§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples)Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if with Lords Amendment No. 3, which is next on the Notice Paper, we take Lords Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 22, after "or" insert: "(except as mentioned below)", Lords Amendment No. 6, in line 35, at end insert:
(1A) A woman is under this Act also to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom if she is a Commonwealth citizen and either—together with the Opposition Amendment thereto—in line 1, leave out "woman" and insert "person".but in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above references to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not, in the case of a woman, include registration after the passing of this Act under or by virtue of section 6(2) (wives) of the British Nationality Act 1948 unless she is so registered by virtue of her marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies before the passing of this Act.
- (a) is the wife of any such citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) above or any such Commonwealth citizen as is mentioned in subsection (1)(d); or
- (b) has at any time been the wife—
- (i) of a person then being such a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or Commonwealth citizen; or
- (ii) of a British subject who but for his death would on the date of commencement
556 of the British Nationality Act 1948 have been such a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b); Lords Amendment No. 11, in page 3, line 16, at end insert:
but, in the case of a registration by virtue of section 7 (children) of that Act, only if the registration was effected before the passing of this Act.Lords Amendment No. 15, in page 5, line 26, after "(d)"insert" or section 2(1A)"Lords Amendment No. 16, in line 28, at end insert:
, unless in the case of a woman claiming to be patrial by virtue of section 2(1A) she shows that she is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and is patrial by virtue of section 2(1A) apart from any reference therein to section 2(1)(c) or (d).Lords Amendment No. 26, in page 14, line 40, after "(d)" insert "or section 2(1A)"Lords Amendment No. 27, in line 41, after "Kingdom" insert:
unless in the case of a woman who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies the ground of appeal is that she is patrial by virtue of section 2(1A) apart from any reference therein to section 2(1)(c) or (d);and Lords Amendment No. 51, in page 33, line 34, at end insert:(3A) Section 1(2A)(d) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 (which was inserted by section 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, and excludes from the control on immigration under those Acts, among other persons, certain persons registered in the United Kingdom or in an independent country of the Commonwealth as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies) shall not apply—
- (a) to a woman registered after the passing of this Act under or by virtue of section 6(2) (wives) of the British Nationality Act 1948, unless so registered either—
- (i) by virtue of her marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies before the passing of this Act; or
- (ii) by virtue of her marriage to such a citizen who at the time of her registration or at his death before that time
557 was excluded from the control on immigration under the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts 1962 and 1968 by section 1 (2) of the 1962 Act; nor - (b) to anyone registered after the passing of this Act under or by virtue of section 7 (children) of the British Nationality Act 1948, unless so registered in the United Kingdom."
§ Mr. SpeakerI think that we might get into difficulties if we take Lords Amendment No. 6 in this group, because there is an Amendment to that Lords Amendment. If it is the will of the House, perhaps all the others in the group should be taken together. I think that Lords Amendment No. 6 must be taken separately.
§ Mr. SharplesOn a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The difficulty is that Lords Amendment No. 3 is only a paving Amendment. The substantive Amendment in the whole group is No. 6. It would be difficult to have a proper discussion without taking Lords Amendment No. 6 in this group. I suggest that I now move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords" in Amendment No. 3, that we discuss it with all the others, and that we have a Division on the Amendment to No. 6, if it is wished to do so, when we reach that stage. It will be difficult to have a coherent discussion unless Amendment No. 6 is taken at the same time.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesFurther to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are suffering from some difficulty due to the speed at which the Bill has come from the Lords. We have no wish to prevent there being a sensible discussion. We have an Amendment to Amendment No. 6. If the procedure is as the Minister of State suggests, at what relevant point can we bring in our Amendment so that it fits into the general discussion which will already have taken place?
§ Mr. SpeakerI do not think that the Amendment can be moved until we reach Lords Amendment No. 6. I suggest that we proceed with a general discussion on the group which the Minister has suggested. I will not rule out a separate discussion, if need be, on one of them afterwards.
§ Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 15, after first "or" insert (except as mentioned below)".
558§ Mr. SharplesI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This group of Amendments is fairly complex, and I apologise to the House for that. The group taken as a whole has two purposes. The purpose is to meet a point made by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) in Standing Committee concerning the position of the wives of those who are patrial.
In Standing Committee I undertook to look at this matter again to see whether it would possible to meet the point. I explained at that time that it would be a difficult Amendment to draft and fairly complex. I certainly did not overestimate the difficulties when I said that. The group of Amendments meets the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and goes somewhat further than the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed.
The second purpose of the group or Amendments is to close an existing loophole in the 1962 and 1968 Acts affecting principally immigrants from East Africa. This was a loophole pointed out on Report in this House by my right hon Friends the Members for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) and Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell).
The point concerning the wives of patrials is covered by Amendment No. 3 and also by Amendment No. 6. This provides that a woman who is a Commonwealth citizen—that includes a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—shall have a right of abode if she is or has been the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of a Commonwealth citizen who has a right of abode or who would have had that right but for his death before the relevant legislation—that covers a number of Acts—came into force.
The effect, in simpler terms, is that the wife of a patrial, if a Commonwealth citizen, will acquire patriality by virtue of her marriage and not, as at present, by virtue of her registration as a citizen.
4.0 p.m.
I want to make clear two points. First, this alteration applies only to persons who are Commonwealth citizens. Second, it does not subject to control anyone who is now exempt from control by reason of 559 registration under the legislation as it has existed up until now. A wife who has registered before the passing of this Bill, whether here or overseas, will retain her exemption from control. Neither this Amendment nor the Amendment to Clause 35, Amendment No. 51, which we are also discussing, will subject to control anyone who is now exempt.
The second of the two purposes which I mentioned in moving the Amendment is that the first and second Amendments, Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, and the last four lines of the third Amendment, Amendment No. 6, are also designed to ensure that a woman who acquires citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration on the ground of marriage, after the passing of the Bill, to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies does not in that way acquire the right of abode if the husband is not a patrial. The reason for that is that it would be wrong if a Commonwealth citizen, here on conditions, were to obtain the right of abode, and so exemption from control, by marrying a man who was himself a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies but was not a patrial.
As an example of what I mean by that, I cite the holder of a work permit who had been admitted from Hong Kong. If a woman were to marry him, under the existing law she would obtain exemption from control while he himself, the work permit holder, her husband, remained subject to control. In such a case the operative provision is Clause 2(1)(c), which provides for patriality on completion of five years' ordinary residence in the United Kingdom, together with acceptance for settlement here. If and when the husband acquires patriality under Clause (2)(1)(c), his wife also does so.
The first, second and fourth Amendments and the last four lines of the third Amendment, Amendment No. 6, are also designed to deal with the loophole to which I referred, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes).
The purpose of these Amendments is to close the gap whereby a woman who is a citizen of one of the East African countries marries a man who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies 560 but has no direct connection with this country. Under existing law, she has an absolute entitlement to register under Section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act, 1948. She gets exemption from control in that way. She comes here; her husband then applies to be able to come here in order to join her, and in that way he is able to jump the queue of those who are waiting for vouchers, particularly from East Africa. From information which has come my way over the last year or two, there is no doubt that this method of evading the control has been exploited, especially in the last 18 months or so, and that this gap should certainly be closed.
Another related problem dealt with by this group of Amendments, in particular by Amendment No. 11, is the position of children. Amendment No. 11 provides that registration of children under Section 7 of the 1948 Act in an independent country of the Commonwealth will give patriality and exemption from control only if the registration took place before the passing of the Act. The power to grant registration is discretionary, but it has been customary to grant it in East Africa, for example, to ensure that the whole family are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. But the anomaly of the present position is that such a grant serves under the 1968 Act to give exemption from control even though the father of the family may still be subject to such control.
I think that the House will agree that this is wrong. As the law stands, it would be possible for children to be registered, to be sent here, and then for application to be made by the father for him to be able to come here and join his family who are already here. The House will agree that that is wrong. I do not believe that it has been exploited very much up to the present, but it is certainly possible to do so, and I think that the House will agree that that gap should be closed before advantage is taken of it.
I want to make clear to the House that these Amendments do not in any way take away or impair any existing rights of entry into the United Kingdom. They do not affect the position of children who are registered or who have been registered before the passing of the Bill. 561 The Amendments do not affect the rights of anyone who may have sought to take advantage of this loophole before the passing of the Act. The Amendments have no retrospective effect. But what they do is to stop up the loophole for the future.
We have tried to act fairly in this, and I hope that the House will agree that this is fair. Taking it together with the Amendments moved to meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich, to which I have referred, I think that this is a fair and satisfactory package.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI hope that I am following the suggestion that you made, Mr. Speaker. I will deal with Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6, and all the subsequent Amendments, all of which, as the hon. Gentleman made clear, are on the same point. I am not clear, Mr. Speaker, whether I should move our Amendment at a later stage or during the course of my remarks now.
§ Mr. SpeakerI am afraid that the hon. Member would be out of order if he did that now, but I will certainly allow the general discussion, and in the special circumstances, and seeing how the general discussion goes, if when the hon. Member formally comes to move his Amendment he wants to add briefly to his remarks I should allow him to do so.
§ Mr. ReesProbably I asked my question slightly the wrong way. The procedure you suggest, Mr. Speaker, would suit us very well because our Amendment deals with a wider aspect.
As the hon. Gentleman made clear, the purpose of this series of Amendments is to do what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) asked in Committee. Perhaps it is not inappropriate that he is busy with European affairs today. That is the reason why he cannot be with us. We are grateful for the fact that his idea, which we discussed in Committee, has been given statutory form.
There is no need for me to belabour that point. It is made quite clear that a woman who is a Commonwealth citizen, including a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, shall have the right of abode if she is or has been the wife of a citizen of the United Kingdom 562 or Colonies or of a Commonwealth citizen who has the right of abode, and that no longer will it need registration. This is a welcome concession, if that is the right word, on the part of the Government.
The hon. Gentleman made two points. He said that the gap had been closed, and made it clear that it did not alter the rights of people—not necessarily those already here—under the law as it stands now. He referred to husbands, and also to children. What happened in the past because of what has been called a loophole? The situation was generally known, in some circles at least, before discussion in Committee. What happened as a result of the 1968 Act was that the marriage of a woman to a non-belonging citizen of the United Kingdom would give her a right of entry while her husband had to stay in East Africa. So, existing rights are not modified.
Undoubtedly there were people who knew exactly what they were doing when they separated their families and then, when their families got here, raised the query as to why the families had been separated, although it had, of course, been a deliberate act on their part. Now the loophole is to be closed. Nevertheless, I hope that steps will be taken so that families can be reunited, not necessarily over-night. The law was not being broken when this was done, and now that the curiosity has been removed it would surely be right that in good time the situation should be dealt with.
As they meet a point which we asked about in Committee, the Lords Amendments are welcome. The wider point about the way in which a woman shall be treated with regard to patriality I reserve until we come to our proposed Amendment to the Lords Amendment.
§ Mr. David SteelWhilst I do not change my view on the basically wrong philosophy behind the 1968 Act, I accept that this peculiar loophole did result in extreme hardship.
There was a reason for this. In the 1968 Act the Labour Government ought to have concocted some scheme of social security help for those of our citizens who found themselves in straitened circumstances in East Africa because of the bad policies of the East African and British Governments. It was because no such arrangement was made, not even 563 on a par with the financial assistance given to white settlers after Kenya's independence, that many of these wives and children came here under what has been called the loophole. By doing so they could receive the financial help to which any citizen of this country is entitled in straitened circumstances—social security. That was a bad thing because those of us concerned know that there is nothing more irritating to public opinion than the fact that there are people coming here and living on social security.
While I support this change in closing the loophole, I believe that it illustrates a sorry aspect of the 1968 Act and a great defect of successive Administrations in failing to tackle the problem of financial hardship in the territories where it could have been dealt with without separation of families, without people coming here and living on social security. Although I understand that the new arrangements announced by the Home Secretary before the Summer Recess have already had a good effect in alleviating hardship in East Africa, I hope that it will not be long before we have dealt with the backlog of people waiting to come here. Until then the serious cases of hardship will not be removed finally.
§ Mr. PowellI refer to the loophole mentioned by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and which will be closed by these Amendments. I wonder whether, should he have leave to speak again in reply, he will be good enough to confirm that persons who have entered through this loophole have not featured in his Department's statistics of Commonwealth citizens entering this country, and whether he would further indicate whether there has been any estimate of the numbers, however rough, of such persons who have entered through this loophole in the last year or two.
§ Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)I reinforce the point put by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel). I welcome the clarification of the position of women under this provision. Has the Department any figures relating to what I call the non-patrial, non-United Kingdom citizens in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania? This underlines the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. As I am 564 well aware, as Member for Southall, where a great number of people of Kenya-Asian origin have come to settle, there are numerous cases. But I do not know how many there are. For example, there is considerable hardship where a family is in the situation where the eldest son is struggling to keep mother and brothers while the head of the household is still in Kenya waiting to come here.
I should like the hon. Gentleman to tell us soon to what extent this situation has been relieved by the issue of extra vouchers and in future will be relieved by the issue of extra work permits, even if it means, as many of us have suggested, holding back the number of work permits which might be issued to aliens.
4.15 p.m.
The figures for aliens are not often quoted and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) should apply his mind to them. In each of the years 1969 to 1970, a total of 69,000 foreign workers were applied for by British employers. They were not Commonwealth citizens, who will come in under different terms now because of the previous Lords Amendment. I think we voice general public anxiety on this point for historical reasons and, indeed, often for economic reasons, since most males of Kenya-Asian origin are an attribute to the British economy. That cannot be said about all Commonwealth immigrants over the last 15 years but it can be said, by and large, of those who enjoyed a higher standard of living in African States and for whom we have a direct responsibility. We have an inescapable historical responsibility for their presence in East Africa.
I hope that we can soon be given figures to show how the welcome measures taken by the Home Secretary before the Summer Recess have alleviated the situation. What, to the knowledge of the Home Office and our High Commissions in East Africa, is the backlog now? How many have yet to come?
§ Mr. SharplesBy leave of the House, I will reply to the debate.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked about the position of husbands of those women already here, who exploited the loophole. I cannot give him an answer on that. I do not know at this stage how many there 565 are, but my right hon. Friend will look at any application very carefully and will take into account all exceptional compassionate circumstances. I must make it clear that the husbands of these women never had the right to come here at all. The wives came here first and then applied for their husbands to be able to join them, thus jumping the queue. By these Amendments, we are not taking away any existing rights of the husbands concerned, but certainly, if there are compassionate grounds, my right hon. Friend will always carefully consider them.
Wider questions were raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell). I should be out of order, I am sure, were I to go deeply into the whole question of the policy for entry for those from East Africa, but it is fair to say that the alteration in the number of vouchers has been generally welcomed in the House. Because we recognise that these people have a special position, we are treating them exceptionally.
§ Mr. David SteelSurely it is in order to discuss my observations on the absence of any financial provisions for those in East Africa who are suffering hardship as a result of the twin policies of the East African Governments and the Government here. It was only natural that such people would use a loophole to provide subsistence for those of the family who could legally obtain it.
§ Mr. SharplesI understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, but that would not justify keeping the loophole open. I accept that there were powerful reasons for people to seek to exploit any loophole.
§ Mr. BidwellDoes not the hon. Gentleman agree that "exploit" is the wrong word? They came here perfectly legally under the then statutory arrangements. Because of the policy of Africanisation in the States mentioned, the Asians have been squeezed out of their livelihoods and have been having to live on hard-earned savings. It would have been regarded as the best bet for the family to come here and take a chance, not in defiance of any regulations, but as legal immigrants. The word "exploit" is therefore out of place.
§ Mr. Sharples"Take advantage of"; I do not want to bandy words. It was only natural that people would take advantage of any legal loophole. But it is equally right that we should seek to close any loophole giving one person an advantage over another in these circumstances.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was right to say that these wives were not included in the statistics. The reason is that they were exempt from control. It is thus not possible to estimate the number of women who may have come in in this way.
It may be helpful to say that when it was first decided that the gap in control must be closed, women of Asian descent in East Africa who were not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies were marrying men who were such citizens and who were not exempt from control at an annual rate of about 1,500. It is fair to say that the rate has since dropped off. I do not say that that is the whole of the problem, but it gives some idea of its extent.
§ Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston)My hon. Friend has specifically mentioned wives, but it is important to have statistics about children in order to cope with education needs. I should like to know whether there is any information about the number of children who may have entered through this loophole.
§ Mr. SharplesAs I said earlier, my information is that only a small number of children came in this way. As a child is exempt from control, he is not included in the statistics. One can only go on such information as one has and it is not possible to be accurate, but I do not believe that the gap has been used for many.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 2, line 29, leave out "for a continuous period of" and insert:
and had at that time (and while such a citizen) been ordinarily resident there for the last".
§ Mr. SharplesI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This Amendment concerns a matter raised on Report by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). Its purpose is to enable a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was originally admitted for a limited period, for instance, as a work permit holder, but who later applied for settlement to count the whole of his period of residence towards the five-year qualifying period for the right of abode under Clause 2(1)(c). Without the Amendment, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies was at a disadvantage compared with a Commonwealth citizen. This was pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman and I undertook at the time to consider the matter.
| "(1A) A woman is under this Act also to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom if she is a Commonwealth citizen and either— | |
| 5 | (a) is the wife of any such citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) above or any such Commonwealth citizen as is mentioned in subsection (1)(d); or |
| (b) has at any time been the wife— | |
| 10 | (i) of a person then being such a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or Commonwealth citizen; or |
| 15 | (ii) of a British subject who but for his death would on the date of commencement of the British Nationality Act 1948 have been such a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (b); |
| 20 | but in subsection (1)(a) and (b) above references to registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not, in the case of a woman, include registration after the passing of this Act under or by virtue of section 6(2) (wives) of the British Nationality Act 1948 unless she is so registered by virtue of her marriage to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies before the passing of this Act." |
§ Read a Second time.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesI beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment in line 1, leave out 'woman' and insert 'person'.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this we are also to discuss the remaining three Amendments to the Lords Amendment, namely:
In line 2, leave out 'she' and insert 'he';
In line 4, after first 'the', insert 'husband or';
In line 8, after 'the', insert 'husband or'.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesWe are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for dealing with this matter. The argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) was in accord with our general philosophy that citizenship ought to mean something and should be the basis of entry to this country, and we felt that it was wrong that a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who was, of course, a Commonwealth citizen should be at a disadvantage compared with a Commonwealth citizen who was not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: No. 6 in page 2, line 35, at end insert—
§ Mr. ReesAt present, a woman would get exemption from immigration control if her husband had such exemption. I am being careful not to talk about citizenship. When we have come anywhere near discussing what would happen if, for example, we joined the E.E.C., we have found that we have had to talk about citizenship and nationality, and in this country we have very little legislation appertaining to that subject. What we are discussing is the right to enter the country, the right of abode. That is what is involved in the Bill, which is not a citizenship Bill.
569 It does not work the other way round. A husband does not get the right to enter the country if the wife has such a right. These Amendments were drawn up in some hurry last evening and their drafting may not be absolutely correct, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will address himself to the spirit of the matter. We have no wish to aid bogus fiancés. It is our intention to deal with those who have a right to enter the country as patrials. Patriality is granted only to those who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies of a particular sort and who have been here for five years and to those born here. We are moving away from the subject of those who, within a week of having entered the country, apply for a fiancés or husband to come here, too. We are not seeking to make it easy for the bogus; they may be dealt with as such.
We are concerned with the generality of the matter. Is it not wrong in this day and age, in this country at least, whatever the view of the rest of the world, that when two people are married to each other, although one has the right to enter the country if the other has the right to do so, the converse does not apply? We do not have to go all the way with those in the women's liberation movement. We need go only partly along the line to see that there is something wrong with this attitude, whatever might have been the view in the Victorian age. With most of us this is not the situation today. I hope the lion. Gentleman will tell us that, even given that because of the parliamentary calendar, this Bill must be law tomorrow night, the Government will put their mind to this question, because it is not what we ought to have.
4.30 p.m.
I turn to what will happen in this respect if we enter the Common Market. What is the situation there? Is it the case that if someone has the right to enter this country—and maybe in this respect we shall have to be careful—we are talking about the right to enter temporarily as opposed to those who have the right to stay? As I recall our discussion on the E.E.C., the Treaty and the directions, there are certain rights built into the Treaty which would allow people who have been here for a certain period of time to stay after the job 570 they had come to do has finished. What we are anxious to know is this: given what we are seeking to do in our Amendment, might it be the case that if we were to enter Europe it would be possible at least for a group of these people to come in? Out of that group, whether male or female, what would be the rights given to the woman, for in the E.E.C. such a person would have the right to bring her husband and family with her? We want to be sure that we are not dealing with something written into nationality Acts or citizenship Acts in all parts of the world and sticking to that, only to find, in a few months' time when we look at the labour laws of Europe, that we will grant to European wives who enter this country a right that we would not give to others who enter this country.
We are not concerned to help the bogus, but we are concerned with the generality of the situation in the middle years of the 20th century. There would be very few of us, there may be the odd person, who would be prepared to argue in the family circle that there is something superior about a man that ought to be put, and is put, into the laws of the land, that would give rights of entry arising out of the citizenship that we have in our Commonwealth which should not be given to the wife.
Thirdly, we are certain that, although we are doing this now, we shall not be granting those rights to European women in a few months' time, because if this is the case it reinforces our argument that we ought to do something in general to bring ourselves into the 20th century, vis-à-vis the treatment we afford to women, arising out of patriality at least, which is a concept introduced by the previous Government.
§ Mr. SharplesThe effect of the Amendment would be that if a man marries a woman who is a patrial here he would thereby acquire the full rights of a patrial. The Common Market point is not the position on my understanding of the situation. If a woman comes here and obtains work she is able in the same way as a man to bring her family here and her husband. That is not the same as the grant of patriality. The woman who conies here herself does not acquire patrial rights: she does not acquire the 571 right to come and go. She may be able to come here and work under Common Market arrangements but she does not have any patrial rights.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThis is an esoteric subject but the point must be looked at. After a period of time when the European woman has been here does she not acquire a right to stay in this country which is at least akin, I take it no more than that, to the rights of patriality we are granting?
§ Mr. SharplesShe acquires the right to stay here, yes, but that is not the same as patrial rights. When she leaves the country I think I am right in saying those rights go. The patrial right is the right that we have and that is not the same.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Can she be deported?
§ Mr. SharplesI think I am right in saying that she can be deported whereas the person with patrial rights cannot. That is a significant difference. The Amendment proposes that a man would acquire through marriage the rights we are giving under these other Amendments to a woman. If husbands were to benefit from these Amendments the effect would be that any male Commonwealth citizen could obtain exemption from control and settle in the United Kingdom without obtaining a work permit by marrying a woman who was a patrial. This would open the door to an enormous number of potential Commonwealth immigrants. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is not, as he has made out, a Tory concept, but a concept embodied in the legislation passed by the last Government, of which he was a member.
The position has always been that where a woman marries someone in normal circumstances, and this is the law of other countries as well as Britain, it is expected that she will live in the country of her husband's domicile. There are—and the hon. Gentleman knows it very well from the cases he dealt with when at the Home Office—cases where undue hardship would be caused by a woman having to go to live in the country in which her husband is domiciled. The hon. Gentleman knows that we treat cases of that kind in exactly the same 572 way as he did. Where there are compassionate reasons of that kind we allow the husband to come to join his wife who may be a resident of this country.
I could not advise the House to accept the Amendment. It would be an enormous loophole. The hon. Gentleman said he did not want to deal with the bogus cases and I accept that, but even so this would open up an enormous loophole in the immigration laws and I do not think that he would really contemplate that.
§ Mr. BidwellAs the Minister knows, there are the statutory requirements which we are now considering, and the regulations under which work permits and the intake of people from overseas is arranged through the immigration control system. Can he say whether the Department has exercised or is likely to exercise any kind of priority in granting permits to applicants married to women here who have a patrial or citizen's right of abode, sometimes with children involved?
In my experience the Home Office has now and again bent the rules perhaps when we have had a case of a woman who had married abroad, say in India, and her husband being allowed to come into this country when the general rule was that the woman should go to India. Can the Minister say whether the Department will consider, perhaps not in statutory form, according priority for work permits within the availability of labour and occupations to the husbands of such women?
§ Mr. SharplesIt would be wrong to do that and to give that undertaking. We had to treat each case on its merits. When there are special compassionate grounds one makes an exception, but the normal rule, applied by both governments, is that a woman is expected to go to the country in which her husband is domiciled. It is not normal for a married woman domiciled here to be able to bring her husband here to work. It would be wrong to give the impression, and I do not wish to give it, that we would want to give priority to these cases. There are other people who have very strong reasons for wishing to obtain the limited number of work permits.
§ Mr. David SteelI am not over-impressed by the Opposition Amendments. I can see that they have a case, 573 on "women's lib" grounds, for saying that there should be equal rights for women in marriage as for men. I accept that as a general principle. What we cannot do is unilaterally change that principle in this country if it is the accepted rule elsewhere. It would be unwise for us to do that. If the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) wished to assist in an international women's lib campaign to bring about equality of status, which in principle would be hard to resist, then I would join him. But I do not see how we in this country can change such a fundamental principle if our citizens going abroad continue to be treated differently according to whether they are male or female.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesWith permission, I should like to make a few remarks.
I thought I had made it clear that, because the Bill is concerned not with citizenship but with patriality, our Amendment did not have anything to do with citizenship except in a remote way. We are concerned with the right of abode, which is the right to enter this country. When one dealt in the past with cases concerning people who had been in this country very briefly and who for genuine reasons wanted to bring their fiancés to live here, one did not operate immigration control on the basis of patriality. The bases of patriality are in Clause 2 and we have debated them at some length They are that a person
is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies … by birth, adoption, naturalisation or registration … or …(c) he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has at any time been settled in the United Kingdom … or(d) he is a Commonwealth citizen born to or legally adopted by a parent who at the time of the birth or adoption had citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies …
§ What we are concerned about is that patriality now gives the right to enter this country. One can get pathological about the Common Market, but if a woman from the Continent of Europe has the right to enter this country and to bring her family with her, this is a right denied to people with citizenship, even though citizenship is only the basis of patriality.
§ I recall the Home Secretary telling as that the concept of patriality as it appertained to men would not mean an increase in the number of people coming to this country. He said, "Why should patrials in different parts of the world suddenly start flocking to this country?" What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—or in reverse. Surely there would not be a large number of women trying to come to this country.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ We feel strongly about this matter in principle. We are not talking about citizenship because the Bill does not talk about citizenship. We have been told time and again that we can do what we like about immigration control, regardless of what the rest of the world does about it. Each Commonwealth country can do what it likes about immigration control, and this is one of the conventions of Commonwealth conferences, because immigration is not discussed, although I believe that citizenship should be discussed. The Amendment gives us the chance to allow women to have the same rights as men.
§ Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)I hope that the Minister is aware that there is a Royal precedent for the terms of the Amendment.
§ Question put, That the Amendment to the Lords Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 230. Noes 239.
577| Division No. 479.] | AYES | [4.45 p.m. |
| Abse, Leo | Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James |
| Albu, Austen | Bidwell, Sydney | Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) |
| Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) | Bishop, E. S. | Cant, R. B. |
| Allen, Scholefield | Blenkinsop, Arthur | Carmichael, Neil |
| Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) | Booth, Albert | Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) |
| Armstrong, Ernest | Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur | Clark, David (Colne Valley) |
| Atkinson, Norman | Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) | Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) |
| Bagier, Gordon A. T. | Bradley, Tom | Cohen, Stanley |
| Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) | Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) | Coleman, Donald |
| Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) | Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) | Concannon, J. D. |
| Beaney, Alan | Buchan, Norman | Conlan, Bernard |
| Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood | Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) | Corbet, Mrs. Freda |
| Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) | Hunter, Adam | Paget, R. T. |
| Crawshaw, Richard | Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hill) | Palmer, Arthur |
| Cronin, John | Janner, Greville | Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles |
| Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony | Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas | Pardoe, John |
| Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) | Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) | Parker, John (Dagenham) |
| Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) | Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) | Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Dalyell, Tam | John, Brynmor | Pavitt, Laurie |
| Darling, Rt. Hn. George | Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) | Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred |
| Davidson, Arthur | Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) | Pendry, Tom |
| Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) | Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) | Pentland, Norman |
| Davies, Ifor (Gower) | Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) | Perry, Ernest G. |
| Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) | Jones, Dan (Burnley) | Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. |
| Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) | Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) | Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) |
| de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey | Judd, Frank | Price, William (Rugby) |
| Delargy, H. J. | Kaufman, Gerald | Probert, Arthur |
| Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund | Kelley, Richard | Rankin, John |
| Dempsey, James | Kerr, Russell | Reed, D. (Sedgefield) |
| Doig, Peter | Kinnock, Neil | Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) |
| Dormand, J. D. | Lambie, David | Rhodes, Geoffrey |
| Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire E.) | Lamond, James | Roberts, Albert (Normanton) |
| Douglas-Mann, Bruce | Latham, Arthur | Robertson, John (Paisley) |
| Driberg, Tom | Lawson, George | Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) |
| Duffy, A. E. P. | Leadbitter, Ted | Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) |
| Dunn, James A. | Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Roper, John |
| Eadie, Alex | Leonard, Dick | Rose, Paul B. |
| Edelman, Maurice | Lestor, Miss Joan | Ross, Rt. Hn. William (KilmarnocK) |
| Edwards, Robert (Bilston) | Lever Rt Hn Harold | Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne) |
| Edwards, William (Merioneth) | Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) | Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) |
| Ellis, Tom | Lewis Ron (Carlisle) | Sillars, James |
| English, Michael | Lomas, Kenneth | Silverman, Julius |
| Evans, Fred | Loughlin, Charles | Skinner, Dennis |
| Ewing, Henry | Lyon, Alexander W. (York) | Small, William |
| Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. | Lyons, Edward (Bradford E.) | Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) |
| Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham,Ladywood) | Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson | Spearing, Nigel |
| Fitch, Alan (Wigan) | McBride, Neil | Spriggs, Leslie |
| Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) | McCann, John | Stallard, A. W. |
| Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) | McElhone, Frank | Steel, David |
| Foley, Maurice | McGuire, Michael | Stoddart, David (Swindon) |
| Foot, Michael | Mackenzie, Gregor | Strang, Gavin |
| Ford, Ben | Mackintosh, John P. | Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. |
| Forrester, John | McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) | Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley |
| Fraser, John (Norwood) | Mahon, Simon (Bootle) | Swain, Thomas |
| Freeson, Reginald | Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg) | Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E ) |
| Galpern, Sir Myer | Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E) | Tinn, James |
| Garrett, W. E. | Marks, Kenneth | Tomney, Frank |
| Gilbert, Dr. John | Marsden, F. | Torney, Tom |
| Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) | Marshall, Dr. Edmund | Tuck, Raphael |
| Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. | Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy | Urwin, T. W. |
| Gourlay, Harry | Meacher, Michael | Varley, Eric G. |
| Grant, Geroge (Morpeth) | Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert | Wainwright, Edwin |
| Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) | Mendelson, John | Watkins, David |
| Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) | Millan, Bruce | Weitzman, David |
| Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) | Milne, Edward | Wellbeloved, James |
| Hamling, William | Molloy, William | White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) |
| Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) | Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) | Whitehead, Phillip |
| Hardy, Peter | Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) | Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick |
| Harper, Joseph | Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick | Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.) |
| Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) | Murray, Ronald King | Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin) |
| Hattersley, Roy | Oakes, Gordon | Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton) |
| Hooson, Emlyn | Ogden, Eric | Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton) |
| Horam, John | O'Halloran, Michael | Wilson, William (Coventry, S.) |
| Houghton Rt. Hn. Douglas | O'Malley, Brian | Woof, Robert |
| Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) | Oram, Bert | |
| Hughes, Mark (Durham) | Orme, Stanley | TELLERS FOR THE AYES: |
| Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) | Oswald, Thomas | Mr. John Golding and |
| Hughes, Roy (Newport) | Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) | Mr. James Hamilton. |
| NOES | ||
| Adley, Robert | Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) | Burden, F. A. |
| Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian | Body, Richard | Butler, Adam (Bosworth) |
| Astor, John | Bossom, Sir Clive | Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray&Nairn) |
| Atkins, Humphrey | Bowden, Andrew | Carlisle, Mark |
| Awdry, Daniel | Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John | Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert |
| Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) | Bray, Ronald | Cary, Sir Robert |
| Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) | Brewis, John | Chapman, Sydney |
| Balniel, Lord | Brinton, Sir Tatton | Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher |
| Batsford, Brian | Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher | Chichester-Clark, R. |
| Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton | Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) | Clark, William (Surrey, E.) |
| Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) | Bruce-Gardyne, J. | Clegg, Walter |
| Benyon, W. | Bryan, Paul | Cockeram, Eric |
| Berry, Hn. Anthony | Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) | Cooke, Robert |
| Biggs-Davison, John | Buck, Antony | Coombs, Derek |
| Blaker, Peter | Bullus, Sir Eric | Cooper, A. E. |
| Cordle, John | Kershaw, Anthony | Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) |
| Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick | King, Tom (Bridgwater) | Rees, Peter (Dover) |
| Cormack, Patrick | Kinsey, J. R. | Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon |
| Costain, A. P. | Kitson, Timothy | Ridley, Hn. Nicholas |
| Critchley, Julian | Knight, Mrs. Jill | Ridsdale, Julian |
| Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutstord) | Knox, David | Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry | Lambton, Antony | Roberts, Wyn (Conway) |
| d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James | Lane, David | Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) |
| Dean, Paul | Legge Bourke, Sir Harry | Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) |
| Digby, Simon Wingfield | Le Merchant, Spencer | Rost, Peter |
| Dixon, Piers | Longden, Gilbert | Russell, Sir Ronald |
| Dodds-Parker, Douglas | Loveridge, John | Scott, Nicholas |
| Eden, Sir John | Luce, R. N. | Scott-Hopkins, James |
| Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) | McAdden, Sir Stephen | Sharples, Richard |
| Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) | MacArthur, Ian | Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) |
| Emery, Peter | McCrindle, R. A. | Shelton, William (Clapham) |
| Eyre, Reginald | McLaren, Martin | Sinclair, Sir George |
| Farr, John | Maclean, Sir Fitzroy | Skeet, T. H. H. |
| Fell, Anthony | McMaster, Stanley | Smith Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) |
| Fenner, Mrs. Peggy | Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) | Soref, Harold |
| Fidler, Michael | McNair-Wilson, Michael | Speed, Keith |
| Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) | McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) | Spence, John |
| Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) | Maginnis, John E. | Sproat, Iain |
| Fookes, Miss Janet | Marten, Neil | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Foster, Sir John | Mather, Carol | Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) |
| Fowler, Norman | Maude, Angus | Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) |
| Fox, Marcus | Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald | Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. |
| Fry, Peter | Mawby, Ray | Stokes, John |
| Gibson-Watt, David | Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. | Stuttaford, Dr. Tom |
| Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) | Meyer, Sir Anthony | Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) |
| Gilmour, Sir John (Fife. E.) | Mills, Peter (Torrington) | Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) |
| Glyn, Dr. Alan | Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W) | Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) |
| Goodhew, Victor | Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) | Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) |
| Gorst, John | Moate, Roger | Tebbit, Norman |
| Gowor, Raymond | Molyneaux, James | Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) |
| Grant, Anthony (Harrow C.) | Montgomery, Fergus | Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) |
| Gray, Hamish | More, Jasper | Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) |
| Green, Alan | Morrison, Charles | Tilney, John |
| Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) | Mudd, David | Trafford, Dr. Anthony |
| Gummer, Selwyn | Murton, Oscar | Trew, Peter |
| Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) | Nabarro, Sir Gerald | Tugendhat, Christopher |
| Hall, John (Wycombe) | Neave, Airey | Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin |
| Hall-Davis, A. G. F. | Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael | Vaughan, Dr. Gerard |
| Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) | Normanton, Tom | Vickers, Dame Joan |
| Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) | Nott, John | Waddington, David |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Qnslow, Cranley | Walder, David (Clitheroe) |
| Havers, Michael | Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally | Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) |
| Hayhoe, Barney | Osborn, John | Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek |
| Heseltine, Michael | Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) | Wall, Patrick |
| Hicks, Robert | Page, Graham (Crosby) | Walters, Dennis |
| Hiley, Joseph | Page, John (Harrow. W.) | Ward, Dame Irene |
| Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk S.) | Page, John (Harrow. W.) | Weatherill, Bernard |
| Hill, James (Southampton, Test) | Parkinson, Cecil | White, Roger (Gravesend) |
| Holt, Miss Mary | Peel, John | Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William |
| Hordern, Peter | Percival, Ian | Wiggin, Jerry |
| Hornby, Richard | Peyton, Rt. Hn. John | Wilkinson, John |
| Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia | Pike, Miss Mervyn | Winterton, Nicholas |
| Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) | Pink, R. Bonner | Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick |
| Hunt, John | Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch | Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher |
| Hutchison, Michael Clark | Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M L. | Woodnutt, Mark |
| James, David | Proudfoot, Wilfred | Worsley, Marcus |
| Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) | Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis | Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. |
| Jennings, J. C. (Burton) | Quennell, Miss J. M. | |
| Jessel, Toby | Raison, Timothy | TELLERS FOR THE NOES: |
| Jopling, Michael | Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter | Mr. Paul Hawkins and |
| Kaberry, Sir Donald | Redmond, Robert | Mr. Tim Fortescue. |
| Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine |
§ Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: No. 7 in page 2, line 36, leave out "father" and insert "parent".
§ Mr. SharplesI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It might be for the convenience of the House if at the same time we discuss Lords Amendments No. 8 and 9:
578 In page 2, line 36, leave out "father's" and insert "parent's";
In page 2, line 38, leave out "father's" and insert "parent's".
Mr. Deputy SpeakerThey may be, if that is convenient to the House, and Lords Amendments 8 and 9 can then be taken formally.
§ Mr. SharplesThe opening words of Clause 2(2) makes special provision in 579 regard to the patriality of persons who are born after their father's deaths. The effect of the subsection as introduced was to provide that in a case where subsection (1) requires a parent to have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of a person's birth, it is sufficient for the father to have been such a citizen at the time of his own death.
These Lords Amendments apply this provision also to the birth of a child—in the rare circumstances—after the mother is dead.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThis seems to us good legal sense, because as was said in another place, the courts do act inconceivably on occasions.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
§
Lords Amendment: No. 10, in page 2, line 45, after "Kingdom" insert:
and similarly with references to birth in any of the Islands;".
§ Mr. SharplesI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is an Amendment to Clause 2 (2)(b) which relates to births of persons on board a ship or aircraft. If the ship or aircraft is registered in the United Kingdom or owned by the United Kingdom Government birth in it counts as birth in the United Kingdom for the purpose of acquiring or transmitting the right of abode. In its original form Clause 2 (2)(b) did not cover birth in a ship or aircraft belonging to one of the Islands. Since birth in one of the Islands can confer patriality it is right that birth in a ship or aircraft belonging to one of the Islands should likewise do so. That is the effect of the Lords Amendment.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesThis seems good sense. The Government of this country are acting on behalf of the Islands in respect of patriality and, therefore, of right of abode. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, if not now later, whether the agreement of the Islands had to be obtained for this to be done? It may be a small point but it is of value for us to know this.
§ Mr. SharplesWith the leave of the House. I think I am right in saying that the agreement of the Islands was obtained for the extension of the right of patriality to a person who is born in the Islands. All the Amendment does is to extend that to a ship or aircraft belonging to one of the Islands, which is a much narrower point.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 3, line 20, leave out "expression" and insert "word".
§ 5.0 p.m.
§ Mr. SharplesI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a purely drafting Amendment.
§ Mr. Merlyn ReesWe fully support the Minister in going quickly over drafting Amendments, but will he explain to us what is involved here? There has been a change here; "word" has been substituted for "expression". Given what went on in our discussions on patriality, is this simply drafting? Is there no fundamental reason underlying it?
§ Mr. SharplesWith the leave of the House, I can give an assurance to the hon. Gentleman that there is no fundamental reason at all. This is purely drafting. It was thought that the alteration made better reading.
§ Question put and agreed to.