IMMIGRATION BILL

HC Deb 08 March 1971 vol 813 cc42-173

Order for Second Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling)

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

The aim of the Bill is to Amend and replace the present immigration laws, to make certain related changes in the citizenship law and enable help to be given to those wishing to return abroad, and for services connected therewith. The Bill carries out the undertaking which we gave at the election in our party manifesto to introduce a new system of control over permanent immigration from overseas. It also carries out what I think has been for some time accepted as a very necessary objective—namely, to bring more order into our rather confused legislation on this subject. Succeeding Home Secretaries from both sides of the House have repeated how desirable it would be to have permanent legislation of a comprehensive character in this matter in place of the temporary legislation, renewed from time to time, which we have, in the case of aliens at any rate, at the present time.

Those are the purposes of the Bill, but perhaps I should start by stating that as a matter of general principle I believe that the most important problem that any Government have to face in this whole context is the problem of community relations and that the question of immigration policy in a sense is secondary or ancillary to that basic problem. We have a problem of community relations, as everyone knows. I believe that we in this country have handled it as an example to the rest of the world, and I believe that we can and shall continue to do so.

For many years, over generations, there was free admission to the country for Commonwealth citizens, and I think that both parties were reluctant to bring that situation to an end. But control became quite necessary, because of the scale of immigration which took place, because of the speed at which it took place, and because of the way in which it was concentrated in certain areas where whole districts changed their character very rapidly.

In the late '50s and early '60s, there was clearly a major social problem building up, and it was for that reason, and that reason alone, that in 1962 the previous Conservative Government took the step of putting some limitation on Commonwealth immigration. At the time we were attacked and bitterly criticised. I remember at least one university debate which I had with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), my predecessor, when he attacked me strongly and, no doubt, conscientiously. But although the then Government were criticised at that time, when the Labour Party came into power it continued to operate the principles of the Act, and rightly. The simple fact is that some control had become necessary in the interests of society in this country, including, I must against emphasise, those immigrants already here.

I believe that there is now a need to do what we seek in the Bill to do, to place control of immigration on a logical basis and, I hope, on a definitive basis, and I stress that I hope that as the Bill passes through Parliament we can do that. I want to be open at all times to consider suggestions for amendment or improvement, because I want the Bill to be definitive and lasting in the interests of community relations.

I am afraid that the Bill is necessarily very complex, because this is a very complex subject, as complex, I must confess, as I have met in my political experience, and that has given rise to a number of misunderstandings in the Press and among the public, some of which I hope to correct this afternoon. I believe that the future system in concept and principle will be much simpler, but inevitably in changing from a situation which is so difficult and complicated the Bill itself cannot by any means be simple.

I want to stress that the main purpose of immigration policy in the situation which the country faces is as a contribution to the great problem of ensuring that the varied communities which we have here can settle down progressively over the years to live together in peace and harmony. If we are to succeed in this, we must have regard both to those who have always lived here and those who are here as immigrants. We must rightly have concern for the interests of both those sections of our single community.

It is right to say that if we are to get progress in community relations, we must give assurance to the people who were already here before the large wave of immigration that this will be the end and that there will be no further large-scale immigration. Unless we can give that assurance, we cannot effectively set about the job, entrusted to the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission, of improving community relations.

It is right to say that many people are concerned about the possibility under the existing system of substantial numbers of people from abroad coming here, very substantial with their families, to take up jobs here and carrying with them the automatic right to remain here once they have arrived. This is what the main provisions of the Bill, the new system of control of entry, are about.

Secondly, it is enormously important to reassure the immigrants already here as part of our community that they will have no loss of status under the Bill, that in this country there will be no first and second-class citizens. Those are the two main objectives of the Bill, and I claim that it succeeds in achieving both.

The extension of control over Commonwealth citizens applies to those who are seeking permanent admission on a working basis, who are already subject to a form of control. The Bill is based by and large on a new system of control for those seeking entry on a permanent working basis, and there will be no change in their status once they are here as Commonwealth citizens. I should like to re-emphasise, as there has been some misunderstanding in some Commonwealth newspapers in particular, that Commonwealth citizens coming to this country will continue to enjoy the special status of a British subject, not an alien, a status giving them what an alien does not have—voting rights and the right to take part in the political processes of this country, including, of course, Membership of Parliament.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

Is that precisely correct? If a voucher holder is now here and wishes to bring in his dependants, is it not the case that after 1971 he will be in a worse position, as there will be discretion rather than the statutory right which he now has?

Mr. Maudling

The hon. Gentleman is assiduous in his reading of the newspapers. I intend to deal with that later in my speech.

How does the Bill set about carrying out its purpose? It does it by creating the right of abode, in other words, defining people who have a right of abode, who can come and go and stay here as much as they like, totally free of control. People who have a right of abode will be able to do that. Other people, from whatever country, will be subject to control.

We have to have a word for people having the right of abode and the word we have used is "patrial"—and I am still not sure which is the correct pronunciation. The great advantage of using this word is that it enables us to get away from a word which I have always disliked, the word "alien". I do not think that it is sensible to describe other human beings as "alien" if one can avoid it.

Patrials, those who have the right to come and go as they please, will be: first, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies whose parents or grandparents were born here; secondly, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who, at any time, have been settled here for five years; thirdly, any Commonwealth citizen who had a father or mother or grandparent born in the United Kingdom. They will have the right of patriality, the right of abode, the right to come and go free of control.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

How many of them?

Mr. Maudling

There will be a large number.

Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East) rose—

Mr. Maudling

I will give way later.

There will be millions who will be directly patrial, every one of whom had the right to come here until a few years ago; the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) has raised a totally bogus point.

Patriality has been attacked as a racial concept, an argument which I wholly reject and which the party opposite will have no difficulty in rejecting, for reasons which I will give. I see no reason why a country should not accord to those who have a family connection with it a particular and special status. There are many examples of this in many countries.

It is said that most of the people with patrial status will be white. Most of us are white, and it is completely turning racial discrimination on its head to say that it is wrong for any country to accord those with a family relationship to it a special position in the law of that country.

Let me give one or two examples of what I mean. So far as I know, it has always been the case that a Commonwealth citizen whose father was born here was entitled automatically to United Kingdom citizenship. That has always been the case under every Government and it has never been challenged. I see nothing wrong with extending what applies to the paternity of a father to someone whose mother was born here.

There is an extension to grandparents. This follows exactly the precedent of the Act of 1968 which defined those who belonged to this country as those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had a parent or grandparent born in this country. As a further example of this extension of this principle of affinity, it is the fact that every Independence Act passed by any Government has given a special position in respect of United Kingdom citizenship in independent countries to those who had a father or grandfather born in this country. If it is said that this is a racialist concept, it is one that has been evolved in principle by succeeding Governments as far as I can recall.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many citizens of the new Commonwealth, that is the coloured Commonwealth, will be entitled to come into this country under the designation of the grandfather?

Mr. Maudling

I cannot give an exact number. What I am saying is that the principle I have enunciated seems to be reasonable in practice and one that has been part of the law of the land for decades.

My next point is about those who will be subject to control, those who are not patrial. All who are not enabled to claim the right of patriality will be subject to control of admission, but the change in the system of control which we are proposing will apply only to those who are coming to settle here on a working basis. There will be no effect on visitors to this country; no effect on those who can maintain themselves here; no effect on Commonwealth students and no effect on working holiday-makers. None of those are affected by this Measure. The only effect on those who come to work permanently, who are already subject to a form of control, will be that in future they will be subject to a different form of control.

Those Commonwealth citizens already here free of condition, broadly speaking all Working immigrants here, will not be affected. They will be allowed to work where they wish as at present. They will be allowed automatic citizenship as at present. There will be no new papers to be carried, they will be allowed to bring in dependants. Hon. Members have pointed out that a number of newspapers, beginning I think with the Sunday Times, have commented upon the immigration rules. As drafted the Rules for admission would impose upon immigrants already here a need in future to show that they can sustain their relatives and dependants. This is not in accordance with what I intended and I will change it in future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As I have said, I do not intend that the position of those already in this country, the rights of those already in this country to bring in their dependants, shall be changed. That is what we promised in the election. If the Rules as drafted do not make this clear, they will certainly be amended. It is a good point and I take it.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

This is an important point which has been brought about by the proposal in Schedule 6 to repeal the whole of the 1962 Act. Is the Home Secretary saying, as the statutory right is being destroyed, that he intends to insert some provisions to take the place of the 1962 provisions, to restore the statutory right so that it is not just a question of an administrative discretion by the Home Secretary?

Mr. Maudling

This is a different point. The point is on Rule 37 of the Immigration Rules. The right hon. Gentleman can develop his point later. The point that has been made in the Press is a good one. We said that people already here should have the same right in future as they now have to bring in their wives and dependants. As drafted, the Rules impose an obligation to make it clear that they can support their wives. This is not my intention and it will be changed to bring it into line with what I said.

Mr. Callaghan

I am sorry to interrupt again but this is a cardinal point. The reason why the Rules are so drafted is because the statutory right which existed under the 1962 Act has disappeared. The new Rules now provide certain conditions. What I am asking the Home Secretary, and I think that it is susceptible of a clear answer is: does he intend to restore the statutory rights of immigrants who are already in this country to bring in their dependants?

Mr. Maudling

I am not intending to change the statutory provisions, I am intending to amend the Rules under the Statute, Rule 37. The right to bring in dependants will be under the Rules and not under the Statute. The Rules like the Statute are subject to Parliament and will be put to Parliament. As the Wilson Committee pointed out, it makes no practical difference whether it is under the Rules approved by the Parliament or under the Statute.

Mr. Callaghan rose—

Mr. Maudling

If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I am wrong he will have an opportunity to develop that later and I will be happy to hear him. If I am wrong and Rule 37 is not right, we will change it. I have no pride in sticking to something which I have been shown could be wrong.

Mr. Callaghan

I think that the Home Secretary is entitled to put the exact position to the House. I am sure that he understands his own Bill. The Rules which are drafted are not necessarily subject to the affirmative or even the negative procedure in the House. They are submitted to the House for the convenience of the House and have no statutory authority. I repeat my question. What the present Bill has done is to destroy the statutory right of immigrants. The Home Secretary says that he does not wish to destroy any rights and I simply ask him therefore, does he intend to restore the statutory rights which the Bill destroys?

Mr. Maudling

The right hon. Gentleman has repeated the question and I repeat my answer. I do not intend to change the statutory rights. If he does not like what I am saying, let him say so. What I do say is that the Rules as drafted do not carry out my undertaking that people should be allowed to bring in their dependants without this new test. If the Rules are not in accordance with my undertaking they will be changed. I have accepted the change if it is necessary to bring this into line with our policy and our undertakings.

In future all who come to work here will need work permits which will have to be renewed after a year here. They will be registered through the medium of the police. I want to talk about this seriously because this can be made to sound tyrannical—registering through the police. I was rather surprised to hear one distinguished cleric the other day on B.B.C. likening this to the South African pass laws. This is sheer and unadulterated rubbish. The condition of registration has been accepted for years and years by all immigrants coming to this country from places other than the Commonwealth. All Americans and Scandinavians who have come here over the years have accepted this and, so far as I know, have made no protest.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

They are not Commonwealth citizens.

Mr. Lipton

They are foreigners.

Mr. Maudling

The basis of control for foreign and Commonwealth citizens and aliens is what was stated at the election and what the people voted for. We are doing that. What I am saying is that to describe this form of control as tyrannical is nonsense. It has been accepted by all these people from America and Europe without protest. If people should say, "Ah, it is all right for Europeans and Americans" which I sometimes hear argued, the interesting fact is that at present in this country there are no less than 12,000 Arab people working under this system of registration making no protest at all against it.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North) rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must point out that I have the names of some 60 hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wanting to speak in this debate.

Mr. Maudling

I will do my best to deal with these things as briefly as I can. Registration is necessary if there is to be control. Registration through the police has always been the system adopted because for administrative reasons it is difficult to find a better one. I say quite frankly to the House if in the course of our discussions on the Bill we can find a better system than registration through the police I will be happy to consider it. It must be a system of registration that works. The point is that in many cases the police are the only people who can collect the information. It is not their job to follow it up, it is their job to enforce when the immigration authorities consider that enforcement is necessary. People are not supposed to go to the police unnecessarily.

What happens is that they register with the police if they have a particular job and they have to re-register after a year and get permission extended. If they fail to register in due time inquiries will be made. This is a system that has worked perfectly satisfactorily for many years. To talk about harassment by the police is a complete misunderstanding of the situation. The police do not harass immigrants in this country, nor would the Bill give any opportunity to an ill-advised constable to harass an immigrant which he does not possess at the moment.

It is not proper for a police constable to inquire of a person, to ask him to produce his identity, unless he has reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. That is true now and will remain true. It can be argued that if a policeman wrongly wanted to harass a coloured immigrant he could ask for his papers, but he can already do that now. He can say, "I think you are an illegal immigrant, you came off the beaches at Littlehampton, you came across the water undetected." He already has the power. Nothing in the Bill will give any opportunity to a policeman to harass coloured immigrants which he does not already have. I do not accept the charge that the police wish to harass the coloured immigrant population in this country. I say quite categorically—because inaccurate and wrong things have been said about this which can only damage community relations—that nothing in the Bill is calculated to give or gives the opportunity for the police to harass individuals any more than that which they might have at present.

I turn to the question of the police not wanting the power. The stories which have been widely spread remind me of what the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East said in our debates in June and November last year about the vast bureaucratic machine we are creating and the burden on the police. Let us look at the estimate. It is estimated that by 1976 the police will require another 15 people to carry out the control. This is the extent of the so-called vast bureaucratic machine and the enormous burden on the police. The facts should have put away that canard by now.

I come to the question of citizenship. It must be remembered that citizenship is necessary only for certain purposes. For example, those who come here as Commonwealth citizens and who are free of conditions after five years are free to remain here unconditionally. The right of Commonwealth citizens to vote and to take part in the political life of this country depends, not upon citizenship, but on their being Commonwealth citizens resident here.

The only change which in practice takes place in a person's status when he becomes a United Kingdom citizen, having been a Commonwealth citizen, is that he has the advantage of freedom from deportation. If he wants this freedom, if he wants to be accepted unconditionally and to throw in his lot completely with this country, it is not unreasonable to ask him to meet a test at present applied to people from other countries, namely, that they should have reasonable knowledge of our language. If he comes from a country which does not recognise the Crown, he should take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. No one has to do this unless he wants to do it. But if anyone wants to throw in his lot permanently with this country it is not unreasonable to ask him to do it.

I come to the important question of deportation. The main point which has been made in discussion and criticism of the Bill concerns the use of deportation in what are called non-conducive cases in which the Secretary of State decides that a person's presence is not conducive to the general good. This is regarded as a new and tyrannical power. It is nothing of the sort. It has always rested in the Home Secretary. It was said in The Times today that this was a fresh new power of control. It is not a new power. The Home Secretary has always had it. My predecessor said in connection with the immigration rules presented in February, 1970: Even where the court has not recommended the deportation of an alien the Secretary of State may decide to make a deportation order as being conducive to the public good". We are carrying on the traditional principle which is recognised by every country which I know. I cannot think of a country which does not have the right of removing people who are citizens of other countries if they are not, in the opinion of the Government, conducive to the public good. The phrase "conducive to the public good" is to be found in the legislation of a number of new Common wealth countries. Many countries throughout the world have a power which is even wider than the power which is traditional in this country and which should always be at the disposal of a government.

The question which arises in many people's minds is, what should be done about appeals? Let me set out the position as it seems to me. I do not think that anyone who is not a citizen of this country can be said to have a right to come and live here. If the Government refuse to let him come, and if the Government's decision is wrong, that is a matter for the British Parliament to decide in the interests of the British people. If I or any of my successors make a wrong decision we are answerable to the normal democratic processes of Parliament, which is the way in which the matter should be dealt with under our Constitution.

The present system is bad. Everyone agrees, after a recent case which was debated only a short time ago, that the present system is not satisfactory for two reasons. First, it puts forward as a justiciable issue what is an act of policy. This point was argued by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor during the passage of the recent Bill. It is quite wrong to dress up as something to be decided by the court as a matter of law what is an act of policy by Government where the appeal should lie, not to a court, but to Parliament.

Secondly, the proceedings, as they went ahead, gave the appearance of a trial in which someone was put on trial on the basis of evidence which could not be fully disclosed to him.

For both reasons, there is considerable disquiet about the present situation. Once again, I should like to have the assistance of the House and of hon. Members in Committee in discussing a very difficult problem in order to get it absolutely right, but I propose that we go back to the old system. When someone wants to come to this country from abroad, if the Government wish to say "no", it should be for Parliament to decide. It is different when people have already been admitted to this country and we want to take the initative to change their position.

I have been considering whether, particularly in security and political cases, it might be right to use the procedure know as the three advisers whereby cases in which members of the Civil Service are affected are heard by a panel of "three wise men" or advisers. A system which works for British civil servants and gives them protection could be relied upon to give adequate protection to other people in this country.

The question of repatriation is dealt with in Clause 29, which gives us power to make contributions towards the expenses of people returning abroad. This is only an enabling power. Let me make clear what the Government intend to do. I do not believe in large-scale repatriation. It is wrong because it would not work and the attempt to make it work would be enormously damaging to what I see as the real objective of our policy, namely, to improve community relations among people already here. That is why we do not intend to embark on a large scale programme of repatriation. It would not be right to pay the fares home of those who can afford to pay them themselves. If people can afford to pay and want to leave this country, it is obviously a bribe to them to go. How can we reconcile that with our desire to make one single community in this country?

However, there is an argument for extending the present very limited powers to assist repatriation. They are limited pretty well to those who come under the aegis of the social benefit system. There may be instances of immigrant families who clearly have not settled down and will not settle down in this country and who would like to go home but cannot afford to do so. It seems to me common sense, humanitarian and in everyone's interest to provide assistance in such cases. This is the Government's thinking behind the policy of repatriation and this is the way in which we intend to use these powers if the House gives them to us.

I come to offences under the Bill. Part III deals with a number of offences concerned with immigration. The main provision is to put severe new penalties on people who engage in trafficking in illegal immigrants. I am sure that the House will agree entirely with our objective. I regard trafficking in illegal immigrants as being almost on a par with trafficking in dangerous drugs. People who make money out of this activity should be severely punished, and that is the purpose of the Bill.

The other point under the heading of penalties concerns the question of proceeding against people who are here illegally. I think it is right, in the interests of those who want to come here and are trying to come here legitimately, to ensure that those who jump the queue and come in illegally do not benefit from it. By a strange provision of the law, anyone who sneaks in across the beaches late at night and is not seen is safe for ever so long as he is here for six months; whereas a person who comes here on one condition and stays in breach of that condition is not. This is because a person who comes in illegally commits one offence and after six months is exempt, whereas a person in breach of a condition commits a continuing offence and can therefore always be prosecuted. I therefore propose to extend the six months' period, which is quite inadequate, to three years. The House will recognise this as a sensible provision to protect the interests of those who are here and to protect the fair treatment of those who are wanting to come here and not trying to jump the gun or beat the queue.

There is another point about illegal immigrants and powers of arrest. It was said in The Times this morning that we are taking an extra power to arrest without warrant those who are suspected of taking part in illegal immigration. This is not a new power. It was a power contained first in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, and extended in the Act of 1968. It is a sensible power. If a police constable comes across a group of illegal immigrants on a beach or secreted in a cellar, he cannot do his job if all he can do is take their names and call back for them later. There must be a power of arrest on the spot, and this has been recognised by the previous Government and continued by us. Once again I am disturbed about stories being put forward of new harassments and new powers in the Bill. On close examination they will be found not to be new but part of the system which has been in operation for a considerable time.

I turn now to one subject which is not covered by the Bill but which I regard as of great importance. That is, those people who are known as United Kingdom passport holders, mainly people of Asian origin living in East Africa. May I take the liberty of referring the House to what I said in a debate in 1968: The main problem is that of Asians coming from Kenya. The basic problem, stated quite simply, is that these people have quite undeniably been given certain rights. Equally, if they all exercise these rights, or seek to do so, at the same time, serious consequences will follow for everyone, including the Asians themselves.…There is no doubt about the rights that these people possess. When they were given these rights, it was our intention that they should be able to come to this country when they wanted to do so.…Equally, there is no doubt about the problem which can, and will, be created if the rate of immigration goes ahead too rapidly, a problem just as serious for the immigrant communities as for the rest of us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1968; Vol. 759, c. 1344.] This problem remains the same, and my view has not changed in any way from what I said in 1968 when supporting, with reluctance, the Bill which my predecessor moved with reluctance. I believe that it was the best solution for this country, unhappy as it was in many ways.

I had hoped to be able to make progress in finding an answer to this serious problem which would do justice both to the people in East Africa and in this country who are concerned about the damage to community relations of a further large flow of immigrants into this country. I had hoped to be able to say something about this, but the changing situation in East Africa, and particularly the change of Government in Uganda, have made it impossible for me to proceed with discussions. As soon as I can make any proposals on this, I will do so. I am sure my predecessor will accept from me that I should be a very happy man if I could make a useful contribution to this problem. The Bill does not affect this problem, which is a problem of finding a practical solution and not a question of changing the law.

I have run over most of the major points of the Bill, which contains a vast mass of detail which we shall be debating. I have also dealt with some points not in the Bill and tried to deal with some of the criticisms that have been advanced.

In future, the control of people coming for permanent settlement as working people will be in the hands of the Department of Employment, as it is already for anyone not from the Commonwealth. The Department will continue to administer control on the basis of giving work permits to those people who, by and large, can be seen to be making a contribution to the economic and social life of the country and where there is not a resident person available to do the job instead.

So far as volume is concerned—and the Bill sets up the powers, not the administration—we shall have in future greater flexibility in deciding the rate at which people shall be admitted. It is the Government's belief that, especially in present circumstances, there should be a further reduction in the number of unskilled and semi-skilled people coming from all sources for permanent working immigration here. Under the Bill the total who come in future will be such as will carry out our undertaking of the election that there will be no further large-scale permanent immigration.

I commend the Bill to the House as a Bill carrying out faithfully the undertakings which we made at the time of the General Election and which we were elected to carry out; as a Bill which has been misrepresented, no doubt unintentionally because of its complication; a Bill which does not affect the community already here and, above all, a Bill which is justified as a contribution to helping us to get the framework and the atmosphere in this country within which alone we can hope that the work of organising unity between the various communities can successfully progress.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Before calling the next speaker, I have to inform the House that the Chair has not selected the Amendment in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Party.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)

When I occupied the office now held by the present Home Secretary I was as conscious as I am sure he is of the inflammatory tinder that lies around both in immigration control and race relations. I always tried to proceed on the basis that this was not a fit subject for party controversy, if it could be avoided, and that neither the community of immigrants nor the home community would be helped by party divisions on this issue. It was in pursuance of that policy that I proposed, and it was agreed, to set up a Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration to take under its advice the whole subject of the nature of immigration, the form of control and what relations should be as between school leavers and others.

I am still of the opinion that we should avoid as far as possible political controversy between the parties on this issue. We cannot avoid it inside the parties, but we can avoid it between the parties. Therefore, there is a double responsibility on me this afternoon to explain why I must oppose the Bill, as I do, and why I believe that it will not carry out the intentions of the Home Secretary. I ask him to understand—as I ask the House and my hon. Friends as well as hon. Gentlemen opposite to understand—that I will try to do it as I would have done it had I been occupying that office, although I am not now so doing.

An Hon. Member

Thank God.

Mr. Callaghan

I quite agree. I am sure there are many people who would share the hon. Gentleman's opinion.

The first question we must ask is whether this single new system of immigration control is an improvement on existing arrangements. If it is not, some part of the case for the Bill, and maybe a large part of the case, disappears. In my view, the new single system of control is not an improvement on the existing system. It takes many of the provisions of the existing aliens legislation control and puts Commonwealth citizens on the same basis as aliens. There are marginal differences, for example for students and visitors, but that is all. In the assimilation of these two codes let me outline what I believe will be the major differences for Commonwealth immigrants in the future. I shall not be able to discuss all of them this afternoon.

The Home Secretary seemed a little unclear about this next point. This is why—I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman now—I interrupted him three times. At present there is a statutory right written into the law for wives, and children under the age of 16, to join their husbands and fathers in this country. The Bill repeals that statutory right. It becomes an administrative right under Rule 37. The Home Secretary seemed to be under the impression—I do not know whether he is or not—that the rules are subject to approval by Parliament. They are not. Clause 3 states that the rules which derive from the Statute have to be submitted to Parliament, but there is no obligation upon the Home Secretary to secure their approval. So we are removing a statutory right and replacing it by an administrative discretion. In due course we shall certainly seek to put that statutory right back, in accordance with the pledges which the Government have given in the past.

The second major change will be a time limit imposed on the length of stay of a Commonwealth citizen. Again, this will bring it in accord with the present position of aliens, although I understand that that time limit may and probably will be extended from year to year. I understand that is to be the normal policy. I am outlining the changes now. I shall comment on some of them later.

The third major change is that dependants may be admitted only if the husband and father is able to satisfy a means test about his ability to provide accommodation as well as financial support.

Fourthly, Commonwealth citizens who have been here for five years will, unlike the position at present, be liable to deportation.

Fifthly, the right of registration—I emphasise the word "right"—as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies of a Commonwealth citizen after he has been here for five years is removed. He has a right at the moment to register. As I understand the Bill, in future he will be in a similar position to an alien—namely, that registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—we must keep our terms right—will be at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Even worse, not only is that automatic right removed, but there will be no appeal against the Home Secretary's right to refuse citizenship.

It will be noted from what I have said so far that all these five major changes—no one will deny, whether they agree with or oppose them, that they are major changes—will be imposed on persons who will legally be in this country—Commonwealth citizens who will have been admitted already.

Having described the changes, I come to my first criticism. It seems that the result of passing the Bill, and one reason that I oppose it, is to affect materially and adversely the legal status of Commonwealth citizens who are now, or may in future, be legally resident in this country without materially altering the number of arrivals for immigration. This is my first criticism. This is why I feel that much of the Bill is sailing under false colours.

Is it really thought to be a means of improving race relations, or is it, as I fear, carrying out election pledges—frankly a sop to prejudice and a thin attempt to make people, who will not study this very complicated Bill, believe that the number of immgrants will, in future, be fewer than in the past. This is one of my basic criticisms of the Bill.

I must come back to the question of numbers, because that is from where the Bill sprang originally. So much of the Bill is supposed to be about numbers. In reality, as we know, it is not.

I understand from rules published as recently as last Friday—therefore, I apologise if I have not wholly mastered them; I have done my best to look at them over the weekend—that the system of work permits will continue. Will there be the same number as at present? As far as I can see, it will be the responsibility of employers in future, as in the past, to ask for workers. Employers have not been loth to ask for workers to come here. In the past, it has been the responsibility of employers wanting that kind of labour to ask for it.

Broadly speaking, we are talking about 4,000 people who are coming here every year. That is what this paraphernalia of control is about. The 4,000 who come here can broadly be divided as to half professional people like doctors, dentists and so on, and the other half workers who may be skilled artisans or, more probably, unskilled artisans.

I gather from something which the Home Secretary let slip that there might be some reduction in the numbers of unskilled workers. So we are talking about a reduction in a figure of 2,000, or something less, in a population of 55 million. That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Evelyn King (Dorset, South)

Plus dependants.

Mr. Callaghan

Plus dependants. I shall come back to the dependants point later.

Mr. King rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I do not want to give a wrong impression, so I will put the hon. Gentleman's point now in my own words. The hon. Gentleman is saying that we are talking about 2,000 or fewer than 2,000 people plus any dependants they may want to bring here. I believe that the average number of dependants is about four, so we are talking about a possible reduction from 8,000. Is that intolerable in this community? Really, let the hon. Gentleman come to his senses.

Will the number of work vouchers be roughly what it is at present? The Home Secretary gave us no different impression. How will they be allocated? Will the professional workers have roughly the same number as now? Will there be roughly 2,000 professional and roughly 2,000 unskilled workers or artisans? Is there to be an upper limit? Will there be a quota for each country? If so, will it be on an arithmetical basis? How will countries fare which so far have had preferential treatment? I take, for example, Malta, which so far has had about 1,000 vouchers a year allocated to it, of which it has taken sometimes 750, sometimes 500.

In my view, there will be very little difference between the numbers coming now and the numbers who will come in future. I ask the Minister of State, whom I understand will wind up the debate, why he thinks that the Bill will make so much difference to the problem of race relations in this country.

The plain truth is that when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in Opposition there was very little difference between both sides of the House on the necessity to control numbers. When control was introduced and the number of vouchers was reduced some people thought that it was wrong to reduce it. I did not. It was reduced to 20,000 when the Labour Government came to power. Taking any average number of years immigration has been less under a Labour Government than under a Conservative Government. Some people will think that that is something to boast about, some will think that it is neutral, and others that it is something to criticise. However, the fact of the matter is that when the Labour Government reduced it to 20,000, there was agreement by the then Opposition. Later, when the Labour Government reduced it to 8,500, there was again agreement by the then Opposition. Of that 8,500, about 4,000 a year has been the effective number taken up and used.

So what is all this about? It is not about controlling numbers, whatever else it may be said to be about. We deserve a better explanation that we have had so far, unless it is the desire of the Government, as a sop to their more prejudiced followers, to mislead the general public.

The Bill's new principle, as the Home Secretary said, is to divide persons into two classes—those who have the right of abode in this country and those who have not. That difference will determine our immigration policy. Of course, the normal basis, if we did not have the com- plications of the hangover from empire, for determining immigration policy—as to whether one should have a right to enter a country, live in it or leave it—is whether one is a citizen of that country.

But we have moved away, and have been forced to move away, from that concept as a result of the all-embracing nature of the British Nationality Act of 1948, which conferred the title of British subject upon hundreds of millions of people. I was a member of the Government which passed that Act, and it passed with the general assent of the House, but that Act is the root cause of our immigration control difficulties and of the deeply-held and genuine repugnance in many quarters that British citizens should be excluded from this country—as I found to my cost, when I suffered a volley of abuse during the passage of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1968.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that what the 1948 Act did, accurately, was not to confer the status of British subject upon these hundreds of millions, but to continue that status, which they had previously had?

Mr. Callaghan

Yes, I would agree with the substitution of the word "continue" for the word "confer", except, of course, to this extent—if we are to try to get it right—that it conferred the right of being a British subject in certain circumstances upon citizens of countries when they became independent of the United Kingdom and Colonies. There was special Schedule in the Act of such countries.

In connection with this problem, I am reminded of the story about Schleswig-Holstein when a Victorian statesman—I believe it was Palmerston—said that there were only three people who had ever understood the problem: one was dead, the second was mad and the third was himself and he had forgotten it. Broadly, this is the nature of the problem when we are talking about the various terms "British subject", "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies", "Commonwealth citizen" and the various other gradations which exist.

It was the difficulty which I suffered and the terms of abuse to which I was subjected during the passage of the Commonwealth Immigration Act—yet I felt that it was necessary, although regrettable—which led me to the conclusion, among other things, that what I wanted was a fundamental reappraisal of the citizenship question and of the various terms and titles which could be applied to British subjects who may never have touched these shores, as millions of them never have done.

It was therefore in agreement with my colleagues that we put this into the Labour Party's election manifesto. The party opposite put in their proposal. But what we should be discussing today, and what we shall have to come back to, is the whole question of citizenship in relation to immigration into this country. I regret that we are not considering it today. I wish that the Government had done so before introducing the Bill, because this Bill is unnecessary in present circumstances.

It is certainly not urgent. In 1968 I had to act under conditions—as I thought, and the Government agreed—of very great urgency. The same urgency does not exist now because the numbers are under control, whatever the Home Secretary may say. He has time dispassionately, calmly and objectively to consider the question of citizenship. The difficulties which the Government will be in over the so-called "grandfather Clause" spring entirely from their failure to take advantage of this period of relative calm, to sit down and study the question of citizenship again, preferably in conjunction with other Commonwealth Governments.

I am not suggesting a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers. It is too explosive a situation for that, and I would not wish that upon Ministers in the initial instance. What should have been done, and what it is not too late to do now, is to get the officials of various Commonwealth Governments together and let them conduct an objective survey in the first instance. This later on could lead to a Ministerial conference which might help us with some of these difficulties which we have, and which I hope I am approaching in a spirit of some understanding.

I referred to some of the difficulties which the Government will be in by introducing Clause 2. Let me take a specific example—the question of the Anglo-Indians. There are over a million Anglo-Indians, who are, as their name implies, either the children or the grandchildren of persons who were, probably, in the new definition, "patrials". The Oxford Dictionary says that this is rather an obsolete term, but I believe that it prefers the spelling "patrial".

At the moment, these one million or so Anglo-Indians have only conditional rights of entry into the United Kingdom—that is to say, if they can get a work voucher or entry permit. What will be the position once the Bill is passed and the "grandfather Clause" goes through? I hope that it will not go through. I hope that the Home Secretary means it when he says that he will consider these matters again.

An Anglo-Indian who cannot now come here except conditionally will be free to come here—over a million of them—at any time by a stroke of the pen—[An HON. MEMBER: "At a stroke."] When they arrive here—I beg hon. Members opposite to understand this—they will not be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They will be British subjects. Therefore, as they are not citizens, and despite the fact that they are British subjects, they will have no right to vote. If they wait five years—[Interruption.] They will have no right to vote. This is a lawyers' field, but let me put my position. They will have no right to vote, but they will not be able to be deported. No one will be able to get rid of them. They are "patrials" and embedded into the Bill—over a million of them—

Mr. John Hall (Wycombe) rose—

Mr. Callaghan

No, I will not give way. I want to finish this point in my own way, without being tripped up by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

So they can come, anv restrictions are removed, they will be British subjects, they will not be citizens or have the right to vote, and they cannot be deported.

Let us take another person who is now put under additional control—the Pakistani immigrant. He is not a patrial, but if he gets his work voucher to come here, subject to conditions, he will be a citizen and he will be a British subject. He will be able to vote, he may get himself elected to a local authority, he may even get himself elected to this House—but the Home Secretary will be able to deport him—

Mr. Maudlingindicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan

Yes, he will. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows what his powers are. I could hardly restrain a guffaw when I heard the right hon. Gentleman say that this Bill is to introduce some order into the system and that it will be definitive. If the Home Secretary believes that, to coin a phrase, he will believe anything.

That is not true. What I am pointing out, in no spirit of hostility, is that the Bill has been rushed. It has been brought in without proper consideration of the problems of citizenship, through which the consideration of any new legislation, in the absence of some panic situation, should have started.

It is true that the Bill makes entry unconditional for at least a million persons, any one of whom can arrive. Of course, as the Home Secretary himself acknowledged in response to an interjection, it also makes it unconditional for millions more who are at present in the Commonwealth.

It is tempting to say that these absurdities arise from slipshod drafting, but they do not. They arise because the Government are putting the cart before the horse—that is to say, control before citizenship, in Clause 2—and this is one of my major reasons for opposing it.

Some of my hon. Friends—indeed, perhaps even some hon. Gentlemen opposite—go further and say that the Clause is racialist in conception.

I do not take the view that the provision is racialist in conception. It can apply—and will in future apply, if it lasts—to a white Australian but not to a black Jamaican. In regard to a black Jamaican who is born here and leaves to go to Jamaica, if his son or grandson decides in due course to come back he will be free to do so. Nobody could stop him under this Bill. But a white Australian who originated in Italy will not under the Bill be able to come here—although if he stays in Italy and we join the Common Market, he probably will be able to come here. This is how "order" is to be given to our citizenship problems. Therefore, I do not take the view that this legislation is racialist in concept since it can apply equally to both black and white persons.

My objections to Clause 2 are on different, but I believe fundamental, grounds. I still have a good deal more to say on this Bill which is an extremely complicated and important measure.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)

On the point of its being racialist—

Mr. Callaghan

I would rather not take up points with my hon. Friend now, since we will have plenty of time to deal with them in Committee. I shall be happy to go into them in detail then.

The Home Secretary has weakened the rights of dependants to join their breadwinners. As I understand the Bill, the statutory right goes. It is replaced by an administrative right, together with financial provisions—which are something quite separate. This breaks the pledge that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) by the Prime Minister, and I hope that the Home Secretary will put this matter right. My hon. Friend on 1st December asked the Prime Minister a question about dependants' rights and the Prime Minister replied: We have always made it plain that any legislation we introduce will not affect those already in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st December, 1970; Vol. 807, c. 1078.] That solemn pledge is not carried out by this Bill, and it will not he put right by altering the rules, because the rules are not subject to a decision by Parliament. Indeed, they are not subject to approval by Parliament; they are presented for the convenience of Parliament so that we can know what administrative policy is being carried out.

I say sincerely to the Home Secretary that the only way he can redeem that pledge made by the Prime Minister on more than one occasion before and after the election is by restoring the statutory right of dependants to come here. I hope that we shall have a clear undertaking from the Minister of State in his reply. Since apparently this was a mistake in drafting and there is no intention to alter the rule, I hope that the statutory right will be restored. If not, we will need to move Amendments in order to replace it.

It is not sufficient to say "It is in the rules and I intend to act in this way." The present Home Secretary may intend to do so, but a successor can alter them. I do not want to raise any heat in this debate, but we could have a Powell-like administration to replace this one. There are no guarantees that the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) will always stay Home Secretary, especially in such an administration. This is the important point in regard to pledges given to millions of people. It could be a great stumbling block, and indeed a fatal handicap, if this is merely written into the rules and the matter falls into the wrong hands.

I pass to other points—and there are very many upon which I could touch in the Bill. I turn to the new proposals in Clause 3. Up to now a British subject who is a Commonwealth citizen and who has satisfied the immigration officer at the point of entry that he has the right to enter the country has been free to reside where he likes, to change his job when he likes and to live where he likes; and, like every other citizen, he is under no obligation to seek permission from anybody or to tell the police what he is doing. Provided that he keeps within the law, he is as free as anyone else. However, from now on that situation is to be altered, in my view to the gross detriment of race relations in this country.

Some British subjects who come to this country, although not all, will be admitted for only a limited period. They will be required to work at a particular job and will be under the surveillance of the police. This provision will apply to only some 4,000 persons or maybe a smaller number. But the original conditions under which these British citizens are admitted can be altered at will. They can be deported if they do not abide by the conditions or if the Home Secretary deems their deportation to be conducive to public good. In those circumstances, there is to be no right of appeal against the Home Secretary's decision.

The first change is that of admitting men for only 12 months at a time. What is to be the policy at the end of that time? There could be several possibili- ties. One may be that every group of men who come here are to be sent home at the end of 12 months. I do not know what support such a policy would get, but I would regard it as inhuman. It would be severely criticised by employers who took on such men and who trained them for a short period, only to find that just as they became useful they had to be sent home. Presumably a new group would arrive who would have to be retrained. That does not seem to make sense, but it is what is to be permitted by the Statute.

I would mention a further consideration. I gather from the Home Secretary that under the new rules there will be some selection. If that is to be the case, what is to be the basis of selection and choice of those who are to stay and of those who are to leave? Is the decision to be taken by the Department of Employment? I understand that employers are to make recommendations. What a field here for petty tyranny. What about the man who decides to join a union which the rest of his colleagues have not joined? In a non-union situation what is an employer to say? It will be within the power of that employer to decide, almost as a matter of life and death, whether that man should go back to his own country. On what basis are employers supposed to make reports to the Department of Employment? Are we going to select people for deportation on the basis of their trade union membership? I cannot believe that that is to be the case.

Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.

Mr. Callaghan

But that is what will happen—the Home Secretary does not realise what his Bill is about.

Mr. Maudling

This system which in future is to be applied to people coming here from the Commonwealth has been applied for years, and in regard to hundreds of thousands of aliens, without these matters arising.

Mr. Callaghan

The Home Secretary should study the pattern of alien immigration. He will then get out of this habit which he has got into of thinking that Commonwealth immigration and alien immigration are the same thing or similar. Everybody who knows about aliens who have come to this country and who are employed here knows that they come for different purposes, remain for different purposes and mostly are doing different jobs. The Home Secretary cannot pretend that these two types of immigration are the same. They are not.

This is one of the reasons I oppose assimilation in this way. This will mean that we are now to put under the surveillance of the Department of Employment people who are employed in factories. There are some aliens in factories, but not very many—[HON. MEMBERS "No."] There is a substantial breakdown on this matter showing that aliens who decide to work in factories here come from an advanced country for experience and stay in this country for six months up to 18 months and then return to their own country.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Bradford, West) rose—

Mr. Callaghan

No, I will not give way. I am in fact dealing with another interjection at the moment. That is the basis of the matter. The situation is different from the Commonwealth citizen who comes to this country not for experience, but to stay and make his home here and to be employed here.

I repeat that there is every prospect under these provisions for a petty tyrannical employer bitterly to endanger race relations when he is to be required to make a report on an employee who has come from the Commonwealth for 12 months as to whether such a person is a satisfactory workman; and, if not, it is for the Home Secretary to decide whether that man should return to his own country. So much for that point. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am saying what could happen in the hands of a Powellite Administration—[HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] Of course it could. I am speaking of what the Bill provides and of what the rules mean, and that is what hon. Gentlemen will be voting for.

My belief and hope is that under the aegis of the present Home Secretary 99 per cent. of the people who come here will stay here. I believe that that is the right hon. Gentleman's hope, too; that they will get their extension from 12 months to two years, from two years to three, from three years to four, and that after that they will settle down and will become full citizens of the country and be able to register, if the Home Secretary gives his assent, as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's view, and that of most hon. Members, is that there will not be this great turnover of labour.

If that is the case, what is all this about? What are we trying to do? What will be the impact of the Bill? If a man comes here for 12 months, supposedly, what prospect has he, for example, of getting a mortgage in order to buy a house? Will any building society give him a loan on that basis? Or what prospects has he of credit facilities in order to establish himself? What prospect has he of any hire purchase in order to buy a motor car? Or perhaps these people should not have motor cars? The plain truth is, and this is a substantial criticism of the Bill, that what it will do will be to create a rootless and shiftless group of immigrants who will not be able to settle because they will not have surety and assurance of the basis on which they are here. That being so, I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider that angle.

If a man is to be tied to his employment and can change it only if approval is given, if that approval is not given he breaks his conditions, and the Home Secretary can say, "Out you go." What a fertile field for improving race relations. I have never heard of a recipe worse fitted than that for good race relations. I believe that this requirement of Government permission to change jobs is not only unnecessary but intolerable and tyrannical, and we shall seek to delete it from the Bill.

The Home Secretary made what I thought was a very defensive speech if I may say so, more answering his critics than expounding the virtues of this great Bill—and I do not blame him for that. But many commentators have complained about the provision requiring registration with the police. There have been some hints, and the Home Secretary has hinted again, that the Government will be willing to look again at this provision. I hope that they will, although as the The Times asked this morning: why register at all? What is the purpose of registering these 4,000 people at all?

The Home Secretary had a little gentle fun at my expense. He said, "You complain about a vast bureaucracy, although 24 are all that I shall need"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Fifteen."] Very well, 15,—but that is only because he has walked backwards. In the original proposals, which must have been laughed out of court when examined in the Home Office, the idea was not only that these people should be registered but that so should students, visitors and all the rest of the millions coming into the country. That is what the Prime Minister initially said in 1968 but, thank heavens, he too has walked backwards from that speech, and I only hope that we can persuade him to walk back on some other matters as well.

But the very fact that only 15 people will be needed illustrates the point that we are taking these powers to control some 4,000 people a year, many of whom will return to their own countries. It is not sufficient to say that because aliens register with the police these people should also be required to do so. The Home Secretary knows the very delicate relationship existing between police and immigrants. Police leaders and leaders of immigrant communities are working very hard to overcome the feeling of mistrust that exists, but that feeling is there. That this provision will increase the tension I have no doubt at all, and it will also hinder the basic crime prevention duties of the police in present circumstances.

I would not, on the whole, wish to see registration done by the Department of Employment because I object to the Department's oversight of where a man takes up a job. If we must have registration, my choice would be the Department of Health and Social Security which must, in any case, have the necessary social service records.

As the Home Secretary said, the provision in Clause 3(5)(b) for deportation if the Home Secretary believes that to be conducive to the public good has existed for some time—indeed, I have used it myself—but the Bill proposes to extend that provision to an entirely new group. So far, it has been applied to aliens who have a home base and a home country to go back to. Now we are to apply it to Commonwealth citizens who are also British subjects, and we shall, at the very least, need to look at it very carefully. In my view, there should be a right of appeal against the Home Secretary's decision, and we shall accordingly move Amendments to achieve that right.

Clause 3(5)(c) is extremely objectionable because it allows for the deportation of a whole family because one member is deported. What does belonging to a family mean? Suppose the Home Secretary decides that he should deport a whole family because its breadwinner has been found guilty of some offence, and that then the younger members decide to move into lodgings—l6-year-old boys and girls can do that these days, and other things too: are they then members of the same family? is the Home Secretary to say, "You may have split up, or broken with your family and gone into lodgings, you may be living with an aunt, or someone else, but so far as I am concerned you belong to that family, and back you go."

These may be boys and girls who if not born here will in all probability have had the whole of their education in this country, and be as much a part of our community as is anyone with a white skin. This is a nasty provision. The Home Secretary will get himself a great deal of odium. The provision will be almost impossible to administer, and it will lead to widespread evasion.

Another objectionable aspect is the requirement of certificates and passports. A Commonwealth citizen will be given a notice, which may be endorsed on his passport, of the length of time he can stay in this country. Then there is the requirement of a certificate of patriality. This requirement will apply to Commonwealth citizens generally, which means Australians as well as West Indians. But let us consider who is most likely to be pulled up.

Will it be the New Zealander, who will merge naturally into our background because, as the Home Secretary rightly says, we are nearly all white here? Or will it be the small proportion of people who have black faces? Is it not they who are most likely to be asked, "Are you sure that you have a legal right to be here?" No one dreams normally of asking that of anyone with a white face. The assumption is that of course, he is entitled to be here, because the overwhelming proportion of us here are white.

This requirement will apply to the small group of people who are not white and do not need the certificate of patriality—and most of them will not need it. The Home Secretary made it clear that only about 4,000 of them a year will need to carry it, but one and a quarter million people will be subjected to questioning. Here, again, I ask the Home Secretary, what good does this do in terms of trouble which will outweigh race relations considerations for which he is equally responsible?

I have dealt at length with Clauses 2 and 3 because they contain general provisions for regulation and control, and in practice these are the Clauses which will bear most hardly on the would-be immigrant. But I must also touch on Clause 29 and the question of repatriation. The Home Secretary has pointed out that the Clause does not apply to the overwhelming proportion of people in this country—that is, anyone who voted for the Conservative Party on the basis that the Government would repatriate 25 per cent., 50 per cent. or 75 per cent. of immigrants has found another broken pledge.

Mr. John Hall

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will refresh the memory of the House and explain more clearly the particular nature of the pledge to which he is referring. I can remember no such pledge.

Mr. Callaghan

I said "anybody who voted for the Conservative Party on that understanding". [Interruption.] No one? I am glad to hear it, in which case the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) stands still in lonely isolation. Whether they did or not, let us at least get that straight, because I do not want there to be any misunderstanding, either. There will not be any massive repatriation; we are agreed about that. In other words, the 11 million people who are here are not to be repatriated and cannot be harassed into repatriation; we are agreed about that.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer (Lewisham, West) rose—

Mr. Callaghan

I will not give way, because I have been rather long—[An HON. MEMBER: "Much too long."]—but they are all good points which I have made. There will not be any massive repatriation. The only people to whom repatriation will apply will be the 4,000 a year who come here and who decide to return. I am glad that we have established that there will not be repatriation on any substantial basis.

Let us think what the consequences are. I come now to a legal complication. I must take the House through it. It would be possible to pay the repatriation expenses of a Commonwealth citizen who did not register here after he had been here five years. In other words, if he said at the end of five years, "I do not choose to register as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies", he would be able to apply for expenses for repatriation purposes. A large number of them have already applied for registration and have become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. A large number have not.

We will now present them with the choice. Either they now automatically register, as they have the right to do, as United Kingdom citizens, in which case they cannot be subject to repatriation at all and they become more firmly embedded here than ever, or they are not going to register, in which case there will be a circumstance in which they can claim their expenses.

What the Home Secretary is doing by this is ensuring that a large number of Commonwealth citizens who have never before considered the advantages of registration will now think that it is about time that they automatically register, and nobody can deny them the right to do so. So we will have even more people firmly embedded in this country. All right; that is probably the best way in which we can get a decent community relationship so that they can feel secure here. But that was not the intention of the Bill; nor was it the intention of the repatriation Clause.

I will pass over all the other things that I should like to say about the Bill. Before resuming my seat, however, I should like to say that I approve of what the Home Secretary said about an attempt to negotiate an agreement that would permit an increased number of Kenyan Asians who are British subjects to come here. If he can get any more of them here, and if that does not result in a general increase in immigration, I would believe that it was worth while doing. I should like to have done it. I have always been conscious of the hardships to which many of the Kenyan Asians are subject, and I hope that the Home Secretary is successful in his negotiations.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer

Humbug.

Mr. Callaghan

I do not know why that should be thought to be humbug, but if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the point I will give way.

Mr. Selwyn Gummer

That statement about the East African Asians comes ill from the right hon. Gentleman, because many hon. Members on both sides of the House consider that the East African Asians were very shabbily dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill and by his Government.

Mr. Callaghan

The present Home Secretary and I share an equal odium in this matter, because we both voted for that Bill, as did the great majority of Members on both sides of the House, because we both thought that it was a regrettable necessity—certainly I did. That has never altered my view that I should like to see an increase in the number of these people coming here if it could be achieved without endangering the total number of immigrants coming into this country. I thought that I was agreeing with the Home Secretary, and I did not expect to be challenged on that, because I do not want to embarrass the Home Secretary by agreeing with him if it provokes comments such as that.

I also agree entirely with the Home Secretary about the Clause dealing with trafficking in illegal immigrants. This is a matter which we must follow up as much as we can.

Finally, I must express my objection to the complete unbalance caused by the failure to concentrate on the urban rehabilitation programme. This was a child of the Labour Government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) launched the idea when he was Prime Minister—decent housing, decent schooling, good amenities in the areas where they are most needed. Those happen to be mostly the areas where the coloured immigrants have settled.

In my view, this is the way, rather than by a Bill like this—a pinpricking and niggling Bill—in which we should deal with the problem of the immigrant, if indeed it is a problem of the immigrant and not a problem of the white population. The cries of the under-privileged are not stifled by a shabby Bill like this. One merely gives a badge of respectability to prejudice by a Bill of this nature.

For the reasons that I have outlined, we shall vote against his niggling Bill tonight.

5.26 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)

The Bill is entitled "Immigration Bill", and its name does not belie it, for it is a Bill about immigration and not about citizenship. It is because what was necessary was, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) argued in the earlier part of his speech, a Bill about citizenship, and not a Bill amout immigration, that I fear this Bill will not correspond with the hopes of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of achieving finality.

All the difficulties out of which the Bill arises but to which it does not refer, and those which have been, which are and which are to come, flow from the fact that this country, alone I think of all countries, has never known in its law a status which defined its own people. We have never had a citizenship of the people of this country.

So paradoxical is this, and so difficult even for those of us who know it to remember, that even my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from time to time used the common expression "United Kingdom citizen", although there neither is, nor ever has been, such a thing in the law of this country.

The only status which until 1948 was known was that of British subject, which we in this country shared with hundreds of millions thoughout the Empire. Yet even in the time of the Empire, even under Colonial administration, we were the only part of the British dominions which had no control over entry into and residence within its territories. Every other part of the British Empire controlled, and in many cases controlled strictly, the entry to it from outside of British subjects, including British subjects from this country.

Then, after the Second World War, it was obviously right and necessary that the great independent countries of what we were then coming to call exclusively the Commonwealth should make their own formal laws of citizenship. It was Canada that began it. Manifestly, it would soon be an anachronism for us, even here, to base our status upon the concept of British subject.

We had a choice before us. Already in 1948 we could have given ourselves a citizenship—a means of defining ourselves, of recognising ourselves, a status—peculiar to the inhabitants of this realm. We did not. As the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East reminded the House, what we did was simply to transfer under other headings the existing body of British subjects. But still, although there were these new categories, these great citizenships of the independent countries, and that residual area designated "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies", even so in the effective law of this country "British subject ", which did not distinguish between ourselves and those hundreds of millions, remained the only practical status. It was a breach between form and reality, between fiction and the real world, which grew ever more unacceptable as modern communications and the entirely different circumstances of the post-war years made it the means of a large and increasing influx into this country from the new Commonwealth.

So with what has—at any rate retrospectively—come to be general agreement, we addressed ourselves to change our law. It might have been thought that then at last we would have given ourselves a citizenship, that at last we would have defined who we were, and thereafter decided under what conditions everyone else in the world would be free to enter this country or to reside here. Unfortunately, we did not. We adopted a different method. We said, instead, that "all British subjects who wish to enter and reside in the United Kingdom shall be subject to immigration control, except—". In short, we legislated by exception. So it comes about that my status today and that of, I suppose, almost all right hon. and hon. Members is that of "a British subject, citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth, to whom the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, as amended in 1968, do not apply." I must confess that, on the whole, I would rather be an Englishman.

This Bill, after a further 10 years have elapsed, tackles the same issue again. Once again the opportunity, the chance, has come round. Once again we are shirking it. Once again we are proceeding by way of exception. Once again we are shying away from putting ourselves in the same position as any other nation, of being able to recognise ourselves, the people of this kingdom, for what we are. It is from the fact that this Bill still proceeds by exception, that it creates a general control and excepts a newly-defined category to which I will come in a moment, that a swarm of difficulties, only some of which have been touched upon so far in this debate, will follow, that anomalies and contradictions will arise which will be seen or felt to be intolerable, and that we in this House will find ourselves once again legislating upon this topic.

Under this Bill the right of abode, the definition of that excepted class who are not controlled, goes with the definition of "patrial" in Clause 2. One might call it, for brevity, the "one-grandmother-qualifies" Clause; for although at least one grandparent born in the United Kingdom is not the sole qualification in Clause 2, it is in a sense the crucial qualification. Certainly it is the qualification which typifies so many of the problems and contradictions that will flow from this Bill if we pass it in its present form.

We are told, "Surely it is right to admit to this country and to accept as belonging to it—as part of ourselves—those who have one or both parents, or one or both grandparents, born in this country". "Surely", we are asked, "that is a test of belonging?" But we are not applying that test of belonging consistently in this Bill. Here is an American citizen. He has one parent and four grandparents born in this country. He does not qualify. He is not patrial. Here is an Australian. It has been commonly assumed that Clause 2 is a provision which in some way takes account of what many of us feel—I amongst others, since it was Australia that gave me my first chance in life—to be the special relationship between this country and Australia and New Zealand. But when the Australians come to examine Clause 2 and what it does, I am afraid that gratification will be replaced by irritation.

Australia, in defining its own citizens, makes no difference between those who happen to have one grandparent born in this country and those who do not. Many of the most typical Australians, many of those Australians most bound by affection and loyalty to this country, of those Australians to whom, in that Australian term, this country is still "home", do not have even one grandparent who was born in this country. So the sheep who have at least one grandparent—a grandmother, perhaps—born in the United Kingdom will be separated at the point of entry, will be separated for purposes of their right of entry and residence in this country, from the goats, the rest of their Australian fellow citizens. I do not believe that that will be felt to be tolerable or just or reasonable.

The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South East has already referred to another aspect of the rule "One grandparent qualifies". It will be known to many hon. Members that the Indian Railways were almost entirely staffed by what were formerly called Eurasians and in latter days were called Anglo-Indians. There must be tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands even, amongst those former or present employees and their children, who have at least one grandparent who was born in this country. So what we are saying is: so great is the significance of one grandparent alone being born in this country that that entire class in Asia, not only in India and not only amongst the former employees of the Indian railways, shall be put in quite a different category from all their fellow citizens in the countries from which they come. Again, I cannot believe that this can stand. I cannot believe that this will be regarded as rational or acceptable.

The adjective "racialist" has gained a strange sort of currency in recent years and seems to wear all sorts of meanings. I have even once or twice heard it applied to myself. I accept that perhaps technically this is not a racialist provision—

Mr. Bidwell

The right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong.

Mr. Powell

Did the hon. Gentleman say my figures were wrong?

Mr. Bidwell rose—

Mr. Powell

The hon. Member can keep his seat, because whatever else I have been wrong about, I have not been wrong about the figures. I accept, with my right hon. Friend, that of course technically this provision is not racialist, since birth within the confines of the United Kingdom— citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by his birth in the United Kingdom as is stated in Clause 2(1)(c),—is not limited to those of European or Aryan—or whatever one likes to call it—race or descent. I accent that. Nevertheless, in difference from the right hon. Gentleman, I happen to believe that a provision which attaches such importance and significance to even one-quarter—one grandparent—born in this country, that it confers the right of residence, abode, free entry into this country, which is the normal badge of native citizenship, will be seen and felt to be racial.

In Nazi Germany there used to be the phrase, Grossmutter nicht in Ordnung, that is to say, "Grandmother not in order". It meant that, if there was one grandparent who was Jewish, whatever might be the other three quarters of a man's escutcheon, he would be subject to the restrictions, the discrimination and the persecution which were imposed upon that race. We, conversely, are saying that such is the magic of birth within this country that one quarter of such descent is sufficient to mark a man out from the rest of humanity and to make him one of us. I do not believe that such a notion, or, indeed, that legislation based upon such a notion, will appear tenable or will stand.

This basic approach of the Bill has other grave consequences which also in course of time will be felt to be intolerable. We are here defining a class who will have the privilege of entry and residence in this country. For all the rest, we say that they must undergo probation for a period of years, whether they be British subjects or aliens. Only at the end of that period of probation, as it were, will they be accepted either as residents without restriction or, if they apply for citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, as patrial. Yet within this category, which has to undergo that probation, one section will have the franchise in this country immediately, while the other will not. The alien, after five years, will have to make good not merely his allegiance and loyalty, which is right, but his adequate knowledge of English, which is right again, in order to exercise the full rights of citizenship in this country.

Will it be felt to be rational and tolerable that to those from the Commonwealth, to whom the same restrictions apply, and on whom the same requirements are imposed, as regards entry and as regards probation, we should say, "In your case, whether you know English or not, you vote immediately you come to this country"?

I do not believe—this comes back to basic citizenship again—that one can tear one aspect of citizenship apart from another and give people pieces of it. Citizenship is whole. The badges of citizenship are, equally, the franchise and the right of free entry and residence. To attempt—and the Bill emphasises it—to tear them apart will be self-defeating.

The extreme case here relates to the citizens of the Republic of Ireland, persons who protest with all their being and from all their history that they are not British subjects but are nevertheless in the United Kingdom accorded the franchise and treated as if they were such. I realise that is a matter largely outside the framework of the Bill, although I notice that there is in Clause 12 a provision, which I think right and necessary, which will enable the Government to impose control upon the land frontier of Northern Ireland. All the same, that is only an extreme instance of a general anomaly which will, I believe, turn out to be unacceptable in the long run—that to one set of people one half of citizenship is accorded and to the other set another half is accorded. I do not believe we can deal like that.

So although I sympathise with my right hon. Friend's aspiration to finality—an aspiration to finality has periodically through history been voiced from the Treasury Bench, though rarely fulfilled—I am convinced that we shall soon again have to legislate, and legislate fundamentally.

Mrs. Renée Short

The right hon. Gentleman referred to Clause 12, which, he said, related to closing the frontier with Eire. [HON. MEMBERS: "Clause 10."] I understood the right hon. Gentleman to refer to Clause 12, and that deals with appeals. His figures are always wrong.

Mr. Powell

if I was guilty of a slip of the tongue, I apologise to the House. I meant Clause 10, and it was to Clause 10 that I intended to refer. I give the hon. Lady the triumph to which she is entitled.

Contrary to what, I believe, is widely supposed outside, my right hon. Friend has made no claim that the Bill will reduce the rate of net immigration from the new Commonwealth into this country. Whoever may be under that delusion, it is not my right hon. Friend's fault. He has been scrupulously careful both in what has been said in the past and in what he said at the Dispatch Box this afternoon not to claim that there will be any diminution in net immigration from the new Commonwealth as a result.

Certainly, the provisions of the Bill will make it somewhat easier to prevent and to reverse illegal immigration. Certainly, they will somewhat improve the power of control over entry. Certainly—the right hon. Gentleman the former Home Secretary made this point good, and it is an important point—the Bill withdraws the statutory right of entry into this country for the dependants—wives and children up to 16—of new Commonwealth immigrants already resident here.

The right hon. Gentleman is quite correct in that, and he is correct also in saying that, without alteration of that entry, no substantial reduction in net immigration is practicable in the early future. That is why I am on record as saying that, with net immigration running at a rate of 40,000 a year, plus X for illegal entry—though I myself have never overestimated the value of X as a factor in the total—I do not believe we are any longer justified in maintaining that privilege. Still, it was a perfectly clear undertaking of the Conservative Party officially at the election, although I made equally clear personally that I disagreed with it for those reasons.

On the other hand, the effect of the patrial Clause will inevitably be to add a considerable number to the inflow of those from the new Commonwealth who would under present legislation have been counted as immigrants. So whatever be the significance of number in this matter, the Bill cannot be claimed, and is not claimed, to be likely to have any appreciable effect—certainly not a downward effect—upon the rate of net immigration.

However, net immigration, although 40,000 a year—approaching 500,000 in a decade—is not a detail, is not, as everyone knows, the heart of the problem either now or in the future. The only part of this Bill which relates, or can relate, to the true problem in the large is Clause 29, with the provisions for repatriation.

The provision of help for those who wish to avail themselves of it to return to their countries has been an element of Conservative Party policy for the last seven years, ever since my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary as leader made it an official part of the policy of the Conservative Party. My right hon. Friend does not believe that it has any important application. He said in his interview accompanying the presentation of the Bill, and repeated it substantially today: I do not believe that repatriation in practice can be on a substantial scale. I do not know what inquiry my right hon. Friend has made, upon which he bases that opinion. If he has made inquiry, if there are the results of research and inquiry behind that opinion, I respectfully submit to him that he should put them before the House.

I agree that there has been no serious or thorough examination of this question. It is one which those who concern themselves with race relations and carry out investigations, voluminous investigations, of all kinds—of all other kinds—have never thought fit to make. Yet it does so happen that the few superficial tests which have been taken lead to a very different conclusion. As long ago as 1968 a newspaper survey found upwards of 20 per cent. willing to accept assistance with voluntary repatriation; a survey, a very sketchy one, commissioned by the B.B.C. at the end of 1968, showed 38 per cent.; and hon. Members will have noticed that there was published in The Times a week or two ago the result of an investigation, also a very narrow investigation, which showed that 36 per cent. of young Indian immigrants, 27 per cent., I think it was, of West Indians, and 21 per cent. of Pakistanis look forward to re-emigration.

Mr. Roy Hattersley (Birmingham, Sparkbrook)

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the possibility that that figure might well be inflated by the constant reiterations that some people do not welcome them here?

Mr. Powell

Whatever the cause is, it is a serious matter how the Government form their view, and it is a serious matter for us to know what the grounds for their view are, about the scope for what has for seven years been an official part of the policy of this party.

I would be the first to admit that all those indications, and many other opinions which well-qualified people have expressed from time to time, are extremely superficial, but what I say to my right hon. Friend is that he has no justification for making the assumption with which he accompanied the publication of the Bill.

I would say more. Both from what he said then and from what he said today I believe there is a disposition to administer, as well as to draw, the provision in the Bill in a very restrictive manner. I have to tell him that if that were so, it would be at variance with what has been said to the country on behalf of this party over recent years. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Ipswich in 1967: Those immigrants and their families who wish to return home should be given every assistance to do so. At Walsall in January, 1969, describing problems of immigrants disappointed in their expectations of life in Britain, he said: They will wish to return to their countries of origin. We promise them generous assistance if they wish to do so. Nobody who listened to what the Conservative Party has said on this subject, both during the General Election and in the years before, could have supposed that there was any intention to limit the availability of assistance for any immigrant who voluntarily applied for it. Such a limitation would therefore in effect be a serious breach of what was understood to be the undertaking of this party when it went to the electorate. If my right hon. Friend administers these provisions in a restrictive manner, he will incur a grave responsibility.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North)

Will my right hon. Friend allow me—

Mr. Powell

I am about to finish; I have been speaking for a long time, and I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way. I wish to conclude precisely on that word "responsibility". Violent, bitter and personal though the differences of judgment may be in this House both about the nature and the future of the underlying problem, in this at any rate I believe we are at one, in recognising that what we do in legislation of this sort, in what we do on this whole matter, we are responsible not just for a Parliament, not just to the present, but to future generations.

It is my belief that in the aspect of this party's policy which finds its place in the Bill in Clause 29 there is a seed and germ of hope for the future. What I ask of my right hon. Friend and of the Government—I appeal to them—is not to tread down that seed and not to extinguish that hope. It is not I alone who appeal for this; it is the people of England themselves.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Bottomley (Middlesbrough, East)

The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) carries a heavy responsibility for this ill-considered Bill. We are witnessing a political manoeuvre, an exercise in public relations, to try to contain the pressures of the right hon. Gentleman.

In debates like this I have always associated the Home Secretary with the late Jain Macleod. But the right hon. Gentleman disappointed me today. I wonder whether we should have had this Bill if Iain Macleod had been in the Cabinet.

The Home Secretary has said that he wants the Bill to be definitive, and I believe him to be firm in his aspirations. But already he has heard from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that it is not to be so. When a lesser light becomes Conservative Home Secretary and the pressures are on the Tory Party, the country will be saddled with Powellism whether it likes it or not.

When my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in the last Administration said that there should be a Select Committee to consider race relations and immigration, and I learnt that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) was to be on the Commitee with me, I sought him out and suggested that together we should accept this challenge, that we should do everything possible to try to create a situation in which we could have good race relations, to study the facts and be objective. I am very glad to say that the other 14 members of the Committee shared those views. Together we worked first on the problem of the coloured school leavers, because upon the way in which we treat them, and how they act, depends whether we shall have good relations in the future.

That Committee, although having varying views and opinions, unanimously presented to the Government of the day 40 recommendations. The Government accepted them where they could, and where they were appropriate to other bodies, like the employers' organisations and the trade unions, the Government urged them to adopt the suggestions.

The Committee then went on to immigration controls. We were able to satisfy ourselves that they were working fairly and efficiently. Currently, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Ashford we are looking at the housing problem. That Committee had considerable expertise, because we went to tile countries concerned to see where the immigrants came from, as well as studying the problems with those technically knowledgeable and with the experts. One would have thought that the Select Committee might have been given an opportunity to express a view about the Bill.

It was the intention of the last Government that, at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference, there should be a talk about migration policy to see how evasions could be stopped and how we could bring about a system acceptable to the Commonwealth as a whole. The Commonwealth Secretariat might have been asked to establish some machinery to consider this and in due course give advice to the Government. I believe that if this had been done we would have had a Bill which could have been supported by the whole House.

We have to ask why we have this problem. It is because after the war we were short of labour and employers pressed the Government of the day to let in immigrant labour. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, whether he likes it or not, carries some responsibility in this respect. Our hospitals could not have been manned had we not recruited staff overseas. So we brought these people into our country to serve our purpose. I remember that, at the time, Mr. Norman Manley, that great Jamaican leader, protested that we were taking from his country skilled labour that was needed. Then, the West Indians, Asians and Africans, many of whom had helped us in the war, came again to help us overcome our economic ills. It is a poor reward to them to suggest that they should be treated as anything less than decent Commonwealth citizens.

I recall what happened at the turn of the century. We had an immigration problem then, with immigrants coming from Eastern Europe. Then, too, people expressed the same kind of views as are now expressed by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. But what did we find in the end? Those immigrants brought with them skills which added to the development of our country. To the city, the textile industry, the furniture trade and others they brought attributes which helped to make our country economically stronger than it might otherwise have been.

Do not let us despise the new immigrants. They have their contributions to make to the study, culture and accomplishments of this land. I give one illustration. The Select Committee visited a school in Wolverhampton. A class of about 20 boys was studying mathematics. Who were at the top of that class? The Asians. Asians are mathematically-minded and in this computer age we want that kind of skill. But it also had another effect. The British boys were so shocked to find that they were doing less well than their Asian colleagues that they put on a spurt and did even better. So again this new immigration influx can be beneficial to the country and should not be underrated.

The Select Committee is studying housing at the moment. In doing so, we realise the intolerable burden we place upon local authorities. In this city of Westminster last week, I went into a house where there was one room split into two. In part of it was a Welsh lady from Cardiff and her husband, a Pakistani. She is an informed girl—not one who can be dismissed easily. She as four children. Two of them are in Pakistan with grandparents and another is in Cardiff with grandparents. It is bad enough for her to have half a room in which to look after the child she has with her. She is denied the opportunity of looking after the other three children who she would love to have living with her. In the other half of the room were two beds shared by two men. The cooking facilities were in a corner of the room.

I say that this sort of thing is shocking. It would have been more worthy of the Government if they had remembered not only their election pledges but the pledges they made when in Opposition. I quote what the Conservative Shadow Cabinet said on 21st February, 1968: The Central Government must co-ordinate and be prepared to support financially special housing, welfare and educational programmes adminstered by the local authorities. If the Government had concentrated on that instead of bringing in this wretched Bill, they would have made a major contribution to the improvement of race relations.

The Home Secretary has explained that, when the Bill becomes law, the majority of newcomers to Britain will be non-patrial, with no right of settlement. They will have to register with the police and will require permission to do a specific job. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman got the same reply from his officials as the Select Committee did. I see the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) in his place. At a meeting with Home Office officials, he put a question about the work of the police in tracing sponsors and relatives of immigrants. The Home Office witness replies: All of us are reluctant to ask the police to do this work, both because of the heavy burden of work already on the police and because of our dislike of inquiries of this kind being made by police officers. Thus, evidence given to the Select Committee only a short time ago is now dismissed by the Government. I cannot believe that the officials have changed their minds. The Police Federation has not been asked about this. I have complained that the Committee was not consulted; at least the Police Federation might have been consulted.

To restrict immigrants to certain jobs is neither fair nor efficient. There is the difficulty of identifying the new immigrants, of distinguishing them from earlier immigrants. The system will not prevent evasion but in many ways will extend it. There will be attempts to evade the controls. Again I quote what the Home Office witness told the Committee. He said that such controls …would be costly to enforce and even then likely to be ineffective, and would be harmful to community relations. Right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the Marplan report in The Times recently. Marplan carried out a survey among young immigrants and the conclusions are very relevant to the Government's proposal for repatriation. Of the young Indian immigrants who were questioned, 36 per cent. were planning to return to their own country to make their careers there. So were 27 per cent. of the young West Indians and 21 per cent. of the young Pakistanis questioned. The survey also showed that only one immigrant among those not planning to go back at all would consider an assisted passage. So it is doubtful whether assisted repatriation would make much difference to the numbers returning to their countries of origin.

When estimating the future coloured population of Britain, it is important to remember the numbers who are going back home. The myth that immigrants still continue to arrive in overwhelming numbers is demolished by the official figures. They show, for example, that migration from Jamaica has gone into reverse and that ever-increasing numbers are leaving Britain. That the Bill is racist, I have no doubt. It gives preference to patrials and is biassed in favour of white people—allowing the Irish in has the same effect. By thinking coloured people in Britain, the Bill is seen as hypocritical. Many radical coloured people are disillusioned and beginning to lose faith with Parliament and other institutions.

The Times Marplan Survey confirmed that the seeds of a potentially dangerous racial situation exist in Handsworth and other parts of Birmingham where young West Indians were sampled. That is obvious from the extent to which they have already lost faith in fair treatment from the police, the courts and the Race Relations Board. The survey adds to growing evidence of the alienation of young West Indians in Handsworth and elsewhere.

That is why it is so important that there should be no innovation which increases that alienation. The word itself is significant. The Government's very proposals are to treat coloured immigrants as aliens when they seek work in this country. "Alienation" is thus to be written into the law. Thus Government action will contribute to alienation and insecurity and will have the effect of making the most lurid prophecies of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West come true.

It would be much more profitable to consider what line a positive community relations policy could take. I should like to take this opportunity as a past Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration to pay tribute to those devoted people who have done so much to try to promote racial harmony.

Of those who were questioned during the Marplan Survey, 27 per cent. of Indians, 31 per cent. of West Indians and 30 per cent. of Pakistanis thought that race relations in this country were getting better. The reason for this was thought to be mainly better understanding resulting from the host community becoming more accustomed to the immigrants' presence.

There is a healthy and significant and in some ways surprising number of young immigrants who recognise the tendency within their groups to exaggerate the discrimination which they suffer. The Times survey shows that the overwhelming majority of young immigrants interviewed were in favour of integration. We should do our best to encourage them. Unfortunately, more young immigrants questioned in the survey believed that race relations were getting worse than who believed that they were improving. An overwhelming number blamed the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West as being the biggest single reason for this.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about the need to protect those born in this country for the future. Does he think that by encouraging this racial enmity, as he does by his speeches, he is making it more likely that in future immigrants will feel friendly towards the bulk of the people? Does he think that he will encourage the creation of harmony?

It is not this country alone. The world position is changing. White supremacy is here no longer. The coloured peoples are building up their economic standards and seeking security and they want to play their part in world affairs. On how we treat the coloured people today depends how they treat our children in future.

For that reason, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West does a disservice to his own cause. I hope that many hon. Members opposite tonight, if they cannot vote against the Bill, will at least have the courage of their convictions and abstain.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. John Hunt (Bromley)

I start by applauding the admirably moderate and sensible speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but also by taking issue with him on one major matter. It is my belief that the first priority in the debate is to strip away the pretence and the illusion which in part my right hon. Friend helped to foster, the pretence that the Bill is not racially discriminatory and the illusion that somehow this will not be noticed by coloured people in this country and overseas.

Whether we use the words "new Commonwealth", "tropical", or "non-pa trial", what we mean is those born with black or brown faces. It will enhance the honesty and credibility of our debate if that fact is freely and frankly acknowledged from the start. It is possible in some circumstances to justify control of immigration on a racial basis. What cannot possibly be justified is the euphemistic pretence that nothing is further from one's mind than discrimination of this kind.

This is not the first immigration Bill to be based on a deliberate policy of racial discrimination. The 1968 Act, which was introduced and implemented by the Labour Government, was a particularly blatant example of that, and it was made worse by the cynical breaking of Britain's word to those Asians in East Africa who had acquired United Kingdom passports. While I have the greatest respect for Labour Members who have been thoroughly consistent in these matters, I have some feeling of contempt for those who, having supported the 1968 Act, now hurl accusations of racialism at my right hon. Friend.

At this point let me make it clear that I give my general support to the Bill, because there is an important distinction between the Bill and the 1968 Act, which I opposed. One important distinction is that in the Bill there is no question of Britain breaking her word. The rights of immigrants already here will be virtually unaffected. Everyone has had clear and ample notice of the Government's intentions and in future immigrants will know in advance the conditions attached to their stay in this country.

The Bill has its origins in the election manifestos of our party, not only in the last election but in the 1966 election, when we foreshadowed a conditional entry system. In the 1970 manifesto we pledged that our policies would ensure that there would be no further large-scale permanent immigration. Those who have followed the figures know that the trend of immigration over recent years has been steadily downwards. The number admitted for settlement in 1970 was, with the exception of the East African Asians, less than 30,000. That is to be compared with 53,000 in 1968 and no fewer than 136,000 in 1961. The fall has been sharp and I see from the figures that it is continuing.

But an important fact which has to be grasped is that the argument is not only statistical but psychological, that it is a question of immigration not only being effectively checked but being seen to be effectively checked. That is why it is important to realise that the provisions of the Bill for conditional entry and, most important, for tightening control of illegal entry are important not so much for the net reduction in numbers which will result as for the reassurance which the measures will bring to those, particularly in our large cities, who feel themselves in danger of being swamped and overwhelmed.

Happily in many ways there are signs that this is already a receding fear. Perhaps this explains the somewhat significant change of tactics in what I would loosely call the "Anti-Immigrant Lobby". Talk is not now so much of the new numbers coming in but of horrific projections of future coloured populations based, in my view, on calculations often hypothetical and misleading.

This leads me to deal specifically with the question of repatriation. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), I was particularly pleased to hear the references which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made to repatriation in his statement on First Reading and echoed in his words today. He went on record as stating quite clearly that in his view repatriation could never be on a substantial scale and that any attempt to achieve it might in itself be damaging to community relations. I applaud and support that view.

It is important to remember that last year fewer than 150 people were voluntarily repatriated from Britain. It is a dangerous delusion to imagine that any significant number of immigrants will be likely to respond to an offer of assisted repatriation. Why should they? They came here, leaving the warmth and sunshine of their homelands for precisely the same reason as so many of our fellow countrymen go to Australia, Canada and New Zealand—to seek a better life for themselves and their families. They were responding to the very same free market forces as in every other context my hon. and right hon. Friends seem so anxious to encourage. Even with the offer of£1,000 or£2,000 to return to their homelands, I believe that they are unlikely to return to countries where the annual income is£30 per head, when they are earning£30 a week or more in the factories of Bradford and other parts of the country.

There are two specific points of detail in the Bill which cause me concern. First, I should like to add my voice to those which have been urging the Home Secretary to think again about requiring new immigrants to register with the police. There has been almost unanimous opposition to this proposal—

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)

No.

Mr. Hunt

We have not heard many views to the contrary so far. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have an opportunity. From the evidence so far it seems that most people would agree that it is undesirable that registration should be with the police. Indeed the Police Federation also shares that view. We have to remember that many immigrants will live in close, compact communities and that they would feel embarrassed about reporting to a police station in the way envisaged in the Bill, even if it is only once a year.

Mr. Percy Grieve (Solihull)

Accepting for one moment that the registration proposals of themselves are valid and acceptable, does my hon. Friend think that any other Ministry or Department is more apt to accept registration than the police?

Mr. Hunt

I would accept either the Employment Exchanges or the suggestion made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), namely, the Department of Health and Social Security. Either of these alternatives should be considered. There is the additional alternative, registering at the town hall. Any of these would be preferable to the suggestion of registration with the police.

On the question of deportation, I do not in any way quarrel with our right to deport those who abuse our hospitality by indulging in criminal activities. I am sure that it is in the best interests of community relations as a whole for these people to be sent home. One aspect which disturbs me is the proposal to ensure that when a man is deported, his wife and children under 18 should go with him. I ask the Home Secretary to be flexible with this provision. We should remember that with West Indian families it is often the mother who is the dominant figure in the household. She is likely to have a greater influence over the family than the father. If the father goes off the rails, it is unfair to deport mother and children when she may very well be capable of maintaining a home for herself and her children.

Mr. Nicholas Scott (Paddington, South)

Perhaps my hon. Friend would consider the situation in which a husband may have gone off the rails and the wife has left the matrimonial home and set up a home elsewhere with the children. She may be living a respectable life, and in those circumstances it would be unfair that she should be liable for deportation.

Mr. Hunt

I support that view and my hon. Friend's apprehension. I hope that that will induce the Government to think again about the proposal.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas (Chelmsford)

Quite apart from the practical argument, is it not a blatant example of sex discrimination? Why should a woman be made responsible for the crimes of her husband? Will not the net result of this be that the Home Secretary will have the Women's Liberation Front upon him?

Mr. Hunt

I know my hon. Friend's interests in sexual matters but I do not want to be diverted at this point. Providing the Bill is administered with sympathy and humanity, it can make a contribution to better race relations by allaying the fears of white people and thereby improving the climate in which so many black people have to live and work.

It is, as the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) said, already possible to detect some improvement in the race relations climate in spite of all the strains and tensions of recent years. Coloured staff are now being accepted almost without question and notice in retail stores and offices throughout the country. Slowly but surely we are all becoming colour blind. I have always maintained that the best cure for a racialist is to be confined, just for a week or two, in one of our hospitals and to be tended by a young nurse from Jamaica or Guyana. Such people find that their prejudices and misconceptions about coloured people melt and mellow amid the care and compassion given by the coloured nurses.

My final and fervent hope, and here I share the expectation of the Home Secretary, is that this Bill will be the last of its kind to be placed before the House for many years. I believe that it will succeed in its aim of controlling and containing the problem of coloured immigrants. I hope that from now on Parliament and politicians alike will devote their energies to more constructive tasks, to the building of bridges rather than to the construction of check-points and control posts. There is no doubt in my mind that the poison of race hatred can undermine and infect the very fabric of our national life and of our nation. Therefore, I beg my right hon. Friend to ensure that the standard of tolerance and decency for which he is rightly known and respected will be reflected in his implementation of this regrettably restrictive, but undeniably necessary Bill.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)

I sought to intervene in the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to challenge his statement that he had been called a racialist only once or twice. In fact, he has been called a racialist on a much greater number of times.

I paid rapt attention throughout his speech, but it was only in his concluding remarks that he turned, in a fundamental way, to the theme which he first expressed in demagogic speeches outside the House but seldom expresses in speeches inside the House. Whatever we might say about this quaint old place, we cannot get away with demagogy, or lurid stories about wide-grinning piccanninies or human excreta through the letter boxes, because that is now old hat and racialist folk-lore piffle, and the whole nation realises it. To give some credibility to his very long speech, the right hon. Gentleman had to make fun of the Bill which, as has been pointed out from this side of the House, panders to his ideas.

I read today's leading article in The Times—the paper for the top people which is still paid considerable attention, perhaps more than the Morning Star. The opening sentence of the article states: The question before the House of Commons today when it debates the second reading of the Immigration Bill is in effect whether this Measure is a harmless political gesture or one with dangers. That assessment of the Bill is correct. But what a question to be occupying the time of the House! The Bill is not concerned with citizenship which, admittedly, needs to be looked into. The question of uniting the two means of assessing rights of people who have come to work in this country under alien terms or Commonwealth terms is in the melting pot and needs to be considered.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) was formerly Chairman and is now Vice-Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration which is doing and will continue to do later this week hard work on the question of housing for immigrants. This is precisely the kind of all-party discussion and expert examination which, if it had proceeded along the lines logically set by the Labour Government, would eventually have produced sensible proposals whereby there would have been modification and changes made. I have not lost all hope of that, although I freely describe the Bill as nasty and dangerous and, on the premise of much of what has been said by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, needlessly foolish at this time. We have not yet entered the Common Market or wound up the Commonwealth.

I tried to find the word "patrial" in a dictionary which I have at home, but I could not do so. I then looked for it in dictionaries in the Library of the House. Eventually the staff found it for me. The literal definition of "patrial" is "a native of one's country". How one can stretch that to mean a relationship with a grandchild, I do not know. I shall try to show later why use of this word is extremely foolish. I thought that it might be what I have described as "a bit of Hogg-wash". The Lord Chancellor, who led for the Opposition when the Labour Party was in office, expressed himself from time to time as being apprehensive about the restrictions which he considered to be needless on people who came from Australia, New Zealand and Canada. He told us a story about an Australian actress friend and he seemed to be upset by the fact that certain restrictions had been imposed on her and that she had had to go out of the country after a six-months visit.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) explained, it is absolute nonsense that the grandchildren of people born here, who may be deported under the new arrangements because it is considered that they are guilty of some misdeed which warrants deportation, will eventually have the right of absolutely free entry to the United Kingdom without establishing that they have a job to come to.

The Government have got themselves into a horrible mess by trying to bend to the pressures of what has become amorphously known in the Tory Party and in the country as "Powellism". Although it is receding, it still exists. As the Member for Southall with a huge concentration of people from, in the main, the Punjab, I never lose an opportunity to talk about the wonderful way in which the bulk of the indigenous population in areas like mine has responded to the challenge. But it has not been done without headaches and tears. It has not been done without bitterness in large areas of terraced housing where people have to live close to each other and where there is overcrowding, not simply in individual households but in areas. Only a very few people are able to buy or rent a house. However, as time goes on, that situation must improve.

I do not wish to keep from the House the anxieties of people bred and born in these areas on matters about which we were very apprehensive in 1962 when my hon. Friends tended to take a starry-eyed view. I was not then a Member. There was some substance in the opposition because it involved the Irish question. Many people, not being so experienced as they are now, saw this as a colour discrimination.

One has to consider how the Bill will work. My right hon. Friend the Member or Middlesbrough, East referred to the work of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. One of the most profound things that was said in the Select Committee's initial report about the coloured school leavers was that the onus for meeting the challenge of the coloured youngster was on the indigenous population. Our problems have to be measured by that simple assertion. The bulk of the community, the host community as it is described, has to set up the conditions under which coloured people can live happily. The dangers arise not with the aliens or the white immigrants but with the coloured people—they are the people who are fearful. There is now a new generation of young coloured people walking our streets. They are got at by Black Power, which is an import from America, but it is not accepted by most intelligent coloured people. Indian youngsters do not regard themselves as coloured, and it is difficult to tell the difference between young Indians with light skins, who sometimes have Cockney or "Brummagem" accents, and our indigenous youngsters. These are the people we are talking about and it is to them that we must relate the provisions of the Bill about police powers.

I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt). He has stood steadfastly on the concept of equality of opportunity, and his record outside the House in this regard shows how actively concerned he is. I am sad to hear him say that he intends to vote for the Bill in spite of his reservations about it. The hon. Member for Bromley did not like the idea of extending police powers. If police powers are extended, who will do the policing? Will it be the traffic wardens? It is no accident that the police gibbed at this long before the Bill was in preparation.

The Bill flies in the face of the evidence before the Select Committee. During the debate on the extension of the Select Committee system I pleaded with the Leader of the House to convey to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary my anxiety that the Government should rethink the necessity to deal with this matter in Bill form. I said that it was putting the cart before the horse. If the Select Committee had been set up again it could have looked at alien immigration and advised the Home Secretary on the substantive difference between the normal pattern of alien immigration and Commonwealth immigration.

In our studies we saw that in Bedford there was a considerable Italian population and that there were disappointments within that community about citizens' rights. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said, aliens and single people without family responsibilities come to these shores with work permits on a short-term basis. Many of them are brought into this country by foreign firms, and every weekend they go back to their country of origin on a commuter basis. This is a very different pattern.

The Bill does not mean that one day we shall not have a single system of work permits and honour the right of children to join the breadwinner on the freest possible terms. It does not mean that we shall not liberalise the alien terms of entry and that we shall not extend citizens' rights in a much shorter period than under the present aliens law. By the same token, it is not off the cards that we shall tidy up and dispense with the labour voucher system and achieve unification, so that the two categories are brought together in the best possible way.

There could never be absolutely free entry into Britain, but there is a distinct difference between the terms of entry of coloured immigrants and white immigrants, and the Bill does nothing to alleviate the fears of the coloured immigrants. I am glad that so many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. It shows a unanimity of opposition in the Labour ranks which I welcome.

I welcome the assurances given by the Home Secretary that he will keep an open mind on this problem and look carefully at any Amendments. It may be that in the end we shall make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I hope that the Standing Committee will consist of experts. Many hon. Members have greater experience than the civil servants in the Home Office on these matters, although I commend their rejection of these ideas when they were giving evidence before the Select Committee. We may in the end produce a Bill which is worthy of the British people and of their belief that all citizens must be treated alike, regardless of colour, and that this must apply also to those who enter Britain.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes (Ashford)

The Bill is having a rough ride. I share the view of the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) that we shall have an interesting Committee stage. Some of the things that I heard said today took me back nine years—to 1962. I must also add that I remember who was right on that occasion. I do not share the views expressed by the former Home Secretary or by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I believe that the Bill will be more far-reaching in its effects than has yet been suggested. By discouraging settlement it will discourage entry. It may well create conditions—and this is already being said in criticism by some people—in which some immigrants will prefer to leave rather than to remain here.

I say bluntly that I regard this as a restrictive Bill. I believe that a mistake is being made in trying to generalise about repatriation. The Pakistanis, the Indians, and those from the Caribbean will all have differing views about the subject, and will all act differently. Polls which do not distinguish clearly the intentions of immigrants from these respective countries will be wrong. Whatever the Home Secretary's intentions may be, in my opinion the number of immigrants who will seek repatriation will be higher than the House now supposes.

Assuming that I am right, it is fair to question some aspects of the Opposition's attitude today. From the time, in 1964, when the Opposition first became acquainted with the facts—and all credit to them for this—they pursued progressively more restrictive policies. The White Paper of 1965 was the starting point of an effective immigration policy. The 1962 Measure certainly was not. The Act of 1968, which produced the entry certificate in 1969, came after that.

In my view, the then Government were absolutely right. They pursued these policies not simply in the interests of this country but in the interests of community relations and the immigrants themselves. If the Opposition accept my view that this is a more restrictive Measure than some think, they will also see it as being not inconsistent with the policies which they pursued in those years.

But the justification for the Bill does not lie in what the Opposition did or did not do when in Government—or even in the election pledges. The Bill stands or falls by the assertion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—repeated here today—that yet tighter immigration policies are needed if we are successfully to concentrate on the urgent problems now facing us. That is as much in the immigrants' interests as in our own. I see that as the crux of the matter.

In terms of what is being done in areas where most immigrants have settled, we are taking much too much for granted. I am not speaking about the fears that exist among the members of our population. I do not propose to discuss them; they are not immediately important. I am talking about facts, and what is actually being done in the areas where most immigrants have settled. There is far too little realisation of the stresses and strains that large concentrations of immigrants are still imposing in these areas. Whether or not hon. Members agree with me, I totally reject the fallacious and, I think, dangerous conventional wisdom propagated by some, that the presence of immigrants is only one facet in the overall cycle of deprivation, inadequate housing, social neglect, and so on. If we believe that, we shall fail to solve some of the problems facing us. It is not true, and it is self-deception to pretend, that the presence of immigrants—particularly the younger ones—does not give rise to certain urgent social problems, which must be met. These problems arise particularly in respect of houses and schools.

We have over-persuaded ourselves—or have been over-persuaded—that such recognition is so inimical to community relations that we should not even quantify the problem. I am alarmed by the total ignorance that exists among local authorities of the extent of the problem that they have on their hands. Many have convinced themselves that it is totally wrong to keep separate figures which will enable them to know the extent of the problem. It has become contrary to public policy to know and state the facts. That is a very dangerous situation—dangerous to us, dangerous to community relations and, above all, dangerous to the immigrant—because it leads us grossly to under-rate what needs to be done.

I am thinking particularly of what we call the second generation. It seems insufficiently grasped, in the context of the Bill, that more new immigrant babies were born last year in this country than the total number of new immigrants. No fewer than 51,000 Commonwealth babies were born—10,000 from mixed unions—against a total of under 30,000 immigrants. We are entering a new sphere, where the young become very important. The number of Commonwealth babies born last year was nearly double the number of dependants who entered.

Those who lament the restrictive effects of the Bill should more completely inform themselves of the social duties that are now being imposed upon—the load that is now rightly being carried by—those cities where the immigrants have settled. I grow impatient with some theorists on race relations who forever accuse local authorities of complacency, neglect, and even discrimination. I share the views of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) in paying tribute to the many public servants in local authorities who fulfil the thankless task involved in meeting the consequences of policies of successive Governments—policies for which they were not responsible. It is they who are having to meet the consequences of policies pursued by successive governments. The thankless task that they are fulfilling should be acknowledged. Fewer ignorant criticisms should be made of some of their activities.

Dr. M. S. Miller (Glasgow, Kelvingrove)

Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the babies to whom he has referred, born in this country, are immigrants? Surely they are British citizens. If they are British citizens, it is up to us, as other British citizens, to make the going for them. It is not for them to have to prove anything to us.

Mr. Deedes

The hon. Member leads into my next remark. Although we lack facts about the situation—and we are deliberately keeping the facts from ourselves—we can form certain impressions. My impression is that we are not keeping abreast of the social needs which past policies have created. I give only one example of what I mean. The number of immigrant children of below school entry age is large, and increasing. This is the second generation, in which we repose many hopes—and many of that generation rightly repose great hopes in themselves.

How many of these children—the Asian children in particular—will be handicapped in the early stages, or even throughout their education, by the language barrier? Hon. Members would be shocked and surprised to know how many of these children are disadvantaged by the language barrier. How many of these children, including 10,000 last year, from mixed marriages—I use that term because it is likely to mean an unstable association, and the children of such union may themselves be unstable—will be handicapped in their schooling?

How far have we shaped our educational framework to cope with the problems that are arising? The Department of Education and Science has taken care to blur the figures and has brought in a rule which precludes our knowing how many we are dealing with, but it is at least clear that the problem is much more serious than it was five years ago.

An immense challenge to nursery schools and day nurseries, to every kind of institution for children before school entry, is being presented but it not being met, and we are not providing the means to meet it. In the decade before us, that spells trouble and perhaps a large number of tragedies.

I urge hon. Gentlemen, in considering the Bill, which probably has more restrictive consequences than many now suppose, not to allow themselves or others to push their heads into the sand concerning the facts.

I venture to say that the Home Secretary will do well to accompany the Bill with a fresh appraisal of the task which confronts us here and now. The world, which is so apt to be critical of what we fail to do, should know more about it. My right hon. Friend should assert to his Ministerial colleagues and to the local authorities that to know and to state the facts is not racist—it is absolutely essential—provided that proper social provision is made. To conceal those facts is folly.

My right hon. Friend rightly feels that the main debt which we owe is to those now here. I understand that that is the spirit behind the Bill. My right hon. Friend should reject the thinking of some race relations professionals that if our own population were to know how big that debt is, they would repudiate and reject it. I do not believe that they would. However, the people of this country will not forgive a Government who conceal these facts. My right hon. Friend should, therefore, take steps to ensure that the forthcoming census provides us with a more adequate basis of knowledge than its disastrous predecessor in 1966.

The Bill will give my right hon. Friend and ourselves a breathing space—a chance to get to grips with the formidable task which we now have. My right hon. Friend should bear in mind that for many here and now, especially the youngest among them, it will be our last chance.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has managed to make his speech, despite an intervention, in twelve minutes. I hope that that example will be followed by other hon. Members.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Peter Shore (Stepney)

I say straight away to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) that I do not think that anyone on this side of the House—certainly not right hon. and hon. Members representing areas of stress due to concentrations of immigrants—has any tendency to minimise or underestimate the scale of the problem and the need for the Government to assist local authorities and others to meet the problems which undoubtedly arise. If this is the right hon. Gentleman's major concern, and if he is going to urge on his right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that they should put more money and resources into educational priority areas, housing priority areas and the urban programme which my right hon. Friends pushed forward three years ago, he will get the full support of right hon. and hon. Members on this side.

I speak as a Member for a constituency which has overcrowding, congestion and a substantial immigrant community faced with all the problems which confront us. But, having said that, if the right hon. Gentleman imagines that the Bill will ease the situation by acting more tightly upon new immigrants, then he is deceiving himself. The right hon. Gentleman is the first victim. The Home Secretary has bagged or shot his first fox, or whatever one does; he has got his first man tonight.

For the rest, the Home Secretary must have been very disappointed. The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to convince a large number of hon. Members about various features of the Bill, but they have not been convinced at all.

I remind the Under-Secretary of State of what the Home Secretary has set out, or so he told us, to achieve in the Bill. The Home Secretary has said that he wants to improve community relations. I shall have a few words to say about that later. The Home Secretary has said that he wants to provide a logical, definitive and lasting solution to the problems of immigration into this country not just for now but stretching out into the future. I shall deal with that point, too, in a few moments. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he wanted to remove the fear of mass immigration again into Britain.

I start with the last of those purposes first: to stop the fear of mass immigration. It is not an unworthy aim. If people are still worried and do not know what the right hon. Member for Ashford already knows—that effective control was first instituted in 1965 by the Labour Government—and if there is a need for the Bill, then let them be told that the Government intend to have firm control. I shall not object to firm control.

The Home Secretary did not convince his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), because it was he and others who spoke who began to bring to our minds a picture of millions of people who would qualify for admission without any restriction on numbers or on work permits under the new patrial Clause. The Home Secretary was not very successful in allaying that anxiety.

I turn now to the Home Secretary's desire to improve community relations as the first and foremost purpose. The right hon. Gentleman has been in great difficulty on this point, for very good reason. Indeed, in his opening speech the Home Secretary had to correct a major misprint or error in the draft Immigration Rules which accompanied the Bill. I hope that the Under-Secretary will pass on to the right hon. Gentleman that I believe that he has done a lot of damage already in the bungling way in which he has handled the Bill. If what the Home Secretary said today is true, if it is true that he is not imposing new conditions which will undermine the rights and the status of people already in this country, then he has bungled his public relations in a way which should make him feel ashamed and which will undoubtedly have bad consequences in this country.

When we think about it, there is an obvious explanation why there is so much confusion. We have had a Bill and two documents describing methods of control. We had those ten days ago. Since then we have done our best to understand the Bill and its complicated provisions. But there was no White Paper, no statement of principle or purpose, and no argument presented to the House so that we could consider and see whether the major problems and issues were being dealt with and argued thoroughly. All we had was a pretty thin speech, thin philosophy, from the Home Secretary this afternoon. If people in the immigrant communities are worried, as I know them to be worried, then the Home Secretary has a duty to make a serious effort to communicate the truth about the Bill if his intention is so beneficient as he told us earlier today.

I could develop at great length and in considerable detail the anxieties which I know are felt in the immigrant communities in this country over various provisions in the Bill. The only reason I refrain from doing so is that I wish to turn, in the few minutes which I am trying to set for myself, to one or two major issues which seem to me also to be unanswered.

I said that the Home Secretary had set himself one other objective—to provide a logical, definitive and lasting solution. How does the right hon. Gentleman set about it? The Home Secretary has gone about the logic by saying that in future there shall be different categories of people concerning the right of entry into this country. Whereas today there are Commonwealth citizens and aliens, tomorrow there will be aliens and patrials.

The attempts to definie what is patrial has led the right hon. Gentleman already to be attacked, and in a sense effectively attacked, by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. But I simply do not think that one hon. Member who heard the Home Secretary believes that he has established a logical, convincing and coherent definition of what is patrial and why patrial should be. Nor do we even know with any certainty to whom it will apply.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) put down a Question on Friday to ask the Home Secretary about Rhodesia. Rhodesia is not part of the Commonwealth, but I understand that 150,000 to 200,000 Rhodesians are patrials under the Bill—

Miss Joan Lestor (Eton and Slough)

White Rhodesians.

Mr. Shore

Yes, white Rhodesians. It may be that there are millions of people in South Africa, which again is not a Commonwealth country, or in the United States, who are also eligible as patrials to come to this country and to exercise all the rights of citizenship. Am I right in thinking that? If I am, I find it an extraordinary doctrine—more extraordinary, frankly, than the certain amount of sentiment which we feel about such Commonwealth countries as Australia, Canada and New Zealand. As the Home Secretary himself said, we already accept that the children of British citizens who went there should be allowed to come into Britain. Clearly the Home Secretary has not made his point—

Sir Frederic Bennett (Torquay)

Rhodesia is a Crown Colony.

Mr. Shore

My only other point in relation to whether this is a lasting solution is to draw the attention of the House to an extraordinary omission in the whole discussion of the Bill so far. As I read the Bill, it is almost certainly in contradiction of the obligations which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is seeking to impose upon himself and the nation in his negotiations to join the Common Market.

It is an extraordinary thing that we should be discussing who shall have access to Britain and under what terms, that the Government are saying that they hope to have found a permanent solution which will close the door certainly to the new Commonwealth in future, with the most stringent controls, while at the same time they are committed to signing a treaty which will open the door to 180 million Europeans who will be able, under the regulations and the articles which have been agreed, to have access to the labour market of this country on conditions which are far more favourable than those available under the Bill.

The Government must know that if they succeed in their endeavour to join the Common Market, they will have to change this Bill—first, because there has to be no limit on the specification of the job to which a particular person comes within the Community, second because there has to be no limit on his wife and family who may accompany him, third because the children rule is at age 21 and not 18, and, fourth, because it expressly provides that a person who enters this country on a temporary work permit must have a permit which runs for not less than five years.

How the right hon. Gentleman can reconcile provisions of their Bill with those obligations, which he knows about but which he has refrained from telling the House about, which his colleagues are negotiating for and will impose upon themselves, I do not know. I do not know how he manages to justify such extraordinary behaviour. If I am wrong in these facts, I shall be only too pleased if the Home Secretary or the Minister of State will kindly correct me later.

But otherwise, I hope that the Home Secretary will look at this matter very carefully and consider whether there is any sense in proceeding with a Bill which appears to have few friends even on the right hon. Gentleman's own side of the House and virtually none on this side, and which he knows quite well cannot provide that lasting framework for the future of immigration which he has set out to achieve.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden (Birmingham, Selly Oak)

The previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) made an excellent job of his opposition to the Bill, but left us with the option of believing him or my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on many of these points. I certainly accept what my right hon. Friend said. I thought that he made a very sincere and constructive speech.

Hon. Members opposite have clearly forgotten the debates which we had in 1962. This is a repetition of all we heard then—opposition to the first Immigration Bill, completely voting against all its provisions in Committee. Then, when hon. and right hon. Gentlemen came to power, they accepted the whole of that Bill. Here we are again, doing exactly the same thing. This amounts to hypocrisy. All the old charges of racial hatred and of the futility of trying to control immigration are now coming out again.

Whatever we might say on either side, the problem has been recognised broadly throughout the country as one of numbers. If the thousands we talk about had indeed been hundreds, there would have been no story to tell. It is because the Government have recognised that neither party has solved the problem that we still need the Bill.

We have the lesson of America. We know that no other country has faced an immigration problem at all comparable with our own. We have over-crowding to the extent that we have about 1,000 people to the square mile—compared with the other extreme, Australia, where there are only four people to the square mile.

We have an unemployment problem larger than we would care to see. It certainly means that every immigrant is a competitor for the jobs which become available. We must always bear this in mind when we talk about unemployment figures. Although there may be serious unemployment problems in some of the under-developed countries, which we would all like to help, we should recognise that we should try to solve our own problems first. If there is any preferential treatment, some of us think that it should be for our own nationals.

We now seem to be broadly agreed that the matter is a problem of numbers. I was challenged by the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln (Mr. Taverne) the other night on the "24 Hours" programme, when I said that the number of immigrants we were talking about was in the region of 50,000, because I admit I included an imaginary number of illegal immigrants. I took that figure from the former Sir Frank Soskice—now the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill—who said that he thought the figure of illegal immigrants was of the order of 10,000. I accept that my figure of 50,000 could be an exaggerated figure, but the figure for 1970 as recorded in HANSARD was 36,725, to which we must add the figure for illegal immigrants. Therefore, when the hon. and learned Member for Lincoln after challenging me then said that the figure was only 15,000, one can see how acute exaggeration can be.

I support this Bill wholly and in every respect. I admit that it does not go far enough for me. There are some things I should like to see improved. Nevertheless, this was a statement which had been made to the country, and the country announced its decision in the ballot box last June. To that extent the Government had a responsibility to bring this Bill before the House.

The provisions in regard to a specific job in a specific place are most important to Members of Parliament like myself in the Midlands. We in Birmingham and surrounding towns know only too well that we have wide support in our wish for stronger immigration control, though there are many Members of Parliament who do not have a problem in their constituencies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has done a great service by bringing this matter to the attention of the House.

In regard to criticisms which have been made about the police check, I have yet to meet a policeman who objects to doing this job. Mostly they feel that they have had no problem in checking upon aliens. Aliens have accepted it, and why should not other immigrants?

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Acton)

The hon. Member has said that police have not objected to checks. Has he asked any policemen whether he would object to checking on Commonwealth citizens?

Mr. Gurden

Yes, I have and no policeman I have met has had any objection. If there is a misunderstanding among immigrants as to what a policeman really means when he is simply there to carry out the law and to make checks, this is too bad. The immigrants must understand, as I believe they largely do understand, that a policeman is not there to carry out racial hatred. There may well be some desirable Amendments made to this Bill at a later stage, but for the most part those of us with an immigration problem in our constituencies certainly welcome this Measure.

There is a danger, having heard the speech of the right hon. Member for Cardiff. South-East, that the House may be divided on some of the Amendments which might come forward in Committee and on Report. All of us on this side of the House fought the last election on policy which was clearly set out in Conservative Party propaganda. The matter of immigration was included, and every hon. Member on this side of the House should carry part of the responsibility.

If there is any charge to be made against any Government and any country on the question of racial discrimination or immigration laws, people should not look to England. They should turn their eyes to look at countries like Kenya, which has turned out people for no other reason than that they were not born in Kenya. The same sort of principles apply to Nigeria and other countries. If countries—including the developing countries—were as generous to immigrants and aliens as we are, there would not be much wrong with them.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles)

To put the matter bluntly, I and my colleagues regard this Bill as dishonest for the reason that it was based on the dishonest statement in the Conservative Party Manifesto at the last General Election that there would be no further large-scale permanent immigration. Having listened to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) outlining the steps which were taken right up to the time of the last election on the control of immigration, it was obvious to anybody who knew the facts that there was not in June last year any large-scale permanent immigration. It was already under firm control. Nevertheless, this statement was made in the Conservative Manifesto and the Government obviously feel bound to act upon it now. Hence, the basic dishonesty behind the Bill.

The Government have not even carried out the pledge which was apparently given in the manifesto. The patrial Clause opens the door to an ill-defined number of people coming into this country on a large scale, and permanently if they so wish. I have been given the figure of l¼ million such persons in the subcontinent of India. Certainly the number who emigrated to this country between 1959 and 1967 amounted to 2 million. There will be no dispute that they should he allowed back should they wish. But once one extends this to the parental and grand-parental Clauses, one gets into a situation where a 1-year-old female child who emigrated with its parents in the year 1821, 150 years ago, could be the grandmother of somebody today claiming entry under the patrial Clause. What estimates did the Government make, before laying the Bill, of the number of such persons throughout the world who could qualify for entry under the new open-door system of large-scale permanent immigration into this country?

If we contrast that remote ancestry of 150 years ago with somebody who for over two generations has been involved in the citizenship and livelihood of a country like Australia, and think of the position of a person who holds a United Kingdom passport but who lives with no other citizenship, say, in East Africa, we realise the racial contrast which exists under this legislation. It is clearly racialist and it is also clearly ineffective. What will happen if, to use the phrase used by the Lord Chancellor, there were a "run on the bank"—a phrase of which we heard so much during the Kenya-Asians legislation? Supposing a certain political situation developed in any country where a large number of patrials lived. Are we to have a complete open door as is suggested in the basic part of this legislation?

The second misconception about the Bill was repeated by the Home Secretary today and was included in his Press conference, namely, that the Bill would not affect the lives of people who were already here for permanent settlement. On examination, this statement is not correct. Such persons become subject to the new deportation Clauses of the legislation, and the deportation Clause affecting members of the family is particularly objectionable. But most important, whether they like it or not, they become affected by the proposals for registration with with the police. Although the Home Secretary might say that at the moment the police do not go around stopping people in the streets and asking if they are illegal immigrants, the problem of the illegal immigrant is minute as compared with the situation which will exist in five years' time when we have large numbers of patrials in this country and also a large number of non-patrials who will have come in and who by that time will be maintaining a legal livelihood.

How is one to state the difference between the two classes of immigrants when one meets them face to face; when they are involved in a parking offence or a brawl outside a pub? We have to consider that situation in conjunction with Clause 3(8), which states: When any question arises under this Act whether or not a person is patrial, or is entitled to any exemption under this Act, it shall lie on the person asserting it to prove that he is. One can see very considerable opportunity there for friction between the immigrant communities and the police, and that is why I believe the Secretary of the Police Federation has himself indicated that the police are reluctant to get involved in this sort of exercise.

The plain fact is that the Bill involves a substantial reduction in civil liberties for a great many people and does not carry out the promise made by the hon. Member for Runcorn (Mr. Carlisle). Speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in 1969, he mentioned two principles and said: The second principle is that those who are here should be treated as equals before the law and in regard to human rights, from whichever part of the world they come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1969; Vol. 791, c. 207.] The fact is that once they are here these people will not under this legislation be treated as equals before the law but quite differently.

The Home Secretary has himself been guilty of some personal confusion over what the Bill tries to do. Speaking to Indian journalists on 2nd February last, he said: The idea we are intending to assimilate the basis of Commonwealth citizens with aliens is quite wrong, we never intended this, we never said we would do it, we don't intend to do so". He later said: But the idea, and I want to emphasise this very much, that we are trying to assimilate the position of a Commonwealth citizen with that of an alien under the law of this country, has no foundation at all. Yet, in an unguarded, unscripted reply to an intervention today the right hon. Gentleman has again used the phrase about assimilating the two codes of legislation.

He has sought around to justify every objectionable part of the Bill by referring to precedents which are all, in my view, undesirable. We have levelled down the principles of legislation governing immigrants. We have taken the Aliens Act of 1914, and perhaps the amended version of 1919 which itself was accepted at that time only with considerable reluctance by many hon. Members and which, unlike this Bill, was renewable annually.

That legislation was passed in a period of post-war suspicion about foreigners in this country, and we have taken it as a basis for our new permanent code. That is in spite of the fact that in 1957 by Order under the Aliens Act, the provisions for the registration of aliens in hotels were eased, and that in 1960 another Order removed the need for permanent alien residents to register with the police. Despite all that, we are now almost opening the door for such measures again.

The basic reason for the Bill is unworthy. We know perfectly well that the numbers of immigrants in the last year, and in recent years, have run at about 4,000. We are not dealing with dependants—they will not be affected, or that is said not to be the intention. Does anyone suggest that the figure of 4,000 will be substantially reduced once the Bill is passed? Unless one can produce evidence to that effect there is no argument that it will control numbers or that it involves numbers at all.

The Bill was introduced as an attempt to satisfy the spiritual nymphomaniacs who exist here and there on the benches opposite, but who will not be satisfied, and cannot be satisfied. The ink was hardly dry on the Bill before the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) was writing to the Daily Telegraph: The Immigration Bill…will be welcomed by all who want to see the terrible problem of coloured immigration brought under control. A little later he stated: …and the main enduring problem, anyway, is the size of the already arrived coloured population, and the rate of its natural increase. He ended his letter by saying: It will also be appreciated how much depends upon repatriation and the inducements to it which are offered. It is here that the Bill most needs strengthening. That is mild stuff compared with what we heard from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) this afternoon.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) is reported in the Daily Telegraph this morning as having spoken at the Monday Club's national conference at Nottingham. The report states: Finger-printing of immigrants as an aid to identification is something that will eventually be achieved, Mr. Harold Gurden, Conservative M.P. for Birmingham, Selly Oak, predicted at the Monday Club's national conference at Nottingham. That is followed by the interesting sentence: Many Right-wing Conservatives belong to the Club. The report goes on: The conference passed by 75 votes to 20 a resolution calling for the repatriation of immigrants of alien races,' and urging the Government to offer them resettlement grants 'sufficient to secure an effective reduction in the alien population'. Those people will not be satisfied with this Bill. This will not be, as the Home Secretary hopes that it will be, the last piece of legislation of this sort. That is why it is important that those who recognise these truths should stand up and say so now. I believe that the House has indulged unwittingly over recent years in a game of racialist leapfrog.

I know that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), as he told us again today, introduced with great reluctance the 1968 Kenya Asian legislation which I and others opposed. The right hon. Gentleman is a man of good will, but he introduced that legislation because he thought that it would call off the hounds. It did not. Nor will this Bill. This is a naked attempt to assuage passions which are, I hope only temporarily, aroused in the country and among certain elements in the House. We, and by that I mean lion. Members of all parties, should fight against them.

7.36 p.m.

Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith (Chislehurst)

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on his initiative in bringing forward the Bill, and I welcome the new arrangements and controls not only in the interests of people born in this country but in the interests of a very large number of immigrants who have already been allowed to enter.

Hon. Members opposite talk about passions and violence, or quote the Monday Club: can we not remember, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the truly enormous problems already stored up and waiting to be solved in about twelve of our great cities and conurbations, where we have great numbers of immigrants living in subnormal conditions? We are accused of racism, extremism and Right-wingism if we say, "Let us straighten things out for them and make living in this country worthwhile before we encourage more to come".

I am not very impressed by the synthetic opposition coming from hon. Members opposite, because in 1962 I, too, was in the House when all through the night we were kept up by blatant Opposition speeches. I can remember the words of the right hon. Gentleman who wound up that debate, when he said, "Of course, you want to forget it, but we don't". And he banged on the Dispatch Box and said, "The first Act of a Labour Government will be the repeal of an inhuman colour bar Bill".

That sentiment was also expressed in the election days of 1964, no doubt bringing in all the support the Labour Party thought it might gain from it. But when faced with the realities of Government responsibility—and I salute the then Home Secretary for facing up to these problems—it took a Labour Government only some eleven days to continue our Bill which, as I say, they had opposed all through the night, and in seven weeks they brought in even more stringent controls. I hope that tonight hon. Members opposite will not, in seeking purely party political advantage, make the same mistake twice and oppose this Bill.

I have never failed to pay tribute to the economic contribution which the many thousands of Commonwealth immigrants made when we as a matter of deliberate policy encouraged them to come here in the 1950s. Some of the great undertakings sent missions out to the West Indies to hand-pick staff and to give them aided passages here.

We should be unwise now to doubt the tensions which have arisen because of the concentration of too many in too few areas. Whatever we say, these tensions exist, and this cuts right across political parties. At that time there were only 200,000 unemployed. Today the figure is 750,000, the majority of whom are what are now called white patriate citizens. Are these people to be called racists because they think that there should be permit job control and that they should have first claim on jobs in Britain?

Let us also spare a thought for the hard-pressed local authorities whose social services have been far outstripped by the influx of immigrants. In some areas, if the housing committees allocated their property exclusively on a basis of social need, no while family would get anywhere near an allocation for the next 10 or fifteen years.

When distressed elderly grandparents with two married children and grandchildren, all living at home, come to hon. Members, as I am sure that they have to many hon. Members opposite, as they have to me, and claim that every room but the bathroom is now a bedroom and that over the years their children's priority for housing decreases rather than rises, because of the large families of immigrants, do we say to them, "You are racists"?

I therefore welcome, as I am sure that the majority of the people do, the new permit system for a specific job for a specific time. It is no kindness to encourage more people to come when we can neither house nor employ many of the immigrants already here.

I greatly welcome the penalties which are to be introduced at long last for illegal entry, not only for those who come but also for those who arrange and organise this traffic. I want to see an end to the vicious traffic in human souls where evil men wax rich by charging vast sums of money for false papers, doubtful journeys and illegal entry.

What is more terrifying is that it keeps whole families of immigrants in perpetual debt, paying back the principal and outrageous rates of interest; and they have always hanging over their heads the threat of blackmail—"You came in illegally. You cannot go to the police. You cannot complain". This is far more widespread among the illegal immigrants than many hon. Members may appreciate.

I could not disagree more with some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and with hon. Members opposite in their endeavour to persuade the Home Secretary—I hope that he is not so persuaded—to change the place of registration from the police to some other authority. I believe that it is essential that these people should know that they have the most disciplined and the most tolerant police force in the world and that if anyone is in trouble it is to the police force that he should go.

Nothing could do more damage to good relations and to confidence than that we should now change the system of registration which applies to aliens. This principle goes for the little Spanish girl who cannot speak a word of English when she arrives here, it goes for the little Italian waiter as well: if they are stuck, if they merely lose their way in a big city, or if they are harassed by louts at a railway station, they go to a policeman.

If we say, "We can trust an alien who cannot speak English to go to our police, but do not for heaven's sake let a poor Commonwealth immigrant go to our police", we shall encourage them to believe that our police would not be tolerant; we shall encourage them to believe that our police would not honourably carry out their duties of registration.

Hon. Members argue that the registration function should be handed to the Department of Health and Social Security or to officers of employment exchanges. Those working at employment exchanges are neither trained nor qualified to follow up such cases. The moment somebody went missing, these officers would have to hand the matter over to the police, anyway. They have not the powers to go round houses looking for someone who is missing. Anyway, these officers would not want this additional job imposed upon them.

It is a monstrous slur on the police force to suggest that they would not honourably, fairly and tolerantly discharge this task. To remove this task from them would be to destroy the confidence we want to build up between immigrants and the police rather than make the situation any easier.

As many other hon. Members want to speak, I will forbear from taking up two points which I wanted to take up, arising from the speech of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I again congratulate my right hon. Friend and express the belief that the Bill will be of great effect and usefulness.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

I cannot agree with the congratulations which the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) has tendered to the Home Secretary. I thought that the enthusiasm and the conscientiousness which the Home Secretary displayed in presenting the Bill were about equivalent to a Calvinist trying to convince the Free Presbyterian Church of the virtues of Protestantism. That is about as far as the right hon. Gentleman went. I thought that he was careless in explaining the Bill to the House, as if somehow he had composed his speech over a beer at lunchtime. The undertakings he gave and his statement that he would have to change part of the Bill afterwards show the scant regard which has been paid to the seriousness of the issue.

The case that many of us on this side want to make against the Bill was made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I agree in part with the case the right hon. Gentleman made against the Bill—namely, the extent of the patrial Clause. To that extent we are on common ground.

The most important case the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made against the Bill was his argument that it did not go far enough. Our case against the Bill is that it is a sop to Powellism and to things even to the right of that.

The right hon. Gentleman himself gave one example. An expression was used in Germany before the war which I cannot quote in German. There is another one rather like it which was also used in 1938: On the Continent they say They want a perfect nation; And every lad who weds must first pass an examination. Well, if they start that over here, it does not worry me. I would not need to tell them all about my family tree; I'd say, 'How do and how are you?' and show my testimonial. Those words were written by George Formby in 1938.

That might have seemed ridiculously funny at the end of Blackpool Pier in 1938, but it is now a sick joke and hateful to many thousands of people in this country that they will have to produce their certificate of patriality. It is the same kind of concept.

This Bill is a sop. It does nothing about immigration, except that it extends the number of immigrants allowed to come here without any control. My constituency has perhaps as many coloured Commonwealth immigrants as almost any other constituency. I know that there are genuine fears about the pressures caused by immigration. It is understandable that there are fears. If there are not enough houses or school places there are bound to be fears.

I do not think there is any dispute among any of the parties that there ought to be a form of non-discriminatory control of immigration. But this Bill has nothing to do with that. I am not opposed to trying to harmonise the control of aliens and of Commonwealth immigrants. To a large extent, our rules for Commonwealth immigrants and United Kingdom citizens are part of the empire hangover, and there is no reason why they should not be harmonised, provided that one takes the best features of both systems of control and applies them without discrimination, which means that we have to have a number of categories of admission—for example, for settlement, for temporary purposes and for students. However, the Bill takes the worst features of both systems and tries to harmonise them, and that is one reason for my objection.

I am concerned about the effect of the Bill in this connection. To some extent, the 1962 Measure did not affect people who were already in this country. One heard that immigrants were not opposed to the Measure, and that indeed was an argument in favour of it. It did not affect them once they had arrived, and it gave them a statutory right to bring their dependants with them. It did not stir up problems. The 1968 Act was in the same vein. To a large extent, it did not affect people who were already here. But when I see the tears in the eyes of my constituents—and not just black constituents—because of the effect that this Bill will have upon their lives, I say to the Home Secretary that he must consider the bad effects that this Bill will have upon race relations. I have tried to explain to constituents, "You are patrial", or "You have come here before 31st July, 1971, and therefore the Bill does not affect you." But they reply "If you do something to my brother or to my cousin, you also do something to me." That is the sort of effect that this Bill will have. It has a number of elements which, like chemical elements, by themselves may be harmless but when taken together have a noxious or explosive effect.

I want to run through the objectionable elements in this Bill. First of all, there is the concept of Commonwealth patrial, a concept never before put into immigration law. One has had concepts of British nationality, but never before were millions of people who were settled citizens in other countries given the right to come here automatically. The 1968 Act gave this right to the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who had no other citizenship and who had to have a place of last resort. I would add another category—any person, whether he be patrial or not, who had United Kingdom and Commonwealth citizenship and has nowhere else to go. That is why I was opposed to the 1968 Act and its effect upon Kenya Asians. People saw a racial division.

Secondly, there are the entry rules which say that if a person has not been here for five years, and even if he goes home to another country to attend a funeral or for a holiday, conditions shall be imposed upon his re-entry into this country. These conditions do not apply at the moment, and their imposition will stir up great difficulty.

Then there is the provision relating to the police. I ask the Home Secretary to consider this matter extremely seriously. He knows very well that there has been a meeting of most of the chief superintendents of the police forces in the metropolis, for which police forces he is directly responsible. It is the overwhelming view of leading figures in the Metropolitan police that these provisions should not be proceeded with. The right hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case. The Police Federation is opposed to those provisions. The right hon. Gentleman cannot be blind to the fact that one of the worst possible fields of race relations is the relationship between the coloured immigrants and the police. This is not a slander on the police. It is a recognition of a fact of life. The detection of crime is made even more difficult by the fact that relations are bad at the moment. All I say is that if we have these registration provisions, they will create worse relations between immigrants and the police, and every police officer in the Metropolis will tell the right hon. Gentlemen that this is the case.

What is more, the situation is already resented by aliens. Americans who come here with work permits resent having to go to the police station to register. In addition, the system is unsuccessful. It does not prevent evasion. The police do not check whether a person works. The only effective system of control is through the insurance card. There are many people who come to this country without a work permit, but who nevertheless work because they go to the Social Security Office and get an insurance card. A student or a visitor for a holiday can do this quite easily. I have some experience of the Department of Employment. Everybody knows it to be the case that registration at a police station does not always work. This provision will only exacerbate the already bad relations between the police and immigrants.

Worst of all is the repatriation Clause. Surely the fact that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West found a seed of hone in it indicates that it is a seed of poison ivy and that it must be stamped out. Racialism is like a drug. Clause 29 may be a soft drug, but it can lead to the harder addiction of the Powellites and those even more to the right. There is no necessity for this Clause at all. It is a Clause upon which other people with more extreme views will build. A system of repatriation for compassionate cases can be arranged by the Department of Health and Social Security. There is no reason whatever to have this Clause.

I hope the Home Secretary will realise that one of the strongest cases against the Bill is the effect that it will have upon race relations in this country. It will make some people feel, whether it be true or not, that they are second-class citizens. The right hon. Gentleman must have regard for what goes on inside the breasts and minds of millions of people in this country. He has come back from a province which has not solved this problem in 300 years. Over the weekend he has seen the kind of problems which arise in Northern Ireland, where people feel that they are treated differently and, in fact, are treated differently. He must realise that race relations are very much a matter of confidence, understanding, trust and psychology. If he allows the Bill to proceed with these blatantly racial provisions, even though they are not intended to be racial, if he disregards the feelings of ordinary men and women, he will do a great disservice to race relations. We have to build a bridge between the races, a bridge which will not only cross but will avoid the rivers of blood to which the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is so fond of referring.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe)

I welcome strongly the generality of this Bill because I accept that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has brought it forward with honourable motives and not with the dishonourable motives which have been attributed to him. I welcome the Bill particularly because of my right hon. Friend's attempt to bring some finality into the debate on the system of immigration control, which has raged for too long in this country, indeed since 1962.

I have had some reservations about this legislation, and I believe that few of my hon. Friends who will speak have not some reservations. We put forward those reservations with a view to helping forward what we hope will be a final debate, which will produce an acceptable system of immigration control.

For that reason, I regret that the Opposition have chosen to put on at least the face of total objection to the Bill, and I very much hope that, when it passes to its later stages, their objections will be put forward again in the hope that, given the flexibility which my right hon. Friend has already been showing, they will be able to agree on a common system of immigration control and thus, at least, avoid a debate on the system of control being an added and unnecessary complication for the future in this highly sensitive area.

Having said that my support for the Bill is based on the hope that we shall see a definitive end to the debate about the system, I am surprised to find that arguments about numbers have been brought into the discussion from both sides of the House. The Bill is silent upon numbers, and I should have thought that, in the present situation, the majority of right hon. and hon. Members were pretty well agreed on the desirable level of entry into this country. I say that although I realise that there are some formidable dissentients in one direction or another.

The present level of 4,000 voucher holders has been accepted, perhaps reluctantly, by the bulk of hon. Members on both sides, and I should be surprised if there were any strong feeling in the House either that there could be a significant increase in the number in present circumstances or that there would be much to be gained by trying to curtail the present level of immigration much further.

As I say, the Bill is silent upon that matter, but those hon. Members opposite who have spoken of the effect of the Bill upon the number of those entering this country seem to be trying to have their argument both ways. On the one hand, there have been objections along the line of millions, or hundreds of thousands, being admitted to this country who do not at the moment qualify, this argument being based on the definition of patrial in the Bill, while, on the other hand, there has been the implication that the Bill is pandering to what is described as a Powellite wish to depress even further the numbers coming here. One cannot have the argument both ways. I suspect that the end result under the Bill is likely to be that the number of people entering this country from the Commonwealth will remain much the same.

There are those who argue that the aliens system which is now to be applied to Commonwealth immigrants will decrease the numbers actually entering this country and will in some way be more restrictive. While I accept that they will no longer be entering automatically for permanent settlement, again I consider that the numbers actually entering will be unlikely to be drastically affected.

In 1969, the number of work permits issued to aliens under the aliens system was 67,788, and again in 1969 21,862 aliens were allowed unconditional residence here after having been here for a period of four years under work permits. Therefore, if, under the work permit system as applied to aliens, slightly more people are actually coming into this country and are settling here than are at the same time coming in under the voucher system applied to Commonwealth immigrants, clearly restriction is not automatically implied by the Bill.

I accept, however, that the general political view in this country at the moment is that, given the powers which he will have under the Bill, my right hon. Friend will not in present circumstances be allowed to inflate the numbers coming in from the Commonwealth too significantly because of the regrettable racial and social circumstances which the country faces.

The objections to the system seem in part to be based on one alteration, though not a significant alteration, from former practice which in some ways extends the range of those who will be able to enter this country without control. That is the objection which is raised to the definition of patrial which now extends, under what is called the grandfather Clause, to a category of people in respect of whom objection is raised because, it is said, this provision is racially discriminatory in effect.

In my view—I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) adopted roughly the same argument—a perfectly respectable case can be made out for this definition. In part, it recognises the somewhat different racial content of those people who are likely to want to come to this country under the grandfather Clause. It is intellectually dishonest for liberal opinion—as it is for illiberal opinion—to pretend that the debate about immigration control in this country at the moment centres on anything other than the racial problems which the country faces.

Surely, in view of the steady reductions in the numbers coming in which have been made over recent years, the argument ought to have been accepted on both sides of the House by this time that, at the moment, with the unfortunate racial tensions which have arisen here, and which we all regret, it is desirable to restrict the number of coloured immigrants into this country for the time being, in the interests of both the black and the white population here, until something can be done to alleviate those racial tensions and alleviate the social problems in the cities in which immigrants are most concentrated.

If that be accepted—and it was accepted by the last Government as much as by this—as a basis for restricting the number of voucher holders coming into this country, why should a system which faces up to that regrettable necessity impose hardship on groups of people, in particular those who are the descendants of fairly recent emigrants from this country to Australia, New Zealand and British South Africa? Why should those restrictions be applied with the same rigour to them when, in fact, the problems which give rise to the necessity for restriction are problems to which they make no contribution?

I do not accept that the application of the grandparent test to establish how people should be regarded is unreal. What one is trying to do is not just to admit all those who might want to come to Britain from those countries. The descendants of Italian Australians or East European Australians will have no reason to expect easier entry into this country than that expected by any other would-be immigrants. The object is to try to leave open a provision to allow the return of those people who have some fairly recent family connection, those who are likely to have relatives in this country, people fairly recently descended from emigrants from this country to the Commonwealth. It is to allow those people to come back, and I see nothing particularly unfortunate or objectionable in such a provision.

Indeed, if the present state of racial tensions in this country and the need for us to take measures to restrict the further inflow of coloured immigration for the foreseeable future were allowed to cause hardship to individuals from British families in Australia who wanted to come back to what they regard as the homeland, I should regard that as a most undesirable hardship which ought not to be caused by this country simply in an effort to achieve a bogus uniformity in the way it treats would-be immigrants.

Having said that I accept this attempt to draw up a system, I regard the idea of having the aliens system applied to both as desirable because it will impose quite reasonable conditions—five years stay here, being of reasonably good behaviour, keeping in work, and so on, before one acquires a guaranteed right to stay. I must say, however, that there are certain aspects of the aliens system which, in my view, cannot be so happily applied to Commonwealth immigrants and which I should like my right hon. Friend to reconsider.

In this connection, I add my voice to those who have expressed doubts about the proposed system of registration. I accept that my right hon. Friend's motives are entirely honourable in seeking to introduce this system. Clearly, as we are trying to restrict immigration because of racial tensions in certain of our cities, one could in the event be slightly more flexible if, in future, we could so control immigration that we knew precisely where people would go when they came here and where they would stay. One could be slightly more generous in allowing people to come to this country if they were going to live and work in areas where there were not the same social and racial problems as there are in, say, Nottingham, Birmingham, London and a few other cities.

In my view, however, the manner of trying to achieve that end is unfortunate and will not work. First, I doubt that the system of registration proposed is enforceable in the case of Commonwealth immigrants. If I am wrong about that, I doubt that there is any method of making it enforceable which would not be intolerable in its effects.

On the question of enforceability, I recognise that aliens coming here at present register with the police, and this system is reasonably well enforced and gives rise to no great difficulty. But, with respect, there is a great difference between the position of aliens at present coming to this country who register with the police and the Commonwealth immigrants to whom these provisions are now to be applied.

Aliens coming here tend to be people who do not really intend to settle, and also they tend to stand out, either by accent or by language, and be readily distinguishable from other sections of the community here. The Commonwealth immigrants for the most part come intending to settle here permanently. They are very difficult to separate from those sections of the community who also come from the Commonwealth. For example, it is very easy for a Sikh to merge with the Sikh community in the city to which he happens to go. There is a world of difference between trying to detect a man who has gone to live in such a community instead of staying in his registered job and trying to detect a German, Italian or even an American who has attempted to do the same thing without the same possibilities of merging into one part of our community.

It is that part of the problem that most concerns me. I do not think that it is a great hardship for someone to have to register with the police. But if we are to have registration, the important question is what happens if someone who is meant to have renewed his registration vanishes. It is the detection of the defaulters that gives rise to the problem. The defaulters amongst Commonwealth immigrants can vanish as successfully as the illegal immigrants now coming to this country seem to vanish from police detection. If the police are to chase them forcefully, looking in and amongst the immigrant community in the big cities for defaulting people who should be registered, that will give rise to tensions with the police force if we are not very careful.

That problem cannot be overcome by registering with any other source. It has been suggested that immigrants could register with employment exchanges. I doubt whether the Department of Employment would be anxious for the employment exchanges to be used in that way. Insurance cards might be used, it is suggested, but I am sure that the Department of Health and Social Security would not be anxious to have them stamped or marked in any way. There would have to be a great change in the present system of issuing insurance cards if they were to be used effectively as a control.

But whether we adopted a registration system using employment exchanges or insurance cards, we should still have to hand over to the police the problem of what to do when someone who should have renewed his registration suddenly vanishes. Given 4,000 people being admitted, I doubt whether such attempts to restrict their movements by any system of registration will be worth the trouble that will be involved if we seek to enforce them.

There is a case for saying that we should return to the difficult problem of deciding whom we shall let into this country in the first place and then say that the problems for community relations, for the police and other authorities of trying to restrict the movement of those people inside the country once they are here are not worth taking up. In principle I have reservations about extending at all the numbers of those people whom we let in under restrictions of movement about the country, either from work place to work place or in any other way. While it would not involve any fundamental damage to our way of life, it is undesirable to have to go too far along the road of having certain groups of people within our society whose movement is restricted, who are over-dependent on one employer, and who are subject to the kind of restrictions that registration involves.

When I talk of registration in this way, it may be said that the fears about registration of those members of the black community who are most concerned are exaggerated, that they over-play the part the police will play when they say in their emotive and inaccurate language that the police will he applying pass laws in this country. The fears of the black community are worth paying some regard to, if not in this respect. The Bill is a very valuable attempt to allay the fears of one part of the community that there should be no future large-scale mass immigration. If we go too far towards allaying the fears of one part of the community, we can arouse fears in the other part. That is against the interests of all sections of society.

In that connection, it would be valuable if, at the same time as pressing the Bill through the House, as he quite rightly intends to do, my right hon. Friend could do something to allay the fears of the black community, first by re-emphasising the right of dependants of those already here to come. He has done that in part and I welcome his concession in Rule 37 of the draft Rules and the flexibility he has shown in underlining the policy of allowing dependants of those already here to come.

I wish that he could go on, before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament, to deal with the problem of Kenyan Asians, which has particular significance at this time. I accept that the Bill does not deal in terms with their position, but while the Government are reviewing the whole question of the system of entry into this country it is an ideal opportunity for them to make a statement of principle, if they cannot make any practical advances at present, in view of difficulties in East Africa, that they will expand the entry into this country of those British passport-holders in East Africa to whom we are under a considerable obligation, and who are suffering considerable hardship as a result of our having had to go back on our word two years ago.

If my right hon. Friend will pilot the Bill through the House making statements like that to allay the unjustifiable fears of the black community, and at the same time pay heed to the reservations expressed on this side, I will certainly welcome the Bill when it reaches the Statute Book, as I welcome it in its present form as a valuable contribution towards our getting an orderly and sensible system of immigration.

8.16 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short (Wolverhampton, North-East)

A number of hon. Members on both sides have, I am glad to say, admitted that the number of immigrants allowed in latterly has been considerably reduced. This, of course, will not be accepted by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who always argue about numbers and never accepts anyone else's. He turns aside the figures of the Home Office and the Registrar-General—

Mr. Powell

Their numbers are wrong.

Mrs. Short

Everyone's numbers are wrong but the right hon. Gentleman's. He picks them out of the air from somewhere. They are gospel.

But at least it has been admitted by Conservative Members that we made a considerable contribution to the effective control of the numbers of people coming in. One particularly honest Conservative Member, the right hon. Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) admitted that the former Conservative Government encouraged immigrants to come here. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West had a part in that, because he encouraged recruiting in the West Indies. He was a member of the Cabinet for many years during that period, and did not raise his voice then against the numbers of immigrants.

I have always supported the legislation my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) introduced to get immigration under effective, fair and humane control. But the Home Secretary is wasting the time of the House with this completely unnecessary Bill. If he wants to add more control of the numbers of immigrants and others coming into the country, that is entirely within the powers he already possesses. We do not need a new Bill to do that.

In a poor, thin and defensive speech, the Home Secretary did not convince anyone. He did not put forward any convincing arguments for introducing the Bill now. Several of my hon. Friends have already said what they believe to be the reason, and I do not need to belabour the point. We all know it. It is a pointless waste of time to produce this unnecessary window-dressing when the right hon. Gentleman can do as he wishes with the numbers.

At his recent Press conference the right hon. Gentleman said: If we are to achieve a society of tolerance and mutual acceptance, we must ensure both that ail who live here are properly treated and that no further strain is put upon community relations by any more large-scale immigration. Why did he say that? What does he mean? We do not have any more large-scale immigration. This is just another attempt to delude people outside the House, the sort of people the other Member for Wolverhampton always talks to, and at, outside the House when he tries to persuade them to go along with the ridiculous myth that there is now large-scale immigration going on. That is not so. He went on to say that the overriding objective the Government wanted to achieve was … a society in which all citizens feel and are equal before the law. I suggest that the Bill will do nothing to contribute to that feeling. I believe that it will have a divisive effect, not only between black and white but within the black community itself. The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) suggested that this is not a problem of numbers, but if the Bill were concerned with numbers then the Government should pay much more attention to the number of aliens coming into the country. The figure is increasing year by year. In 1963, for example, there were 52,466 applications by employers to bring alien workers in. By 1970, this total bad risen to over 57,000. That is far more than the number of immigrants with work vouchers and their dependants who came in last year. Perhaps the Minister of State can tell us how many of these alien immigrants are still here, how many of them have left and how many have applied for British nationality with the intention of settling here and bringing over their families.

Will the Home Secretary investigate how many foreign workers are living here on a temporary basis and what their future intentions are? The number involved is obviously fairly large. But these immigrants are invisible. We do not see them. We only know about them when they speak and we hear them talking with accents different from those we find among our own people. But the Commonwealth immigrants are obvious—they are black and visible to everyone.

Most alien workers are grossly underpaid for the work they do. Many of them work in hotels and restaurants where they receive rotten wages, have to endure very long hours and get very poor food and poor lodgings as part of their payment. They are frightened to join their trade union because they are afraid of discrimination against them, afraid of getting the sack from their exploiting employers. This situation is developing seriously and it is one to which the Government should pay attention.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us some information about a group of aliens not so far mentioned in the debate. I refer to foreign-born husbands of British wives who may want to live here. What will their position be under the Bill? Will it be as it is now, or will it change? I am talking about those who wish to come first on a temporary basis to work and who may eventually wish to settle with their British-born wives and perhaps their British-born children.

We understand from the Bill that aliens and Commonwealth immigrants coming here will have to obtain work permits, and so on. How will the permits be granted to coloured workers? We know what conditions they will have to abide by when they get here, but what will be the position before they come? How will permits be awarded? Will the system be the same as now—that is to say, a permit being awarded where a genuine effort to find a British worker to do the job on the same conditions and with the same wages has failed? Or will it be that we shall perhaps not be able to get British workers to do the dirty and unpleasant jobs? If it is the latter case, the Home Secretary may well find that the trickle of immigrant workers coming in with work permits will develop into what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West may call a flood. The fact is that laying down the criterion that the job is one which cannot be filled by a British worker involves a very large number of jobs which British workers do not want to do and which employers may well try to bring more and more immigrant workers into the country to fill.

The Home Secretary will clearly have to lay down very firm criteria for the granting of work permits and presumably this cannot just be for Commonwealth immigrant workers only. It will have to be for alien workers as well. He will have to introduce the same regulations for the granting of permits for both types of immigrant. Or does he seriously and secretly intend to be much tougher on the Commonwealth citizens than on foreign nationals? One does not really know.

But whatever the grounds are, once the immigrant has his permit and is here, there will be the question of registration with the police. I join those hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported the view of the Police Federation. Apparently the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) did not know that the Federation had sent a memorandum to the Department about this. The Federation is not pleased at the police being asked to take on this additional job. It will hinder the police in the job we are most anxious that they should do—the prevention of crime. If they are messing about with the registration of people coming into the country and with changes in address and jobs and the rest of it, it is clear that our under-manned police forces all over the country will not be able to cope adequately. It is not surprising that the police have said that they do not want this additional work. In any case, as the hon. Member for Rushcliffe said, what happens when a man disappears—goes to ground? Who are going to follow the case up? How are the police going to find him? It is easy for immigrants to disappear, as we know from experience, but it is not always easy to track them down.

The registration proposal will make the already difficult and delicate situation which exists in many parts of the country where there are large concentrations of immigrants more difficult and more delicate. It will cause race relations to deteriorate. We must face facts as they are. It will lead to some unpleasantness and some harassing and bullying of some immigrants in some areas by a minority of police. Some policemen will assume that any coloured person may well be here illegally, and in some areas a minority of the police may create difficulties for those who may have been here for 10, 15, or even 20 years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It is not disgraceful.

We have to face facts and reality, and in every job and profession in this country there are those who like to take advantage of the power they hold and which they wield over others who are not in a position to answer back, or to get others to take up the case on their behalf. I hope that the Minister of State will say tonight that the Government are to have second thoughts about this and will not wait for the Committee stage of the Bill, that he will say that he is willing to reconsider whether some better and less inflammatory solution can be found.

The only Part of the Bill which makes any sense is the provision which deals with those who break the law by assisting illegal entry. No one wants those people to get off scot free. Those who break the law and help illegal immigrants, black or white, wherever they come from, should be punished, not only because they act illegally by breaking our laws and procedures, but because they swindle and cheat the unfortunate people whom they try to bring here. They trick them of their savings and raise false hopes. This is very cruel, and it is something which we cannot tolerate.

But this part of the Bill does not outweigh the rest and it is still unnecessary to have these provisions with the rest of the paraphernalia to inflict greater penalties on those who break the law. The Home Secretary could have dealt with illegal entry quite simply.

There is a story in the newspapers tonight concerning a serious case of an organisation to bring in large numbers of illegal immigrants. This is something which should be stamped on severely, but one has to keep a reasonable and balanced view. In the Press in recent months there have been many scare stories about large numbers of people poised to bring in large numbers of immigrants by little boats at night, immigrants who will find their way to Bradford, Birmingham, or Leeds—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or Wolverhampton."]—or Wolverhampton. But one is learning to take some of this propaganda with some caution. We hear it in connection with other matters. The Abortion Act provides a classic example of hysterical stories which are taken up by the Press which gives but little publicity to subsequent denials.

No weapons are too base, too complicated, too distorted, for some to swing public opinion against immigrants. This is what the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was doing when he recently made a speech in Carshalton about immigration, a very different kind of speech from that which he made in the House today. He never makes such speeches here. For years we have been saying that he does not make inside the House the kinds of speeches which he makes outside. He would not dare to do so, for he knows what kind of reception he would get.

At Carshalton he went back to his Birmingham vintage choice of words and said: The explosive which will blow us assunder is there and the fuse is burning, but the fuse is shorter than had been supposed. One can hear him saying it with those dramatic pauses and that lowered voice, trying to frighten his audience to death. He went on to say: There is a nightmarish quality about our predicament which numbs the mind. That may be what is wrong with the right hon. Gentleman. He is so deluded by this business, so obsessed by trying to prove that his figures are right and those of everybody else wrong, so obsessed by the sexual activities of immigrants and the increase in their birthrate, so that by 1984 we are supposed to be likely to have 4 million immigrants, that he does not take account of the fact that the numbers arriving are falling year by year, that those coming here are young and have their children while they are here, and that we hope that they will come within the orbit of our social services, particularly the family planning clinics, and themselves learn to reduce the number of children they have, just as families here are learning, although not as quickly as we might like.

All of these things are ignored by the right hon. Gentleman when he tries to strike terror into the hearts of audiences throughout the country. But he never uses the same words or arguments in this House. He ignores the fact that the Registrar's most recent figures, published only three days before his Carshalton speech, showed that altogether 77,000 more people left England and Wales than entered it.

Mr. Powell

Who were they?

Mrs. Short

We are talking about numbers, and 77,000 more left than entered. That was an increase of 8,000 over the number that left the year before. The numbers of people leaving are increasing. At the end of his tedious speech this evening, the right hon. Gentleman went on to advocate a massive, albeit voluntary, repatriation of coloured immigrants.

That is really what he wants, only he does not want it to be voluntary, he wants it to be massive and compulsory. This is what he is after. Hon. Members opposite who say that this is to be the last Bill on immigration are wrong, unless the Home Secretary stands firm against the reactionary elements in his party, against the Monday Club and the rest of them who will be continually pressing for more and more and who will never be satisfied.

I should be glad if the Home Secretary could repeat to the House what I think he said in his opening speech—[Laughter.]—what is the joke?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that if the hon. Lady got on with her speech we might have a chance to get one or two more hon. Members into the debate.

Mrs. Short

The right hon. Gentleman said that children born here are citizens of the countries from which they came, under the laws of the countries from which they came. The doors are open for them to return, he said. I wonder what that means. If the children were born here, which country did they come from? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman thinks that children born here are brought by storks or something like that from another country. If they are born here, surely they are children of British birth and not coming from another country.

Mr. Maudling

If I said anything remotely like that, I would be able to answer it, but I did not.

Mrs. Short

I did not say that the right hon. Gentleman did. We are confused between the two right hon. Gentlemen. I said that his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that in his Carshalton speech. I believe that the Home Secretary did make some reference to children born here of coloured immigrants.

Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.

Mrs. Short

Perhaps he could clarify that. I understand them to be British and not deportable.

This brings me to the most serious part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman is taking upon himself powers of deportation which I think are the most sinister and objectionable part of the Bill. The appeal rights and the machinery will not apply in cases where the Home Secretary thinks that the presence of a certain individual is not conducive to the public good. I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by this and we do not know how it will work in practice. I suppose that it means that he can give the thumbs down, as the emperors of ancient Rome did, to anyone he does not like and get rid of him.

The colour of a man's politics might decide whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that his presence is conducive to the public good. It might be because he indulges in trade union activity, takes a certain stance on certain issues which are important to the immigrant community or to the indigenous population, or just does not like the colour of the man's eyes: any reason would do. I do not suggest that the present Home Secretary would take this attitude, but this might be a very dangerous weapon to put in the hands of a less liberal Home Secretary. Another look should be taken at this part of the Bill because there should be provision for appeals machinery in it.

I should be grateful if the Minister who replies would explain why control has to be exercised in this way. Why not use the powers which the Minister has already? How does the right hon. Gentleman think that the Bill will help to reduce friction and tension in areas like Wolverhampton where we have a large number of immigrants and many people living in bad conditions? Has the right hon. Gentleman been in touch with the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, for the Environment, for Trade and Industry and for the Department of Employment to discover what contribution they are making to the solution of these problems, which are not confined to the immigrant community, but exist in every large town and city in this country? They were present before many of the immigrants came here.

It is a disgrace that white and coloured people should be living in conditions like those which exist in some large towns and cities. If the Government were to carry out some of their other election pledges—namely, to reduce unemployment, to ensure that the cost of living is held stable, and to do something about increasing the number of houses available—the social problems in many of our communities would disappear. That is the solution instead of the phoney charade of this window-dressing Bill.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Fraser (Stafford and Stone)

I am sure that the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) will entertain those people in her constituency who enjoy indulging in municipal badinage. Apart from one point, she did not touch on the Bill. So faint has been her damnation of it that it has amounted to praise. I have found considerably more in the Bill to attack than the hon. Lady found.

One of the problems about the Bill is the very peculiar drafting of parts of it. It makes one wonder whether there was a power cut in the Ministry while sections of it were being discussed, especially that part relating to patrial relationship. It will be a long task to get the Bill into shape and order. However, it is the best of the three Bills on immigration which we have had. As long as sufficient work is done on it in Committee, I am sure that some of the seed corn which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) wishes to spread will flourish.

Despite the emotions which have been engendered by it, this is a restrictive Bill and it is therefore all the more important that justice should not merely be done but should be seen to be done. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, East (Mr. Callaghan) are men of great justice, but neither referred to this. Perhaps they do not read the newspapers. Perhaps they did not read the Law Journal this morning or what Tony Lewis of the New York Times said recently.

When my party is attacked by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite for pursuing a party programme, I remind my hon. Friends that there is another part to our programme which is of considerable importance—the idea that there should be more open government, greater certainty of the individual's rights, the idea of a Bill of Rights which the Lord Chancellor talked about.

I hope that nothing I am saying is not "conducive to the public good" which is one of the most absurd phrases ever dredged up. It was dredged up by civil servants in 1916 and re-dredged in 1920 at about the time of the Official Secrets Act in which I have a particular interest. My right hon. Friend is respectable, but this language is not respectable. The power given to the Minister to act where the conduct of any other person is "not conducive to the public good" is far too wide a power to give to any Minister without a right of appeal.

Mrs. Renée Short

The right hon. Gentleman agrees with me.

Mr. Fraser

I am with the hon. Lady occasionally, and why not? This is a grave matter, which applies to Clauses 3(5), 13(5), 14(3), 15(4) and 22(3). This is on the point where evidence cannot be shown to be proven. The refusal of a right of appeal is not merely against the principles of all good legislation but against nearly every convention which we have signed on the subject in the last 10 years—the European Convention of Human Rights, 1948, the Convention relating to the status of refugees, 1951, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December, 1966. The European Economic Community papers produced on 25th February, 1964, say that there should be a right of appeal for those who are threatened with deportation.

The Bill must be altered in Committee in such a way as to ensure that there is a proper right of appeal. This ludicrous language, "not conducive to the public good", whatever it means, should be made less subjective and the same formula should be used as was used in the 1969 Act.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

My right hon. Friend is raising an important constitutional point. Would it go some way to meet his point if an advisory committee were appointed, such as the one which existed for four years in the 1930s? This was an impartial advisory committee which made 33 recommendations, of which roughly half were for deportation and half against, all of which were accepted by the Home Secretary. Would that be an improvement?

Mr. Fraser

I certainly think it would, and also the practice of our elders and betters who discovered the absurd phrase "conducive to the public good", when they unofficially used the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to decide cases.

Mr. Callaghan

If the right hon. Gentleman searched the records he would find that I did exactly that.

Mr. Fraser

Now hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of the proper preservation of liberty and the constitution. I am delighted to hear of this death-bed conversion.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

No—a conversion after death.

Mr. Fraser

They will never rise again. This is a serious issue, and a wide one. It is the issue of open government, in this age of technical and technological democracy. This is one of the most important duties that hon. Members have to fulfil. We have had some success in amending the Official Secrets Acts—under which too much power and discretion was given to individual Ministers. It is impossible for a Minister, surrounded by millions of decisions taken by growing myriads of civil servants, to be certain that he is taking the right step.

It is nonsense for my right hon. Friend to say that abuses of this sort can be rectified by Parliament; they cannot. They cannot be rectified by the "Nonbudsman" who lives in some mysterious office, with no powers whatsoever. The only way in which such abuses can be rectified is by the two lanterns that shine for democracy apart from this House—the lantern of the courts and the lantern of the Press.

Any attempt, such as the attempt in the Bill, to take things out of the hands of the courts, is an attempt to give power to make secret decisions, and is against the essence of democracy and the strength of this Parliament. That is why I tell my right hon. Friend, in all seriousness, that many of us—myself included—will insist upon this being put right when the Bill is in Committee, otherwise I shall record my vote against the Bill.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney (Bradford, South)

The trouble with many hon. Members opposite is that they are talking about the wrong motives. The Bill contains completely wrong motives, inasmuch as it deals with the restriction of numbers, whereas there is no need for any further restriction, because the numbers are continually falling. Even if that were an issue to be considered, I must point out that the Bill will do little towards restricting numbers.

The problem does not concern race relations or immigration; it concerns the social conditions of all our people, and not merely of the immigrants. It is a question of the housing of all the people, and their education. The Bill plays into the hands of those irresponsible elements, both inside and outside the House, who encourage people to believe that the problems are caused by the coloured immigrants.

The Bill talks about immigrants, but let us be honest. Why are not the Government honest about this? The Bill is talking about black immigrants. We cannot deny that these additional police powers—the right to arrest without warrant; the right to deal with registration; and the right to follow up the question of the employment of immigrants—are obviously directed at the black man. If we see a man walking along the street, we cannot tell whether he is an Australian, a New Zealander or an Irishman, if he is white, but if he is black we can tell whether he comes from Jamaica or Pakistan, as many of my constituents do. It is this factor which is so unjust and unfair. It places the police, who are doing an excellent job, in an invidious position.

The effects of the Bill in the Notting Hills of this country—of this world—following police activities along the lines which I have indicated, are likely to worsen race relations.

I have been able to note the feelings among coloured people quite closely during recent months in my work on the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. Already the coloured man suffers a feeling of discrimination. Even if he is not discriminated against, the mere colour of his skin, the fact that he knows that he is different from other people, makes him feel that he is discriminated against. The mere fact that when he goes for a flat or a house he is shepherded away from the nice areas of a district and is pushed along to the ghetto-like areas, and that when he goes for a building society loan his black face makes it so obvious to the building society manager that he is an immigrant, makes him feel that he is discriminated against, even if he is not.

We are placing a far more difficult job in the hands of our police. We are also playing into the hands of the more militant, irresponsible groups of black people in this country. We are making it more difficult for those many responsible elements among coloured immigrants who try to give their people the correct and proper leadership.

Listening to the arguments which have been put forward today, it is difficult for me to understand why it is necessary for the Government to introduce such a Bill. I can only come to the conclusion that it is because the members of the Government are looking over their shoulders at those elements within their own party whom they want to placate and appease—people who have racial prejudices and give the kind of lead on racial matters which is to be very much deplored.

I have always believed that the way to judge a man in this nation should be by what he can do for the country and what he can contribute to society as a whole. It certainly should not be based upon the colour of his skin, his religion, or on any other matter.

The Bill acts far more against the coloured Commonwealth immigrant than against the white Commonwealth immigrant. I hope that liberally-minded hon. Members opposite will, with hon. Members on this side, support attempts which will be made, if not to stop the Bill going through, at least to amend it in Committee so that its worst racial features can be obliterated.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Woodhouse (Oxford)

For the sake of brevity I shall confine myself to one point on the Bill. I recognise that the Bill is well intentioned and certainly carries out a party undertaking which was given at the General Election. However, it suffers from one serious defect to which only slight reference has so far been made. The Bill does nothing to remedy the injustice committed in 1968 against the East African Asians holding British passports.

Both the Home Secretary and his predecessor have referred to this matter as though it could be dealt with by administrative action, but since this wrong was committed by legislation, it cannot be put right except by legislation. In fact, although the Bill repeals the 1968 Act, it nevertheless continues that Act's discrimination on racial grounds against the Asian holders of British passports.

The reason why that is wrong and why the 1968 Act was wrong has nothing to do with race. It was wrong because, by that Act, Parliament broke Britain's word and thereby put in jeopardy people who had taken irreversible decisions about their nationality based on the assumption that Britain's word was her bond.

I deliberately do not speak of breaking a promise. I recognise that there was no explicit, openly expressed, public commitment, but the meaning of the nationality Clauses of the Kenya Independence Act and its successors was entirely clear. It was understood at the time by the Home Office, it was communicated by the Home Office to other Departments and the decision embodied in the Act was taken by the Government of the day with their eyes open.

It is important to recall that it was not only the Asians in East Africa who were in issue at that time. There were large numbers of British-descended residents there and the choice open to the then Government was either to give passports to them all, white or Asian, or to withhold passports from them all, or to discriminate between the two on grounds of their racial descent. The Government of the day decided that both those latter courses were unacceptable, and therefore legislated in the normal form.

I must emphasise that the then Government made that choice, to my certain knowledge, deliberately—not by default, not by mistake—and that they did so after the choice had been explicitly put forward, explained and discussed. It may be argued that this was an error of judgment, but if so it was an error of judgment made with our eyes open, and we had not the right to abjure the consequences. There was a least as much legal obligation to the East African Asians as there is to sell half a dozen helicopters to South Africa.

That is why I say that Parliament broke Britain's word and why the injustice remains to he remedied. The Home Secretary has made it clear that he is open-minded on the detailed provisions of the Bill and that he is willing to amend it in Committee in broad details. I hope for an assurance by the' end of the debate that this is one of the aspects on which he is prepared to have second thoughts.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Roy Jenkins (Birmingham, Stechford)

We have had a wide-ranging debate, with some speeches of great force from both sides. Apart from those of some of my hon. Friends, I particularly enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). His remarks about the drafting of the Bill being very peculiar, whether because of the lighting in the Home Office or for other reasons, were very much to the point.

I am rather mystified, having read the Bill and heard the Home Secretary, as to who prepared the Bill. I do not believe that a Law Officer has been near it, because I do not believe that even the two Law Officers whom we have in the House at present would have allowed the Bill to go through without a good number of very sharp comments. Clearly, the Home Secretary did not prepare the Bill. No one ever doubts his sharpness of perception, but no one could have heard him today without being quite clear that there were many parts of the Bill which he did not understand.

I cannot believe that there were any drafting instructions on this bill beyond the Conservative Party's election manifesto and the Press hand-outs of the speeches of the Prime Minister at Norwich and Walsall, so it is not surprising that the parliamentary draftsmen had a hard time of it.

This is both an unnecessary and an irrelevant Bill. It is in no way necessary to control the numbers entering this country at present. If it were necessary, it would not be effective. The numbers are now in my view not of a size to make any further control or restriction in any way desirable. Last year the numbers, including dependants, were just about 30,000. It would be almost impossible for that number to increase. On the contrary, it is almost certain that it will decrease because it is related very directly to the families and dependants of those who came here earlier to work and who were assured explicitly of the right of their families to join them.

The Bill, in spite of what the Home Secretary said this afternoon, breaches that right in principle. But no further significant decline in numbers could be achieved without destroying that right at its core, in principle and in practice. The numbers coming in on both A and B vouchers combined are 4,000, a very small number indeed. I was not clear whether the Home Secretary proposed to reduce that number still further. That means that the heads of families entering this country last year from the whole of the new Commonwealth were probably fewer than those coming from Spain. It is a minute number and it cannot be argued that it is desirable that it should be reduced further.

In these circumstances further restriction would be not only unnecessary but positively undesirable. It would make it clear that we wished to treat those here as a beleaguered garrison and that we could not bear the thought that they should be joined by even the smallest number of their kind. I do not think that that is the right approach. But even if these further restrictions were desirable, which they are not, the Bill could not possibly be defended on these grounds.

I thought that both the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst (Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith) and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) were talking about a completely different Bill from that which is before the House. This Bill does not restrict numbers at all, but by means of the so-called patrial Clause—a particularly nasty word to describe a pretty nasty concept—it greatly extends the number in theory by at least 20 million who have a right to come and settle here, but it does so on a highly discriminatory basis. Certainly so far as the million or more Anglo-Indians are concerned, their right to come here may be substantially more than theoretical.

In relation to numbers the Bill is dealing with a largely non-existent problem but is doing so in such a way that, if there were a problem, it would make it worse. It is designed not to control the number of immigrants, but to try to control the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). But as his speech this afternoon made clear—one part of his speech was very powerful indeed—it will not succeed in that objective. His appetite feeds on what he is given, and the Home Secretary and the Conservative Party have given him too much already. The right hon. Gentleman made it clear that he would not be satisfied with the Bill unless there were to be a totally different approach to repatriation from that which the Home Secretary described this afternoon.

The Bill does not even have the negative virtues of irrelevance. Irrelevance is often accompanied by triviality and innocuousness. But not in this case. This is a highly objectionable Bill. It is mis- conceived in principle and damaging in practice, for several major reasons.

First, it is in my view liable to make not merely every new coloured immigrant or every existing coloured immigrant but also every coloured person born in this country feel less secure, less wanted and less belonging, thus inevitably exacerbating community relations.

Perhaps on this subject I may quote Mr. Bonham Carter, whom I appointed Chairman of the Race Relations Board in 1966, and whom the Home Secretary appointed Chairman of the Community Relations Commission only two months ago. Mr. Bonham Carter said: I have advised the Secretary of State that the present Bill will adversely affect the establishment of harmonious community relations. It will acutely increase the insecurity which coloured people living here already feel. Those are considered words from a man appointed by the present Government within the last two months, directly concerned with this problem and, as I think everyone knowing the problem will agree, a very great expert on the issue and a man who has built up a very great reputation over the past four years.

How will it do that? It will do so, first, by restricting family right of entry. I am not clear where we stand on this question and I hope that the Minister of State will tell us. The Home Secretary clearly wanted to make some concession this afternoon, though it was quite extraordinary that he did not appreciate that his Rules quite explicitly state the matter beforehand, and even today he appeared to have no understanding of the fact that even if he changes the Rules, the statutory right to bring the family here is still repealed by Schedule. And it is not at all clear whether what he says is that he would change the Rules, which would be something but not enough, or that he would restore the statutory right, because just as he can change the Rules, so they can be changed again in the other direction, and it is not sufficient. There is no doubt at all that the position with the statutory right of entry allowed only by some ill-defined means test is very different from the previous position.

The second way in which the Bill will exacerbate relations relates to family deportation, where if the head of the family is deported the rest of the family must follow him, too. In many cases it may well be right that this should be so. In many cases I think that in those circumstances the family would choose to follow. But if the family choose to follow, there is no need for this provision. Can it be held that it would be right that within an estranged family a son aged 17, undergoing full-time education here, should be caused to leave the country because his father is deported? Yet that is exactly what is made possible here.

In dealing with the third way, I must refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Selly Oak about registration with the police. The hon. Gentleman assured us, and was even more stridently supported by the right hon. Lady the Member for Chislehurst, that the police welcomed the provision. Yet the fact is that through their official spokesman the police have made it quite clear that they think it unnecessary, and that shows very good wisdom on their part.

There is a delicate problem of relations between the coloured community and the police, and there is no doubt at all that this provision is liable to make that problem more difficult. I hope that the Home Secretary will make the small change at which he hinted, that this registration may be done by some other Government agency and not by the police. That would be a marginal improvement, but it does not deal with the main problem dealt with in The Times today by the question: why have registration at all? If we have it, the police must be the enforcement agency, and the whole of the coloured community will be asked, as has not hitherto been the case, whenever they are in trouble with the police or whenever they have an encounter with the police, to prove their right to be here. I have no doubt that this can be a damaging provision.

Fourth, there is control over employment. I do not think that it is right to admit people on such a restrictive basis that they can hold a particular post—a particular grade of post it would almost be—only with a particular employer. This gives too much power to an employer over the man concerned.

Fifth, there are the repatriation provisions. The Home Secretary said that they meant practically nothing. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that that was totally unacceptable to him, and totally alien, if I may use the word, to Conservative philosophy on the subject as he saw it. What do they mean? Do they mean nothing, in which case they merely promote further insecurity, or are they the thin end of the wedge, as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West would wish them to be?

These five ways are only some of the methods by which this unnecessary Bill picks away with a sort of horrible precision at the delicate and thinly growing skin of good community relations in Britain.

The Bill is bad and harmful from another point of view. It misses a great opportunity to humanise the emergency aliens law passed by the House in a great hurry on the night of 5th August, 1914, and remaining in force ever since, carried on by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act year by year. The very date on which the law was passed gives an indication of the atmosphere in which it was passed and how hurriedly it had to be considered.

It was a substantial step back from the position of the previous Act of 1905. Indeed, the following words were used by the present Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, in this House in 1969 about the position of the 1914 Act as continued: In other words, we established one of the less liberal and one of the most arbitrary systems of immigration law in the world—in the civilised world, at any rate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 504.] Some of that arbitrariness and some of that illiberality was removed—I hope that the Chief Whip will allow the Home Secretary to listen to this, because it is of some importance—or modified by the appeals procedure then introduced, though I should say in fairness that I do not think that the present Lord Chancellor much liked the appeals procedure, mainly, I think, because he wanted a more fundamental change in the law.

What happens now? The 1969 appeals procedure has been emasculated. The Secretary of State is empowered to deport any non-patrial, whether he be alien or Commonwealth, where he considers that his exclusion or deportation would be conducive to the public good". I cannot add to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the vagueness and sweeping nature of this provision. It gives the widest possible definition, but it means also that because of one case which he has found embarrassing the House Secretary has decided to sweep aside the whole appeals procedure in relation to any security or political case. That seems to be a most extraordinary reaction. In the hands of a Home Secretary more ruthless or more energetic than himself, this procedure could be used most dangerously and most damagingly. It is a totally unacceptable provision as it stands.

Thus what has been done is to take a bad aliens law—just how bad it was was described by the present Lord Chancellor—to strip it of most of the ameliorating features of the 1969 Act, and to make it the basis for a future combined law for aliens and Commonwealth citizens. I am in favour of a combined law, but not on the basis of the mixture of insensitivity, incompetence and illiberalism which characterises the Bill. The Bill misses the opportunity to get our citizenship law humanely rationalised, which it would certainly be desirable to do before we have to deal with the impact of the Common Market upon it and which it would equally certainly be possible to do.

This was done by the Americans in 1965 and by the Canadians in 1967. But this Bill goes in the opposite direction. It makes the position less humane and less rational. It makes it less rational because it gives unlimited rights of entry to millions who are not citizens, while giving no right of entry to many who are citizens. I defy the defence of that situation on any grounds of rationality at all.

This brings me to the so-called patrial Clause and the principle behind it. I think it is wrong. I do not think that a man's relationship with this country is most determined by who his grandfather or his grandmother was. I suppose the most notable non-British grandson of the most notable British grandmother was the Kaiser. But I do not think that his loyalty or attachement to this country or the non-alien nature of his presence here, had he been here, would have been greater by virtue of this fact than, shall we say, that of a mid-1930s Jewish refugee who had been here for only four years and was still waiting for his right of citizenship without any guarantee that it would be available at the end of the period.

Nor, in practical terms of today, do I think that a man whose grandfather emigrated from this country, whose parents were born and died abroad, and who wishes to come here for the first time is more belonging, has a greater stake in this country, that someone from the rest of the Commonwealth with no racial connection with this country, who has lived and worked here for, say, four and a half years, who has established a home here, who is bringing up his children here but who is still not patrial and cannot under this Bill be certain that he is patrial even when the five years are up.

Mr. St. John-Stevas

Would the right hon. Gentleman turn his mind back from the reign of Queen Victoria to more recent history? Is not this notion of patrial a direct lineal descendant of the notion of belonging which was introduced in the 1968 Act, prepared when the right hon. Gentleman was Home Secretary, and promulgated by his successor, so that in a very real sense the right hon. Gentleman can claim to be the grandafther of this Measure?

Mr. Jenkins

No, I do not think that that is so. It was said this afternoon by the Home Secretary that he accepted that Measure, as he certainly did, with reluctance, which my right hon. Friend had introduced with as much reluctance as he had. That was a Bill in which we had, for reasons which were regarded as right by the majority of the House, to introduce restrictions upon entry. But here we are broadening the field to people who have no connection worth speaking of with this country, and doing it on a highly discriminatory basis.

Nor do I think that it is wise, following up the point which I was making when I was interrupted by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas), to base our valuation of a man's worth to this country on who his grandfather or his grandmother was. The road along which that policy leads is extremely unacceptable to this side of the House, and I believe to most hon. Members on the other side, too.

Of course, it is possible to dismiss all this and many of the other points made by myself and others against the Bill by taking the view that immigrants, and particularly coloured immigrants, are lucky to be here, that if they do not like what they find, if they do not like the way in which we choose to treat them, if they do not like any laws that we make, they can get out. That is a view held, no doubt, by some people, though not, I hope, by many in this House. But there are, perhaps, some more who, while not going the whole way with that view, feel that we can be more careless about immigrants' rights than about those of other people.

I regard that as a most dangerous and short-sighted view. It is so, first, because, if carried out, it will inevitably blight the future of race relations in this country, to the great danger and detriment of us all, and not by any means merely of the coloured community. But it is so, also, because one cannot separate off the civil liberties of immigrants from those of the rest of the community.

If we unreasonably impair their rights, if we revert to arbitrariness in dealing with them, as the Home Secretary is here doing, we inevitably impair the whole quality of freedom and tolerance throughout the community. The climate of civil liberty as a whole has to be treated as a whole. One cannot impair half of it without inflicting damage on the whole quality of respect for human rights throughout the nation.

In the earlier part of his speech this afternoon, the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was, as I said, most impressive. He almost recalled to me the night when he spoke, from two benches further back, about the Hola Camp. For most of his speech, however, he was less impressive, and many of his speeches outside are less impressive, because he believes otherwise: he believes that the great need is to deal with alien elements, to get rid of them if possible. Only this weekend he was reported as saying that we deceived ourselves if we believed that there were not inevitably alien unassimilable concentrations in the great cities of the North and the Midlands, and he added that he would take the same view if they were of German or of Russian origin.

I believe that attitude to be based on an extraordinary view of British history. For centuries past, this and every other country which has played a major part in the mainstream of world events has benefited greatly from its immigrants. Apart from those whom we are discussing today, from the Norman Conquest to the wave of Central European immigrants who came here in the 1930s we have constantly been stimulated and jolted out of our natural island lethargy by a whole series of immigrations.

Those who came, throughout the whole of this sweep of centuries, were always made unwelcome by some, but they rarely failed to make a contribution out of proportion to their numbers. If anyone doubts that, let him look at British business today and at the phenomenal extent to which the most successful companies have been founded or rejuvenated by men whose origins were outside these islands.

This is not merely a matter of business. Where in the world is there a university which could preserve its fame, a cultural centre which could keep its eminence, or a metropolis which could hold its drawing power, if it were to turn inwards and to serve only its own hinterland and its own racial group? I, therefore, take a less exclusive view than that taken by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West.

The Bill is the Government's. I do not believe that they can be proud of it. Three major changes have already had to be promised or hinted at in the eleven days since its publication. They show it to be totally ill thought out, but they do not remove the fundamental objections to its irrelevant illiberalism. We shall seek to amend it further. If the Government had any self-respect, they would withdraw it and start again.

9.30 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharpies)

This has been a serious debate. That spirit was carried on by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). I shall try, so far as possible in the time available, to answer the points raised, including the right hon. Gentleman's very important points.

I think that the main criticism from both the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Gentleman has been to question why the Bill is being introduced at all. To see the reason, we need to look back to the 1962 Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Many of us recall the speeches made then by Labour right hon. and hon. Members. The fact is, however, that that Act was considerably strengthened by the Labour Government.

I thought that that was all history until I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Stechford, which was almost exactly of the kind we heard from the Labour benches during the passage of the 1962 Act. That Act did not of itself give power to limit numbers. It gave power to the Government of the day to regulate the inflow from the Commonwealth by controlling the number of work vouchers. I do not think that anyone thought that it was the end of the road. We have only to re-read the speeches in the debates then to see that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley (Mr. Hunt) pointed out, we made our position clear in our election manifesto of 1966, when we said, amongst other things, that it was our intention to introduce a conditional entry system which will control the initial time during which a new immigrant may stay, until permission is granted either permanently or for a limited period. My right hon. Friend the present Lord Chancellor, speaking in the debate on 8th November, 1966 on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill carried this a stage further when he said: … it is not necessarily to the advantage of Commonwealth immigrants in this respect to have separate legislation … the whole complex of law should be brought into harmony in a single piece of comprehensive and permanent legislation …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1966; Vol. 735, c. 1257.] We made our position clear again at the last General Election, when we spelled out in our manifesto what we would do, and why. We said that it was necessary to bring the law relating to aliens on to a permanent basis, and I think that it is generally agreed that this should be done. We also said that there was a need for a more realistic system for controlling entry for employment from the Commonwealth, and for a scheme which allowed the Government of the day to base decisions on our own needs and requirements; to take into consideration social and economic conditions, both at local and national level; and to control both the level and the purpose of further immigration, both alien and Commonwealth, in the best interests of those already here, both white and coloured.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley, who said that it would not be to the disadvantage of those seeking to come here that control should be exercised in this way. The Conservative Party has been committed to legislation on these lines since the 1966 election. What I do not understand is why people should complain when we carry out undertakings which we have given.

I want to turn now to the very important point raised by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East about the undertaking which was given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in respect of wives and children of people already here. My right hon. Friend made it clear that the regulations would be amended but the right hon. Gentleman wanted him to go further and have them incorporated in the Bill. That is a very different attitude from the one which he took when he was giving evidence to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration on 13th May, 1970. I shall quote one sentence and I do not think that in doing so I shall be quoting out of context, because the remainder of what he said was in the same vein. He was asked: Could the Home Secretary … consider whether it is possible to make it a statutory right that the child under 16 whose mother is here or coming here can also come? The key passage from his reply was: I would … be opposed to trying to put a further statutory obligation on the Home Secretary to do this or that; if the policy is clear I would sooner you left it to him to carry it out subject to the normal challenge in Parliament. In answer to a subsequent question, he said: I believe that the system under which you leave it to the discretion of the Home Secretary, provided that broad lines of policy are agreed, is likely to ensure a more compassionate and humane approach than if the immigration officers have to administer a rigid code of instructions.

Mr. Callaghan

That is an entirely different point. What the Bill does—and it is important that hon. Members who have not been here today should understand this—is to take away a statutory right which already exists over a wide range of families. I was being asked by the Select Committee, in connection with a small group of young people, whether I would add a statutory right, which did not at that time exist, to the existing administration, which was being conducted to the general satisfaction of the country. That is really a false analogy.

Mr. Sharpies

I think that the House can draw its own conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman also said this: The Home Secretary has been a little lax in allowing Parliament to take over some functions and try to write them into legislation. I do not think that anything alters the fact that the right hon. Gentleman does appear, to some extent at least, to have changed his point of view since then.

Mr. Callaghan

The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to say that. He knows that, after the leader of his party had made a speech proposing something like this, I went on public record in 1968 as saying that such procedure should not be adopted. The hon. Gentleman is therefore not entitled to say that I have changed my mind. I have been consistent in stating that the statutory provisions should remain, and the hon. Gentleman should withdraw his remark.

Mr. Sharpies

No, Sir. I think I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman very fairly. What he said is clearly on record.

I turn now to the criteria for work permits, a subject—

Mr. Roy Jenkins

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members

Sit down.

Mr. Jenkins

I remind the House that I sat down five minutes before my time. The hon. Gentleman asked me to end my speech at twenty five minutes to ten o'clock.

This is a point of substance and he has made only a debating point against my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East. Will he now tell us the reply to the question which I put to him specifically about the doubt as to a point in the Home Secretary's speech this afternoon? Is the Home Secretary's new assurance that he will change Rule 37, I think it is, and do nothing more, or is he to restore the statutory right? If he is not to restore the statutory right, why is he not to restore it?

Mr. Sharpies

My right hon. Friend made it clear that he intended to amend the regulations. His assurance did not go beyond that.

I turn now to the whole question of the criteria for work permits, about which I was asked by a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. Under the present arrangements, there is an overall numerical limit on the number of Commonwealth citizens who can come here to work and to settle. They themselves apply for employment vouchers which are allocated on the basis of a quota.

Under the Bill, the system is being changed. There will be no more employment vouchers and instead a work permit will be issued on the application of an employer in the United Kingdom who is offering a permit holder a specific job.

I was asked how we could be sure that the numbers admitted were no more than we need to accept. The answer is that, as with aliens, the number of permits issued will be under the full control of the Department of Employment. In the first four years after entry, a permit holder will be able to change his job only with the approval of the Department of Employment.

The criteria by which permits are granted or withheld will be for decision by the Government from time to time in the light of changing economic and social conditions and, in particular, as I stressed, of our own needs. In assessing the number of Commonwealth citizens to be admitted when the Bill comes into effect, account will be taken of the future rate of immigration under other heads including aliens and United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa.

Mr. Bidwell rose—

Mr. Sharples

I cannot give way now; I have already given way several times.

The Government intend, particularly in the light of the current employment situation here, to restrict the entry of unskilled and semi-skilled workers from overseas. The detailed application of this policy will depend on a review, now being conducted, of the relation between current intake of overseas workers and this country's manpower needs. It also takes account of our special obligations to Malta and our dependent territories. Both are at present allocated special quotas of vouchers which are used mainly by unskilled workers.

I should like to make it particularly clear that, in view of the unique circumstances in Gibraltar, we have decided that the special arrangements for the entry of Gibraltarians into Britain should continue. There is no need to fear that the work permit system will not be able to withstand pressures from overseas countries or from particular interests and industries in this country. If there are signs of any category of applications getting out of hand, it will be open to the Government to limit the numbers admitted, if necessary by imposing an arbitrary ceiling on applications from any overseas country.

Mr. Bidwell

On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman is reading his speech which is against the rules of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Secondly, he has refused to give way on a vital matter concerning work permits and is not bothering to answer the debate at all.

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Mr. Sharples

I was asked particularly to deal with the question of work permits.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)

Further to that point of order.

Hon. Members

It was not a point order. Sit down.

Mr. Driberg

Shut up, you apes.

Mr. Speaker

I do not know whom the hon. Member is addressing.

Mr. Driberg

I hope it will not he thought that I was addressing you, Mr. Speaker. I was momentarily distracted by the hon. Member opposite. I withdraw my remark. I can only say that it was a natural error.

Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have already ruled that it was not a point of order.

Mr. Driberg

On a point of order. Your predecessors have repeatedly ruled that it is not in order to read an entire speech, however badly drafted. It would not be so intolerable if it were well written. Your predecessors have ruled against this.

Mr. Speaker

I do not think that it should be thought that the Minister has been reading his whole speech.

Hon. Members

Yes.

Mr. Sharples

Powers are available under Clause 1(4) and 3(2) to put this right. We have no grounds to suppose that difficulties will arise, but if they do we shall have no hesitation in using the powers available to us under the Bill.

I turn now to the question of repatriation raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and by the right hon. Member for Stechford. Clause 29, the repatriation Clause, is an enabling Clause. It gives power to my right hon. Friend to help those people who have no right of abode here to go home to their own countries. Help can only be given to those whose intention it is to reside abroad. I want to make it clear that the powers under the Clause are limited to assistance. There is all the difference between assistance and any kind of compulsion or bribery to go home. It is purely assistance for which power is taken.

At the moment assistance to return is limited to that which can be given by the Supplementary Benefits Commission within its existing criteria. What my right hon. Friend has in mind is a somewhat wider scheme. There is no question of paying for those who can perfectly well afford to pay their own fares. We intend to devise an effective machinery based on discretion, to prevent abuse by those likely to abuse the system to get a free passage home at the expense of the taxpayer.

Mr. Loughlin

On a point of order. A moment ago one of my hon. Friends raised with you the question of reading speeches. The Minister has persisted in reading his brief. I put it to you that the submission of his brief to you, to be compared with tomorrow's HANSARD, will bear this out. I appreciate that Ministers have a right to use copious notes, but they have no right to bore this House with read speeches.

Mr. Speaker

I think the suggestion that Ministers have no right to bore the. House is a remarkable one—however much one may agree with it. [Laughter.] The content of a Minister's speech is not a matter for the Chair. There has been no abuse of order by the Minister so far.

Mr. Sharples

I hope, if I am allowed to do so, to answer in the few minutes remaining a large number of important points made by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.

We cannot at this stage forecast what will be the number of people or the number of families to be assisted in this way. We cannot tell how many people will want to go home. The only way to find out will be by letting it be known, when we are ready, that we are willing to help. Nor can we tell how many of those who wish to go will be able to pay their own fares. It is not possible to do that until we have examined the number of applications.

I turn to the very important question of registration with the police. Aliens who are not accepted for permanent settlement have been registering with the police for years. They register with the police when they arrive and in London they register with the Aliens Registration Office. They tell the police about changes concerning where they live and where they work. The police, in this job and in no other, act as agents of the Home Office, which is responsible for enforcing the immigration laws, and for the Department of Employment, which is responsible for the control over employment.

I have never heard complaints from people about having to notify the police, and many thousands are involved. The vast majority of Commonwealth immigrants will register with the police, because it is in their interests to do so, just as the aliens do. If a policeman wishes to harass somebody, there are plenty of ways by which he can do it. I reject utterly the suggestion of the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) that the police would deliberately go out of their way to harass a coloured immigrant. The police are the most effective agency for the purpose we have in mind. They know what needs to be done and they do their work with tact and efficiency.

It is curious that there should have been a suggestion from the Opposition Front Bench opposing the proposal to register with the police, because paragraph 24 of the 1965 White Paper included these words: The Government"— that is, the Labour Government— propose to seek power for an immigration officer to include among the conditions on which a particular Commonwealth citizen is admitted one requiring him to register with the police. That was the proposal made in the 1965 White Paper by the then Prime Minister. In other countries, and in some countries from which immigrants come, I appreciate that the police may not have the same reputation as they have in this country.

My right hon. Friend has said that he is prepared to examine alternative suggestions, but I would not pretend to the House that it will be easy to find an effective alternative. It is essential in the interests of the community and of good relations between the different groups that enforcement of the law about immigration and employment should be effective. If there is to be an alternative, whether for Commonwealth citizens or for both Commonwealth citizens and aliens, it must be at least as effective as that which is proposed in the Bill.

The Bill strengthens the law relating to illegal immigration. It extends the time limit for taking summary proceedings against illegal immigrants or persons who have contravened their conditions of entry from six months—the normal time limit for summary proceedings—to three years. It also creates the new offence of assisting illegal entry, which is punishable on indictment with up to seven years imprisonment. Thirdly—and this is important in the context of the news in the evening papers today—it enables the court which convicts the owner of a ship, aircraft or vehicle used for illegal immigration to order the forfeiture of that ship, aircraft or vehicle. I believe that the House will welcome these provisions and, in the part of the Bill which deals with illegal immigration, will welcome the emphasis against those people who make an income out of exploiting this noxious traffic.

I want briefly to deal with the question raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West about the large numbers of people who might be able to come here under the patrial provisions. The vast majority of these are in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They had the right to come here before the 1962 Act, and that right was not exercised at that time. Quite a number of Anglo-Indians came here in 1947, but there is no evidence to

suggest that vast numbers want to come here at the present time.

The Bill carries out the undertaking we gave at the General Election; it assures the rights of those already here, irrespective of colour or origin; it establishes a new single system of control for immigration from overseas, and allows us to concentrate on the essential positive aspect of race relations in this country.

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

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 265.

Division No. 229.]	AYES	[9.59 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Curran, Charles	HasclTiurst, Alan
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hastings, Stephen
Allason, James (Hemel Hempsteaa)	Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Havers, Michael
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Hawkins, Paul
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen.	Hay, John
Astor, John	Dean, Paul	Hayhoe, Barney
Atkins, Humphrey	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Awdry, Daniel	Digby, Simon Wingfield	Heseltine, Michael
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Dixon, Piers	Hicks, Robert
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Higgins, Terence L.
Balniel, Lord	Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Hiley, Joseph
Barber, Rt. Kn. Anthony	Drayson, G. B.	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Batsford, Brian	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Dykes, Hugh	Holland, Philip
Bell, Ronald	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Holt, Miss Mary
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Hordern, Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)	Hornby, Richard
Benyon, W.	Emery, Peter	Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. DamePatricia
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Farr, John	Howe, Hn. Sir Geofirey (Reigate)
Biffen, John	Fell, Anthony	Howell, David (Guildford)
Biggs-Davison, John	Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Blaker, Peter	Fidler, Michael	Hunt, John
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Body, Richard	Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Iremongrr, T. L.
Boscawcn, Robert	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Fookes, Miss Janet	James, David
Bowden, Andrew	Fortescue, Tim	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Foster, Sir John	Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Bray, Ronald	Fowler, Norman	Jessel, Toby
Brewis, John	Fox, Marcus	Johnson Smith, G. E. (E. Grinstead)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Fraser, Rt Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher	Fry, Peter	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Gatbraith, Hn. T. G.	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Gardner, Edward	Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Bryan, Paul	Gibson-Watt, David	Kershaw, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Kimball, Marcus
Buck, Antony	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Bullus, Sir Eric	Glyn, Dr. Alan	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
		Kinsey, J. R.
Burden, F. A.	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Kirk, Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Goodhart, Philip	Kitson, Timothy
Campbell, Rt Hn. G.(Moray & Naim)	Goodfew, Victor	Knight, Mrs. Jill
Carlisle, Mark	Gorst, John	Knox, David
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Gower, Raymond	Lambton, Antony
Chapman, Sydney	Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Lane, David
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Gray, Hamish	Langford-Holt, Sir John
Chichester-Clark, R.	Green, Alan	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Churchill, W. S.	Grieve, Percy	Le Marchant, Spencer
Clark William (Surrey, E.)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Grylls, Michael	Longden, Gilbert
Clegg, Walter	Gummer, Selwyn	Loveridge, John
Cockeram, Eric	Gurden, Harold	McAdden, Sir Stephen
Coombs, Derek	Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	MacArthur, Sir Stephen
Cooper, A. E.	Hall, John (Wycombe)	McCrindle, R. A.
Cordle, John	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Cormack, Patrick	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	McMaster, Stanley
Costain, A. P.	Hannam, Jolm (Exeter)	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Critchley, Julian	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	McNair-Wilson, Michael
Crouch, David	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Crowder, F. P.	Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Madel, David
Maginnis, John E.	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. H. L.	Stokes, John
Marten, Neil	Proudfoot, Wilfred	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis	Sutcliffe, John
Mawby, Ray	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Tapsell, Peter
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Raison, Timothy	Tayior, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Rawilinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Tebbit, Norman
Miscampbell, Norman	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)	Temple, John M.
Mitchel, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)	Rees, Peter (Dover)	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Moate, Roger	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Tilney, John
Molyneaux, James	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Money, Ernie	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	Trew, Peter
Monks, Mrs. Connie	Ridsdale, Julian	Tugendhat, Christopher
Monro, Hector	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Montgomery, Fergus	Roberto, Wyn (Conway)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Vickers, Dame Joan
Mudd, David	Rost, Peter	Waddington, David
Murton, Oscar	Russell, Sir Ronald	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Neave, Airey	Scott, Nicholas	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Nicholls, Sir Harmer	Scott-Hopkins, James	Wall, Patrick
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Sharpies, Richard	Walters, Dennis
Normanton, Tom	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)	Ward, Dame Irene
Nott, John	Shellon, William (Clapham)	Warren, Kenneth
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Simeons, Charles	Weatherill, Bernard
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Sinclair, Sir George	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Osborn, John	Skeet, T. H. H.	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)	Smith, Dudley (Wwick & L'mington)	Wiggin, Jerry
Page, Graham (Crosby)	Soref, Harold	Wilkinson, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Speed, Keith	Woodnutt, Mark
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield. W.)	Spence, John	Worsley, Marcus
Peel, John	Sproat, Iain	Wylie, Rt Hn. N. R.
Percival, Ian	Stainton, Keith	Younger, Hn. George
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John	Startbrook, Ivor
Pike, Miss Mervyn	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Pink, R. Bonner	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Pounder, Rafton	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)	Mr. Jasper More.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
NOES
Abse, Leo	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Freeson, Reginald
Albu, Austen	Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)	Galpern, Sir Myer
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Crawshaw, Richard	Garrett, W. E.
Allen, Scholefield	Cronin, John	Gilbert, Dr. John
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Crossman, Rt. Hon. Richard	Ginsburg, David
Armstrong, Ernest	Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Ashley, Jack	Davidson, Arthur	Gourlay, Marry
Ashton, Joe	Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Atkinson, Norman	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Barnes, Michael	Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)	Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Barnett, Joel	Deakins, Eric	Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Beaney, Alan	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Gunter, Rt. Hn, R. J.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Delargy, H. J.	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund	Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Gidwelf, Sydney	Dempsey, James	Hamling, William
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Doig, Peter	Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Dormand, J. D.	Hardy, Peter
Booth, Albert	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)	Harper, Joseph
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Driberg, Tom	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Bradley, Tom	Duffy, A. E. P.	Hattersley, Roy
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Dunn, James A.	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Dunnett, Jack	Heffer, Eric S.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Eadie, Alex	Horam, John
Brown, Ronald (Slioreditch & F'bury)	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Buchan, Norman	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Ellis, Tom	Huckfield, Leslie
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	English, Michael	Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	Evans, Fred	Hughes, Mary (Durham)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, w.)	Faulds, Andrew	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Cant, R. B.	Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Carmichael, Neil	Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B' ham, Lady wood)	Hunter, Adam
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Irvine, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Janner, Grevillo
Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Foley, Maurice	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)
Cohen, Stanley	Foot, Michael	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Concannon, J. D.	Forrester, John	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Conlan, Bernard	Fraser, John (Norwood)	John, Brynmor

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Millan, Bruce	Sillars, James
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Silverman, Julius
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Milne, Edward (Cly-.h)	Skinner, Dennis
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Molloy, William	Small, William
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Jones.Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Spearing, Nigel
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Spriggs, Leslie
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Stallard, A. W.
Judd, Frank	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Ete:l, David
Kaufman, Gerald	Murray, R. K.	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Kelley, Richard	Ogden, Eric	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Kerr, Russell	O'Halloran, Michael	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Kinnock, Neil	O'Malley, Brian	Strang, Gavin
Lambie, David	Oram, Bert	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Lamond, James	Orbach, Maurice	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Latham, Arthur	Orme, Stanley	Taverne, Dick
Lawson, George	Oswald, Thomas	Thomas. Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Leadbitter, Ted	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Paget, R. T.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Leonard, Dick	Palmer, Arthur	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Lestor, Miss Joan	Pardoe, John	Tinn, James
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Tomney, Frank
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Torney, Tom
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Pavitt, Laurie	Tuck, Raphael
Lipton, Marcus	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Urwin, T. W.
Loughlin, Charles	Pendry, Tom	Vaney, Eric G.
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Pentland, Norman	Wainwright, Edwin
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Prescott, John	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
McBride, Neil	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	Wallace, George
McCartney, Hugh	Price, William (Rugby)	Watkins, David
McElhone, Frank	Probert, Arthur	Weitzman, David
McGuire, Michael	Rankin, John	Wellbeloved, James
Mackenzie, Gregor	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mackie, John	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Maclennan, Robert	Rhodes, Geoffrey	Whitehead, Phillip
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Richard, Ivor	Whitlock, William
McNamara, J. Kevin	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
MacPherson, Malcolm	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Marquand, David	Roper, John	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Rose, Paul B.	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)	Woof, Robert
Mayhew, Christopher	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Meacher, Michael	Short, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Meffish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)	Mr. Donald Coleman and
Mendelson, John	Short, Mrs. Ren¹e (W'hampton, N.E.)	Mr. John Golding.
Mikardo, Ian	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Motion made and Question Put. That the Bill he committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Callaghan.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 263, Noes 296.

Division No. 230.]	AYES	[10.12 p.m.
Abse, Leo	Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Davidson, Arthur
Albu, Austen	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)	Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Allen, Scholefield	Buchan, Norman	Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Armstrong, Ernest	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Deakins, Eric
Ashley, Jack	Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Ashton, Joe	Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)	Delargy, H. J.
Atkinson, Norman	Cant, R. B.	Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Carmichael, Neil	Dempsey, James
Barnes, Michael	Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)	Doig, Peter
Barnett, Joel	Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)	Dormand, J. D.
Beaney, Alan	Clark, David (Colne Valley)	Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood	Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)	Cohen, Stanley	Driberg, Tom
Bidwell, Sydney	Concannon, J. D.	Duffy, A. E. P.
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Conlan, Bernard	Dunn, James A.
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Dunnett, Jack
Booth, Albert	Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.)	Eadie, Alex
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur	Crawshaw, Richard	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)	Cronin, John	Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Bradley, Tom	Crossman, Rt, Hn. Richard	Ellis, Tom
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)	English, Michael
Evans, Fred	Lawson, George	Rankin, John
Faulds, Andrew	Leadbitter, Ted	Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Fisber, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Lady wood)	Leonard, Dick	Rhodes, Geoffrey
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Lestor, Miss Joan	Richard, Ivor
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)	Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Foley, Maurice	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n & R'dnor)
Foot, Michael	Lipton, Marcus	Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Forrester, John	Loughlin, Charles	Roper, John
Fraser, John (Norwood)	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Rose, Paul B.
Freeson, Reginald	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Galpern, Sir Myer	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Sheldon, Robert(Ashton-under-Lyne)
Garrett, W. E.	McBride, Neil	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Gilbert, Dr. John	McCartney, Hugh	Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Ginsburg, David	McElhone, Frank	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	McGuire, Michael	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Gourlay, Harry	Mackenzie, Gregor	Sillars, James
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mackie, John	Silverman, Julius
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)	Maclennan, Robert	Skinner, Dennis
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Small, William
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)	McNamara, J. Kevin	Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.	MacPherson, Malcolm	Spearing, Nigel
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Spriggs, Leslie
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)	Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)	Stallard, A. W.
Hamling, William	Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Steel, David
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)	Marquand, David	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Hardy, Peter	Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Harper, Joseph	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mayhew, Christopher	Strang, Gavin
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Meacher, Michael	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Hattersley, Roy	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Mendelson, John	Taverne, Dick
Heffer, Eric S.	Mikardo, Ian	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George(Cardiff, W.)
Horam, John	Millan, Bruce	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Miller, Dr. M. S.	Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Huckfield, Leslie	Molloy, William	Tinn, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Tomney, Frank
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Torney, Tom
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Tuck, Raphael
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)	Urwin, T. W.
Hunter, Adam	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Varley, Eric G.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Murray, R. K.	Wainwright, Edwin
Janner, Greville	Ogden, Eric	Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas	O'Halloran, Michael	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St.P'cras,S.)	O'Malley, Brian	Wallace, George
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Oram, Bert	Watkins, David
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechtord)	Orbach, Maurice	Weitzman, David
John, Brynmor	Orme, Stanley	Wellbeloved, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Oswald, Thomas	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)	White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)	Paget, R. T.	Whitehead, Phillip
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)	Palmer, Arthur	Whitlock, William
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Pardee, John	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Jones. Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)	Parker, John (Dagenham)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)	Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)	Williams Shirlev (Hitchin)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)	Pavitt, Laurie	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Judd, Frank	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Kaufman, Gerald	Pendry, Tom	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Kelley, Richard	Pentland, Norman	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Kerr, Russell	Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.	Woof, Robert
Kinnock, Neil	Prescott, John
Lambie, David	Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)	TELLERS EOR THE AYES:
Lamond, James	Price, William (Rugby)	Mr. Donald Coleman and
Latham, Arthur	Probert, Arthur	Mr. John Golding.
NOES
Adley, Robert	Bell, Ronald	Bray, Ronald
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Bennett, Sir Frederick (Torquay)	Brewis, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)	Brinton, Sir Tatton
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian	Benyon, W.	Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)	Berry, Hn. Anthony	Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Astor, John	Biffen, John	Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Atkins, Humphrey	Biggs-Davison, John	Bryan, Paul
Awdry, Daniel	Blaker, Peter	Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Buck, Antony
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Body, Richard	Bullus, Sir Eric
Balniel, Lord	Boscawen, Robert	Burden, F. A.
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Bossom, Sir Clive	Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Batsford, Brian	Bowden, Andrew	Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John	Carlisle, Mark

Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Heseltine, Michael	Cwen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Chapman, Sydney	Hicks, Robert	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher	Higgins, Terence L.	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Chichester-Clark, R.	Hiley, Joseph	Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Churchill, W. S.	Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)	Peel, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.)	Hit, James (Southampton, Test)	Percival, Ian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Holland, Philip	Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Clegg, Walter	Holt, Miss Mary	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cockeram, Eric	Hordern, Peter	Pink, R. Bonner
Coombs, Derek	Hornby, Richard	Pounder, Rafton
Cooper, A. E.	Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cordle, John	Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cormack, Patrick	Howell, David (Guildford)	Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Costain, A. P.	Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)	Proudfoot, Wilfred
Critchley, Julian	Hunt, John	Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Crouch, David	Hutchison, Michael Clark	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Crowder, F. P.	Iremonger, T. L.	Raison, Timothy
Curran, Charles	Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Dalkeith, Ear! of	James, David	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Arthur	Jennings, J. C. (Burion)	Rees, Peter (Dover)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen	Jessel, Toby	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dean, Paul	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Dixon, Piers	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Ridsdale, Julian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Kellett, Mrs. Elaine	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec	Kershaw, Anthony	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Drayson, G. B.	Kimball, Marcus	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Dykes, Hugh	King, Tom (Bridgwater)	Rost, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Kinsey, J. R.	Russell, Sir Ronald
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Kirk, Peter	St. John-Stevas, Norman
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.:	Kitson, Timothy	Scott, Nicholas
Emery, Peter	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Scott-Hopkins, James
Farr, John	Knox, David	Sharpies, Richard
Fell, Anthony	Lambton, Antony	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy	Lane, David	Shelton, William (Clapham)
Fidler, Michael	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Simeons, Charles
F'nsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)	L Merchant, Spencer	Sinclair, Sir George
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Skeet, T. H. H.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Longden, Gilbert	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fookes, Miss Janet	Loveridge, John	Soref, Harold
Fortescue, Tim	McAdden, Sir Stephen	Speed, Keith
Foster, Sir John	MacArthur, Ian	Spence, John
Fowler, Norman	McCrindle, R. A.	Sproat, Iain
Fox, Marcus	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Stainton, Keith
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)	McMaster, Stanley	Stanbrook, Ivor
Fry, Peter	MacmilIan, Maurice (Farnham)	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G.	McNair-Wilson, Michael	Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Gardner, Edward	McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Gibson-Watt, David	Maddan, Martin	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)	Madel, David	Stokes, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	Maginnis, John E.	Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Glyn, Dr. Alan	Marples, Rt. Hn. Emest	Sutcliffe, John
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Marten, Neil	Tapsell, Peter
Goodhart, Philip	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Taylor, EdwardM. (G'gow. Cathcart)
Goodhew, Victor	Mawby, Ray	Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Gorst, John	Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Tebbitt, Norman
Gower, Raymond	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Temple, John M.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Gray, Hamish	Miscampbell, Norman	Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Green, Alan	Mitchell, Lt. Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)	Tilney, John
Grieve, Percy	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Moate, Roger	Trew, Peter
Grylls, Michael	Molyneaux, James
Gummcr, Selwyn	Money, Ernie	Tugendhat, Christopher
Gurden, Harold	Monks, Mrs. Connie	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)	Monro, Hector	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hall, John (Wycombe)	Montgomery, Fergus	Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.	Vickers, Dame Joan
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Waddington, David
Hannam, John (Exeter)	Mudd, David	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)	Murton, Oscar	Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)	Nabarro, Sir Gerald	Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere	Neave, Airey	Wall, Patrick
Haselhurst, Alan	Nicholls, Sir Harmar	Walters, Dennis
Hastings, Stephen	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Ward, Dame Irene
Havers, Michael	Normanton, Tom	Warren, Kenneth
Hawkins, Paul	Nott, John	Weatherill, Bernard
Hay, John	Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hayhoe, Barney	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward	Osborn, John	Wiggin, Jerry

Wilkinson, John	Worsley, Marcus	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher	Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Woodnutt, Mark	Younger, Hn. George	Mr. Jasper More.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).