§ 3.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, I beg to ask a Question, of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the important statement of yesterday by the Attorney General in another place, it is to be understood that the Federal Government in Central Africa can legally prevent the entry of Ministers of the Crown into its territory."
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS (THE EARL OF HOME)My Lords, under the Federal Immigration Act, 1954, a person is, or is liable to be declared, a prohibited immigrant if he falls within the scope of any of several categories enumerated in Section 5 of the Act. Such categories are commonly to be found in similar legislation in many other parts of the Commonwealth. There are exceptions in the Act in favour of duly credited diplomatic representatives and others but not for Ministers of the United Kingdom or of any other country.
I have, however, as I knew I should, received the assurance of the Federal Prime Minister that it is not the intention of the Federal Government to exclude from the Federation any person travelling to or in the Federation on official business with the authority or in the service of the Parliament of the United Kingdom or of Her Majesy's Government.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, we are very glad indeed to hear that that assurance has been received, because many of us have been disturbed by the revelation of the actual statutory position revealed by the Attorney General yesterday. We are all most anxious that, for example, the Minister of State, now probably arriving in the Middle East, should not in any circumstances have obstacles put in his way to take the beneficent influence which we all think he could exercise at the moment in parts of the protectorate. And, of course, we are very unhappy at the fact that apparently there has been a lot of private correspondence and telephonic communication between the Government here and the Federal Govern 813 ment in Africa. Of course, we cannot press for the immediate publication of the details of those private consultations, but they do leave us in a very unsettled frame of mind as to why Lord Perth is not to go there. We feel, therefore, that if there is to be any dubiety about this matter—in which we still have grave responsibilities and duties to the people of the Protectorate—representations of a proper character ought to be made without delay.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, the noble Viscount need have no anxiety whatever. The reason Lord Perth is not going at the present moment is perfectly plain. The Governor thought it would be undesirable in the present state of emergency, when all the security forces are at full stretch and the Governor is fully occupied; but Lord Perth will go as soon as the Governor gives the word. I think that is quite clear. To allay the noble Viscount's anxieties, since I received his Question only a short time ago I have made researches, and I have found that immigration legislation of this sort is common to nearly all the dependent countries of the Commonwealth. Again, Australia and South Africa, for instance, have such legislation, while New Zealand has similar powers under the Undesirable Immigrants Expulsion Act, so the same conditions apply over most of the Commonwealth.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEI am afraid the noble Earl has not grasped the point. This exchange of correspondence referred to by Mr. Alport in another place yesterday effectively alters the law. We were greatly surprised to discover that, under a Statutory Order which was passed without any debate whatever in this House, the Prime Minister of the Federation has the power to prohibit even Ministers going into Nyasaland, which is not an independent State. Naturally, my noble friend is right in saying that we are glad to have the assurances, but these assurances are altering the law, and therefore they should be laid before Parliament and enacted as an amendment to the Statutory Order which we passed in 1953.
THE EARL OF HOMEThe noble Viscount may have been surprised, but this has been the law since 1953. The Federal Government has these powers, and nothing Mr. Alport has said in another place, or that I have said, has 814 altered the law in any way. We are simply telling the noble Viscount what the law is, and the same law is common to nearly all the Commonwealth countries.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEThen these assurances have no validity except as personal assurances between the Prime Minister of the Federation and the present Government?
THE EARL OF HOMEOf course, I knew that these powers would never be exercised too greatly to affect people from the present Parliament or the Government going on official business, but I thought it would allay the noble Viscount's fears if I could get the Prime Minister's personal assurances, which he was prepared to give.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHWould the noble Earl the Leader of the House consider whether, in all the circumstances, it would be as well to lay before Parliament the nature of the assurances in detail, and to comment upon the circumstances in which the assurances had to be sought, so that we might clear up some of our doubts and anxieties upon why, for example, it was thought advisable to delay the entry of Lord Perth into Nyasaland—because apparently the information which has so far been given from the Government side does not completely concur with our other sources of information?
THE EARL OF HOMEThe noble Viscount's sources of information are possibly not open to me. I do not know what they are. But I should know the reasons why Lord Perth did not go to Nyasaland, and I have given them plainly. They are that the Government did not think, and the Governor did not think, that at this moment it was desirable. But as soon as the Governor gives the word Lord Perth will go.
Now there is available to the noble Lord—I made it available yesterday—a statement as to the legal position with regard to immigration into the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. That statement showed that legally, as the noble Viscount asked, the Federation have the power to exclude Ministers of the United Kingdom Government or a Member of Parliament, and so I asked the Federal Prime Minister to make it clear that in 815 fact they would not do so: and the Prime Minister has made it clear. Considering that this legislation, as I have said before, is common to a whole lot of Commonwealth countries and to all independent countries, I think that really very little anxiety need remain.
§ LORD OGMOREMy Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining what the legal position is, but may I ask him whether this case is not quite different from the case of other independent countries, in that in this case we are dealing with two Protectorates? Obviously Ministers have no right to go into Australia, but they ought to have the right to go into Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia if they so desire. As this is now the law, would the Government consider bringing in an amending Order so as to make it possible for any of Her Majesty's Ministers to go to Nyasaland or Northern Rhodesia if they felt it their duty so to do?
THE EARL OF HOMENo, my Lords: certainly I do not think there is a case for amending legislation. I have to take the law as I find it, and while the noble Lord is quite right that this is rather different because there are two Protectorates involved, nevertheless he must remember that Parliament has deliberately—
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATENo, no!
THE EARL OF HOMEThe noble Viscount does not even know what I am going to say, so he cannot say, "No, no." Parliament has deliberately taken emigration and immigration out of the territorial jurisdiction; also the Federation has its own citizenship. These are the natural consequences of the constitutional development of Federation. I do not really think there is any cause for an amendment of the law.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHMy Lords, there is at least some dubiety in legal minds as to what is the interpretation of the word "immigration." The dictionary interpretation is obviously that of somebody who enters a country with a view to settling there. That may have been interpreted much more widely in practice. But I would ask the noble Earl: can he quote a single case of precedent, because of the wide- 816 spread nature of this law in the Commonwealth that he refers to, for a British Member of Parliament in a British overseas territory suddenly being told that he is an undesirable immigrant and liable to deportation within twenty-four hours? Is there a single case of precedent? If so I should like to have it.
THE EARL OF HOMEMy Lords, that hardly comes within the present Question, and I should like to see that put down. I do not know whether there is a precedent, but it has been made perfectly clear in another place that the particular Member of another place concerned was not out on official business but was out on private business and therefore has no greater rights than any other private citizen travelling abroad.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHI do not hold that view. May I just ask another question in the present circumstances? Yesterday the Government turned down a suggestion that there should be a Parliamentary Commission. Is it not the fact that, under the law as interpreted by the noble Earl to-day, if a British Parliamentary Commission was appointed under the law it could be refused admission? What is he going to do about it?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHObviously that is a true Tory reaction, but there will be other Governments and therefore the law must be looked at.
THE EARL OF HOMEAt the proper time, when the constitutional review comes along, no doubt all these questions of law can be looked at; but at the present moment there is no intention to appoint a Parliamentary Commission, and Sir Roy Welensky has really given us the most complete assurances—just as complete as anybody could want.
§ VISCOUNT STANSGATEMay I ask a final question of the noble Earl? Are these assurances binding on the successors of the present Prime Minister in Southern Rhodesia and on any successors which may come into his own place?
THE EARL OF HOMECertainly. When a Prime Minister gives a pledge 817 it is usual for Prime Ministers who follow him to carry out that pledge, as it would be here.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGHThen I hope that the request to him and the reply in detail will be laid before Parliament in due course.
THE EARL OF HOMEI have given the assurance. I will look at the actual words of the Prime Minister. There is no reason why it should not be given in full.