IMMIGRATION RULES

HC Deb 10 March 1980 vol 980 cc1066-106

Question again proposed.

Mr. Budgen

What happens is that Continental judges or the Committee of Ministers will decide the broad issues that the House of Commons should decide. They will decide the issue of individual freedom as opposed to the authority of the State. They will decide the question of how large the racial minority group should be in England and what their rights should be as opposed to the rights of the indigenous population.

I raise this matter became it is not just relevant to these fairly unimportant rules and the simple issue before us, but because at least some of us on the Government Benches are determined that the spirit of the commitments made to the people of England at the last general election shall be adhered to. We believe that in large measure we were elected upon those promises and that we owe an obligation to those who elected us to see that those promises are carried out.

The three main promises that were made were, first, that we should have a new British Nationality Bill and Act, secondly, that there should be a register and, thirdly that there should be a quota. All those matters could give rise to an application, first to the Commission, then to the Court, and ultimately to the Committee.

Mr. Ennals

I recognise that the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) is arguing that we should withdraw from commitments that we entered into but he is not saying that we have not entered into those obligations, any more than he is saying that he did not enter into obligations to his electorate in terms of the Conservative manifesto. But did he agree with the point that I made, that it is not good enough for the Home Secretary to say, in terms of whether it is within the accepted law: It is not a matter for me at this stage."—[Official Report, 4 December 1979; Vol. 975, c. 256].

Mr. Budgen

Of course the right hon. Gentleman made the point rhetorically. I accept that we have entered the Community and we are bound by the obligations, but if the House raises this issue and speaks of a clog upon the sovereignty of the House of Commons, as we necessarily do, the Government owe the House a view upon the effect of that convention in the same way that my obligation, when taking part in the debate, is to give a view on the points that are likely to be raised before the Committee of Ministers in the last resort.

The three additional promises to which I referred, and also to the promise to stamp out illegal immigration and illegal overstaying, go to the very heart of the sovereignty of the House of Commons. Every time we raise an issue that seeks to deal with these promises there will be siren voices from all parts of the House—from those who are strong Europeans, those who believe in world government and those who believe in all forms of supranational control over the sovereign House of Commons. Out of a mixture of kindliness and guilt they will be listened to far too attentively. Let us move to the logic of this, do away with this supranational control and withdraw from the convention.

10.5 pm

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I have always had a soft spot for the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), who says the most racialist things with a good deal of charm and sensitivity. I wonder whether he recognises the impact of what he says on black people in his constituency.

We had an admirable example of this tonight, when the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was actually hurt by the suggestion that he might have upset my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) by suggesting that something that he had said would give offence to my hon. Friend's coloured relatives. Yet the right hon. Gentleman must know that every time he opens his mouth on race—this was the case again tonight—he deeply offends people who have settled in this country, who were born in this country and are citizens of it, and who expect to live the rest of their lives here. It is offensive to suggest that because they are black or brown they are a potential threat to the stability of this nation.

When the right hon. Gentleman talks about how the present birth rate in some of our inner cities will continue and establish for ever the same kind of proportion of black people in the population of those cities he must realise that that situation exists today. But whatever the difficulties, it cannot be suggested that this is a society that is totally unstable and in which even black people feel that they are subject to daily harassment and violence. That is not the case. I know that the right hon. Gentleman feels sincerely about this, but I ask him to consider all the evidence.

All the evidence of our past shows that this nation has been formed by successive waves of immigration from abroad and that ultimately those people who were migrants and who suffered in the same way as black migrants are suffering today have integrated into the community and the culture of the community has widened because of their presence. We have all benefited immeasurably from the fact that that is the nature of our society. We are benefiting immeasurably from the presence of black people in our community at present and we shall continue to bene- fit. It is unfortunate that this essential message, which is now coming across increasingly to most people, has not yet got through to the Government Front Bench. Had it done so, they would never have brought forward the nonsense that is in these rules.

Mr. Stokes

I am interested in the hon. Member's argument. However, I do not think that he is being fair in saying that in the past England has received immigrants from many countries and has absorbed them all. Of course we have, but in tiny numbers. It is the sheer vastness of the present immigration that makes it so different from previous immigration.

Mr. Lyon

I always learnt from my history that the Normans actually swamped the Anglo-Saxons, especially in our inner cities. On the whole I think that we benefited from that.

I should like to turn to the report of the Select Committee of which I was Chairman. I do not think that the Minister did justice to the efforts of the Committee in taking evidence on this matter. In normal circumstances one would expect that there would be a proper debate on the reports of the new Select Committees, otherwise they would not have the impact that they could have. That debate would normally be opened by the Chairman. I accept that in this debate that could not happen, but our report was brought out in order to assist the House in coming to a conclusion about these rules. When we took evidence we discussed who should give evidence before us and we took the advice of others. We came to the conclusion that the people whom we asked for evidence were the best experts on the matters that we had to consider.

We asked the Home Office to give evidence. We asked the Attorney-General to give evidence. The right hon. and learned Gentleman refused, for reasons that are indicated in the report. We also asked Professor Jacobs, who was employed as an official of the European Commission of Human Rights, before he became an academic. We asked Lord Scarman, who has an international reputation for the defence of human rights and knows the convention and the institution well. We asked Mr. Anthony Lester, QC, not because he had once been in the Home Office but because he has more experience of appearing before the commission than any other member of the English Bar.

We discussed the issue in a Committee in which there was a Conservative majority. When we had heard all the evidence we asked whether there was anyone else whom we should call. No one suggested anyone else. The Minister now suggests that we should have called Lord Rawlinson. I know that Lord Rawlinson has a high reputation on the Government Benches. However, I do not think that any Conservative Member would begin to put him in the same class as Lord Scarman, although the Minister appeared to do so. Before the suggestion was made I had not understood that Lord Rawlinson had any expertise relevant to the European Convention on Human Rights, or much experience of it.

The Committee deliberately did not come to a decision on whether the United Kingdom was or would be in breach. The Committee did not regard itself as the Court. What it said it would do at the beginning, and what it did, was to reflect on the evidence. The overwhelming evidence, apart from the Home Office evidence, was that the United Kingdom would be in breach of the rules relating to parents and fiancés. It was clear that we would be in breach of articles 8 and 14 taken together.

Article 8 refers to the defence of family life and article 14 to discrimination in the application of the rules to people who live within the convention area. It is significant that the Home Office could not advance any of the weighty argument to which the Minister referred to deal with the allegation. The Home Office contended that there was a difference between differential treatment and discrimination. Lord Scarman agreed, but he could find no way in which the evidence that had been put before the House by the Government in the previous debate in any way suggested that differential treatment was not discrimination within the meaning of the convention.

If a difference is made between one person and another on the ground of sex or race, and there is no justifiable reason for so doing within the policy that is being pursued, that is discrimination. It is undeniable that there is a difference be- tween one person and another if they are of different sexes. Even the Home Office accepted that in its evidence. It is now undeniable, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West agreed, that there is a difference in relation to race, and certainly in relation to fiancés. I should have thought that that applied in relation to parents. If that is so, it is impossible to conceive a situation in which the European Commission of Human Rights or the Court will acquit the Government of a breach of the convention.

There are two choices. The Government can do as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested and retire from the convention altogether. I think that the hon. Gentleman's advice to burglars was that the law is wrong, so we should withdraw from it. I cannot believe that the Government, with their pretended record on law and order, will say that because we are in breach of the law we should abandon our adherence to the European convention.

Mr. Budgen

That is not right.

Mr. Lyon

That is exactly the argument advanced by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Budgen

No.

Mr. Lyon

I think that the Government might try to shrug it off. However, it is impossible to shrug off a breach of the convention when we are a signatory member of the convention and have said that we shall faithfully honour its observations. We have always adhered to its decision, whatever it was, and tried to implement it.

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West)

So that he shall not be misunderstood, will my hon. Friend confirm that he would not suggest that we could lawfully withdraw from our obligations under the convention?

Mr. Lyon

I do not suggest that we could do so, any more than the burglar could lawfully withdraw from the provisions of the Theft Act, but the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West seemed to be getting near to suggesting that.

Mr. Budgen

I was advocating that we should withdraw from the convention. That is lawful.

Mr. Lyon

That would not save the Government from the embarrassment that would come about when they are found to be in breach of the convention because of the passage of this rule when they are adhering to the convention. The Minister of State shakes his head, but the overwhelming weight of the evidence is in the document. There is no way in which one can argue that there was not discrimination. It is true that the Committee did not in the end say so, because even where there were some pointed remarks in the report they were taken out by the Conservative majority.

But the Committee said clearly that in assessing whether the differential treatment was discrimination the Commission was entitled to look at all the circumstances of the case, including party manifestos, party speeches, such as that of the new Secretary of State before the last election, which propounded this doctrine, the television interview of the Leader of the Opposition, as she then was, which contained the famous word "swamping" and speeches by supporters of the Government in the House.

Anyone who looks through the speeches in this debate as well as the last debate will find plenty of evidence of the intention of the rules, but the most significant information is the evidence put forward by the Government in support of the rules. When they referred to figures before the report came out they always referred to the New Commonwealth and never to the immigrants from elsewhere in the world. Yet one-third of those coming in for settlement at any given time in the past five or 10 years have been white people from the Old Commonwealth or foreign countries.

What is most significant of all is that when the Government talk about the problems of primary immigration set by fiancés they totally neglect the figures from the white Commonwealth or from the white foreign countries of the world. In 1978 10,000 came into this country for marriage, 5,500 of them coming from the white areas of the world. Practically none of them will be affected by this change of rule, because of the concessions that have been made progressively by the Home Secretary.

The latest concession—the one that now allows a woman to bring in a husband if she was the daughter of a person born here—is more racialist than any of the other concessions. It aggravates the racialist implications of the rules. Far from saving the Government before the Commission, it will make the case much worse.

In addition, the Government go on talking about their difficulties in applying a similar critical exemption for women coming into the country, because they say that there is a statutory provision in the 1971 Act that would have to be repealed.

Mr. Wilkinson

rose—

Mr. Lyon

I shall not give way, because I must get on. If it were really argued that the presence of people coming for work, which is what primary immigration means, was the real threat to our economy, it should be remembered that 40 per cent. of the migrant women who enter this country, just like 40 per cent. of women already here, go out to work. Therefore, 40 per cent. of the 15,000 women who came in 1978 for marriage are likely to go out to work. If that were the real reason, the same provision would be applied to women as is applied to men. It is not. Clearly, that will be used against the Government.

The leader of the Liberal Party pointed to working holidaymakers, thousands of them coming in from the white areas of the Commonwealth each year to work. They are not to be excluded. The exclusion is only in relation to those coming from the black areas of the Commonwealth.

There is an even worse case that will have to be taken into consideration by the Commission. Under the 1973 rules, as a result of a revolt among Conservative Back Benchers, a provision was introduced that was not contained in the previous rules, namely, that anyone who had a grandparent born in this country has a free right of entry. By definition, that applies only to white, and 3,357 such people came here in 1978. That is more than the total saving that the Minister has estimated for these changes in the rules. He is keeping out fewer than 3,000 black people and still allowing in 3,500 white people, almost all of whom are coming for work.

If the right hon. Gentleman is really concerned about primary immigration and about the threat to jobs he will therefore want to change the rule applying to the grand-patrial clause. But he does not. It is obvious, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West admitted, somewhat to the embarrassment of his Front Bench, that the real reason for these changes in the rules is a racialist one.

The changes have a racialist implication, they have a racialist intention, and those Government supporters who abstained on the last occasion because they felt in all conscience that they could not go into the Division Lobby with their Government on this issue now have the evidence not of me—the hon. Member for Surbiton (Sir N. Fisher) asked me on the last occasion how I could be sure that we were in breach of the European Convention—but of Lord Scarman, Mr. Lester and Professor Jacobs, three people who are concerned intimately with the operation of the convention, that we are in breach. If Government supporters really want to save their Government from embarrassment their proper course of action tonight is to vote against these rules and stop them.

10.22 pm

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, West)

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), I must congratulate the Opposition on taking valuable parliamentary time to debate a subject that is of such great relevance, that is such a great national issue, and is one of the difficulties facing us today, especially in the light of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) said about the numbers being so small that one might almost say that it was not worth debating them. We are debating a very minor alteration to a legacy bequeathed to the nation by hon. Members of both parties.

Immigration and its control have commanded and will command many hours of debate and discussion, but I suggest that much of the argument engendered by Opposition Members is pure political hypocrisy aimed at pandering to a minority already over-protected by a wealth of legislation, biased rules and numerous statutory boards and bodies. That about 3 per cent. of our population command such important attention immediately gives them a special place in society and one that has brought its own recrimination from those who, despite their indigenous claim, do not enjoy this special immunity.

Much of the humbug practised by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, including the Liberals, is apparent in their constant accusation of discrimination and racialism levelled at those who recognise that backgrounds are different, that cultures do not necessarily mix and that even the distinction of the colour of skin is difficult for some people to accept.

To assume immediately that intending inhabitants from countries many thousands of miles from their new home will be given an enthusiastic welcome is to ignore some basic nationalistic feelings that are natural and inherent. The majority of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish have known no other home than these isles, and they do not intend otherwise. They are proud of their identity and patriotism. We cannot assume that they will readily accept any jet-age migrant who happens to choose these islands as his home. They are bound to feel some antagonism towards those who bring new customs, new habits, new standards that they themselves will not accept, new social behaviour and, regrettably, a certain arrogance that at times is almost anti-British.

It must be against this background and in full recognition of the wishes and feelings of the indigenous people that we consider a further tightening of the rules and prevent our country being further overrun by immigrants. The annual figure of about 50,000, boosted by at least that many again by illegals and overstayers, is still far too high, and the Government should reduce it drastically.

In the debate in December I expressed the wish that the original alterations, including the change in the much-abused fiancé rule, were only the hors d'oeuvres. If this is the first course, many hon. Members and many more people outside are still waiting for the main course.

A view is readily canvassed that immigration should cease immediately and only genuine cases of hardship and family misery should qualify. I would not support that view if I felt that we were going back on promises by previous Administrations, but if there is no other way to reduce the numbers substantially a rearrangement of old commitments may be necessary.

Mr. Cyril Smith (Rochdale)

There is always the gas chamber.

Mr. Carlisle

The British passport has long been abused as an abject excuse to gain access to this promised land of employment, social benefits and opportunity. Our somewhat tarnished image abroad still, seemingly, has little effect on those clamouring to come here. It is unbelievable that at a time of great national difficulty, when five years of Socialist profligate spending has pushed inflation to an intolerable level and unemployment is rising, hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, particularly those in the Liberal Party, call for a relaxation of controls. The Labour Party granted amnesties to illegal entrants and now chastises the Government for attempting to protect their people against an even larger burden on their already overstretched services.

Do not the Opposition realise that further immigration will do more damage to those already here than to any other sector of society? Do they not appreciate that their call for increased public expenditure must be financed by those who are already struggling to settle into life in circumstances entirely different from those to which they are used? Do they not realise that many of these intending settlers will not be able to speak English, let alone wish to accept new customs that are themselves alien to their religious upbringing?

The burden upon some of our education services is already intolerable. At a school in my constituency an estimated 89 per cent. of pupils are of ethnic orgin and at times the yearly intake contains a 50 per cent. entry of those totally unable to speak English. Do these figures not put a special difficulty on those who are expected to provide every educational facility against a background of falling financial resources? Can we reasonably expect the taxpayer to finance the teaching of English in our schools to a continuing stream of migrants and their children?

If Opposition Members are so anxious to relax all the rules that we have and to prompt a further large influx of migrants, will they explain to their constituents that this could bring further special difficulties, which could be burdensome to our inhabitants, including of course, those recently settled here? As my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office—the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison)—said, this extra burden on our social services can no longer be tolerated.

These intended changes are minor indeed. The fiancé rule has been much abused, as Labour Members have successively admitted. Parents of any age cannot expect automatic entry without some visible means of support, as they cannot expect that even their dependants are certain to welcome a further burden on their family budget.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James (Cambridge)

Does my hon. Friend realise that if the rules about foreign fiancés, as originally drafted, had applied in full, Prince Albert would never have been allowed to marry Queen Victoria?

Mr. Carlisle

My hon. Friend should perhaps have seen that and spoken to the Home Secretary at that time.

The au pair has become an easy excuse for another form of entry. The description "student" can cover a multitude of activities, and access can be readily gained for attendance at some pseudo-educational establishment, many of which are completely unregistered. Admission for temporary stayers has led to an abuse that even the Home Office admits is largely undetected. Indeed, the phrase "passengers coming for temporary purposes" can also include a wedding guest who fails to return home after the ceremony.

Although these rules are designed further to restrict primary immigration, there must be an increasing worry that ethnic families tend to be large and almost unlimited in the number of their dependants.

My hon. Friend should be concerned that these measures may still prove inadequate to the primary task of reducing numbers to a trickle and without doubt further restrictions will be necessary. Let not this Government flinch from taking such measures. There is a real concern among the people that too many are taking advantage of our misplaced hospitality; that too many immigrants are overstaying; that too many are abusing the rules; and that too many are living in the belief that Britain is a paradise for any who choose to come here.

These rules will go some way to correcting the situation, but let them be the forerunner of more to come.

10.30 pm

Mr. Peter Archer (Warley, West)

If I do not reply to the arguments of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Carlisle), I hope that he will not assume that silence implies assent. The House has listened to his views, and in the interests of the good name of this House I hope that it will never have to listen to a repetition of them.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) indicated at the outset of the debate that I might seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to be brief and confine myself to the issue of the incompatibility of the Government's proposals with the obligations of this country under the European Convention on Human Rights. If I abstain from comment on any other aspects of this debate it is not because I have no views on them and it certainly is not because I have no constituency interest in them. I have large numbers of constituents who have reason for real anxieties on these matters. But many hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious to take part and it would be unfortunate if it appeared that this debate were monopolised by the Front Benches.

The Opposition are troubled by the cavalier attitude of the Government to their obligations under international law. We should be grateful to the Select Committee for the care that it devoted to this matter. We should also be grateful to those who gave evidence to the Select Committee. It might have been courteous to the Select Committee and to its witnesses if the Government had given the House the benefit of the views of a Law Officer, or at least given the House the benefit of their reactions to the evidence submitted by those witnesses. I say nothing of the provisions relating to parents and grandparents, though I am not by any means saying that even with the proposed further amendments there is no further reason for anxiety.

I say nothing of article 3 of the convention, although it seems to me that there might be an argument that the Government's proposals amount to degrading treatment, as was suggested by certain of the witnesses before the Select Committee. I say nothing of what Lord Scarman referred to as the "nasty little provisions" relating to au pair girls.

I invite the attention of the House to the fiancé provisions, where it seems to me that there is clear reason for anxiety The proposed rules 50 and 52 as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) indicated, seem to make a distinction between men and women, between British born and foreign-born women, and between women coming from different religious and cultural backgrounds. I have heard no suggestion that those distinctions are not made.

Article 8 of the convention provides that Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life. Whether the Commission would find an infringement of that article taken alone would depend upon the facts. However, I do not seek to take the matter any further than it was taken by the Minister of State. But, of course, the Commission is entitled to consider it in conjunction with article 14. That article reads: The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any grounds such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. It has emerged from the jurisprudence of the Commission that article 14 is applicable only to the rights set out in the other articles in the convention. But there is a strong body of opinion that the Commission may find an infringement of article 14 in relation to a right arising under another article even if there is not an infringement of that other article taken alone. Clearly, if article 14 operated only where there was an independent infringement of the convention, it would be superfluous. And that view is expressed by the Commission in the Belgian linguistic case.

So the Commission is entitled to consider whether article 8 imposes distinctions based on race, sex, religion or any of the other factors in article 14. There was little doubt by any of the Select Committee witnesses that it would not be arguable that there are not such distinctions in rules 50 and 52.

But a further matter must be considered. Differences of treatment are not necessarily discrimination within article 14. It depends upon whether the difference in treatment has an objective and reasonable justification. Professor Jacobs, in evidence to the Committee, expressed the view that in deciding that question the only factors which could properly be taken into account are those which are either inherent in the nature of the right—that is, inherent in article 8—or those designed to remedy existing inequalities.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that Professor Jacobs is wrong. Let us direct our minds to the wider range of factors, as Lord Scarman and Mr. Lester did. Their clear view is that the reasons set out by the Government do not justify the discriminations. Clearly the magnitude of the problem which the measures are designed to resolve must be considered with the relevance of the difference in the treatment of the problem. I shall not trouble the House by repeating the evidence of Mr. Lester.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton)

Why not?

Mr. Archer

I am not sure what the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) is suggesting from a sedentary position. If he finds Mr. Lester's evidence amusing, the humour has escaped those who have taken the trouble to sit through the debate.

Mr. Lawrence

The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) invites me to get to my feet. I suggest that the evidence of Mr. Lester, although he is a most eminent QC, can hardly be said to be unbiased.

Mr. Archer

Then we may ask whether the evidence of Lord Scarman is unbiased. I invite the House to consider what Lord Scarman said. He was examining the paragraph which states that the parties to the marriage have not met. He said: Why it should be thought that (c) adds anything to the control of primary immigration I do not know. It just seems to me to be an attack on the social habits and customs of people who have come to this country and who are living according to the customs in which they were brought up. That is the view not of a Socialist politician but of Lord Scarman.

The Government have two possibilities. They may say, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said "Let us acknowledge that this would be an infringement of the convention. Let us ignore our legal obligations and say that we propose to ignore them". When my hon. Friend for York was speaking, the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggested that that might be done lawfully.

Mr. Budgen

I still say that.

Mr. Archer

It is clear that it cannot be done lawfully. Article 65 of the convention provides for the denunciation by a high contracting party after six months' notice, but it makes clear that such a denunciation: shall not have the effect of releasing the High Contracting Party concerned from its obligations under the Convention in respect of any act which,…may have been performed by it before the date at which the denunciation became effective. So it is perfectly clear that the Government cannot escape by doing that. But then they might say simply that they just do not mind whether they are infringing their international obligations. That is a possible attitude, and, I should have thought, less hypocritical than the attitude which they are maintaining. But let it not be said after that that the Conservative Party is the one which believes in observing legal obligations. Let it not be suggested, either, that this is anything to do with the EEC. The European Convention on Human Rights is not an instrument of the EEC. The parties to it are not members of the EEC, and it has nothing to do with the EEC.

All that we have heard at the moment from the Government is an invitation to the House to proceed with these amendments and to argue the case if and when it arises.

Mr. S. C. Silkin

In considering the alternatives under the convention, has my right hon. and learned Friend forgotten that there is another possibility, and that is that the Government might not renew the right of individual petition? Does he agree that that would be the most shameful of all possible courses?

Mr. Archer

I certainly had in mind the point that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned. But I was a little reluctant to put ideas into the Government's head. The fact is that that option will not arise in any event until 1981, because our present ratification extends until that year. So that would not avail the Government either.

All that we have heard from the Government at the moment is that they are not prepared to ensure that they are in conformity with their international obligations before they invite the House to ratify these proposals. I should not have thought, in those circumstances, that it was unreasonable for hon. Members to suggest that we might have had the views of a Law Officer. Where the blame lies I would not know, and perhaps we are not entitled to ask. the Government where lies responsibility for decisions taken within the Government. But whether the blame rests with Home Office Ministers or someone else, I echo the views expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Enna1s), and I hope that in the winding up the debate the Home Secretary will answer some of these questions.

Parliament is being asked to approve amendments to the rules, the legality of which in international law is, at the very lowest, open to grave doubts. There has been a debate over the last few years on whether we ought to have a Bill of Rights. Some have argued for such a Bill with entrenched provisions which would limit the power of Parliament to approve legislation in conflict with it. I do not share that view. Some, like Lord Scarman in his original Hamlyn lecture, express the view that we might have a Bill of Rights which would require a special built-in parliamentary majority in order to pass legislation in conflict with it. Some have thought that it might be introduced simply as part of our general legislation, but subject to being overridden by Parliament. But at each stage there have been those who have said "Why do we need it? The citizens of this country already have these rights. They are enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights". They have gone on to say "We can accept without question that Parliament would not behave so irresponsibly as to pass legislation which is in conflict with our obligations under the convention". So they have said "Why do we need a Bill of Rights in this country? Parliament may be relied upon to avoid the necessity for a Bill of Rights".

I promised to be brief. I rose only to say that that argument will be put to the test in the Lobbies tonight.

10.43 pm

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

I do not anticipate that many Members on the Opposition Benches will agree with what I have to say. I do not anticipate that some of my hon. Friends will agree with what I have to say. But I do anticipate that the great majority of people in this country will agree with what I have to say and will wish that it was said loud and clear in the House.

Today is a sad day. It is not a sad day because this is a sexist and racist measure, as it has been described, and as it has been put before the House, but it is a sad day because it brings into focus once again how completely out of touch Governments in this country and some hon. Members in this debate have been with the people of the country that they purport to represent.

We know what the people want. We are their elected representatives. We alone can introduce the measures that they require. We have failed. Although I hope that the measures that we are introducing today will help, we still have a long way to go.

Britain is a crowded island. It is a British island, and the repository of British culture and the British way of life. Through negligence and timidity we have imported 2 million people of a different culture. If, at any stage, we had put to the British people the question "Do you wish to bring into this country 1 million, 2 million or 3 million people of a different culture?", do we really believe for one moment that they would have answered "Yes"? If we assume that the answer would have been "No", we must all agree that so far we have failed.

I speak of a different culture. I do not say that it is a better culture or a worse culture, that it is an inferior culture or a superior culture; I say simply that it is a different culture. There is nothing better or worse about the smell of curry or the smell of tripe and onions. There is nothing inherently better or worse about the European system of marriage or the arranged marriage. But, as we all know, the expression says When at Rome do as the Romans do. I suggest to those new Britons that when in Britain they should do as the Britons do. Otherwise, they will build up a store of antagonism that, one day, may well erupt into a bloody and civil strife.

People have criticised these measures because they say that they are racialist, as if racialist is a word of abuse. What does racialist mean? It means tribal. After all, man is a tribal animal. We have a feeling of kith and kin for people like ourselves, with our own background and culture. If we wish to look at man being a tribal animal we do not have to look any further than our own country to see how true that is.

Consider Northern Ireland, where people of basically similar race and culture, with a little bit of difference in their religion—it is the same Christian religion but with different aspects—spend their leisure hours bombing and maiming each other simply because of the marginal difference between them.

Consider Wales, where the extreme followers of the culture of the Welsh tribe have developed a new hobby—arson. Consider Scotland, where recently there was the fiasco of devolution—people hankering for an identity. That was one of the motivating forces behind it.

If these problems and pressures exist in islands where we have been living together for thousands of years, surely it has been a mad, mad lack of decision to allow the introduction of a massive population of people of Asian cultures. It is surely lunatic to allow the assembly in these islands of 2 million people of different culture, different custom, different religion and different expectation. One aspect that I have missed out is difference in colour. Colour does not make any difference at all. What makes a difference is the different loyalty that often goes with colour.

Mr. Dorrell

rose—

Mr. Marlow

I hesitate to give way. There is no time, and many other hon. Members wish to speak.

Mr. Dorrell

My hon. Friend made it clear that he was not talking about race. He said that he was concerned about those who come to this country, and he spoke of 3 million having arrived in the past 20 years. Will he accept that this country has accepted people coming to these islands for settlement for the 2,000-year period that he mentioned? The Angles, the Saxons, the Vikings, and the French refugees in the 16th century, came to Britain. It was part of our tradition to accept them for settlement and to give them equal rights with our citizens.

Sir Ronald Bell

Does my hon. Friend agree that it might be difficult to tell an Angle from a Saxon?

Mr. Marlow

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Sir R. Bell).

As regards my other hon. Friend, it is true that we have had other people come to these islands, but in nothing like the same quantity and in nothing like the same degree of cultural diversity from the people who were already living here. I would also hazard a guess, knowing the feeling amongst the indigenous population, that this is something that they did not want to arise.

Earlier, in the saga of immigration—[Interruption.] Would my hon. Friend suggest that we took up arms against them?

Earlier, in the saga of immigration, we have spoken of integration. Now the same people are talking not about integration but about a multi-cultural society. I take exception to preaching by theoreticians on the periphery who said, first, that immigration would not be a problem, secondly, that if it was a problem we could integrate it, and now who say "You cannot integrate it, but we are going to have a multi-cultural society." We have have a multi-cultural society. In fact we cities within our cities; states within our State; a land of divided ethnic loyalties.

Soon, like America—look at the fiasco of the vote in the United Nations the other day on Palestine—we will not be ruling the country in the interests of the country; we will be looking from side to side to see what each particular ethnic voter has got to say about anything that we want to bring in as legislation. Is it acceptable that anyone should be granted the privilege, the rights, of British nationality and should choose at the same time to owe loyalty to another and an alien regime?

With few honourable exceptions—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—politicians have found it difficult to avoid getting bogged down in a world of humbug on this subject. We have inverted the truth. We have rewritten the English language. Cowardice has been referred to as courage; courage has been referred to, as by an hon. Gentleman opposite, as Fascism and as racialism because he does not understand the meaning of the English language and because he inverts it all the time.

We now know that in many of our constituencies the immigrant community is larger than the majority of the party in power. Therefore, we have shrunk from introducing the measures that we know the people of this country would wish, because it would have infringed the expectations of those communities. Is that courage or is that cowardice?

Despite the denial of human rights in many countries round the world—I am very concerned about the denial of rights to people in this country, the electorate in this country—we know that if we grasped the nettle of immigration and based our immigraton policy on people with our own cultural identity we would be faced with the universal approbation of the world community So we have failed to enact measures that we know the bulk of the people of this country would wish. Is that courage or is that cowardice?

We like to be liked. We like the good feelings of our colleagues. We like the plaudits of the liberal press. We have joined together in a conspiracy—

Mr. John Watson (Skipton)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow

Really, I would love to give way, but I—

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Watson

On the question of courage, I am curious to know whether my hon. Friend regards himself as having been elected to lead public opinion so slavishly to follow it.

Mr. Marlow

I think that on this issue, over which our people have been misrepresented for such a long period and over which, if anybody stands up and represents their wishes, they believe that they are speaking out of turn and that they will not get anywhere and that to a certain extent they are mad, out of date and are doing something that is not going to succeed. It requires a certain amount of courage, and I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South has shown more courage on this issue than everybody else in the House put together. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Absolute rubbish."] We like to be liked. We like the plaudits—I am not trying to be liked—of the liberal press. We like to join the cosy conspiracy, where the convention is to stand the world on its head. We know what the people want, but we are frightened of the implications if we try to achieve that which they wish. It is a gradual problem. There is no particular day on which we say the problem is too much and we have to do something about it. We hope that it will go away.

Instead of standing up and demanding action, we have been congratulating each other on the avoidance of mutual embarrassment. We have been subjected to the greatest invasion in the history of this country. There were 2 million immigrants in 1970 and 3 million by 1980 and there will be 4 million by 1990. If the predictions of the OPCS are accurate there will be 5 million by the end of this century. They are people of different cultural backgrounds. In some of our cities our own people will be in the minority.

Even after these rules have been introduced, a new town the size of Northampton will have to be built every five years just to take care of legal immigrants who come into the country. Is that what Labour Members believe the people of this country want? Is that what they believe they have been sent here to achieve? I do not.

What about illegal immigration? Heaven knows how many illegal immigrants have come in, because by its nature no proper estimate can be made. However, no one in authority to whom I have spoken has been in a position to deny that illegal immigration may well be greater than legal immigration. What we do know is that during a period of 20 months one-third of a million Iranians entered this country—some possibly fleeing from the manic ayatollah—whose return would have been unwelcome.

There is no doubt that very few came on shopping trips. How many stayed? We do not know, and we do not begin to know. What we do know is that during a nine-month period, when 18,000 inquiries were sent out by the special overstayers' tracing unit, only 1,300 of those people were found. What has happened to the rest?

Each year, as air travel becomes relatively cheaper, more people flood into the lush pastures of Western Europe. Turks and Yugoslavs go to Germany; Algerians and Moroccans go to France; Nigerians, Iranians and Cypriots come to the United Kingdom. There are great pressures to come. There are great opportunities that lure such people to the lush pastures of the Western European countries. The more who come, the more there are to tell the people back home that it is worth trying to come. How easy it is for people to come as visitors or students and to spend one minute with an immigration officer—such people can show him a document, perhaps a hotel booking and a bit of cash to show that they have a legitimate purpose for their visit—and then to disappear! Is it difficult to get hold of a national insurance card? Is it difficult to set up a new life or identity? The worst that can happen is that one will be liable to deportation. Is not it worth taking a chance, especially when the resources to do anything about it are at present so woefully inadequate? These rules go nothing like far enough, but I am glad that we have a clear, unambiguous and irrevocable commitment to introduce a register and a quota. I hope that those come soon, and I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend that that will be the case.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to deny that the people of this country would like to know how many people their Government will invite to share their homeland with them. But even these rules will be nothing like enough.

We should perhaps ask what it is that legal immigrants say to themselves as they prepare to come. Do they want to come here to contribute to the British way of life, or to the glory of the British people, or do they come for their own material, selfish benefit? There is nothing wrong with that. We would do the same if we were in their position. However, if they come here for their own selfish benefit, why do we extend those privileges to their relatives?

I know that we have not said that we shall withdraw the ability of relatives to come here. We talk about the tragedy of divided families. But families can reunite in both directions. I look forward to hearing what my right hon. Friend has to say, and I look forward to some encouragement on these issues.

11 pm

Mr. John Sever (Birmingham, Ladywood)

I, too, shall be interested to hear what the Home Secretary has to say in reply to a remark made a few moments ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), because it was my clear understanding, from the Government's position thus far, that there was no commitment to the register and the quota. The House and the country will want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has changed his ground in the last few days, because these are essential matters of fundamental importance to all the ethnic minority communities in Britain. I am sure that they will not want the right hon. Gentleman to echo the words of his hon. Friend.

A few moments ago my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) outlined very efficiently the deep-seated worries that Labour Members have about the Government's stance on the European Convention on Human Rights. If the Government, with their eyes wide open, are taking us into what seem to be endless difficulties in Europe over the convention, we shall want the Home Secretary this evening to tell us why he did not find it necessary to take the advice of his Law Officers or to bring them to the House today, and to say why he feels either that he does not need their advice or has taken it but has not seen fit to bring it to the House during the debate. These are very deep-seated and real worries that Labour Members have about this country's position concerning the European Convention on Human Rights, and it is incumbent upon the Government tonight to tell us exactly where we stand on that issue.

Earlier in the debate the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to the inner cities of England as having large percentages of representatives of the ethnic minority communities. He lighted on a figure, which he put at a third or even a half in some cities, as being in some ways a threat to the stability of England and to our future, and so on. I do not wish to be discourteous to the right hon. Gentleman, but at one moment he seemed rather to lose sight of his argument and to convey to the House that if we have this kind of proportion of ethnic minority settlement in our big cities we are heading for disaster. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean that, but I think that that is what he said, if I do not misquote him.

I have to tell the right hon. Gentleman that in my constituency we have that figure now. We have 35 to 40 per cent. of the electorate within ethnic minority groups. From the work that I do with them, I can tell the House that there is no threat—as indicated by the right hon. Gentleman and by some Conservative Members—to our future. These are men and women who wanted to come to Britain, to play a part and to make a contribution, and not just to go round with their hands out, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Northampton, North. They came to Britain to find a new opportunity, to settle, to make a worthwhile life for themselves and their families, and to make a contribution.

A large number of them have now settled into the business community, they are working within the professions, and they are making contributions to the whole spectrum of social and domestic life in Britain. They have been assimilated without difficulty. The only difficulty that has arisen has been where it has been imported into city centres, such as that in Birmingham and elsewhere, by the National Front and by other racist organisations seeking to foment trouble among us. When that has happened there has certainly been difficulty, because no one will sit back and listen to arguments of that sort—many of which have been represented in this House this evening—without arguing back. But, apart from those imported difficulties that we have had to face from time to time, the communities are happy and relatively well assimilated into their surroundings.

For the most part, they have been the most difficult surroundings into which to settle, because they have come into areas where the host community was already disadvantaged and underprivileged. Even so, they have made a contribution and they are seeking no more than natural justice. They are seeking no more favours than are any other members of the community. What they are seeking is the sort of protection that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Labour Benches have sought to argue for them today—the sort of protection that they need against miserable and squalid bits of paper such as the one that we have before us this evening, containing elements of racism and sexism which should not be tolerated by any sort of civilised society.

11.5 pm

Mr. John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge)

We seldom debate immigration in the House and I am glad that we are doing so tonight. I think that I have heard every speech. I used to think that on this subject I was a member of the moderate Right. I am glad to see that tonight I have been joined by many of my hon. Friends. I was delighted to hear their honest if unsophisticated and robust speeches.

I admire their fluency after only nine months. I could not speak with such fluency after nine years. We must hold them in great respect. They have a message for the House and especially for the Opposition. They have just been elected to the House and they know the real feelings of the people. The House will know my feelings on this subject.

As usual, the most important speech tonight was that of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I go almost all the way with him in his analysis. Where I disagree with him is when he says that because of the vast amount of immigration over the last generation England will became ungovernable and English cities will become difficult to run. That is not my fear. We can avoid that.

My fear is not the damage to good race relations, important though they may be. My fear is the damage to the essential identity of this old, historic nation. I cannot think why those of us who love our country and its history and wish to maintain its Englishness should be criticised as odd, obscure or difficult. Surely it is basic. We all belong to our neighbourhood, town, village or county. What is wrong in that? Nothing. It is what used to be called roots. We must protect and defend that.

The English vocabulary has been altered by newspeak, if one likes. When I was a young man a man of discrimination was a man to be looked up to. He was a man of taste and discernment. It is only recently that the word "discriminate" has become a kind of criminal word. When I was young one was proud to be an Englishman. Nowadays that is not so obvious.

Therefore, there is a case to be heard from the Government Benches which some of my hon. Friends may have put in a rough manner. Representing an industrial seat as I do, the trade unionists in my constituency would understand and sympathise with a great deal of what has been said by my hon. Friends. Sometimes Opposition Members, perhaps through nervousness or because they feel uncomfortable about the subject, laugh. We all know that they would not dare laugh in front of their own constituents on a matter that affects them so vitally.

The right hon. Member for Down, South set the scene so well for us. We have had immigration for 25 years. It is not the same as the Huguenots, the Jews and the Poles. It is different. Immigration involves enormous numbers of quite different people. It is something new in our history. It says a great deal for our kindness, tolerance and civilised approach that we can absorb such vast numbers of people in the space of one generation. Do we get no credt for that from both sides of the House?

Let us imagine, for example, what would have happened if the same number of people had settled in France. Imagine what the French would be saying. I believe that no other country but England could have had such a shock and got over it so well so far. We know of the pressures on housing, schools, the National Health Service and employment at a time of rapidly rising unemployment. Worse than that is the loss of identity for English people who have had to leave—I know this from direct experience, as do many other hon. Members—their houses, their streets and neighbourhoods to make way for the newcomers. I went to see a Minister in the last Government about this and he was very kind and sympathetic. He said that the young people could adapt. Perhaps they can. It is the older Englishman who suffers—his whole way of life is being turned upside down.

In one street I know of the immigrants wanted to change a house into a mosque. There was tremendous local feeling about having a mosque in the centre of a very small English town. All the residents in that street had to leave. Eventually there was one man left—a retired cavalry trooper. He said to me in that marvellous Midland lilt "What have I done to deserve it, Sir?" I said "We, your betters, have let you down." Hon. Members may laugh, but Englishmen have feelings too. I do not understand why their feelings should be laughed at. These are matters of great substance, and the Opposition and the Liberal Party do themselves a disservice by laughing at matters that their constituents would not think amusing.

If we are to save our country and offer it a settled future we must bring immigration to a halt. Therefore, I recognise that these few rules—poor and feeble as they are—are a step towards that goal.

One has only to ask a Frenchman, a German, a Swiss or an Italian what they think about our immigration rules, and they will say that they are astonished by our attitude. They are much stricter in their control of people entering their countries, some of which are larger and richer than this country. It is a matter of common sense and reasonable judgment.

We were sent to this House to represent our constituents. After all, apart from defeat in war, one of the most vital things for a country is to protect and defend its way of life, its history, its beliefs, its culture and its togetherness. What is wrong with that? Nothing at all. That is what made us a great nation. I think that it is insulting to tell immigrants—many of whom I know well—that they should be integrated with us. Why should they? They are proud people. They have their own history, traditions, customs, morals and religion. We cannot expect them to integrate. They will remain aliens within our midst for centuries. That is inevitable, and we must have the courage to face the facts.

I do not fear civil strife, but I do fear that the England we know and love will be lost in a welter of new and different races, whose loyalty will still be to their original homeland, and whose customs will remain unchanged. These are very real problems.

They may not be problems to some of those who pontificate from constituencies in those green fair lands—not always in England—where there are no immigrants at all. We in the Midlands do not want to be lectured by those people. We who stand for the Midlands seats have to stand for the English working class, who have been let down by those superior people living often in Sussex manor houses who presume to tell the English working classes how they will get on. The English working classes have very much better manners than those who purport to tell them how to behave. Those are the people that I am proud to represent tonight.

I am glad that in my party there are many hon. Members who will stand up and speak for their beliefs on this fundamental matter, which concerns every man, woman and child in this country.

Mr. Merlyn Rees

I shall be brief because the House would like to hear the views of the Home Secretary, who has listened to the debate from the beginning. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) said all that was necessary about the implications of the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights. I only add that if Mr. Lester is right, if the views expressed in the debate can be called in aid on any ruling, and having listened to the hon. Members for Luton, East (Mr. Bright) and for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I believe that the Government would lose their case after the first 60 seconds.

Those hon. Members belong to the brigade that believes that the Government have reneged on their election commitment. In a straightforward sense they have. It was foolish to have the commitments in the first instance. We had the quota and the register, and there was no shortage of knowledge. There was a White Paper and the Franks report. It was a mistake to enter into the commitments, and I do not believe that they will be implemented.

I regret that the rules are before us. They will do little for numbers. The hon. Member for Luton, East is wrong to suggest that I am thereby suggesting that on that ground there is no need for the debate. I am arguing that Conservatives who support the Government on the ground that the rules will do something about swamping and about numbers are mistaken. The effect will be so marginal on numbers as to be not worth while. The Opposition argue that for other reasons the rules should not be implemented. They are a fig leaf to cover the nakedness not of Government policy but of what was promised before the election.

Sadly, the rules will be approved. I say that as someone who believes that the immigration control is firm and that the rules are irrelevant. The previous Labour Government published a Green Paper on nationality. There are many papers on the subject in the Home Office, and I for one would not worry if the present Government were able to examine the papers of the previous Administration.

It will not be easy to get a nationality measure through the House. I hope that when the White Paper appears we shall see a Bill following it. I hope, too, that we shall have a chance to consider it in a pre-legislation Committee. If my experience is anything to go by, we shall all be at sixes and sevens if we go baldly into Committee. It will make the EEC and trade union legislation of 1971 seem all too familiar. It will not take quite so long to pass through the House, but it will be lengthy.

If the House is to put its mind to questions of nationality and citizenship, we must remember that we have not had citizenship legislation over the years, but nationality measures stemming from the empire on which the sun never set. It is important that we get future legislation right. We must ensure that it fits in some degree into what the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) was saying.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), as always—this applies to many matters—made me think. When Nye Bevan was in the House he said gently of a colleague that he reminded him of a pre-war Trojan car. He said that when he went on the road and got into the tramlines he always ended up in the same depot. The right hon. Gentleman, with differences of argument and emphasis, always comes back to the one point, namely, that there is tragedy and near revolution in what is happening. I do not believe that. There are problems from immigration, and I understood what the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) was saying. I was brought up in a working-class area where we were close unto ourselves. It is easy for others outside that environment to laugh at the fears of such people. I do not believe that hon. Members were laughing at the problems behind the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

There are problems that arise and they will continue to present themselves. They are little different from the problems in Europe. The Europeans have Yugoslavs and Turks, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North was saying. They have Greeks, Algerians and Moroccans. In Europe since the war we have geared the cheap part of our economy, or our simple processes, to cheap labour from the underdeveloped parts of the world. There are problems in inner cities. In most instances—this applies to my area, and I accept that there are not many immigrants in my constituency—the immigrants have moved into areas where problems already existed. They have not created the problems. They have become part of the problem areas.

I have no doubt that in the end the recent immigrants from the New Commonwealth will play their part in the same way as the Jews who came in at the turn of the century, although not in the same numbers, play their part now. There will not be instability. The Asians—small in number in my constituency—are law-abiding.

There are problems, and we shall face them in the way that we always have in this country. We shall have to return to the subject of race relations. We are not seeking a deadening uniformity. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stour-bridge talked about being proud of being English. I cannot say that, because I am not an Englishman. I hope that my children, who have been brought up in England, will be, but they will be proud in a different way from the hon. Gentleman. I do not say that with any disrespect. Those who come and live amongst us will have their own communities and their own attitudes, which will develop over the years. It will not be easy.

The rules that we are considering are small. They are a fig leaf. They add up to very little. They do harm to race relations. We should concentrate on good race relations. I hope that as many hon. Members as possible will vote against the rules tonight.

11.20 pm

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw)

I have deliberately taken very little time to wind up the debate in order to let as many hon. Members as possible speak during the debate, and because my hon. Friend the Minister of State in opening the debate set out the position very clearly.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) welcomed various changes. He said that that resulted from time having been given to debate a White Paper before the rules were laid. I hope that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who gave credit for the fact that the debate was taking place in Opposition time, will also give credit for the fact that the Government gave time for a full day's debate on the White Paper, and made changes in the rules as a result of that debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Leeds. South for what he said about that.

Certainly the figures released last week show that the numbers of immigrants have been reduced, but there is still great pressure to come to this country. The numbers are still substantial, and there are substantial numbers of husbands and fiancés. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) made an important point about their entry and the conditions about their entry, based on his own experience in India. I am grateful for what he said about that.

The right hon. Member for Leeds, South also said that his party, if given the opportunity, would revoke the rules. If the present Leader of the Opposition still leads his party then, he will have created a remarkable occasion. He will have about-turned not once but twice on this subject, because he it was who took exactly the same view in 1969 as I am taking today about this problem. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South says that since then he has changed his mind, thinking that he was wrong. The Leader of the Opposition has not seen fit to say whether he thinks that he was wrong, although I noticed that he had the temerity to put his name at the top of the list of names attached to the motion. It is for him to explain how, if he had to do it, he would turn about twice.

The leader of the Liberal Party raised the question of an inquiry. There will be an opportunity, both in the discussions on the White Paper on nationality, which we shall publish this summer, and subsequently I hope—though I cannot commit the Government to a particular time for legislation—during the passage of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, South is right to say will be very complicated and difficult legislation.

I do not intend tonight to go into some of the wider immigration issues. I shall confine myself to the rules, but I have noted what has been said. I can understand that the complexity of the issue of nationality will be accompanied by some extremely lively debates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) also mentioned the importance of the nationality Bill as a longer-term measure, describing the rules as being for the shorter term.

My hon. Friends the Members for Reigate and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) and others raised the question of the future following the introduction of the rules. We said at the election that we would introduce the rules. We have done so. We said that we would introduce a nationality Bill. We shall do so. We said that we would have a register and a quota. I am not changing what I have said before. I have said on several occasions that both the register and the quota remain part of the Conservative Party's policy. I advise the right hon. Member for Leeds, South that betting is an extremely unprofitable occupation—at least, so I understand.

Let me put one short point to the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) before coming to the major mat ter raised by various right hon. and hon. Members about our position with the rules before the European Court.

The hon. Lady asked about adopted girls. I believe it right to say that such cases would be considered sympathetically. I have in mind the case of a girl arriving in infancy who has lived here since. I reckon that in those cases discretion under the rules would be appropriate and would be exercised. Indeed, I think that I could go further and say that the discretion clearly would be exercised in certain other cases as well. But I think that they would be rightly considered on their merits.

I turn to the point made in various ways by the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) about the position of the rules with the European Commission and the European Court.

I have always admired one characteristic of the hon. Member for York, because I could never emulate it. He is always utterly convinced that he is right. That may be a good quality, and he has it, and he shows it on all possible occasions. However, I noticed that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West, as an experienced former Law Officer, was a good deal more circumspect and, as one who has to take advice from lawyers from time to time, I was careful to listen attentively to the various pieces of advice which he gave the Government.

First, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the Government should ensure that the rules were in accordance with the view of the court and would pass it. But then he said that any such position must be open to doubt. How can anyone ensure something that is admitted to be open to doubt? That is exactly what the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his considerable legal knowledge, said.

Mr. Archer

Whatever part of my speech I said was open to doubt, it was not that part.

Mr. Whitelaw

I took down the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words carefully and, as I was seeking advice, I thought that I did it very wisely.

I do not treat the report of the Sub-Committee in any cavalier way. I regard it as important. But it must be reasonable to say, as I understand is normal in legal cases, that one deals with an actual case when it comes before a court, and one does not make definite pronouncements on what, inevitably, are hypothetical cases. It must be right for us to look, listen and put forward our arguments when a specific case comes before the court, if it does. I should have thought that that was thoroughly sensible.

I have read the evidence to the Sub-Committee. No one giving evidence to the Sub-Committee said anywhere that he was certain. Several said that it was their view, but that they were expressing a view on a hypothetical and not an actual case. It is an actual case that is bound to matter in the event—[Interruption.] I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have some legal knowledge. If he seeks to laugh at what I say, all I can tell him is that I cannot see anything wrong with an argument to the effect that in law one is entitled to deal with an

actual case, but not a hypothetical one. That must be the sensible position for the Government to take. That is the position that we are taking.

Perhaps I should conclude by saying that we believe that these rules deal with the situation with which we are faced. We promised them. We promised the provision on husbands and fiancés. We believe it to be right, particularly when judged against the considerable pressure that there still is to come to this country. We have made a number of other changes in the rules, which have not been mentioned tonight, which I believe are valuable, which make the position clearer for entry clearance officers and which are important also in their own right.

For all those reasons I hope that the House will reject the motion and pass these rules—

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).

The House divided: Ayes 255, Noes 307.

Division No. 219]	AYES	[11.30 pm
Abse, Leo	Cowans, Harry	Foster, Derek
Adams, Allen	Crowther, J. S.	Foulkes, George
Allaun, Frank	Cryer, Bob	Fraser, John (Lambeth, Norwood)
Alton, David	Cunliffe, Lawrence	Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Anderson, Donald	Cunningham, George (Islington S)	Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter	Cunningham, Dr John (Whitehaven)	Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest	Davidson, Arthur	George, Bruce
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Ashton, Joe	Davis, Clinton (Hackney Central)	Ginsburg, David
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)	Davis, Terry (B'rm'ham, Stechford)	Golding, John
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Deakins, Eric	Gourlay, Harry
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)	Grant, George (Morpeth)
Beith, A. J.	Dempsey, James	Grant, John (Islington C)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Dewar, Donald	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Bidwell, Sydney	Dixon, Donald	Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Dobson, Frank	Hardy, Peter
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Dormand, Jack	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur (M'brough)	Douglas, Dick	Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Bradley, Tom	Douglas-Mann, Bruce	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Dubs, Alfred	Haynes, Frank
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Duffy, A. E. P.	Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Dunnett, Jack	Heffer, Eric S.
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth	Hogg, Norman (E Dunbartonshire)
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh, Leith)	Eadle, Alex	Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Buchan, Norman	Eastham, Ken	Home Robertson, John
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)	Homewood, William
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)	Hooley, Frank
Campbell, Ian	English, Michael	Horam, John
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Ennals, Rt Hon David	Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Canavan, Dennis	Evans, loan (Aberdare)	Huckfield, Les
Cant, R. B.	Evans, John (Newton)	Hudson Davies, Gwilym Ednyfed
Carmichael, Nell	Ewing, Harry	Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Faulds, Andrew	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Cartwright, John	Field, Frank	Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)	Fitch, Alan	Janner, Hon Greville
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)	Flannery, Martin	Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Cohen, Stanley	Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)	John, Brynmor
Coleman, Donald	Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)	Johnson, James (Hull West)
Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.	Foot, Rt Hon Michael	Johnson, Walter (Derby South)
Conlan, Bernard	Ford, Ben	Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rhondda)
Cook, Robin F.	Forrester, John	Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)	Spearing, Nigel
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald	Moyle, Rt Hon Roland	Sprlggs, Leslie
Kerr, Russell	Newens, Stanley	Stallard, A. W.
Kinnock, Nell	Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon	Steel, Rt Hon David
Lambie, David	Ogden, Eric	Stoddart, David
Lamborn, Harry	O'Halloran, Michael	Stolt, Roger
Lamond, James	O'Neill, Martin	Strang, Gavin
Leadbitter, Ted	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Straw, Jack
Lelghton, Ronald	Palmer, Arthur	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Park, George	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton West)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Parker, John	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Litherland, Robert	Parry, Robert	Thomas, Mike (Newcastle East)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey	Pavitt, Laurie	Thomas, Dr Roger (Carmarthen)
Lyon, Alexander (York)	Pendry, Tom	Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford West)	Powell, Faymond (Ogmore)	Tilley, John
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson	Prescott, John	Tinn, James
McCartney, Hugh	Price, Christopher (Lewisham West)	Torney, Tom
McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Race, Reg	Urwin, Rt Hon Tom
McElhone, Frank	Padice, Giles	Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)	Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds South)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
McKelvoy, William	Richardson, Jo	Walker, Rt Hon Harold (Doncaster)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor	Rober's, Albert (Normanton)	Watkins, David
Maclennan, Robert	Roberts, Allan (Bootle)	Weetch, Ken
McMahon, Andrew	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Wellbeloved, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, Central)	Robertson, George	Welsh, Michael
McNally, Thomas	Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)	White, Frank R. (Bury & Radcliffe)
McNamara, Kevin	Rodgers, Rt Hon William	White, James (Glasgow, Pollock)
McWilliam, John	Rooker, J. W.	Whitehead, Phillip
Magee, Bryan	Roper, John	Whitlock, William
Marks, Kenneth	Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)	Wigley, Dafydd
Marshall, David (Gl'sgow,Shettles'n)	Rowlands, Ted	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Ryman, John	Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester South)	Sandelson, Nevilie	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Martin, Michael (Gl'gow Sprlngb'rn)	Sever, John	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Sheerman, Barry	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Maxton, John	Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert (A'ton-u-L)	Winnick, David
Maynard, Miss Joan	Shore, Rt Hon Peter (Step and Pop)	Woodall, Alec
Meacher, Michael	Short, Mrs Renee	Woolmer, Kenneth
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mikardo, Ian	Silkin, Rt Hon S.C. (Dulwich)	Wright, Sheila
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce	Silverman, Julius	Young, David (Bolton East)
Miller, Dr M. S. (East Kilbride)	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)	Smith, Rt Hon J. (North Lanarkshire)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Snape, Peter	Mr. Ted Graham and
Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Soley, Clive	Mr. George Morton.
Morris, Rt Hon Charles (Openshaw)
NOES
Adley, Robert	Bruce-Gardyne, John	Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)
Altken, Jonathan	Bryan, Sir Paul	Eggar, Timothy
Alexander, Richard	Buck, Antony	Elliott, Sir William
Alison, Michael	Budgen, Nick	Emery, Peter
Amery, Rt Hon Julian	Bulmer, Esmond	Eyre, Reginald
Ancram, Michael	Burden, F. A.	Fairbairn, Nicholas
Arnold, Tom	Butcher, John	Fairgrieve, Russell
Aspinwall, Jack	Butler, Hon Adam	Faith, Mrs Sheila
Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)	Cadbury, Joceiyn	Farr, John
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)	Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Fell, Anthony
Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)	Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Carlisle, Rt Hon Mark (Runcorn)	Finsberg, Geoffrey
Bell, Sir Ronald	Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Fisher, Sir Nigel
Bendall, Vivian	Channon, Paul	Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Chapman, Sydney	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Churchill, W. S.	Fookes, Miss Janet
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Clark, Hon Alan (Plymouth, Suttton)	Forman, Nigel
Best, Keith	Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)	Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Bevan, David Gliroy	Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Fox, Marcus
Biffen, Rt Hon John	Clegg, Sir Walter	Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)
Biggs-Davison, John	Cockeram, Eric	Fraser, Peter (South Angus)
Blackburn, John	Colvin, Michael	Fry, Peter
Blaker, Peter	Cope, John	Galbraith, Hon T. Q. D.
Body, Richard	Corrle, John	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas	Costain, A. P.	Gardner, Edward (South Fylde)
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Critchley, Julian	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bowden, Andrew	Crouch, David	Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Dean, Paul (North Somerset)	Giyn, Dr Alan
Braine, Sir Bernard	Dickens, Geoffrey	Goodhart, Philip
Bright, Graham	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Goodhew, Victor
Brinton, Tim	Dover, Denshore	Goodlad, Alastair
Brittan, Leon	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Gorst, John
Brooke, Hon Peter	Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Gow, Ian
Brotherton, Michael	Durant, Tony	Gower, Sir Raymond
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'thorpe)	Dykes, Hugh	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Browne, John (Winchester)	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Gray, Hamish

Greenway, Harry	Mates, Michael	Rost, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury SI Edmunds)	Mather, Carol	Royle, Sir Anthony
Griffithe, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Maude, Rt Hon Angus	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Grist, Ian	Mawby, Ray	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Grylls, Michael	Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Gummer, John Selwyn	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Eps'm&Ew'll)	Mayhew, Patrick	Shelton, William (Streatham)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Mellor, David	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Hampson, Dr Keith	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Shepherd, Richard (Aidridge-Br'hills)
Hannam, John	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Shersby, Michael
Haseihurst, Alan	Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Silvester, Fred
Hastings, Stephen	Mills, Peter (West Devon)	Sims, Roger
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael	Miscampbell, Norman	Speed, Keith
Hawksley, Warren	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Speller, Tony
Hayhoe, Barney	Moate, Roger	Spence, John
Heddle, John	Molyneaux, James	Splcer, Jim (West Dorset)
Henderson, Barry	Monro, Hector	Spicer, Michael (S Worcestershire)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael	Montgomery, Fergus	Sproat, Iain
Hicks, Robert	Moore, John	Squire, Robin
Hill, James	Morgan, Geraint	Stainton, Keith
Holland, Philip (Cariton)	Morris, Michael (Northampton, Sth)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Hooson, Tom	Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)	Stanley, John
Hordern, Peter	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Steen, Anthony
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey	Mudd, David	Stevens, Martin
Howell, Rt Hon David (Guildford)	Murphy, Christopher	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Howell, Raiph (North Norfolk)	Myles, David	Stokes, John
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Neale, Gerrard	Stradling Thomas, J.
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)	Needham, Richard	Tapsell, Peter
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)	Nelson, Anthony	Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)
Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick	Neubert, Michael	Tebbit, Norman
Jessel, Toby	Newton, Tony	Temple-Morris, Peter
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey	Normanton, Tom	Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Nott, Rt Hon John	Thomas, Rt Hon Peter (Hendon S)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith	Onslow, Cranley	Thompson, Donald
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Oppenhelm, Rt Hon Mrs Sally	Thorne, Neil (llford South)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine	Osborn, John	Thornton, Maicoim
Kershaw, Anthony	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Townend, John (Bridlington)
Kimball, Marcus	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Trippier, David
King, Rt Hon Tom	Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)	Trotter, Neville
Knight, Mrs Jill	Parris, Matthew	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Knox, David	Patten, Christopher (Bath)	Viggers, Peter
Lamont, Norman	Patten, John (Oxford)	Waddington, David
Lang, Ian	Pattie, Geoffrey	Wakeham, John
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Pawsey, James	Waldegrave, Hon William
Latham, Michael	Percival, Sir Ian	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire;
Lawrence, Ivan	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Lawson, Nigel	Pink, R. Bonner	Wall, Patrick
Lee, John	Pollock, Alexander	Waller, Gary
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark	Porter, George	Walters, Dennis
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Ward, John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Warren, Kenneth
Lloyd, Ian (Havant & Waterloo)	Prior, Rt Hon James	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Loveridge, John	Proctor, K. Harvey	Wells, Bowen (Hert'rd & Stev'nage)
Luce, Richard	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Wheeler, John
Lyell, Nicholas	Raison, Timothy	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
McCrindle, Robert	Rathbone, Tim	Whitney, Raymond
Macfarlane, Neil	Rees. Peter (Dover and Deal)	Wickenden, Keith
MacGregor, John	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Wiggin, Jerry
MacKay, John (Argyll)	Renton, Tim	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)	Rhodes James, Robert	Winterton, Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Wolfson, Mark
McQuarrie, Albert	Ridsdale. Julian	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Madel, David	Rlfklnd, Malcolm	Younger, Rt Hon George
Malor, John	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Marland, Paul	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Marlow, Tony	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)	Mr. Anthony Berry.
Marten, Nell (Banbury)	Rossi, Hugh

Question accordingly negatived.