GENERAL PRINCIPLES (Hansard, 19 October 1971)

§ The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if we discussed with Lords Amendment No. 1 the following Lords Amendments, which I think are on the same point:
No. 2, in page 2, line 10, at end insert: ( ) The rules shall be so framed that Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom at the coming into force of this Act and their wives and children are not, by virtue of anything in the rules, any less free to come into and go from the United Kingdom than if this Act had not been passed. No. 49, in Clause 34, page 32, line 17, leave out subsection (4).
No. 50, in line 23, leave out "subsections (1) to (4) above" and insert: the foregoing provisions of this Act".

§ Mr. Speaker
If that is for the convenience of the House, I certainly agree.

§ Mr. Maudling
I think that all the Amendments are on the same point. They should commend themselves to the House as a whole, as they carry out something that was urged upon us at an earlier stage.
I said on Second Reading—and I was very anxious that this should be made 552 known—that Commonwealth citizens already here free of condition, which means, broadly speaking, all working immigrants, will not be affected. There will be a right to work where they wish, as at present, and a right to work where they wish and a right of automatic citizenship, as at present. There will be no new papers to be carried, and they will be allowed to bring in dependants. That was the undertaking I gave, and I have not departed from it in any way.
It has been suggested more than once that that undertaking should be embodied in the text of the Bill. That was not an easy thing to do. Amendments were moved in another place with that purpose in mind, but they were not satisfactory. However, we now have from another place the Amendments before us, with that purpose in view.
There are two main points. The first, on Amendment No. 1, is that people already settled here, including aliens, should have the right to come and go as they wish. The Amendment carries out our undertaking on that point.
The second point, about the immigration rules, is one made by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) a long time ago. Perhaps he will chide me for taking so long to come round to his point of view. We provide that in the rules there should be a continuing right for immigrants settled here to bring their wives and children with them. It has been argued that this statutory right should be preserved, and the purpose of the second Amendment is to preserve the current statutory right to bring in wives and children under the age of 16. In practice, the draft rules make it clear that we propose to admit children of residents up to the age of 18.
By these Amendments we are giving statutory form to the undertaking I gave on Second Reading that people already accepted for settlement in this country would not be prejudiced by the Bill.
There are one or two ancillary points, such as a point on Clause 7 about deportation, and a small point later on Schedule 1, but the broad point concerns freedom to move to and fro for those already settled here and their dependants.

§ Mr. James Callaghan (Cardiff, South-East)
Is it brute force or reason that 553 has persuaded the right hon Gentleman to change his mind?

§ Mr. Maudling
I never mind eating my words if I am convinced that it is in the public interest to do so. I am sure that when he was a Minister the right hon. Gentleman never allowed personal pride to stand in his way in similar circumstances

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)
f he Amendment was introduced in response to a Liberal Amendment passed in Committee and in response to a feeling that pervaded much of the Committee stage and Third Reading. The aim is to safeguard the position of Commonwealth citizens who had been accepted for settlement before the Bill came into force.
We have not had a great deal of time to consider the matter, but the new subsection appears to safeguard the position of aliens as well. I do not think that that point has been mentioned.
It seems to us that a laudable aim underlies the Amendment, which makes the position clear to those who are worried—and worry there is on the part of those who are here already, worry based on insecurity. The statements made by the Home Secretary in Committee and during the Bill's passage through the House did not remove that feeling of insecurity, because there is no doubt that, apart from the general political intention of the Bill, there was a party political intention behind it to give a section of the public the impression that something was being done which in fact was not being done. The Amendment clears the minds of people who are worried. It puts the matter in such a way that no one can be in any doubt about it.
The right hon. Gentleman was good enough to say that Amendment No. 2 met a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). It provides that immigration rules shall be so framed that Commonwealth citizens settled here, and their families, will not be worse off. I presume that that has already been done, and is implicit in the rules already laid, with the amendments made in recent weeks in Cmnd. 4792. The Bill says "shall be so framed". Do the rules as drafted meet the point, or will there be need for further amendment?
554 One question has arisen time and time again and has exercised people's minds even from the days of the previous Administration. Is it still the fact that a man who is properly settled here—to use a more definite term, who is patrial, who has been here for two years—and who leaves Britain and returns to his country of origin will not lose any rights that he has provided that he returns within two years?
Arising from that question, the next question is: what is meant by "ordinarily resident"?
Overall, in the context of the later Amendments, we are glad that the Amendment has been brought from the Lords. It is a helpful Amendment. It clears the law and will tell immigrants who are here and who are to stay here that they have nothing to fear from the Bill. We support the Amendment.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Wolverhampton, South-West)
I have made it clear at earlier stages of the Bill that I believe that a much greater restriction than at present applies upon the inflow of Commonwealth citizens into Britain is desirable and will prove to be desirable I therefore, as I also made clear, welcomed the fact that the statutory right of admission for wives and children as defined had disappeared under the Bill as it left this House.
I wish to make it clear that I regard this reinsertion in statutory form as undesirable. I believe that we shall come to regret this. I believe that further legislation will in consequence be necessary. I will not weary the House further. but I thought it right to put that on the record.

§ Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh. Selkirk and Peebles)
In welcoming these Amendments I pay tribute to my colleagues in the other place who, by a quirk of the electoral system, are more numerous than they are in this place, and who advanced the case for Amendment No. 1 very strongly.
This is not a situation in which we should pull the Home Secretary's leg He has not changed the principle which he has reiterated many times. What he has very sensibly done is to write that principle, as we requested, into the Bill rather than leave it as a verbal assurance 555 from him. This will be generally welcomed and makes a minor improvement to the Bill.

§ Sir George Sinclair (Dorking)
I wholeheartedly welcome the reinstatement in statutory form of the right of children and close family relations to remain in Britain or to join the wage earners in their families who have a right to be here. This has been a cornerstone of our party's policy on this matter since March, 1965. In every pronouncement that has been made the right of families to be reunited in Britain has been restated. I am glad that this has now been put beyond any possible doubt by its being restored to statutory form.

§ Mr. Maudling
By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. The first Amendment covers aliens. The second does not and refers to Commonwealth citizens. "Shall" means that rules under the Bill will have to contain this. The draft immigration rules at present make it necessary to admit people up to age 18. The two-year rule certainly applies to the Commonwealth at present but not to aliens.