, Dick	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Ty ne)
Deakins, Eric	Lestor, Miss Joan	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton. N. E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Delargy, H. J.	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Sillars, James
Dempsey, James	Lipton, Marcus	Silverman, Julius
Doig, Peter	Loughlin, Charles	Skinner, Dennis
Delargy, H. J.	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Small, William
Dormaml, J. D.	McBride, Neil	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	McCartney, Hugh	Spearing, Nigel
Douglas-Mann, Bruce	McElhonei, Frank	Spriggs, Leslie
Dribcrg, Tom	McGuire, Michael	Stallard, A. W.
Duffy, A. E. P.	Mackenzie, Gregor	Steel, David
Dunn, James A.	Mackie, John	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Dunnett, Jack	Mackintosh, John p.	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Edelman, Maurice	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Strang, Gavin
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Mahon, Simon (Bottle)	Summerskill, Hn- Dr. Shirley
Ellis, Tom	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Swain, Thomas
English, Michael	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Taverne, Dick
Evans, Fred	Marks, Kenneth	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Faulds, Andrew	Marquand, David	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)	Marsden, F.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Marshall, Dr. Edmund	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)	Mason, Rt. Hn, Roy	Tomney, Frank
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Mayhcw, Christopher	Torney, Tom
Foley, Maurice	Meacher, Michael	Tuck, Raphael
Urwin, T. W.	Wellbeloved, James	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Varley, Eric G.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)	Woof, Robert
Wainwright, Edwin	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Waiden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)	Whitehead, Phillip
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)	Whitlock, William	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wallace, George	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Mr. James Hamilton and
Watkins, David	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)	Mr. John Golding.
Weitzman, David	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.