§ 19. Mr. Bidwellasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what changes he proposes to seek to make in the Immigration Bill as a result of the most recent Ministerial meeting in Brussels in connection with the United Kingdom's application to join the European Economic Community.
§ Mr. MaudlingNone, Sir.
§ Mr. BidwellIs it not odd that, as well as the muddle over patriality and non-patriality in the present Immigration Bill, right in the middle of negotiations on the Common Market, which must fundamentally affect Britain's immigration laws, the Government have nothing to say about this matter?
§ Mr. MaudlingIf it were necessary to say something, it would be said, but these negotiations are still in process. My information is that if we were to accept the whole provisions of the Treaty of Rome unamended in this regard, it would not necessarily cause any amendment of the Immigration Bill.
§ Mr. CallaghanIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that his last statement is the subject of considerable argument and that there is evidence that if we were to accept the full provisions of the Treaty of Rome, the regulations and the directives, particularly those affecting immigrant families, it would be necessary 1506 to amend the Bill? Could we have an authoritative statement from the Home Secretary setting out in which circumstances he believes amendment of the present Bill to be unnecessary?
§ Mr. MaudlingAs I said, the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, which I have studied, say nothing that will mean any amendment of the Bill.
§ Mr. CallaghanThe Home Secretary is a man we respect, but he cannot ride off a simple statement of that sort. Is he not aware that there is considerable argument about this matter and about the whole basis of the Act, which rests on the exclusion of immigrant families in certain circumstances, and the fact that they may not come here except for limited periods is undermined by the provisions of the Treaty of Rome? Are we not entitled to a better explanation from the right hon. Gentleman of how he reconciles these differences?
§ Mr. MaudlingI can do no more than give the House my own considered view, having considered the matter carefully, that the obligations of the Treaty would not involve amendment of the Bill.
§ Mr. St. John-StevasIs my right hon. Friend not right in maintaining that position since, apart from the response of the member countries of the Community as it is now, or as it will be when enlarged, the control of immigration into each country is entirely a matter for domestic legislation?
§ Mr. MaudlingI do not think that I shall argue detailed points in question and answer—we have plenty of scope for that elsewhere. I repeat that, having gone into the point, the information I have given to the House this afternoon is to the best of my knowledge correct.
§ Mr. CallaghanHow does the Home Secretary reconcile his last statement with Article 1 of the Treaty which provides that any national of a member State, irrespective of his place of permanent residence, shall be entitled to take up and carry on a wage-paid occupation in the territory of any member State?
§ Mr. MaudlingIt is possible to carry that out within the terms of the Bill.
§ Mr. CallaghanIt is not.