Lords Sitting of 6 December 1965

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry

CONTROL OF LONDON OFFICE BUILDING
2.36 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state:—

(a) the number of applications which have been made under the Control of Office and Industrial Development Act, 1965, to build or provide offices in London;

(b) the number which have been granted and the superficial area;

(c) the number which have been refused.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): Yes, my Lords, under (a) 413 applications for office development permits in Greater London had been made by the end of November, 1965; under (b) 84 permits have been granted for a
2
total area of approximately 1·7 million square feet; and under (c) 172 applications have been refused.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord.

USE OF SURPLUS RAILWAY LAND
2.37 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much railway land within the Greater London area has been declared by the Railways Board to be redundant; how much of this has been made available to the Greater London Council and how much to London boroughs for housing and at what average price per acre; how much has been made available to local authorities for other public purposes; and how much to private individuals or companies.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, I understand from the British Railways Board that since January 1, 1964, approximately 800 acres of its land in the Greater London area have been declared surplus to railway requirements or likely to become surplus in the foreseeable future. The local authorities have been, or will be, informed of these sites. Of this total, the Board has already sold or agreed to

3
sell, first, 140 acres to the Greater London Council, at £125,000 per acre for 28·2 acres at Marylebone and at an average price of £9,900 per acre for the rest; secondly, 84 acres to London boroughs at an average price of £15,900 per acre. The remainder of the 800 acres are still under negotiation or investigation or are not yet available for release. I understand that the local authorities propose to devote the greater part of the land they are acquiring from the Board to housing and associated purposes. Apart from these 800 acres, the Board has sold to private interests approximately 100 acres, including fully developed sites unsuitable for new development. This land had been declared surplus before 1964 and the sale of most of it had been negotiated before that year.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord for what is an unusually full and complete Parliamentary Answer.

COMMONWEALTH PEACE MISSION AND VIETNAM
2.39 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether representations have been made by members of the Commonwealth Peace Mission to the Governments of the United States of America and North Vietnam regarding intensification of the war in Vietnam and the immediate need to initiate a cease-fire, and negotiations for a settlement on the basis of the Geneva Agreement.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, the United States Government have repeatedly reaffirmed their readiness for negotiations, but these have been rejected by North Vietnam. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government will continue, through every channel open to them, to urge on all concerned the imperative need for negotiations to end this intensifying war.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer,
4
may I ask him whether it is not the case that, while the United States has said that she would be prepared for unconditional negotiations, she has added conditions regarding the maintenance of a separate South Vietnamese State? Also, is the noble Lord aware that, as I shall endeavour to urge in a later debate, my own talks both with North Vietnam and with the National Liberation Front indicate that if the four points of the Geneva Agreement were accepted, negotiations could begin for a cease-fire and for a peace settlement?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I cannot say that I am aware of the facts as my noble friend has stated them. The facts of which I am aware are that the United States has on many occasions in the last six months stated publicly and explicitly that she is prepared for talks without any conditions whatsoever. However, the North Vietnamese Government has refused to enter into any talks and has demanded acceptance of its four preconditions, which mean, in effect, the cessation of South Vietnamese assistance by the United States Government. Also, on more than one occasion, the Government of China has further said that talks or negotiations are out of the question.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I defer comment until the debate.

CIVILIAN CASUALTIES IN VIETNAMESE WAR
2.41 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the interests of peace, representations have been made by member of the Commonwealth Mission or by the Foreign Office to the Government of the United States of America regarding the decision to direct bombing not only on military targets but on civilian communities, and to the widening use of gas and chemical instruments of war which are destructive of the lives and livelihood of the peasant population.]
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, so far as we know, no decision to change the

5
character of their bombing has been taken by the U.S. Government and therefore no representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government. So far as I am aware, the only gas being used in South Vietnam is tear gas, and I am sure that my noble friend would not wish me to press for the use of more lethal weapons, because tear gas can actually preserve lives that would otherwise be lost.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he has seen the statements which have been made during visits to South Vietnam by representatives of the United States: that the war must now take the form of a total war, which means the destruction of villages, women and children, and the burning of their bodies in an inhuman way, which is just affronting the conscience of the world? Cannot Her Majesty's Government make some appeal, not only to America but also to the other side, which has been engaged in assassinations in Saigon, for these methods to be stopped?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government and I naturally share with the noble Lord his horror at the killings and sufferings which are taking place there, but I am afraid the only way in which this can be brought to an end is by an end of hostilities themselves. It is idle to think that an appeal to any of the participants for moderation, while it might have some effect, if there were any opportunity for it, would increase humanity. I do not accept that there is deliberate inhumanity on the part of the United States Government. But the only way in which this undoubted suffering can be brought to an end is by bringing to an end the actual fighting itself.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that, if bombing is intensified, the Vietnamese will become more obdurate? Therefore, is it not feasible that the right atmosphere, in which discussions might be initiated, could be created by asking the Americans if they would cease bombing for a temporary period—say, two weeks—during which time perhaps tempers would cool off a little and it might be possible to have discussions?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, it would be a very happy circumstance indeed if that were likely to be the case, but I am afraid that experience has already shown that the very opposite happens. As the noble Baroness doubtless remembers, there was a temporary cessation of bombing—speaking from memory, I think it was in April or May of this year, about six months ago—but there was no response whatsoever from Hanoi after that; and, in fact, recently, in their attack on Russian policy, the Chinese repudiated the idea of negotiation if the bombing of North Vietnam stopped unless all U.S. troops were withdrawn. Therefore I am afraid that any cessation of bombing would not have the desired effect, but might even be counter-productive, in that it might suggest to the North Vietnamese and to the Chinese that they were on the point of winning.
LORD BROCKWAY: But, my Lords, is it not the case that the previous pause was for only five days? Does the Minister really think that within that short period there could be the opportunity for renewed negotiations?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I think that five days would be long enough if there were real eagerness on the part of the North to negotiate. But even if it were not long enough, the statement I have just quoted from the Chinese Government shows that they are in no way impressed by any cessation of bombing.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is my noble friend not being rather defeatist? If the bombing had ceased for five days during the blitz in this country, at no time should we have said, "Now the Germans are prepared to negotiate peace". Five days is just about enough time for an enemy to say, "Well, he is getting a second breath". Could my noble friend really not suggest at this stage, when we see this senseless bloodshed, that another effort should be made by the United States? Could he not ask them to try for two weeks, or even a month, before they start again? Discussions will have to be initiated eventually. Why not at this stage try to save the thousands of lives which might be saved?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I could not agree more with the final remarks of my noble friend—" Eventually, this will be settled by negotiation; why not do it now?" My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that on more than one occasion in making his appeal. But surely the correct and only possible way in which negotiations can now be started is for the North to respond to the often repeated offers of the United States to come and talk to-day without conditions.

FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT TO MOSCOW
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Walston will be making a Statement on the Foreign Secretary's visit to Moscow.
COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last, and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 45; read 1ª.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. Perhaps I should apologise to the House for any inconvenience caused by bringing this Bill forward, but the reason is that, as the House will know, we are faced with a long debate to-morrow, and the usual channels felt that we should bring forward the two Bills mentioned on the Order Paper. It was necessary for this Bill to be brought forward because it needs to receive the Royal Assent by December 13, when a previous piece of legislation is due to expire. My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion.
Moved, That the Second Reading of the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Bill (which stands appointed for
8
To-morrow) be advanced to To-day.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion on Business.
Moved, That the Third Reading of the Corporation of the Trinity House of Leith Order Confirmation Bill (which stands appointed for Tuesday the 14th December next) be advanced to To-morrow.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PERSONAL BILLS COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Committee be appointed to whom all Petitions for Personal Bills shall stand referred; and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

V. Gage,

V. Simonds,

L. Cohen,

L. Grantchester,

L. Morton of Henryton,

L. Silkin.

—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion that stands in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed for the general supervision of arrangements relating to leave of absence, and that the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

E. St. Aldwyn,

L. Amulree,

L. Shepherd.

—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
2.49 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill be read a second time. As I expect your Lordships are aware, this is something of an "all-sorts" Bill. It continues in force a miscellaneous collection of measures which would otherwise expire on the 31st of this month. It deals with immigration, horror comics, public-houses, accommodation agencies and the powers of the Ministry of Aviation. It is beyond my powers to find a coherent theme in all this, and I shall not attempt to do so.
I shall speak primarily of the two immigration measures, the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, and the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. My noble friend Lord Champion, who will be winding up the debate, will discuss the other measures at whatever length the debate indicates to be necessary. He will also deal with the wider aspects of immigration; the problems of integration, housing, health and education. My purpose is to discuss the crucially important measure by which we control the admission and stay of aliens and Commonwealth citizens in this country.
First, I will say a few words about the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act 1955, because whereas all the other measures to which I have referred are hardy annuals, this Act is making its debut in an Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It was passed ten years ago to deal with a situation created by the importation from the United States of America in the early 1950s of a large quantity of what came to be called "horror comics". Noble Lords may remember that representatives of the teaching profession and of the Church expressed concern about the effect of the comics on the impressionable minds of children. Under the Act it is an offence to print, publish or sell horror comics or to have them in possession for sale. Provisions are made for their for
10
feiture, and their importation is prohibited.
During the passage of the Bill through Parliament apprehension was expressed as to its scope and about the possibility of interference with the legitimate freedom of expression, and in deference to these opinions the Act was give a limited life of ten years. It was provided that proceedings should be brought in England and Wales only with the consent of the Attorney General. I am glad to say that the Act has been entirely successful. Importations of horror comics have ceased, and it has not been necessary to bring any prosecutions. In the circumstances, I do not think there can be any ground for complaint about the way in which the Act has been operated. However, we know that there is still in the United States of America a flourishing market for these comics and any relaxation in our law might well result in their entry into this country. Hence the Act's inclusion in the Schedule to the Bill.
Now, my Lords, for the more important matters. First, aliens. Your Lordships will have heard many times how, at the outbreak of the First World War, the Aliens Restriction Act 1914 was passed. It was more comprehensive than previous legislation and enabled the Home Secretary to impose further restrictions on all aliens in time of war, of imminent danger or of great emergency. Section 1 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919 provided that, for a period of one year only, the power conferred by the 1914 Act should be exercisable not only in those circumstances but at any time. This power has since been continued from year to year by successive Expiring Laws Continuance Acts. Control over aliens is at present exercised through the Aliens Order 1953 (which consolidated previous Orders), as amended by the Aliens Orders in three later years. These Orders make provisions for dealing, among other things, with the landing and embarkation of foreigners and with the control of their activities here.
The fact that the control of foreigners in peace time has for over fifty years depended upon temporary legislation has been, naturally enough, a source of criticism for many years. There is general

11
agreement that it is anomalous and illogical, that powers which seem likely to be needed for the foreseeable future should not yet have found a permanent place in the Statute Book. Year after year, for decades, the Government of the day have agreed in principle on the need for permanent legislation; but nothing has been done. The Act of 1914 is proving as durable as that other temporary, emergency, war-time measure—income tax. This Government have taken a first step toward the achievement of permanent legislation. We have set up a Committee to consider a key problem of any review of the aliens law—the possibility of giving both aliens and Commonwealth citizens a right of appeal against refusal of leave to land and deportation. As your Lordships know, the Prime Minister announced, during the debate on the Address, that a small independent Committee is to be appointed with the following terms of reference:
" To consider whether any, and if so what, rights of appeal or other remedies, should be available to aliens and to Commonwealth citizens who are refused admission to, or required to leave, the country ".
Sir Roy Wilson, who is the President of the Industrial Court and a distinguished lawyer, has agreed to serve as the Chairman of the Committee.
No doubt we shall be told by those responsible for years of total inertia that this first step is the wrong step or that it is not a big enough step forward. We may be told that legislation should have been introduced without delay and without special consideration of the problems involved. I am sure that your Lordships will see that the study we have undertaken is a necessary preliminary to worthwhile permanent legislation. Until this Committee presents its report and a Bill can be prepared and fitted into the numerous other demands on Parliamentary time, we must either pass the Bill before us or enter the coming year with no control whatever over the admission and residence of foreigners. There is nothing in the present state of the world to suggest that this is a suitable time to dispense with this power. Security considerations are of obvious relevance; and so is the pressure of the would-be immigrants wishing to settle here for economic or social reasons. We feel
12
great sympathy for those who are driven by conditions in their own countries to try to make a better life for themselves here, but this small and overcrowded country can afford to absorb only a limited number of immigrants. In present circumstances there can be no reversion to the nineteenth century concept of the "open door", particularly when we are seeking the continuance of a power to regulate the admission of our fellow citizens from the Commonwealth.
It has been suggested, in another place, that the terms of reference of the new Committee are inadequate because they do not cover the rules which govern the admission of foreigners. But, my Lords, these rules are a matter of Government policy; the Government must have the right to decide who may enter the country and who should be excluded. The Aliens Order 1953 forbids an immigration officer, without the authorisation of the Home Secretary, to allow an alien to land in the United Kingdom in any of the following cases: if he is not in a position to support himself and his dependants; if he proposes to work and has not first obtained a labour permit; if he has been sentenced in another country for an extradition crime; if he is a person of unsound mind; or if it is certified by a medical inspector that it is undesirable for medical reasons that he should be allowed to land.
But there are certain other persons who do not fall within these categories though they may be undesirable for one reason or another. There are those, for example, who represent a threat to this country's security or whose activities are inimical to a freedom-loving society. A case in point is that of Lincoln Rockwell, the American Fascist. Then there are those with criminal propensities, such as drug traffickers, who must be refused admission. In general, the intending immigrant not eligible for settlement here under any specific head of policy is not admitted. But although we must have some control over foreigners, we must see that this control is exercised with fairness and humanity.
The effect of a decision to refuse admission to the individual foreigner or his family may be far-reaching. The most full and sympathetic consideration is always given to each case. When there is any doubt, the foreigner is invariably

13
allowed to telephone friends or relatives, or those who may speak on his behalf. In any event, the immigration officer never refuses admission on his own authority. Difficult cases are referred to the Home Office in London, and not infrequently to Ministers. I can vouch personally for the sympathy and skill with which immigration officers do their job. I have seen them at work. There is no ground at all for saying that the wide executive powers they exercise on the Home Secretary's behalf are in any way abused. A glance at the refusal figures will bear this out. Nearly 2,700,000 foreigners entered the United Kingdom in the year ended September 30, 1965, and only 4,154 were refused leave to land. This is 0·15 per cent., or one in just under 700.
Nor do we operate an illiberal policy when it comes to expelling foreigners already here who have in some way abused our hospitality. If our system of immigration control is to be effective, the Home Secretary must have the power to deport those who cheat their way into the country, or who refuse to comply with the conditions upon which they were admitted. This ultimate sanction must also be available against a foreigner who has offended against the laws of our country which has offered him a second home.
The Home Secretary never signs a deportation order without considering all aspects of each individual case. He has the final responsibility for a decision to deport, and he takes each decision personally. Every mitigating circumstance is taken into account; for instance, marriage to a British subject, a good work record, or previous long residence here. If a foreigner has lived here for two years or more and is not being deported on security grounds, he may plead his case, with legal advice if he wishes, before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bow Street. And where the Chief Magistrate has disagreed with a proposal to deport, no Home Secretary has yet signed a deportation order. If a deportee wishes to go, not to his own country but to another, then everything possible is done to meet his wishes. The deportation order requires him merely to leave and stay out. If there is another country willing to receive him, he is allowed to proceed there.
14
I hope your Lordships will agree with me when I say that these procedures are far from being harsh and arbitrary. Indeed, when one considers that over 400,000 foreigners are here at any one time—and the number is probably well over half-a-million in the holiday season —then the figures of 59 deportations, covering every kind of case, made last year, and of 54 made in the first nine months of this year, can be viewed in their proper perspective. It is quite untrue to suggest that this aspect of the control, or indeed any aspect, is not exercised with the greatest sympathy and humanity.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? The figures he has quoted with regard to deportations refer purely and simply to aliens and not to members of the Commonwealth? Is that right?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am glad to make that clear. I have not yet begun to deal with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, but I shall do so quite shortly, and I will give such figures as are available.
It is sometimes suggested that an alien who is refused leave to land, or who is deported should always be told the reason for the decision. Normally he is told, but there are cases—for example, those which involve the protection of the individual, security considerations, mental health, or crime—where disclosure would not be appropriate. By far the commonest reason for refusal of leave to land (last year it accounted for well over a third of the total) is that the foreigner has come to work without a valid labour permit. Such persons are left in no doubt about why they have been refused admission. Staff at the Home Office are instructed that if a friend or representative of a foreigner who is refused leave to land, or any other person with a legitimate interest in the case, asks the reason for the decision, he should, wherever possible, be given a clear and concise explanation. I submit that if you accept, as I think you must, that the "open door" policy is no longer a practicable policy then I think you must accept that our alien immigration policy is necessary, and it is with confidence that I ask your Lordships to agree that these provisions should be continued for another year.

15
The next question before the House is whether Part I of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 should continue in force during the coming year. I believe that the great majority of people in the country think that it should, because it is now generally agreed that there must be power to regulate the flow of immigrants from overseas into this densely populated island. Controversy starts over the extent of the powers required for this purpose and the way in which those powers are exercised. In asking the House a year ago to continue the control during 1965, my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary said:
"We must reshape our control. We must watch the problem as it develops and so shape our legislation as to deal with it in all its various phases."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT. Commons, Vol. 702, col. 289-290: 17/11/64.]
The conclusions we have reached, after a comprehensive review of the control, were laid before the House in August, but as there has not yet been an opportunity for us to debate them your Lordships may now wish me to give the reasons for our decisions.
In 1964, when we took office, 55,900 Commonwealth citizens from overseas were admitted for settlement, compared with 56,071 in 1963. The total volume of immigration had thus remained at about the same level, despite the fact that the previous Government had halved the number of voucher-holders admitted—. from 30,125 in 1963 to 14,705 in 1964. That is the number of voucher holders actually admitted, as distinct from the number of vouchers issued. We therefore believed that unless new restrictions were imposed, the total volume of immigration would continue to rise at a substantial rate. The Government also found that evasion of the existing control was being practised on a considerable scale. Some would-be immigrants were claiming false relationships with Commonwealth citizens already resident here, or were falsifying their ages—29 year-olds having a very close shave and trying to come in as 16-year-olds—in order to appear to qualify for admission as dependants. Others, although fully intending to stay here, were passing themselves off as temporary visitors or students. I announced on February 4 this year that the Home Secretary was taking action
16
within the framework of the existing law to combat evasion, and made it clear that this action was being taken as an interim measure pending the outcome of the general review that the Government were conducting.
The 1962 Act gives the wife and the children under 16 of any Commonwealth citizen the right to accompany or join him here. One of the first questions that the Government had to consider in the course of their review was whether this right should be withdrawn or modified. We decided against any change, and I firmly believe that the consensus of opinion in Parliament and the country has supported our decision. It followed that any reduction in the number of Commonwealth citizens admitted for permanent settlement could be only through a reduction in the number of employment vouchers issued. In fixing the new limit on the number of vouchers, the Government had to take account of the fact that voucher-holders are usually accompanied or eventually joined by several dependants. The number of dependants still overseas who have a statutory right to join immigrants already settled here cannot be estimated with any accuracy, but last year 67 per cent. of the Commonwealth citizens admitted for settlement were dependants.
It is therefore quite wrong to suggest that we have decided to admit only 8,500 Commonwealth immigrants a year. In fact, the only numerical limit on the entry of Commonwealth immigrants is that which governs the issue of vouchers. A single voucher guarantees the admission not only of the holder but also of his wife and of any children he has under the age of 16. In addition, as I mentioned two weeks ago, the family may be joined by older children under 18 years of age who are still dependent, by elderly parents and so forth. Thus, one cannot say in advance precisely what will be the effect on the total volume of immigration of the issue of a given number of vouchers, but obviously a substantial reduction in vouchers was unavoidable, if the total volume of immigration was to be kept within manageable bounds. Even after this reduction, there is no guarantee that the total volume of immigration over the next few years will be reduced, and certainly this year the figure is likely to exceed the 1964 total.

17
It is sometimes suggested that the rate of immigration depends on the demand for labour in this country, and that it is wrong to restrict immigration because the economy here needs more workers. But in framing our policy, we must take account not only of the great usefulness of immigrant labour, which I have often gladly and gratefully acknowledged, but also of the social consequences that arise from the continued settlement of large numbers of people from overseas in areas that are already overcrowded and where the social services are already overstrained. We have the difficult task of striking a balance between the economic advantages of immigration and its social costs and we must also take account of the facilities available to immigrants when they come here, particularly the housing, education and health services.
A good deal of play has been made with the supposed contrast between the 8,500 vouchers, a year to be issued to the workers from the Commonwealth and the much larger number of foreign workers whom we admit. They totalled 42,584 last year. But this is not a fair comparison, because the majority of foreign workers do not settle here. The right comparison, comparing like with like, is between the total number of Commonwealth citizens, on the one hand, and aliens, on the other, allowed to settle permanently. For 1964, the figures are 55,900 Commonwealth citizens, of whom 14,705 were voucher-holders, as against 19,211 aliens, of whom only 9,195 were workers. And it is likely that the rate of settlement of Commonwealth citizens from overseas will continue to be substantially greater than that of aliens.
Much has also been made from time to time of the fact that we have not proposed any measures to control immigration from the Irish Republic. Indeed, I know that that has been used as the one peg on which to hang the label, which I utterly reject, of colour discrimination. I do not believe that those who criticise the Government on this point have ever stopped to think—perhaps they do not want to think—about the almost insurmountable difficulties involved in establishing any such control. The choice would lie between exercising a control on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic or controlling traffic between Northern Ireland and Great Britain as well as from the
18
Republic. Unless we were to build some sort of "Berlin wall"—it would have to be a very long one—control on the border is impracticable, because of the large number of possible crossing points and the fact that people in this country do not carry identity cards—I do not suppose that anyone wants them to. Control over traffic between Northern Ireland and Great Britain would involve people carrying passports, or some such document, to travel from one part of the United Kingdom to another. I should have thought that that was unthinkable.
It is quite untrue to say that measures specially directed to Commonwealth immigrants make any distinction between white and coloured or are inspired by racialism. The only control is a quantitative one, designed to ensure that immigration does not exceed our absorptive capacity. It is, of course, true that most of the immigrants are coloured, and if we permitted uncontrolled immigration we should strain social facilities to breaking point and ill-feeling against coloured people would inevitably result. We are all aware that in many of our towns there are streets of sub-standard property in which immigrants are crowded 20 or more to a house. For desperately overcrowded accommodation, with primitive cooking facilities, no baths and inadequate sanitation, they may have been paying each year in rent nearly as much as the house is worth. This is the only sort of place where new immigrants can find accommodation. In the face of these conditions, those who demand uncontrolled or considerably expanded immigration are doing a great disservice to immigrants already here and their dependants who are still coming and who will still be welcome, and they might indeed make a difficult situation intolerable.
To sum up, over the past year the Government undertaking to review the whole question of immigration from the Commonwealth has been fulfilled. We have not hesitated to take necessary action designed to reduce the rate of immigration. At the same time, we have preserved the right of all immigrants, past and future, to bring their immediate dependants to this country, and we have taken steps to promote the integration of the immigrants and their families into the community—and we shall take many more. in the belief that the existing

19
statutory provisions are essential, and in the hope that they will soon be improved in point of effectiveness in operation, I ask your Lordships to continue them during the coming year.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD GRANTCHESTER: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a question before he finishes with this matter? I should like to know whether any special consideration has been given to the nationals of the Council of Europe countries, who are the subject of a European Convention—a Convention which was signed eight or nine years ago by representatives of this country but which has not yet been ratified by us? Also, has any special consideration been given to the nationals of EFTA countries, with whom we have a special trade relationship; and particularly to the subject of temporary permits for the admission of students on special courses of study either from Council of Europe countries or from EFTA countries?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord's question refers to our obligations under the Human Rights Convention or to matters in the Human Rights Convention, which we have not yet ratified—
LORD GRANTCHESTER: No, my Lords. It relates to the European Convention on establishment, which came into force during the last year when five or six European countries had ratified it. This is a Convention that representatives of this country signed, but it has not yet been ratified by us, although it is now in force among the European countries which have ratified it. It deals with the question of the admission of nationals moving between European countries.
LORD STONHAM: I am hesitant to answer on any particular point at this stage; I think it would be better if I had this looked up. However, I think I ought to say that my understanding of the matter is that there is no special provision in relation to the nationals of any foreign country who wish to come to this country, or in relation to any group of countries. They must all comply with the regulations with regard to the admission of aliens which I have described.
LORD GRANTCHESTER: I think that is correct. But would the noble Lord look into this Convention and let me know whether he can make any observations in regard to it?
LORD STONHAM: I will certainly look into the matter and write to the noble Lord, but I cannot at this stage enter into any kind of commitment.
3.22 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I too, am going to talk mainly about alien immigrants and Commonwealth immigrants, but I would say first that I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that the "horror comics" legislation had worked so well. That is a most satisfactory piece of legislation. I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said, though I may have one or two final remarks that he will not like so much. However, he is used to that.
I should like to discuss the aliens immigration system and the Commonwealth immigration system together, by way of comparison, because I want to put forward certain ideas. As the noble Lord has said, alien immigrants come in under a quite different system of control from Commonwealth immigrants. Aliens who do not hold British passports are required, first of all, to hand in a landing card, and later, when they leave, an embarkation card; and that is the rule in practically all Commonwealth countries. These cards are then despatched to Princeton House, where they are alphabetically filed and paired. Seventy-five per cent.—in fact, I believe possibly a little more—of the aliens who come here are bona fide visitors; and they come and go. When, however, after a specified period, one card in the filing system is not matched with another card, chasing inquiries are then set on foot. Therefore, we know who has come in and who has gone out. There is also a need for a portion of these aliens to register with the police as a further check. The important part of this is that we have a full and proper accounting system.
With Commonwealth citizens the procedure is quite different. There is no card system, and there is at present no

21
registration. A Commonwealth immigrant, if he is a legal immigrant, comes in for life; he comes in for one job, and he can change his job. That is quite different from the aliens system. Last year the Home Secretary said:
"Since the control began, nearly half a million visitors have come into the country, but it is difficult for me to say what is the number who went out, because Commonwealth citizens leaving the United Kingdom are not, under the existing system of control, classified."
Later he said:
" When they leave one does not know whether they are workers, visitors or students, because no record is kept to classify them."
We have been told, in addition, that an estimated number of, I think 10,000 has come into this country illegally, evading the Commonwealth immigration laws. But we do not know even if that number is right. We do not know whether it is too small or to large, although one has a feeling that it may be rather too small. However, we do not know how many Commonwealth immigrants are in this country, whether legally or illegally. The whole position is only estimated, because we have no proper accounting system for Commonwealth immigrants. We have that system in the case of alien immigrants, but not in the case of Commonwealth immigrants.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, we do know how many Commonwealth immigrants are admitted to this country officially and in accordance with the Act. What we do not know precisely is how many get in illegally.
LORD DERWENT: But the noble Lord does not know, nor do I know, how many are now here, because we do not have a proper check when they go out. So we do not know how many are here, and what is the size of the problem.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord?
LORD DERWENT: Perhaps I might continue. The noble Lord is going to speak, and he will doubtless answer me then. I want to digress for a moment on the question of Commonwealth citizens who are already here. I think it is now generally agreed, although some people may disagree, that all Commonwealth immigrants who are now legally here
22
should be allowed to remain if they want to. I think it is also now generally agreed that all dependants as described in paragraph 19 of the White Paper should be allowed to come here and remain here if the head of the family (as one might call him) is already here legally; that is to say, he should have his dependants here. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that it would be regrettable if they could not come here. I have confirmation of that from the police in various towns, where they have less trouble—not that they necessarily have much trouble—after the family has arrived than they did before. This is an important point. But, in spite of that, we know that we have here an explosive situation on our hands. I think everybody agrees about that.
There are three reasons for this situation. The first is purely a question of numbers. We do not know how many Commonwealth immigrants are here at the moment. The estimate is something over one million—I think that is probably right, including, of course, dependants. We have this large number, and the bulk of them have come in over a comparatively short space of time. That is one of the main difficulties in this situation. Secondly, this large number of immigrants has come in over recent years, and, unfortunately but quite naturally, they are not spread about the country but have tended to settle in two or three large centres. It is the fact that they have settled in these centres, rather than spread about the country, that in many ways makes it a more difficult problem for local authorities to handle. Then, we now know from the foreign entry statistics that, on the average, there are about four dependants for each voucher holder. So that is the size of the problem.
We know in particular the appalling difficulties which local' authorities are having—and the difficulties are not getting any better at the moment—in housing and education. There are are other problems, of course, but they are the two principal difficulties of local authorities. Unless we can speedily develop a proper system of control of new entrants —not for those already here—and particularly for illegal entrants, we are making our task of integration of those already here almost impossible. I think that at any rate the Government Front Bench

23
agree with me on this, because the noble Lord, Lord Stonham (I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT of March 10, col. 101), speaking for the Government, and therefore obviously repeating Government policy said:
" We are determined that the number of new immigrants shall be restricted to levels which can properly be assimilated."
My first question is this: How can we tell what are the numbers that can properly be assimilated when we have no proper accounting system? As I say, we do not even know how many immigrants are in this country at the present time. We certainly know what were the Government's intentions last August, from the White Paper, Immigration from the Commonwealth. I would refer your Lordships to certain paragraphs in that White Paper. The first is paragraph 11, and that paragraph, among other things, says:
" … the Home Secretary … had found evidence that evasion of the existing control was being practised on a considerable scale. He was therefore instructing immigration officers to scrutinise more carefully the intentions and bona fides of Commonwealth citizens who sought entry, and to make fuller use of their power to impose conditions. One effect of the latter instruction is that students, although admitted as freely as before, are now admitted only for a specified period, which is extended if necessary so long as they are genuinely pursuing their studies."
That point is taken up again in paragraph 22, which says:
" The Government will continue to welcome people who come from other Commonwealth Countries on holiday, social or business visits or to follow a course of studies. At the same time it is important to prevent people admitted on the pretext of a visit or a course of study from obtaining permanent settlement."
How can you do that without a proper system of control and, above all, without any proper accounting system?
If your Lordships do not agree with me on what I say, I would refer you to paragraph 24, which starts:
" If a person admitted to this country for a limited period remains here after that period has expired, it is difficult, very often impossible, to trace him."
What does admitting people for a limited period, with quite a weak system of control and with no system of accounting, mean? At the end of that paragraph we come to the first part of the Government's intentions. It reads:
24
"The Government propose to seek power for an immigration officer to include among the conditions on which a particular Commonwealth citizen is admitted one requiring him to register with the police."
That is a power which is not necessarily enforced by the immigration officer, but it is something which they say is necessary. That means legislation.
We then go on to paragraph 25 which deals with repatriation:
" At present a Commonwealth citizen may be deported only if a court has made a recommendation to that effect on convicting him of a crime punishable by imprisonment. The Government regard it as important that there should be a speedy and effective power to repatriate immigrants who in one way or another, e.g., by obtaining entry by misrepresentation or by flouting the conditions on which they were admitted, evade the stricter control over immigration that is now envisaged. Without it "—
and these are important words—
" the effectiveness of the control would be greatly weakened. It is therefore the Government's intention to seek for the Home Secretary a general power"—
in other words, more legislation.
Before I go on to the question of legislation, may I at this moment give my own personal views on two matters which I think are necessary?—and I would stress that these are my own personal views, and I am not speaking for anyone else. First of all, I believe it will be found essential to bring the Commonwealth immigration system closer to the alien system, although I do not say that it should necessarily be the same. But I think it is absolutely essential so as to have an accounting system. Secondly, I feel very strongly that at this moment, and for a period of time, except in special circumstances, we ought not to admit any more Commonwealth immigrants for permanent residence—I say advisedly "for permanent residence"—until we have looked after those already here; and we have hardly started to tackle that problem. If we allow people to come here for permanent residence in large numbers, or even quite large numbers, we shall not be able to deal satisfactorily with the people already here. I feel certain of that. That does not mean if we have a system of control we cannot allow Commonwealth immigrants in in fairly large numbers over a limited period. But we cannot do it at present because the control is not effective; an accounting system does not really exist.

25
Last Session, in August, the Prime Minister, discussing this matter and the White Paper, gave the impression that the Government thought that the legislation they required was urgent and important. He appreciated that the situation was very difficult. All of us interested in this subject confidently expected that we were going to see legislation forecast in the gracious Speech. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, what has happened? The Prime Minister has swept this question under the carpet by appointing a Committee, presumably under pressure from his Left Wing. I wonder whether we ought to pass this legislation to-day until we have had from the Government some idea of when we may receive this urgent legislation—will it be this Session, or when? Or is it going to be another Steel Bill, something we are always promised by the Prime Minister, who takes jolly good care we do not get it.

FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT TO MOSCOW
3.38 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, With your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary in another place on his visit to Moscow. The Statement reads as follows:
" I had talks with Mr. Mikoyan and Mr. Kosygin and several meetings with Mr. Gromyko, and I am arranging for the communiqué, which I issued jointly with Mr. Gromyko, to be placed in the Library of the House.
" The international subject to which we paid most attention was the proposal for a non-proliferation treaty, and on the Soviet side this was linked with the question of nuclear arrangements in NATO. We all agreed that a nonproliferation treaty was necessary and that it was important to conclude one as soon as possible. Mr. Gromyko maintained the view that arrangements to associate non-nuclear members of NATO with discussions and decisions on the use of nuclear weapons themselves constituted dissemination and therefore presented an obstacle to a non-dissemination treaty. I explained
26
that any NATO arrangements would be consistent with non-dissemination and would, indeed, contribute towards it. Despite our differences of view, we agreed that discussions on the text of a non-dissemination treaty should be pursued.
" In our discussions about European security, the question of German reunification was naturally prominent. I regret that the Soviet approach to the question of German reunification remains widely divergent from our own.
" Similarly, I cannot report that we were able to make any progress over the steps to bring peace to Vietnam, though I have no doubt that the Soviet Government are as anxious as we are that the fighting should be brought to an end there.
" The communiqué records that we had some discussion of the United Nations. I urged the importance of pursuing a constructive line there and of not trying to turn the Organisation into a platform for disruptive propaganda.
" Among the bilateral questions we discussed, I laid particular emphasis, in my talk with Mr. Kosygin, on the need for the Soviet Union to increase its purchases from this country and thus to reduce the present imbalance.
" I also discussed with Mr. Kosygin the question of a meeting between him and the Prime Minister. We made progress on this, and I hope that it will be possible to give further information before very long.
" We also signed a Consular Convention which will regulate the Consular relations between the two countries and which provides for access by Consuls to their nationals who are in trouble with the authorities.
" I spoke to Mr. Kosygin and Mr. Gromyko about Mr. Brooke. Since then our Consul has been allowed to see Mr. Brooke, for the first time since August.
" I did not have any illusions, when I went to Moscow, about the possibility of making quick progress on the difficult international problems. I hoped that each side would listen carefully to what the other had to say, and would

27
then decide to go away and think it over. I think that is what happened. The communiqué describes the talks as businesslike. This is an accurate description. The fact that both sides found the talks very useful is reflected in the final paragraph of the communiqué which registers our agreement that there should be periodical meetings."
That, my Lords, is my right honourable friend's Statement.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am most grateful, as I am sure noble Lords on all sides of the House are, to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for repeating that Statement. I hope he will not think me either ungrateful or ungracious if I say simply that, as a result of the Statement, we can be thankful for small mercies. The Foreign Secretary has made it quite clear that he did not expect a great deal from his visit to Moscow and, equally, that a great deal was not achieved. Nevertheless, we should be grateful for what progress was made.
It is comforting and reassuring that we and Russia are agreed that a treaty of non-dissemination is needed, and that discussions on how to reach an acceptable text should continue. Equally, the Consular Agreement must also be a small yet further step towards the betterment of relations between the two countries. In regard to the Foreign Secretary's efforts to help Mr. Brooke in his plight, all of us, not least on humanitarian grounds, must welcome these very warmly.
I think there is little one can say about the Statement, and certainly it raises no controversial issues. On behalf of these Benches I would congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the initiative he took in going to Moscow. The fact that he had the courage to go when little could be expected makes his expedition all the more praiseworthy. The final sentence of the Statement says that discussions are to continue. It is a very unoriginal thought, but nevertheless true, that the more conversations which take place between our two countries, the better. I would therefore sum up by thanking the Foreign Secretary, and the Government for small progress; but progress it was.
LORD REA: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to echo those remarks, but I would give them a rather less tepid welcome than the noble Duke did. I think that our Foreign Secretary, who has done such good work in many directions, has made a constructive impact by this visit to Russia, and we should all be very grateful to him. May I now ask one or two supplementary questions? First, I would ask whether the Foreign Secretary discussed the various financial agreements and claims still outstanding between our countries. Then I would ask whether he discussed the difficulty between India and Pakistan and whether Russia should join with us in coming to some helpful conclusion. Finally, did he go into the question of welcoming more travel between the two countries and more exchange of population, even in marriage between Russians and Britons?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, like the noble Duke we, too, are thankful for small mercies, even when they come from the Benches Opposite, at least so far as foreign affairs are concerned. Occasionally we find praise or approval from that side somewhat embarrassing, but so far as our relations with other countries are concerned, we welcome his kind words, and also the rather warmer words of the noble Lord, the Leader of the Liberal Party. I would certainly agree with the noble Lord and endorse, if I may, his praise for my right honourable friend and his efforts. I am quite certain that the personal contacts which my right honourable friend is making are of enormous value in all these tricky international problems. If there can be understanding between Ministers as human beings, rather than as representatives of Government, we shall have gone a long way.
With regard to the three specific questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the short answer to each of them is "Yes". There were discussions—short discussions—on the financial claims and it was agreed that the negotiations should continue. There were also short talks on the problems of India and Pakistan, and my right honourable friend emphasised the hope that if such a meeting could be arranged it would lead to an improvement in relations between India and Pakistan. He also spoke with Mr. Gromyko

29
about visits of Soviet citizens to this country, and vice versa, and emphasised how important it is to the growth of understanding between our countries that these exchange visits, which have taken place to an increasing extent over the past years, should continue, and increase; and, in particular, my right honourable friend expressed the hope that there might be a happy outcome of a number of cases in which a British citizen and a Soviet citizen wished to get married.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
3.48 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading continued.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, I return to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. When, a year ago, the Act was passed continuing that Act, it appeared that there was then, as there seems to be now, widespread agreement about the need for some control of immigration; and it appeared that one matter of controversy, at least, might be disappearing. There was great hope that there might be less political friction on the whole subject and, consequently, a greater national concentration on integration as a task for citizens, quite irrespective of politics. It is about integration that I want especially to say a few words. I am not specially fond of the word, though I do not know that a better comprehensive word has been invented. But 1 think we know what we mean by integration; namely, to secure that citizens from overseas in our land shall be able to reside happily and in peace with their neighbours, wherever they may be, and to play a full and welcome part in our society.
Since 1962 most important work in connection with integration has been done by the Advisory Council, under the Chairmanship of Lady Reading, set up by the then Home Secretary. The four Reports issued by Lady Reading's Advisory Council show remarkable progress made through three years—progress in the growing knowledge of the problems and in the will to tackle them and to apply many skills to them. In the autumn of this year a new body was set up, partly to continue the functions of Lady Reading's Council and also to add some
30
other functions to them. The new body was called the National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, and I was invited to be its chairman. I accepted the invitation, and my motive in doing so was simply to encourage my fellow citizens in giving practical service to an immense task with which the citizens of this country are greatly concerned.
May I say a word about the work of this new Committee? Its work is going to be done largely through panels on the particular subjects of health, housing, education, employment, training for social work, public relations, legal and welfare problems. These panels are in touch with many liaison committees already existing in many parts of the country. My own initial impression of the task is that there is in the country a great body of people aware of the practical problems and working at solving them within their own localities. But, at the same time, some localities are a considerable way behind others, and therefore I conceive it to be the work of our central body to ensure that knowledge is conveyed to a locality which urgently needs knowledge as to what other localities are able to achieve.
For instance, if, rather unexpectedly, there arrive at the school of a particular district a body of children from overseas who cannot speak English, there at once come about a whole group of problems for children, teachers and parents; and for others, as well. And if it is known in a particular locality how the problem is being tackled with great skill in some other locality, then the sooner the knowledge can be brought to bear upon the spot the better. Let me add one further impression; that is, that in the work of local committees dealing with integration the immigrants themselves have been playing a steady and increasingly valuable part as contributors to the whole task.
But at the moment there is another side, and a very sad side, to the matter. The work of integration, as is being reported from many parts of the country, is being hampered by bad feelings aroused by the Government's White Paper. It may be wrong that this should be so; and it may be unnecessary. But we have to face the fact that it is so, and for those concerned with integration the resulting immediate problem is a pretty grave one. One effect is that in a good many places

31
immigrants, having had their feelings hurt by things read in the White Paper, find themselves in a non-co-operative kind of attitude and sometimes withdraw their co-operation with bodies dealing with integration into bodies of a racialist kind. Another effect is that some of our own workers for integration, people who have been giving themselves to the tasks for a long time, find themselves discouraged and depressed by this wave of unrest on the matter. It is in relation to integration that I am viewing the matter and asking your Lordships to view the matter. While those of us concerned with integration want to concentrate on these tasks, and not to be drawn into political controversies, it is the fact that things said and done in other parts of the territory do vitally affect the work of integration.
Let me mention three things in the White Paper concerning which criticism is made. First, in the distribution of categories there is the bias in favour of professional people among the immigrants, which means that there is an impression that immigration is being organised in a way that may be detrimental to some of the countries from which immigrants come. I remember this point being made in the corresponding debate here a year ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who pointed out that a doctor in Pakistan may be looking after a population of 50,000 people, whereas in England he or she may be looking after, say, a population of 5,000 people. This state of affairs which draws a specially big proportion of professional people within the categories of the immigrants is now being described as a "brain-drain" upon the countries concerned. I do not know what the answer is. I think it is very difficult to find an answer, and certainly it will need co-operation between the countries to find it. But I think there is just criticism of the fact that this matter has been left unanswered in the text of the White Paper.
Secondly, there is much concern about the new regulation concerning the admission of children between 16 and 18 who want to join their parents, or a parent, in this country. It indeed seems rather a rough attitude to families to say, in effect, "We will consider sons and
32
daughters under 18 if their exclusion would cause hardship." I find myself wondering what I might have said at the age of 17 if I were told I might join my parents in the family if by being separated from them it would cause hardship, how I should have interpreted the phrase. I think that if at the age of 17 my sisters had been told they might join their mother if their separation was a condition causing hardship, they might have been even more puzzled. I do not feel that the present state of these regulations is satisfactory, even though I know the law is administered with sympathy.
Then there is, thirdly, concern about the powers for removal of immigrants from the country and about the limitations of the rights of appeal. I believe that this matter caused a great deal of distress, though it is now good to know that the Government, through the Committee which they have set up, are having a new look at this matter.
Certainly, on the other side, we have to recognise that some of the reactions to the White Paper have been caused by sheer misunderstanding. We also have to recognise the need for firmness in controlling evasion, and indeed such firmness is only a kindness to bona fide would-be immigrants. If I were a student anxious to come to this country to study, I should feel injured if my place in the queue were taken by somebody simply masquerading as a student—it is apparently possible to do that successfully. Again, if I were a child eager to join my parents, I should be aggrieved beyond words if my place in the queue were taken by somebody just masquerading as a child wanting to join his parents. I think that, with those thoughts in mind, we sympathise with the need for firmness about evasions.
However, my central idea is really this. It does not quite do to say, "We have a lot of immigrants in this country. Let us concentrate upon the work of integration and, when we have achieved that, perhaps it may be well to consider something more because it is quite evident that policy about controls arouses feelings of the sort that make the task of integration difficult." I have no doubt that the Government do indeed sympathise with these considerations. I believe that is partly a matter not just of the text of

33
regulations but of what I would call Government public relations with the immigrant community. The Government must not only have regulations and adjust, but also take far greater pains to convey the meaning, intention and the humanity of any regulations to the immigrants themselves.
I believe that the coming year may be a crucial year for the growth of the integration that we all so greatly hope is going to happen. There are, alas!, ominous and unhealthy signs. There has been an unhealthy recrudescence of white racialist organisations in this country; and, as I indicated earlier, there has been the tendency for some immigrants to have their feelings hurt in a way that causes them to group themselves in non-cooperative ways. There is a story that an immigrant citizen from another part of the Commonwealth once said, "If you do not like my habits, teach me better habits. If you do not like my attitude to life, teach me a better attitude to life. But if it is the colour of my skin that you object to, well, I can only refer you to the Creator who made me."
One last word. I think it is most important how the immigrant community in this country are talked about and referred to by us who are their fellow citizens. There are many problems about their relation to the rest of the community, just as there are many problems about ourselves and about every part of our community in this land. But while we can discuss the problems concerning groups of people in the country and their relation to each other, I think we need to guard ourselves against talking of people themselves as being a problem. No person as a person is a problem he is a person, a fellow citizen and a fellow man, and the more that that is conveyed in sympathy and understanding to the whole body of our citizens, the greater will be the chance of this formidable problem being overcome, and of our citizens, of whatever colour, living happily together in their common service to one another and the community.
4.5 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, like the noble Lords who have preceded me I want to concentrate what I have to say on the Commonwealth immigrants section of the Bill which is before us this afternoon. I am happy, and consider myself
34
most fortunate, to be following the most reverend Primate in the spirit which he has shown in his approach to this matter. With everything that he said I am completely in agreement. This works out quite differently from my attitude to the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, delivered to the House a short time ago.
I do not want to be unfair, but it seemed to me that the noble Lord opposite concentrated on more and more controls, stronger and stronger controls, rather than approaching the matter in the spirit shown by the most reverend Primate, who urged that we should regard people from the Commonwealth who desire to immigrate to our land as fellow human beings, who are desirous only of making a better life for themselves than they would have the opportunity of doing in their own countries. Therefore I do not hesitate to be associated with the section of people in another place referred to by the noble Lord as "the Left Wing". I do not think that is any association at all. I am associated with them because I believe that in their attitude on this matter they are the humane wing of the Party and regard this question in the proper light.
I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House on this particular subject just about twelve months ago. How time flies! I feel almost at home this afternoon, compared with the feeling that I had on that occasion. On that occasion, I know, I really did let myself go. This is a subject on which I have deep emotions, and my relationship, particularly with the people of the West Indies, has brought a love for them that I cannot adequately describe; and perhaps my thoughts on these matters are dictated by my knowledge of them and my appreciation of the people from that part of the world. I see opposite the noble Lord, Lord St. Just, who was a shipmate of mine on my first visit to the West Indies some eleven or twelve years ago, or perhaps rather more. I hope he will not mind my saying this, but I hope that he achieved in that visit some of the love for those parts and for these people that I myself achieved. So that is where I begin.
But while I know that I spoke strongly on this matter a year ago, I recognise that there is to-day something of a

35
changed position—not a change in my mind by any means: I see no reason to change my mind in regard to what I expressed a year ago. But I recognise that since that day Her Majesty's Government have issued the White Paper which has been referred to by the most reverend Primate as well as by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent; and it is that White Paper that is worrying me at the present time.
It would be an under-statement to say that I was disappointed at the change of front in a Labour Administration. I find the White Paper shocking in its content, and I must say this. When the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, referred to the Front Bench on this side, if he was indicating that they were in agreement with him I am glad he was not including me. When I look at some of my noble friends on the Front Bench I wonder how many agree with him and the White Paper and how many of them might possibly agree with me. I must confess to some relief that many of the points in the White Paper have not been included in the immediate legislation along the lines suggested, and today your Lordships are only being asked to re-enact previous legislation. I am glad of this, as it might give the Government time for reconsideration, and I hope that it will avoid many of the implications of the White Paper.
I have to accept that in my views on the matter I am in a minority, perhaps a small minority, but in the light of the circumstances as I find them, I have the temerity to suggest to the Government one or two ideas which might be useful pending legislation. For my sins, I am co-President of the British Caribbean Association with my friend, Mr. Nigel Fisher, M.P. Recently that organisation sent a letter to the Lord President of the Council containing suggestions pending any legislation which might come along. I want to draw attention to some of those thoughts this afternoon, and I hope that when my noble friend Lord Champion comes to reply he may be able to deal with some of them.
First of all, I would mention the new limitations of what I call the arbitrary 8,500 vouchers. In spite of everything my noble friend Lord Stonham said in his opening and very reasonable speech, it seems to me that it is impossible to
36
get away from the idea that this obviously brings in a colour bar restriction. Is it not ludicrous that there should be a ceiling on the number of Commonwealth citizens to be accepted when there is no such ceiling on aliens. And is it not still more ludicrous when we look at the situation of the Irish coming into our country? When the Irish broke away from the Commonwealth they ceased to be a part of the United Kingdom, and yet we are compelled to treat them in a much more liberal way than we treat fellow beings from Commonwealth countries. Once a ceiling is defined and imposed on one category of people, it becomes a matter of pandering to colour prejudice. This may not be the intention, but it certainly is the effect. This is the more obvious when the vouchers are given only to people in prearranged jobs or to people with special skills. There is no question of any evasion in this matter, and the cut which is sustained is a cut in the labour which is needed by British firms.
Secondly, I would express, with the most reverend Primate, my distress because there are restrictions on the entry of people between the ages of 16 and 18 who wish to join their families. Family life in the West Indies—and I am sure this also applies to other parts of the Commonwealth, as it indeed applies to our own country—is very cherished indeed. I regard it as completely inhuman that we should keep out of this country young people in their teens who desire to join their own relatives who have become established here. I would ask Her Majesty's Government for assurances that young people will not be harshly kept out and that instructions to immigration officers in this regard should be elastic.
Another point I would mention is this. The Minister of State at the Home Office, Miss Alice Bacon, when speaking at the Labour Party Conference in October suggested that what was set out in the White Paper was, in effect, merely a pause. Can it be made quite clear exactly what she meant by this? Is it a period of definite duration in order to give the Government a chance to integrate immigrants who are already here, after which there will be some return to the former rate of vouchers? I should be glad if my noble friend could help me in this matter. I welcome the suggestion in the White

37
Paper that a committee is to be established to investigate the appeal procedure when people are refused admission or when deportation has been ordered. The most reverend Primate has dealt with this matter at great length and has saved me the task of doing so. I do not want to weary your Lordships further about this, but it is a very important matter which I hope will receive attention.
I want to object as strongly as I can to the suggestion that deportation—even the deportation of evil doers, people who have offended against this country—should be in the hands of the Home Secretary alone. I believe that this is entirely against the principles of British justice. I am one of those people who have to sit at least once a week on a magisterial bench, and in my humble duties I am very jealous of British justice. It seems to me all wrong that we should consider the possibility of deportation without recommendations by some part of the .Judiciary to the Home Secretary. That this matter should be placed in the hands of the Home Secretary alone seems contrary to all our ideas of British justice.
I am also unhappy that the possession of an entry certificate does not entitle a Commonwealth citizen to admission, and that it is for the immigration officer to decide. I want to see some clearer instructions given to immigration officers about this matter, so that there is not the rigid attitude that exists at present. I believe that Her Majesty's Government should consider strengthening the British High Commission in Commonwealth countries so that all applicants who wish to come to this country can be carefully investigated; and so that the entry certificate may be made the relevant document, without which no one can secure admission to Britain. Then the document should be one that would be accepted by immigration officers—in other words, it should be a kind of visa, as given by many foreign countries.
While I deeply appreciate the work carried out by Mr. Maurice Foley, M.P., along the lines of integration in many parts of the country, I am most disturbed at the lack of progress in certain aspects of integration. I think that there could be better approaches than have already been made. I envisage that approaches should be made to the trade unions, for there are often little problems in that re-
38
spect when a Commonwealth immigrant wishes to obtain employment in a large factory. This applies not only to trade unions but also to employers, and is clearly necessary in order to ensure an acceptance of immigrants at all levels in commerce, in industry and in the professions. I hope that we are not very far from the time when we shall be appointing coloured policemen in this country. In very many parts they would be of tremendous service, and I am quite sure it would help to lift the standing and the standard of the immigrant population if some of their people were put into responsible positions in such services as the police force.
There is another matter about which I am concerned. We talk about educating the children of the immigrants, but I am very worried about the lack of education of the British public as a whole in their outlook towards this problem. I get more and more worried when I get letters condemning me and the Association with which I am connected for having been associated with these problems. I regularly get anonymous, nasty letters and telephone calls, which show an attitude of mind which is completely deplorable in a country such as ours. I want to see the British people understanding the background difficulties of the people who come to us.
May I in passing say something which I have mentioned before on previous occasions, and that is that I wonder what Her Majesty's Government have ever done in approaches to the white Commonwealth to take some of the burden off our shoulders. In countries like Australia and New Zealand, coloured people are hardly known. They do not bear part of that Commonwealth burden which they might be bearing, and I hope that when we come round again to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference efforts will be made to persuade them to take some of the immigrants from the poorer parts of the Commonwealth and so ease our own particular problem.
Before the legislation envisaged by Her Majesty's Government is introduced, I should like to see consultations with the local and regional officers of the Ministry of Labour, along with the local authorities, in relation to housing. I hope your

39
Lordships will pardon me if I repeat what I said twelve months ago, about what I envisage may happen when an immigrant arrives at a port or airport. The immigration officer may ask, "Where do you intend to go?", to which the immigrant may reply, "Lambeth", or "Notting Hill", or "Birmingham". On being asked by the immigration officer why he wants to go there, the immigrant may reply, "I have got a cousin who has been there for a couple of years and he can find me some accommodation and a job". The immigration officer may then ask, "If we were to send you to a small town in Lancashire where there are not many coloured immigrants, where there is work for you and where the local authority will try to do something about housing you, would you go there rather than to Notting Hill?" I am assured by friends who work among Commonwealth immigrants in this country that on any day they can find a score of families who would be prepared to move in circumstances of that kind. So in that sense, this is not so much a matter of integration as of dispersal.
We are all worried about what have become ghettoes of Commonwealth citizens. I should like to try to do something about this, but I feel that the effort which should have been made along these lines has not been made. I put the suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, when he was Home Secretary. That seems a long time ago, and as the days have gone by nothing along those lines has been done, but I believe that it could be done. As noble Lords know, I used to sit for a Salford seat in another place. They have never been worried by the Commonwealth immigrant question. The Irish have always been their trouble. But I would say that Salford could take 200 families and Bourton-on-the-Water could take a couple. I am quite sure that if this kind of thing could be done we should ease a lot of our problems. So I throw out these ideas to my noble friend, in the hope that in his closing speech to-day he may be able to say something about them. I also express the hope that Her Majesty's Government will look at suggestions of this kind, to see whether the burden can be eased and to try to avoid
40
the strong measures envisaged in some quarters.
4.26 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Royle has remarked that his maiden speech was on this subject and that he then spoke very strongly. Perhaps because of acclimatisation to this House, he has spoken in more moderate terms to-day. I do not think that my experience in this House has led me to speak less strongly on issues about which I feel keenly than when I first entered, but to-day I am in the mood to speak more with sorrow than with anger.
I regard the White Paper, and the legislation which is foreshadowed in it, as a great blot upon the domestic legislation of this Government. That legislation has been splendid in its record and it is still more splendid in its prospects, but the White Paper and the legislation which is to follow it seem to me a repudiation of all for which our Party has stood and a repudiation of the deepest principle of life—that men and women in their personalities are sacred, whatever their race or the colour of their skin.
I always listen to my noble friend Lord Stonham with respect, but, quite honestly, he cannot ask us to believe that this is not a racialist White Paper, with racialist legislation to follow it. I put the simple point to him that if the Commonwealth immigrants had been white persons with white cultures, the White Paper would never have been introduced and the legislation which it is intended to bring before the House would never have been thought of.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I cannot expect to convince my noble friend on this matter, but I must point out to him that the White Paper applies to all Commonwealth countries including, of course, the older Commonwealth countries where most of the population have white skins. If legislation is introduced, it will apply equally to the citizens of all Commonwealth countries, irrespective of the colour of their skins.
LORD BROCKWAY: That I appreciate, but I cannot believe that my noble friend thinks that an answer to the charge which I have made. It is true that legislation will not mention race or colour,

41
but more than 90 per cent. of those who will be kept out of this country under the legislation will be coloured; and that legislation would not have been introduced at all if they had not been coloured. There is no other argument to-day for any legislation, except that the Commonwealth immigrants have caused problems related to their race, their colour and their culture.
I want to admit at once the kind of justification which is put forward for this proposed legislation. As the noble Lord knows, I have been involved in discussions with members of the Government who have been responsible for the White Paper and for the legislation. Their argument has been this: that the feeling about race and colour is so intense in many parts of the country that it is necessary to have the pause to which Miss Alice Bacon referred in the speech that my noble friend Lord Royle has mentioned. They say that it is necessary to have this pause so that, during it, policies of integration may be pursued which will diminish colour and racial feeling and which, if the word "pause" is to be accepted literally, would allow even larger immigration of the coloured in a few years' time.
In another place I represented a constituency which had these problems, and I was largely defeated on this issue of colour and race. I appreciate, therefore, the intensities of feeling. They arise from housing, due largely to the fact that the immigrant population is concentrated in 33 towns in this country. I endorse what my noble friend Lord Royle has said: that pressures can be exerted (although I should not want compulsory direction) to bring about a greater dispersal of that population. But the real problem, surely, is that the immigrant population go to those areas in this country where work is easily available; and the difficulty is that not only do the Commonwealth immigrants go to those places but that workers from other parts of Britain which are not so prosperous concentrate upon those towns, too. Therefore, we have in a number of towns not the 2 per cent. immigrant population which there is over the whole country, but 5 per cent. and 7 per cent. and, in the case of the borough with the highest percentage of all, Paddington, over 10
42
per cent. Arising from that there are housing difficulties.
I say to the Minister that the coloured immigrants are not the cause of housing shortage: they are the scapegoats of it. The Party on the opposite side, when it was responsible for the government of this country, and the Party on this side, even with the new housing measures which it is now intended to produce, are not yet understanding the tragedy to the whole social life of the country by our housing shortage. It causes more suffering, it breaks up more families, it causes more ill-health, it is a greater cause of juvenile delinquency, than any one other thing. We ought to be having a Government which will wage war on the housing shortage with the same concentration as in waging a military war against a foe. We ought not to be surrendering the fundamental principle of belonging to the same human family because we have failed in housing; and we ought not to make Commonwealth immigrants the scapegoats of our failure. We ought also to remember this: that in actual fact a large proportion of those employed in the construction industries are the very Commonwealth immigrants whom it is now proposed to restrain.
The second problem which causes difficulties in localities is that of education. I was a little surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, say that this problem is becoming more difficult. That is not my experience. My experience is that within the last eighteen months the problem has been eased considerably. It has been eased considerably because reception classes where the children learn English have been introduced into the schools; it has been eased considerably because special help in the way of extra teachers is now being given to those schools; it has been eased considerably because headmasters and teachers in those schools, having had experience of these problems, are acting to meet them in new and successful ways.
The Ministry of Education have published a pamphlet on the subject of the immigrant child in the school. What impresses anyone who reads that pamphlet is the fact that the Ministry say that the children of different race and of different colour are actually an educational advantage to the white children who are in the school. They are an

43
advantage to the white children who are in that school because they bring to those children knowledge of different parts of the world which they read about and see on a map but which mean little to them until children from those territories are there. It is only when these children reach teenage, and where they have been influenced by adults, that any colour or racial feeling arises. I believe that when we can deal with the problem of insufficient teachers and can deal with the problem of teaching the English language (they are mostly Indian and Pakistani children who need it), our education is going to develop and progress because of the fact that we have children of different colour and different race in our classes.
The third immediate problem which is causing, or intensifying, the ill-feeling is that of hospitals, and particularly is this so in the case of English mothers who are seeking beds for maternity and who find that there are coloured women occupying those beds. Again, that is due partly to our failure to provide sufficient hospital accommodation. But, much more than that, our National Health Service would hardly be able to exist at all if it were not for the Commonwealth immigrants. My Lords, 40 per cent. of the doctors who are in our hospitals are Commonwealth immigrants, and 17 per cent. of the nurses in our hospitals are Commonwealth immigrants. When we begin to say that Commonwealth immigrants must be excluded because of the problem of hospitals, the problem they create, due to the absence of beds—which we have failed to provide—it is insignificant compared with the great contribution which they have made to our Health Service.
Now I want to say to my noble friend Lord Stonham—and I do not use the word "friend" in a formal way—that it cannot honestly be argued that this Bill is not a Bill the object of which is to exclude coloured and Commonwealth people—people of other races—from this territory. I have admitted the argument put forward by the Government; but that very argument acknowledges that the cause of the proposed legislation is colour and race. I want to say to my noble friend that this is of enormous importance at the present time, because the whole future
44
of our Commonwealth is now in doubt. I am very closely in touch with the leaders of the Asian and African peoples. I know the effect that the original 1962 Act of Parliament had upon them: a worsening of their psychological attitude to this country.
That feeling has been intensified almost beyond description because they found, when a Labour Government came into office in this country, that that Government endorsed what the Labour Party had so strongly opposed when in Opposition. Because the feeling among Asian, African, and Caribbean representatives is marred in this kind of way (and for other reasons which are irrelevant to this debate) the future of our Commonwealth is now in very grave doubt. One of the factors that have contributed to these worsened feelings has been the fact that we have had a measure in this country which has excluded Commonwealth immigrants who used to be regarded as our citizens and as our equals. By not only maintaining, but even strengthening, what has been done before, we are deepening those kinds of psychological relations.
I want to say just this to my noble friend Lord Stonham: I am aware of the difficulties of excluding the Irish— and I am not sure that I would want to exclude them. I have some Irish in my own ancestry, as perhaps has my noble friend. But I put this point to him. When you have people from a country which is not even in the Commonwealth (a country which by its own decision has remained outside it) able to enter freely and without any restriction, and then you say to immigrants from the Commonwealth: "You should be limited; you should be restricted", inevitably they see that contradiction and inevitably they feel that it is a Bill based on race and colour.
Forgive me, my Lords, for speaking with this sincerity; but I believe that the principle at stake here is the most fundamental principle in human life. I am the descendant of three generations of missionaries. I was born in India; my father was born in Africa. I do not share the Christian theology, but I accept the Christian ethic. I believe that the principle we must hold if mankind is to go forward in co-operation is the Christian ethic, which says that in the core of the personality of every man there

45
is a potential of fulfilment in tune with the infinite which makes the spirit of man more important than the colour of his skin or the race to which he belongs. It is because—to my almost despairing regret, because I love the Party to which I belong—I believe that the White Paper and the legislation which is to follow epudiate that most essential principle of all human life that to-day I have spoken in this way.
4.45 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I find it difficult to follow such a truly moving speech as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Brockway. I share his feelings in much, if not all, of what he says. But this afternoon my part must be to speak more particularly of the difference which I have found between the effect of the Government's White Paper on Commonwealth immigration and the intentions behind it. I spoke on this subject three weeks ago in your Lordships' House, but before going further I should like to say how much I appreciated the spirit, and much of the content, of Lord Stonham's reply at that time. If one cannot agree with the policy of the Government, surely the next best thing is to have one's objections so fully and kindlily dealt with. I hope that my noble friend Lord Champion will recognise that it is in the same spirit of co-operation that I take up the issue again to-day.
In my speech three weeks ago I speculated on the hardening of attitudes and the increased tensions which I felt would arise from the publication of this White Paper. My noble friend replied in these terms:
" I cannot believe that the Race Relations Act "—
and then he mentioned many other measures that the present Government had put forward—
" can leave any doubt about our determination that immigrants shall be full members of the community with the same rights and responsibilities as anybody else."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 270, (No. 5) col. 551; 16/11/65.]
My Lords, if I could be satisfied that this were true, that there were no doubts in the country about this, I would withdraw my opposition to the Government forthwith. But from correspondence and conversations with individuals and
46
organisations working in this field, and from reports in the Press, I am convinced that it is not.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, spoke of the protest against this Government policy as being a Left-wing protest. I submit to your Lordships that it is not. It is not just another predictable outburst of the Left wing; it is supported by Labour Members of Parliament of all shades, by the Bow Group, by Liberals, by The Times, by the Economist and, most significantly, by the overwhelming majority of the individuals who are actively fighting in the cities for the improvement of race relations and whose efforts should never be forgotten by noble Lords who discuss this issue in the remote comfort of this House.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I read one passage from a letter I have received. It comes, most eloquently, from Oxford:
" Several immigrants came to me to say that they felt now that there was no one they could trust; they had always felt before that at least the official attitude of the Government was against racialism, but now they felt abandoned and bewildered."
I received many letters expressing similar views from almost all the organisations that are working in this field. I think the surest indication that their views are accurate and widespread is to be found in the speech of the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury. I am sure that he will bear me out when I say that it was because of the nearly unanimous reports that the National Committee had received from local authorities that they spoke the other day to the Prime Minister of the distress and frustration among immigrants and of the increasing difficulties they were experiencing.
There has already come to light some very disturbing evidence of this distrust; of a hardening of the attitudes of the immigrant community. The Indian Workers' Association called last week in the strongest terms for the dissolution of the National Committee, calling it, "the product of a racialist document". The West Indian Joint Standing Conference has taken a similar line. May I again ask your Lordships' permission to

47
read one small passage from a letter to me from an immigrant? It states:
"The White Paper has provided the proof, if one were needed, of what status we have got here. All this polished talk of integration from high quarters seems to many of our people downright hypocrisy. Though they emphasise that we should not be made second-class citizens. most of our people know this by bitter experience."
The position of moderate leaders of immigrant opinion, such as Dr. David Pitt, to whom I should like to pay the warmest tribute, has become increasingly difficult. By becoming a member of the National Committee he is accused in many quarters of selling out on his people. These attitudes may not be commendable, but I submit that they are wholly understandable. I believe we are horribly in danger of entering a vicious circle of inter-racial antagonism, where apparent intolerance on one side is met by intolerance on the other. We must break out of this circle or else the cause of racial harmony in this country will be lost.
I have so far spoken to show that, whatever the Government's intention, they have failed to give a strong lead. They have failed to convince the country of their determination, as my noble friend put it, that immigrants should be full members of the community. If I may have the temerity to point briefly to one or two of the causes which I feel have contributed to this failure, I would say that undoubtedly the first cause is the imposition of the numerical ceiling. So far as the reaction of the immigrant is concerned, the issue is quite plain. Four years ago a Conservative Government introduced a Bill which controlled the admission of Commonwealth immigrants on a basis of employment broadly similar to the basis of admission of aliens. The Labour Party called this "colour bar legislation" because it did not include the Irish. Now the same Party puts forward a policy which appears to be directed against only the coloured immigrant and to put him in a worse position than the alien, and makes no mention of the Irish. The coloured immigrant is asked to believe that this policy is not discriminatory against him.
I accept the answer which my noble friend has given to me on two occasions
48
about the admission of aliens. I also accept, with greater difficulty, his explanation of the omission of the Irish. But I submit to the Government that their public relations have been very bad. They made no mention of the Irish or of the aliens in any White Paper or ministerial Statement after the publication of the White Paper, and it is small wonder that their intentions have been misinterpreted.
The second reason for the ill-feeling in the country must be the specific measures envisaged to prevent evasion of the controls. The Government have made some welcome concessions and given assurances on this point. I have already welcomed the appointment of the Independent Committee to deal with appeals against deportation and refusals to admit. I welcome the assurances given by my noble friend the other day about the admission of children between the ages of 16 and 18, and I would ask my noble friend Lord Champion only one question. It is about students. It is worrying enough to face the ordeal of a difficult examination in a strange country without the additional anxiety of not knowing whether you will be able to stay for the following year. Will my noble friend give an assurance that, provided the student devotes a substantial part of his time to his studies, permission to stay will be automatically extended for the whole duration of his course of study?
My Lords, I come back to my central point. The Government are failing to get their intentions across. They are failing because their policy is taken to be a policy of coloured immigration control, when it should be a policy of general immigration control. There are signs, particularly in the appointment of the Independent Committee, that the Government are beginning to look at the problems of immigration in a general and rational way. I urge them to look at the whole question of admissions in this way; in a way which is genuinely related to economic and social factors and in a way which allows no possible accusation of colour discrimination.
The absurdity of the present situation cuts both ways, because not only is it easier for a Spaniard to obtain admission to this country than a Pakistani, it is also easier for an American than for a Canadian. If the reply of the Government to this is that Commonwealth

49
immigrants are admitted on a different basis, that their dependants have an absolute right of entry, why not review the Aliens Law? Why not consider the admission of the dependants of alien immigrants to this country on the same conditions as for their breadwinner?
If the Government persist in thinking of Commonwealth immigration as a special problem, one is forced to the conclusion that they are being influenced not by the housing shortage, not by overcrowding, but by the prejudices of the British people. Indeed, there is evidence from the statements of Mr. Maurice Foley that this is the case. This is very dangerous reasoning, and, with your Lordships' permission, I will quote a comment of a leading authority in this matter, Mrs. Ruth Glass. She said:
" Because prejudice is being taken for granted, it is being appeased. And the more this happens, the more, it will grow, and it will become a political handicap for the appeasers. Already the restrictionists are demanding still harsher control."
I am convinced that the strongest possible lead is required to combat prejudice. I am supported in my conviction by the magnificent work done in Willesden where the two Members of Parliament, Mr. Reginald Freeson and Mr. Laurence Pavitt, have taken a strong and courageous stand on this question. Incidentally, their electoral popularity has increased in the process. I urge my noble friend Lord Champion to declare that the Government are not appeasing prejudice, but will take much stronger steps to convince both immigrants and the host community that they genuinely desire to promote healthy multiracial communities in the cities of Britain.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I desire to intervene only for one moment in order to say that I am very glad to find that some future useful life is anticipated for the Accommodation Agencies Act of 1953. That Act was a Private Member's Bill for which I was responsible when I was in another place. It was a Ten-Minute-Rule Bill, and I remember moving my Motion for leave to introduce it at 6 o'clock in the morning, which was a very favourable hour if you wanted to get a Motion through.
I remember that I was assured by all the official agencies, including, I think, the Home Office, that the Bill was unnecessary and that the existing law was
50
I adequate to deal with the evil at which it was aimed. The Bill's life was at first limited to five years, so it expired in 1958. Since then, I am glad to say, the Home Office have continued it from year to year, and from that I deduce—I hope that the noble Lord who will reply will be able to confirm this—that it has proved a useful measure and done something to combat the evil against which it was aimed.
5.0 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to say a word because I do not find myself completely in agreement with some of my noble friends who have spoken this afternoon. The part of the White Paper which I dislike intensely is that dealing with civil liberties. While I associate myself with what they said about it, I think that other parts of the White Paper are much more reasonable and that the mass of modern opinion is behind these parts. But the part on civil liberties is against the whole tradition of civil liberties in this country.
There has been a great deal of protest, not only from members of the Labour Party, but from members of other Parties as well, and I have reason to believe that the Government have been much influenced by this. As more than one speaker has said, from the appointment of a new Committee, it seems that, for the time being, the Government do not propose to continue with this part. It seems to me that this is an extraordinary valuable concession, and one that should go a great deal of the way to meeting opposition to the White Paper. I am sure that among the immigrant population it is this side of it which has aroused the greatest amount of indignation, and I feel that the Government should withdraw this part of the White Paper.
Some people think that they have, by implication, already done so, in the appointment of this new Committee to consider the whole problem of immigration, both from the Commonwealth and from foreign States. I hope that that is so, but it is not so clear as it ought to be, and I believe that it would make a good deal of difference if the Government were to withdraw this part of the White Paper and say that, when the new Committee has reported, they will look at the matter again. This would be a valuable move, and I think it would remove a

51
great deal of the indignation and difficulty which undoubtedly exists in the country at the moment.
5.3 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, as I have spoken on this subject in your Lordships' House more than once. I should like to offer my sympathy to the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who has been assailed from both sides of the House during this afternoon's debate, though he needs no champion, as he can more than fight his own battles.
One of the things that strikes one most in discussing Commonwealth immigration is that there has been a marked change in the view of the majority of the Government since their days in Opposition. When the Bill first came before Parliament, there was bitter dispute, both in another place and here. Now noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite are supporting what is put forward in the White Paper, while there are other elements opposite who do not support their Government in this. We have heard speeches of burning sincerity from the noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Royle, and no one who had the good fortune to listen to them could fail to be struck by the conviction with which they spoke. I do not make this point for Party political reasons. I think that the reason why there has been a change of heart in the Government, in their attitude towards immigration, is that during the months they have been in office they have had access to the facts about immigration, and the hard realities of the situation have forced them to change their point of view.
Listening to the debate this afternoon, I do not think that anyone could possibly quarrel with any of the sentiments put forward by noble Lords opposite. Of course, we should all like to see our less fortunate brothers in the Commonwealth coming here, as to a kind of Utopia; but we just do not have the physical resources to do it. We may criticise successive Governments for their housing programmes and hospital plans, but the fact remains that no Government, whatever its achievements in these all-important fields, could have created the conditions in which we could go back to the old days of unlimited Commonwealth immigration into this country.
52
I would say to noble Lords opposite that certainly we on this side—and I am sure that some noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite will support me in this —do not quarrel at all with the principle which they have put forward. But it is the Government's job to govern, and to do so for the greatest good of the greatest number of people; and we must accept physical limitations as they exist. I make this point because I should very much dislike it to be thought that we had not great sympathy with the ideal, though at this stage, and for the foreseeable future, that ideal must be regarded as totally impracticable.
With the publication (of the White Paper last August. the Government have taken another bolder stride forward, and I find myself largely in agreement with their proposals. The first one I should like to refer to is the annual rate of 8,500 vouchers. This is a sad figure; it is a substantial reduction. But the situation is even sadder, now that only "A" and "B" voucher-holders are to be admitted. Those with "C" vouchers, that is, those without skill or without a job to come to (and I believe that there is a waiting list of over 300,000 of them), are no longer to be admitted.
The admission of immigrants with special skills is very satisfactory for us, but I confess that it worries me, because they are the very people whom the developing countries of the Commonwealth can least afford to lose. It has been pointed out that doctors and dentists, and others, come here, work for two or three years and return to their own countries with greater skill and knowledge, to the benefit of their own people. This is wholly admirable—and certainly I do not think that we should underestimate the benefits of the study of medicine in this country. We have the example of Dr. Banda, who practised in North London, and is now the leader of a Commonwealth State in Africa. There is no knowing what a few years of medical study and practice in this country will achieve for the right chap!
The point has been repeatedly made this afternoon that we ought to be able to meet the needs of the people coming to this country for houses and hospitals, as if that were the ultimate aim. To my mind, the ultimate aim is for us so to help and support the developing countries that

53
the people there will not want to come here. People do not usually want to live away from their own shores. Noble Lords who have had the misfortune of hearing me before will have heard me make this point and I should like to repeat it. We must get the social and economic infrastructure in the developing countries of Asia and Africa so off the ground that the flood of people coming to this country will diminish to a mere trickle. That is the ultimate aim, rather than the improvement of housing and hospitals for everyone who comes here.
As other speakers have said, the White Paper contains, in paragraphs 23 to 25, some important proposals for legislation. The reason for these proposals is the alarming rate at which the evasion of the existing conditions continues. It has been stated in another place that it was estimated that in the first year of the working of the Act 900 people from Commonwealth countries entered this country illegally. In the second year, this figure multiplied tenfold, to 9,000. The most recent figure shows that by September of this year we had already reached the figure for the whole of last year namely, 9,000. These are substantial figures. I welcome the fact that the Government are determined to take steps to put an end to this illegal entry, because, as my noble friend Lord Derwent said, unless the figures are genuine; and unless, when the Government say they will admit so many, they do, in fact, admit so many, the whole of their scheme and planning for Commonwealth immigration falls to the ground.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Duke? I speak subject to a correction, but I believe I remember, from my reading, that in another place the noble Duke's right honourable friend, Mr. Thorneycroft, quoted the figures of 900 and 9,000, a rise of 1,000 per cent., in relation to the old Commonwealth, whereas the new Commonwealth, I think, was 30 per cent.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: If the noble Lord looks at the official record, I think he will find that my right honourable friend Mr. Thorneycroft quoted the figures from the old Commonwealth and the new Commonwealth. The ones I quoted were the accurate figures from the new Commonwealth.
54
We welcome, as I have said, the steps proposed in paragraphs 23, 24 and 25 of the White Paper, and our only hope is that legislation will be forthcoming. My noble friend Lord Derwent, in his speech, made some reference to the fate of steel legislation, and I must confess that I am a little worried. There has been appointed this new official Committee. I hope that the Government are not going to ride off their responsibilities by putting the work on to a Committee. As I have said before, it is the Government's duty, however unpleasant the task may be, to govern.
The situation should be clear, I think, because on November 4 of this year in another place the Prime Minister, when referring to Commonwealth immigration, had this to say:
" I cannot believe that there is any subject in recent times which has had more research, more discussion and more careful consideration than this one. The White Paper was put for ward as a result of that."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Commons, Vol. 718 (No. 670), col. 1231; 4/11/65.]
So, quite clearly, a great deal of trouble, discussion and research had gone into the subject before the White Paper was produced. Why is it then necessary to have yet another Committee to advise the Government before they can decide on legislation? Surely the work that is being done by this new Committee should have been done before the White Paper was published. It seems to me to be putting off the day when this thorny problem is tackled and legislation is introduced. The time for the new Committee was before the White Paper was produced, not afterwards.
LORD STONHAM: May I intervene for one moment? The noble Duke has overlooked the fact that this Committee will also inquire into aliens, and, as I have said, we shall regard its advice as most important when we come to consider permanent legislation in respect of aliens.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I accept that. But I think it is a valid point to say that the best time for the work of this Committee would have been prior to the publication of the White Paper, and not afterwards. One only hopes that the Government will stick to their guns and carry through the proposed legislation outlined in paragraphs

55
23, 24 and 25. We have every reason to suppose that they will, because, speaking more recently, on November 9, the Prime Minister said in another place, referring to the White Paper:
" This represents our policy and we are implementing it."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Commons, Vol. 718, (No. 671), col. 49.]
That is a categorical undertaking that the proposals set forth in the White Paper will be embodied in legislation at an early date.
I should now like to turn, quite briefly, to the happier section of the White Paper, the third section, which talks of how Commonwealth immigrants can become one of us, and can become in every sense as good citizens as those who have lived here for generations. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, when replying to the debate is going to amplify these points. As other noble Lords have said, there are three main problems to be faced in getting—like the most reverend Primate, I hesitate to use the word "integration", but to get these people happily established here. I refer to housing, education and health. The first and last, housing and health, are really outside the scope of this debate. I feel, speaking from these Benches, that my Party are more likely to build more houses overall than the present Government; and I also think that our hospital programme will be more satisfactory; but this is a matter for argument, and naturally noble Lords opposite would not agree with this. I think it fair to say, however, that those two problems, as they are bound up with domestic problems, would be better discussed in a debate on housing or the Health Service.
That is true also, to a certain extent, about education, but here I feel there are certain specialist sides of that subject which would help enormously to make Commonwealth immigrants, and particularly their children, feel more quickly at home, and I should like to make reference to them. I think it is in paragraph 47 of the White Paper that reference is made to discussions which are going on as to the use of language laboratories, modern techniques of wireless and television, and teaching English as a second language to immigrant children who do not speak English. One of the great difficulties in the education
56
field is that these children, however high their I.Q. may be, are seriously handicapped when compared with our own children by being able to speak little or no English. I thought that the White Paper might have been a little more urgent on this aspect of the matter. It says that discussions are taking place. There have been great advances in recent years in the technique of speaking English as a second language. I have already referred to the language laboratories. The British Council have been pioneers in this work, as have London University, the University of Leeds and one or two others. There is great scope, without spending too much money, for a "crash" programme, and I would ask the Government to look into this to see how much can be done in putting forward a "crash" programme so that immigrant children can master the English tongue within a reasonably short time of their arrival in Britain.
The second point is whether more could be done among volunteer youth workers in this country. Noble Lords on all sides of the House will be aware of the magnificent work done by Voluntary Service Overseas. I think this is one of the most successful things we have achieved in this country since the war. I wonder whether something of the same kind could not be done among the substantial numbers of Commonwealth immigrants in our great cities. There is a body called the Youth Service Development Council. I am afraid I do not know much about the work of this Council as I should, and it may well be that this Council is already tackling the problem. There is undoubtedly in this country a great urge among young people to help the developing peoples abroad —and to go abroad, of course, is more of an adventure. There is this genuine feeling of service among a large number of young people when they leave school or university. I wonder whether it would be possible for the Government to sponsor and organise in this country something on the lines of Voluntary Service Overseas—call it Voluntary Service at Home, or what you will—because it is much easier for young people to help people of their own age and generation to get accustomed to our ways in this country. This is only an idea which I put forward, and it may well be that the Council to

57
which I have referred are already tackling the work.
Finally, I should like to quote the beginning of the last paragraph of the White Paper. There it says:
" The good name of Britain, our relations with other members of the Commonwealth, and, above all, justice and common humanity, demand that Commonwealth immigrants in this country should be absorbed into our community without friction and with mutual understanding and tolerance."
That is a splendid sentence, and one with which every Member of this House, no matter where he sits, will wholeheartedly agree. There is no quarrel here, I should like to assure the Government, on the end—the end is stated clearly—the quarrel is on the means. We must accept our physical limitations. We must make ourselves as sufficient as possible, but we must accept that we have substantial physical limitations and that it would be the height of folly to allow more people into this country than can be properly assimilated, because racial feeling would suffer infinitely more than it does now by a number of people feeling that they have been badly treated by not being allowed in. Far more racial trouble is caused by one Nothing Hill riot than by several tens of thousands of people being unable to obtain admission into this Island. I congratulate the Government on producing the White Paper, and I hope they will have the strength and courage to go through with the proposals tabled in it.
5.22 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, this is the sort of debate to which I do not like having to reply. Most of the criticisms have come from behind me, and most of the support for this White Paper continuing the power that we are here seeking has come from in front of me. That is always a difficult situation for someone who is to speak for the Government.
A NOBLE LORD: A stab in the back!
LORD CHAMPION: It is not exactly a stab in the back. I should rather think it was a pin in the behind, which is just a little different but, nevertheless, is something which might be very uncomfortable, if not deeply wounding.
58
This debate has been marked by a deep seriousness and profound feeling about the issues raised by this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, particularly as it applies to immigration. The noble Duke used better words than I had thought of when I was scribbling this down just now. He said, "a burning sincerity" and he was absolutely right. It seemed to me that that burning sincerity came through all the speeches of my noble friends and of course of the most reverend Primate, all of whom, in varying degrees, criticised this White Paper.
Perhaps the most forthright was the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in the sort of speech that we expect from him and know we shall get, because of his deep feelings in this matter. What he told this House is what he has told us so many times: that we are all brothers under the skin, no matter what our colour; and I agree with him. I remember George Lansbury using a phrase many years ago, at a public meeting which I attended as a youngster, when he said, talking of coloured people, "Scratch them and they bleed; tickle them and they laugh, the same as we do. They are human beings, they are our brothers." The noble Lord may agree with this, as I agree with it. Unfortunately, we are some distance from a general acceptance of this idea by the whole of the people of this country, and by those in the areas to which most of the coloured immigrants have come during the past two years. Here is our difficulty. We know, too—and this has been stressed by many noble Lords to-day —that racial prejudice exists and has been exacerbated by the conditions in which, unfortunately, these people have to come here and live—housing, school difficulties, the general overcrowding and massing in these areas.
To admit unlimited numbers in present day circumstances would, I agree with the noble Duke, have the opposite effect on Commonwealth relations to that which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, thinks it would have. I believe that if immigrants were permitted to come in in numbers of the kind that some people to-day say should be allowed, the results would be disastrous to the Commonwealth, rather than helpful. I am sorry to have to disagree with him on this, but it is a point of view which I hold, and

59
which the Government hold. That is why we have frankly to admit that our attitude towards the 1962 Act has changed. A greater knowledge and a greater experience in the meantime have definitely taught us that.
My noble friend Lord Gifford said, or suggested, that we were giving greater preference to aliens than to Commonwealth immigrants. I am bound to say that this is quite untrue. He said, too, that the White Paper tends to exacerbate racial feelings. They might be to some extent. He has pointed out instances, as have others, including the most reverend Primate and the noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Royle. But we, too, as individuals have a responsibility, and if in our speeches we exaggerate some of these points we also are exacerbating racial feeling. That is why we have to accept responsibilities and, when we make speeches, realise that they are read outside this House and that they themselves might add that little additional fuel to the conditions which we seek to avoid, and which we do not want to exacerbate. We have individual responsibilities, and we must exercise them when we speak in public places. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked me a question which was of rather less importance than his main speech. He asked whether there was, or would be, any difficulty about students who are genuinely studying remaining for the whole period of their course. The answer to this is, No; there is no difficulty at all, provided that they are genuinely studying and pursuing a course of study which will provide a result which they want, and we want for them. The difficulty we have found is that so many people have come here under the guise of students but have not followed a course of study.
The noble Lord, Lord Ilford, gave me some relief when he told us that he was delighted about the Bill he had introduced, about its effect over the period, and the fact that it was being continued by this legislation today. If everybody had spoken in those terms my task tonight would have been an easy one.
The noble Duke and the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, spoke about the problem of evasion of control. Lord Derwent suggested methods of check on this
60
matter. I cannot attempt to answer here the points that he has made, but I am bound to say that I think his suggestions are worthy of study. Indeed, some of them are under consideration at the moment, or are being put into operation, but I can go no further than that. As his suggestions come from an ex-Minister of State in the Home Department, knowledgeable about this whole subject, we can assure him that we will give them the consideration they deserve. On this point, I can add nothing to paragraphs 23 and 24 of the White Paper, Immigration from the Commonwealth. At the moment, what can be done by administrative means is being done.
However, as we say in those paragraphs, some of the powers which are required will necessitate legislation. Here I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that the Committee was not set up in order that the whole problem might be swept under the carpet. That is always a good opposition phrase when one sets up a committee to consider something of this sort, but so often when a committee is set up something emerges which is really worth while. The question has perhaps been given that little additional consideration which such a committee can give; and we are extremely grateful to Sir Roy Wilson for having accepted the responsibility in this case. I cannot imagine that Sir Roy would have accepted the chairmanship of this Committee had he thought it was merely a nice little shuffling-off job by the Government.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but what I am really interested in is the speed with which this Committee can do its work; and as the noble Lord is talking about pinpricks into the hide, perhaps the Government would exercise that and ask the Committee to go even more quickly than it has intended to go.
LORD CHAMPION: Yes, my Lords. We always say this about committees which are set up. I think the reply almost invariably is that we would rather they do their work well, than hurriedly and not well.
LORD DERWENT: A bad answer!
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, as I have heard the noble Lord give that

61
answer himself it must be a pretty good answer, and not a bad one.
My noble friend Lord Royle found the White Paper disappointing and distressing. He referred to the statement that was made by the Minister of State at the Home Office at the Labour Party Conference, which was something to the effect that what we must have is a pause. As I understood the noble Lord he asked me to clarify the word pause Unfortunately, I have not the context of the speech by me, but I think that it is quite clear that no definite reply can be given at this stage about the length of the pause, until it is known for certain what effect the present and proposed measures for integration—social services, housing, education and the like—will have. So we cannot set a date to this. Indeed, this is a matter which this and future Governments will have to keep under continuous review. But unless conditions change enormously I personally doubt whether we shall, in the foreseeable future, be able to revert to the open door for all who wish to come to this small island.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that we must admit no more. I think he would, for this present moment, cut out the 8,500 vouchers.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I particularly did not say that. I said that we should admit no more for permanent residence, but that there was no reason why we should not admit them on a temporary basis, as we do with aliens.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I did not quite understand the noble Lord that way, but I shall check Hansard— well, I do not need to check Hansard, because of course I accept absolutely what the noble Lord has now told me. I think it would be a most difficult thing to admit them on a temporary basis, to do a job, and then at the end of the period turn them out. Moreover, I should have thought it was unworthy of this country to tackle the problem in quite that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has taken one point of view which exists in this country. The right reverend Primate has taken the other point of view, as so many have done. As I said here last week, the job of Government is always to balance: to balance the points of view
62
which have been expressed in various quarters. We have done this here to the best of our ability, and we believe that the White Paper indicates the best way to tackle this problem, which is certainly a tremendous problem for us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Royle, is unhappy about the fact that an entry certificate does not guarantee admission. My Lords, an entry certificate indicates to the immigration officer that the Commonwealth citizen holding it has satisfied a responsible person overseas that he is eligible for admission to this country. It is rare for the holder of an entry certificate to be refused admission, but there are unfortunately, cases where it is discovered at the point of entry that the certificate has been obtained by misrepresentation, and therefore admission is refused. These things happen very rarely.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, are these the only cases?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, so far as I am aware, this is the only sort of case in which a person in possession of an entry certificate is refused admission. I will speak to officials after this debate is over, and if I find out that I have in any way misinformed the noble Lord I will write to him.
LORD ROYLE: Thank you.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we have not heard to-day, as I rather expected that we might, anything about the health checks. I thought we should do so, considering the fact that we have had the B.M.A. Report presented to the Government recently. Perhaps I might just say a word about this Report. The Report, which was received on December l, is a detailed document of some 30 closely typed pages, with eleven appendices, which have many implications, legislative, administrative and medical. Clearly we have not had time to form firm views on it, but all I can say at this stage is that we regard this as a serious document which will be carefully studied by the Government. Meanwhile, the Government's own policy is clearly set out in the White Paper on Immigration from the Commonwealth. A quick reading of the Report, however, indicates that, broadly speaking, the Government's policy is very much in line with the recommendation of the B.M.A. Working

63
Party. But, as I have said, this is a detailed document which will be subjected to close study by the departments concerned.
Turning now to education, the noble Duke was quite right when he said that this is extremely important, and he mentioned some of the aspects which the Government also feel to be important. The circular, 7/65, issued by the Department of Education and Science in June, made a number of recommendations to local education authorities on the special measures which might be necessary in some areas to ensure that immigrants receive the best possible education. These recommendations covered, among other matters, the appointment of additional teachers and non-teaching staff in schools; the provision of extra books and equipment; English classes for adult immigrants and training courses for teachers.
In this connection I do not know whether the Department have, in fact, made any suggestions to the local authorities on the lines of the suggestions made by the noble Duke, but if they have not done so, I am sure they will study the problem. But of course the actual way in which they do this is very much a local education authority matter. They have the responsibility. What we have to do at the centre is to try to provide the additional finance, and so on, which will make it possible for them to carry out the suggestions we make to them, or the ideas which they might themselves have on this matter of providing the sort of education which is going to turn the immigrant into someone wholly acceptable to our society.
The only recommendation in the circular sent out at that time that has been criticised is one which suggested that local education authorities should, wherever possible, limit the proportion of immigrant children in any school to not more than about one-third of the school roll. This has been interpreted in some quarters as discrimination against immigrants. It was, in fact, an attempt to ensure that schools did not have to cope with so many children with educational problems arising out of their different cultural and social background, and often inadequate knowledge of English, that the standard of education or the standard
64
of English provided by the school for all its pupils was in danger.
It is accepted that this recommendation is not' easy to implement, and authorities are not obliged to implement it. There are, nevertheless, increasing signs among teachers, in particular very recently in London and Birmingham, that they agree with the principle of limiting the proportion of immigrant children on the ground that this will ultimately be for the benefit of all children, immigrant and non-immigrant alike.
On the question of financial assistance to local authorities the White Paper announced in paragraph 60 that the Government intended to contribute towards approved expenditure incurred by certain local authorities that undertake exceptional commitments by engaging extra staff to ease pressure on the social services arising from the difference in language and cultural background of immigrants and to deal with the problems of transition and adjustment. The Government intend that the necessary powers should be taken when Parliamentary time permits, possibly in the course of this Session. I cannot be absolutely sure, but I rather hope it will be the case.
"Integration" has proved to be a word that a lot of people regard as not very blessed, and they have sought to find different words, but the problem remains the same, no matter what word is used about it. The Government have recognised that Britain is already a multiracial society and have made it clear that there can be no question of Commonwealth immigrants being regarded as second-class citizens. They must be full members of our community in every sense of the word, with the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else. It is only honest to admit, as I am sure we all do, that there are many difficulties to overcome. They must be overcome if we are to translate into reality our belief in the equality of our citizens irrespective of their countries of origin or the colour of their skins. To achieve our purpose we need a concerted effort by all those who are or should be involved, and I hope that we shall be able to rely on the full co-operation in this work of employers, trade unions, local authorities, the churches and voluntary organisations, and the immigrants themselves. As the House knows, the Government have instructed a Minister,

65
Mr. Foley, to take a personal responsibility for co-ordinating Government activity in this connection, and I will not say any more about it.
The most reverend Primate has accepted the chairmanship of the new National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants. We are deeply grateful to him for having undertaken that additional task, a task over and above the great responsibilities which he bears. We know that he brings to it the sympathy and understanding which shone out through the whole of his speech here this afternoon. I think I should mention here that we are grateful to the Council which is now defunct and which was presided over by Lady Reading, a Council that produced two excellent reports that I can think of at the moment—I know they produced more. The first was on housing and the fourth was on housing, and in between we had two others. My noble friend is whispering something to me; he is not quite sure whether they were about employment and education. Nevertheless we are grateful for those reports, and I am sure the Department learnt a lot from them.
I need not talk about the work of this National Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants because it was described by the most reverend Primate. He asked me a few questions when he was talking about the work of that Committee. He said that considerable difficulty was being created as a result of our decision to put the age limit at 16 with a discretionary power being left to the Department concerned for the ages between 16 and 18. We explained in the White Paper how the previous rule was being abused to the detriment of family unity by the bringing in of children only as they reached working age. As my noble friend, Lord Stonham, said on November 16 in the debate on the Address, the Home Secretary does not exercise his discretion on any narrow interpretation of the word "hardship". When both parents or only the surviving parent are in this country, a dependent son or daughter aged 16 or 17 is normally allowed entry to join them here.
We are here up against, as one always must be in this sort of question, the difficulty of setting an age. If we set 18, there would be difficulties created of those between 18 and 21, and so it goes
66
on. You have to decide on an age and allow some little flexibility on one side of it, as we have done; and I think in the circumstances this age was perhaps the right one. I can assure the most reverend Primate, as I am sure he heard from the Prime Minister when his deputation met him the other day, that the Home Secretary does apply this decision with the greatest sympathy and understanding.
The most reverend Primate also mentioned the bias that seems to exist towards allowing professional people to come in. He mentioned doctors and said that this has been described as a brain drain from countries that simply cannot afford it. I believe that in the debate on this Bill last year I agreed that there was difficulty here, but I frankly do not know the answer. I know that in many cases these professional people conic here, the doctors in particular, to gain experience which they can then take back to add something of value to the communities from which they have sprung. Some remain because the conditions here are so much better than those in their own country. There is no simple answer to this; but we recognise the problem, and if the most reverend Primate has any ideas on how to overcome it, I am sure we shall be very glad to look at them.
My noble friend Lord Royle supported the most reverend Primate on that point, and also on the point of the sixteens to eighteens. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that we have failed to give a strong lead to the country. I believe we have, in this White Paper. What we must face is the fact that there is no sudden, dramatic move that the Government or any Committee can make that will solve this problem of immigration and integration. Racial feelings and hatreds are not suddenly dissolved by telling people that they just ought not to exist. To translate our belief in the equality of all our citizens into reality we have to overcome the social difficulties which are obvious to everyone, and especially to those who are living in the forty or fifty already overcrowded towns where immigrants have settled. These towns must have a breathing space in which to tackle the physical conditions —housing, educational facilities, health and the other services which are at present under great strain. In this they must be

67
helped to the maximum by the central Government, and indeed we have set our hands to that task. Only time can change psychologically and emotionally deep-seated attitudes. To shorten that period of time must be the aim of every decent member of our community, whether he be black or white.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (AMENDMENT) BILL
5.51 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
5.52 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is a Consolidation Bill, be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill, which is also a Consolidation Bill, be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

HOUSING (SLUM CLEARANCE COMPENSATION) BILL
5.53 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In order for you to understand the background of this Bill, I must ask your Lordships for a moment to cast your minds back about ten years. In December, 1955, we had a period of ten years since the end of the war and the duration of the war itself. During the whole of that time there had been little or no slum clearance. The reason for that is obvious. At the end of the war the building resources of the country were urgently required for war damage where the damage could be repaired, and for building new houses, not only as the result of enemy attacks but also, of course, as the result of changes in industry and the distribution of the population during the war.
That was the position then, and the Government of the day were minded to resume slum clearance and to invite the local authorities to play their necessary part in it. Indeed, they had already collected information from the local authorities as to how many houses would require to be dealt with. In the course of considering this, they came, I think rightly, to the conclusion that to one group of people the pursuance of this programme might cause some rather unfair hardship—namely, the people who during the war, and during the years after it, had been compelled to buy unfit houses because they could not get others, and had bought at a time when they had not in mind early renewal, at any rate, in slum clearance.
The position at law is clear enough. Since 1919, with the agreement of successive Governments of all Parties, the owner of an unfit house will, if the house is purchased, get the value of the site but nothing for the house; and if the house is demolished or closed, he will get no compensation. The most he can get on a purchase is site value. Though there are some rather obscure

69
exceptions, undoubtedly that has been the general rule, and was the general rule in this case. Early in 1956 a Bill was introduced which had been foreshadowed by a statement made by the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, Mr. Duncan Sandys. It was a Bill which gave to certain people additional supplemental compensation, or compensation where there had been none, in both cases giving compensation, or making it up, to the full market value.
The class of people who were to be protected in this way under this additional compensation were those who had bought their houses between the outbreak of war and the time when the statement was made and the slum clearance campaign accordingly inaugurated or foreshadowed, and who at that latter time, which was the date of the Minister's statement, December 13, 1955, were in occupation of the house that they had bought, or, if there had been a change, had a close member of their family in occupation of it. Those people were to get full market value compensation. But this was intended as a temporary expedient, and I shall in a moment refer your Lordships to what was said by those who introduced the Bill at the time. Therefore, the giving of compensation on this scale was to go on for ten years only and was to expire actually next Sunday or Monday of this current year.
If nothing whatever is done about this, the position will be that those who would have become entitled after that date will in fact get nothing. That was, I might point out, the clear intention of those who introduced this as a temporary expedient in 1955. I have in mind two passages, but I think I need refer to only the statement of Mr. Duncan Sandys himself, in the Second Reading debate on the Bill then introduced. He said, at the end, with reference to Clause l—and it is to the provisions of Clause 1 that I have been referring:
"Clause I is temporary—there is a ten years' limit—and the other two are permanent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 550, col. 2275, 28/3/56.]
The other two clauses were concerned with other matters, to one of which I shall have to refer later. As I say, all I have been saying so far relates only to Clause 1. Mr. Sandys continued:
70
"Clause 1 is temporary because we feel that when an owner-occupier of a slum house has had ten years' or perhaps, up to 26 years' occupation "—
the reference there to twenty-six years is, of course, the maximum that could have been had at that time—
" he has probably had good use from the house and there is no reason why he should have special treatment after that time."
A similar statement, without any reference to twenty-six years, had been made by the Parliamentary Secretary of the day, Mr. Enoch Powell, in introducing the Bill. Therefore, what it was intended to do and its limits were perfectly clear.
To-day the Government could leave it at that, but we believe that there is still a case for continuing, in some measure, the special treatment which has been given. We agree that this cannot go on indefinitely. We have no intention of infringing—nor had those who introduced the Act in 1955—the long-established principle that one does not get payment for an unfit house. We propose to deal with this problem by removing the time limit of next Sunday or Monday. If matters stayed there, the whole business could go on indefinitely. The time limitation which we propose to put in will take a different form. We propose that, after that day, compensation shall be available only to those who have had less than fifteen years' occupation of the house. The reason for this is the reason that was given by Mr. Duncan Sandys, in the passage I have just read: that people who have bought an unsound house at a price appropriate to an unsound house, and are then affected by a clearance or demolition order cannot expect to be entitled to extra compensation beyond the ordinary legal compensation when they have had a reasonable period of use. The Government of those days thought that ten years was reasonable. We are a little more generous about it and are going to make it fifteen years.
Let us see how this will work out. To take the position to-day, the only people who can have had less than fifteen years' use of their house are people who bought after a given date in December, 1950. Next year it will be only people who bought after a given date in December, 1951, and so on, year by year. Finally, the whole business will come to an end

71
in December, 1970, by reason of the fifteen years' qualification. This, I think, is the right thing to do; it is also a felicitous way of ending a piece of temporary legislation, gradually and, as we see it, fairly.
When the original Bill came forward, it was opposed by the Opposition of the day with commendable vigour, but on only one ground: that the money was to come from the local authorities, and we thought that there ought to be an Exchequer subsidy. Two things have entirely altered that situation. The first is that for ten years payments of this special compensation for slum clearance and slum property have been made out of the funds of local authorities. That having been done, there seems little to be said for changing the incidence of the burden at the moment when we are providing for its ultimate termination. Moreover, today, as it happens, my right honourable friend is introducing in another place a Rating Bill—a rather sweeping measure, as I understand it. This is all part of something that has been going on for some time, a thorough review of the financial relations between local authorities and the central Government, which is now being carried into effect. Therefore, I would not now seek to apply the arguments which were put forward with such clarity and force by the Opposition in 1955.
I should like to say a few words about the total amount involved. It is exceedingly difficult to get accurate figures without asking local authorities for one return after another, and so taking up a disproportionate amount of their time. The best figure we can give is that the total cost to them will be somewhere in the region of £3 million. The total cost to the Exchequer will be much smaller, and it will arise mainly out of changes in the rate deficiency grant. I would repeat that the 1956 Act was introduced as a temporary measure, on the footing that ten years' occupation of a slum house was sufficient consideration for the supplementary compensation to be paid, and that thereafter no further payment by way of compensation, beyond the ordinary site values, should be involved.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I have been listening very patiently, and I should
72
like to ask the noble Lord one question. If he is maintaining that the 1956 Act laid down the principle that ten years' beneficial occupation was long enough, why in fact did that Act provide that even after 26 years' beneficial occupation the owner-occupier should get market value?
LORD MITCHISON: For this reason. It divided matters at the date when the slum clearance was to begin again. It treated in one group those who had not been able to find accommodation, and who had had to buy houses, during or after the war, which probably they would not otherwise have bought, without regard at that time to the possibility of compensation if slum clearance were resumed. That was the reason for the mention of the 26 years. I am sure the noble Lord would not have approved if the Government of the day had confined it more closely than that. They had to have that period because of the circumstances at that time. I read that passage from Mr. Duncan Sandys' speech, and if there is any doubt about it I may say that there is a similar passage in Mr. Enoch Powell's speech.
LORD NEWTON: Yes; I have read it.
LORD MITCHISON: What we are now dealing with is what was introduced as a temporary expedient, founded on the basis that ten years' occupation of a slum house was sufficient consideration for this purpose, and that where that had been enjoyed, or tolerated (whichever word one likes to use), there was no occasion for the additional compensation to which I have been referring. That is the main purpose of the Bill.
There are two other points which are involved. The first is a comparatively small matter related to what I have just been saying. The original provision in the Bill fixed as the period to be taken for the purpose of the slum clearance order not the order itself but the demolition or vacation of the condemned house. That might have been all right if only demolition or vacation had to be considered; but there are also questions of purchase. A local authority under a clearance order frequently purchases the houses concerned: and this is a matter upon which entitlement to compensation can depend. In such a case inconvenience would be involved. Under the

73
compulsory purchase procedure it is rather hard to say when the purchase actually takes place; there are difficulties which arise over delays, and matters of that sort. Therefore, for the purpose of this provision and for the future, the date to be taken is the date of the order which had the result of condemning the house.
My Lords, I have been talking about slum clearance orders. What I think are really involved are clearance orders which affect a group of houses, all of which must be unfit for the purposes of the order—demolition orders affecting a single house or closing orders which have a similar effect but a rather different scope. It is the date of one of those orders that is going to matter in future. This will mean that a comparatively small group of people, who at the moment have not reached the stage of finishing the purchase or the demolition or whatever it is, will be able to come in, because the order is always the first step and they will therefore have had the order. I feel very doubtful whether any of your Lordships will object to that small modification.
The third point is also not a very large one in practice, and it is this. There are two other clauses in the previous Bill, to which I referred just now, and one of them related to the position of mortgagors and mortgagees where the subject of the mortgage was a house which was going to attract one of these supplementary payments. Broadly speaking, it gave the county court power to adjudicate between the two parties, both where there was a formal mortgage and where there was a deferred payment by instalments, as there quite often is in that type of case. That jurisdiction was in addition to such powers as the courts have otherwise in connection with mortgages. It was in broad terms (I can refer to it if need be) and all that happens in this Bill is that the jurisdiction is extended generally to slum houses which are condemned—condemned, as it were, to demolition or vacation—or are under a clearance order. Indeed, it extends to them now, if the facts justify it. It is, in fact, a small change because there has been comparatively little use of this provision. There is a very small number of cases year by year. But there is no doubt that the existence of a provision of this kind makes it easier for the two
74
parties concerned to come to a fair agreement between themselves, if they know that the matter can be dealt with on these broad terms in the county court.
The present Bill also entitles the county court to take account of something which has not been, at any rate, specifically mentioned before, and that is the price that was paid for the house. I can develop these matters further if your Lordships wish, but I notice that they attracted comparatively little attention in another place. I doubt whether there could be much objection in principle to the last two points I have mentioned; it is, perhaps, the first of them that I ought to have dwelt on and which I have tried to dwell on.
Before I sit down, I should like to say this. I feel like somebody who changes the whole thing at the last moment, but this is only a matter of form. The 1956 Act was, in fact, incorporated in the Housing Act, 1957, which was a codifying Act, and your Lordships will find it in its full beauty without any alteration in Part II of Schedule 2 at the end of that Act. That is merely a question of reference, and accordingly your Lordships will notice that in the Bill now before us the references are not to the 1956 Act but to the codifying Act —the Housing Act, 1957. I hope I have made matters clear. I think I ought to wait till I am attacked and then try to meet the attacks, but whatever attacks are made I hope that your Lordships will join with me in recognising that it might well have caused hardship to terminate this provision as it was originally intended to be terminated, and that there is a great deal to be said for terminating it gradually. That is, in effect, the result of the stipulation that there should be no more than 15 years' residence in the house if this additional compensation is sought. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª. —(Lord Mitchison.)
6.15 p.m.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord for the care with which he has explained to us what this Bill is about, for although it is a small Bill it is fairly complicated. I think it will have been apparent to the House as well as to the noble Lord, because of my intervention, that I do not go the whole way with

75
him in his construction of what I may call the philosophy behind the 1956 Act.
As the noble Lord has explained to us, one of the main purposes of this Bill is to prolong for the benefit of certain persons, and certain persons only, some of the provisions of the Slum Clearance (Compensation) Act, 1956, which, as he told us at the end of his speech, was subsequently consolidated in the Housing Act, 1957. I propose to talk about the 1956 Act rather than the 1957 Act, but I do not think it will matter. These things being so, I thought I ought to refresh my memory as to what transpired during the proceedings in Parliament on the 1956 Act, and it is obvious that the same thought has occurred to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. It was a very good thing that I did, because I discovered—and this I had forgotten—that on the Second Reading of that Bill in another place the then Opposition moved and divided the House on a reasoned Amendment, which invited the House to reject the Bill because it did not provide for direct Exchequer subsidies towards the payments which it proposed, and thereby placed an undue burden upon the rates. This Amendment was moved, as the noble Lord said, with commendable vigour—I think those were his words—from the Opposition Front Bench, and indeed it was. But the noble Lord is being unduly modest, because he failed to tell us that it was the honourable and learned Member for Kettering who moved that Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: Who is he?
LORD NEWTON: The honourable and learned Member for Kettering now adorns the Government Front Bench in your Lordships' House, and is in charge of this Bill. These things being so, one might have expected that this Bill would provide for direct Exchequer subsidies towards the payments which it proposes, thereby avoiding an undue burden on the rates. The noble Lord felt it incumbent on him to explain this omission, and I hope he will not mind my saying that I was not fully convinced by his first argument, that because this has been a burden on the rates for ten years it would jolly well go on remaining a burden on the rates for a further five years.
76
As regards his other arguments, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I thought the explanation given in the other place by Mr. MacColl, the Parliamentary Secretary, was rather more convincing. What Mr. MacColl said was this.
"The review of housing subsidies, which is likely to be an early piece of legislation, and the more general review of local government grants, will both have some relevance to this question. Therefore, this is not the final word about the apportionment of the financial burden between the ratepayer and the taxpayer." [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 720 (No. 6), col. 892; 15/11/65]
Your Lordships may think, and I think, that that was a perfectly plausible explanation. Indeed, a similar explanation was given at the time of the Second Reading of the 1956 Act, because it so happened that at that time a similar review was taking place of local authority finances. But that explanation did not satisfy the honourable and learned Member for Kettering. On the contrary, his argument was that, precisely because that review was shortly to be completed, it was unnecessary to impose an additional burden on the local health authorities even for a short period of time. But I am not complaining that the Bill does not provide for direct Exchequer subsidies. All I am trying to do is, rather gently, to pull the leg of the noble Lord. I hope, though I sometimes doubt it, that I, too, grow in wisdom.
As the noble Lord explained, the 1956 Act undermined the rule which had been almost universally accepted since 1919: that only site value, not market value, is payable when a house is declared to be unfit for human habitation. It is possible to argue—indeed, it often is argued—that a moral principle is involved here, the principle being that it is wrong to pay more than a nominal sum for rubbish. But I do not think it is really necessary to bring in ethics at all, because I personally have always believed that the explanation of the site value rule is really financial. There is usually, or at any rate very often, a considerable difference between site value and market value, and I would think it probable that, but for the existence of the site value rule, there might never have been any plans for slum clearance in this country, or at any rate very few. This point was eventually admitted by the other Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Mellish, in another place on

77
Second Reading. I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with the quotation, but if any noble Lord doubts that he admitted it, I have got the quotation here.
However, as again the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said, the last war and its aftermath introduced a new factor, because slum clearance stopped, as he said, after the beginning of the war, and it did not really start again until 1955. That is why the 1956 Act introduced the principle of market value compensation for the owner-occupier of an unfit house who bought his house between the outbreak of war and December 13, 1955. The main point was, of course, that at the time those people bought they had no reason to anticipate that in the foreseeable future, at least, their houses would be compulsorily taken away from them. Now that one has the benefit of hindsight, one can naturally make out a strong case for saying that in fact December, 1955, W AS too early a terminal date, and that a later date—perhaps 1960, or something like that—would have been wiser and fairer, in that it seems likely that quite a number of owner-occupiers of unfit houses bought after 1955 without fully realising, as perhaps they should have dole, what they were letting themselves in for. But I am not concerned to argue that point this afternoon. 1955 is the terminal date we have, and have had for ten years, and I am sure in my own mind that, back in 1956, it was the right year to choose.
One of the conditions imposed by the 1956 Act was that for an owner-occupier to qualify for market value—or, rather, for the supplement, making his payment up to market value—his house should have been purchased by the local authority or vacated by him before next Monday, December 13. There are at this moment of time, of course, some people—I do not know how many, but certainly some—who have had their houses made the subject of a clearance order but who, none the less, will still be living in those houses next Monday. Their rights, as the noble Lord has told us, are protected (or preserved, if you like) by subsection 1(a) of Clause 1, and I am very glad they are.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, the rights are created. They would not have had any under the previous Bill.
LORD NEWTON: If the noble Lord likes to put it like that, he may; but if he wants to talk about creation, I would prefer that he talked about re-creation, because the rights were in the 1956 Act. If he is just reminding me that the Act is going to expire next Monday, I know that, of course. As I say, I am very glad indeed that there is this provision in this Bill, but I should like to ask your Lordships to note, in passing, that even if one of these owner-occupiers bought his house as long ago as September, 1939, his rights will still be protected or re-created by this subsection; and there is no test in the case of these people as to the length of beneficial occupation of the house.
When Mr. Mellish was explaining in another place the reasons for the introduction of this Bill, he said, among other things—and I am now quoting from column 853:
" the number of slums which remain to be cleared is so large that there must be many owner-occupiers who expect to get the supplement whose houses are still waiting to be included in authorities' clearance programmes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 720 (No. 6); 16/11/65.]
Yet, my Lords, we know—and we have been told very clearly by the noble Lord —that in the Bill it is proposed in future to pay the supplement only to those owner-occupiers who bought their houses between December 13, 1950, and December 12, 1955, and who have not lived in those houses for longer than fifteen years. However you like to make it out, this position is in fact discrimination against those owner-occupiers of unfit houses who bought before December 13, 1950, and it seems to me (I am not just trying to make a debating point) that this discrimination is horribly unjust and unkind. I am quite certain that it is going to create a deep sense of grievance in the minds of those who will suffer from—it people who will not, I fancy, appreciate the subtleties of sophisticated argument about the length of time in which they have enjoyed beneficial occupation.
Let us just consider two identical, adjacent houses in the same street in a clearance area. One owner-occupier will get market value by means of the supplementary payment: the other, because he bought his house a few days or a few weeks earlier, will get only site value;

79
and the difference could amount to perhaps anything up to £1,000 or £1,500, a difference large enough to determine whether the individual in question is in a position to buy a new house for himself or whether he will have to become a council tenant. To make matters even worse, under the Bill as it stands at present some people will lose the market value which they have been expecting to get, for no other reason than the fact that the local authority did not get around to making the clearance order before next Monday. This, I suppose, is a Committee point; and I do not want to discuss it at great length. But I should like to say two things now. First, I find totally unacceptable the Government excuse that when an owner-occupier of an unfit house has had fifteen years' beneficial occupation, he does not deserve anything more than the site value in compensation. Personally, I do not think that the length of occupation is relevant at all in this connection and I never have thought so. But, if it had any relevance, I would stand the argument on its head and insert this principle: the longer one has lived in one's home, the greater the hardship when one is turned out of it.
The other point I should like to make is that all Parliamentarians know that many Statutes have to contain dividing lines, and there is always an argument about where you draw the line. But wherever you draw the line there is hardship. The moral of that seems to me to be that one should never write dividing lines into Statutes unless it is absolutely essential to do so. I do not consider that it is necessary to draw a dividing line in this Bill. There was no dividing line in the 1956 Act. To think this, is a mistake on the noble Lord's part. That Act said that the provisions would last for ten years. That, of course, left the way open for those provisions to be extended if necessary; as, in fact, they are being extended in this Bill, though in a limited capacity. It would have been easy in this Bill simply to provide that the relevant provisions of the 1956 Act (which I think are in Section 1 of that Act) should continue for another five years—I say five years since that is the time chosen by the Government—for the benefit of what I may describe as the whole 1939–1955 class.
80
My Lords, I wish I knew why the Government have not done this. Is it, I wonder, that they are afraid of the cost? But, however that may be, I would ask the noble Lord to tell us, if he can—and I have given him notice of this question—what the additional cost would be over and above the £3 million mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill if the relevant provisions of the 1956 Act were extended for five years to cover all the remaining people in what I call the whole of the 1939–1955 class.
The noble Lord said very little about Clause 2: I have little to say about it. I welcome its provisions and I am quite sure they are right in principle. To be frank, I think that principle ought to have been recognised in the 1956 Act. A Bill on the lines of this Bill is certainly necessary to-day and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading—but I wish it did not contain the real blemish that I have mentioned.
6.34 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I will not take very long in replying. If I understood the noble Lord aright, he is concerned with substantially two points. The first I must admit I could not have resisted deploying myself if I had been in his position: it was too good. I refer to the one about the distribution of cost as between the Exchequer, on the one hand, and the local authorities, on the other. But I had intended to refer to it; I made reference to it when I spoke first, and I do not think I have anything further to add. To summarise it shortly, since half of the exercise with which this Bill is concerned has gone through on one footing, it is really untidy and unnecessary to shift now on to another footing, when it is, in effect, half way through. Moreover, as there is a complete revision of local authority and central finance going on at the moment, this would be the worst possible time to make a change of that sort.
The second point was a more substantial one. The noble Lord pointed out that there was a philosophy in this Bill. I have always regarded Mr. Enoch Powell as a bit of a philosopher, and I once accused him of being like Diogenes, who was no mean philosopher, even if he lived by himself in a tub: but in this period, there was no question of a

81
tub. I must read what Mr. Enoch Powell said:
"As this concession—
the ten-year temporary provision, as he called it—
"is designed to meet temporary and exceptional circumstances due to war-time and postwar conditions, so it should itself be temporary and exceptional. When ten years have elapsed even persons who bought such houses as these for their own occupation immediately before my right honourable friend's statement will have had a very substantial use and enjoyment of those houses. The Government do not propose, therefore, that the concession should apply to houses dealt with as unfit after 13th December, 1965."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Commons, Vol. 550, col. 2164; 28/3/56.]
That is the reason, and so far as the debates show, the only reason, why the ten-year limit was put in. We are going a bit further—a bit better in one sense: we are now having fifteen years' limit. I can only say this to the noble Lord. If he had done what I think he intended to do, and carried on these provisions for another five years, then at the end of that time there would have been one unmitigated bump, if I may call it so. This is, at any rate, a tidy tapering off of the intention and provisions of the Act.
I do not think I need say much more. It is said that this Bill makes a distinction between one owner and the owner of a similar house next door—
LORD NEWTON: It does.
LORD MITCHISON: Any provision of this kind, of course, does that. The original Bill did it just as much. I think the noble Lord himself provided the answer: that the moment a limit of any sort is fixed, there are bound to be some people on one side and some on the other. The question always to be considered is whether it is desirable to make some intermediate provision. We find this again and again when dealing with financial provisions. If you draw a sharp line, some people are on the right side, while others, from their point of view, are on the wrong side. I think that people understand this by now.
Then the noble Lord said that there was discrimination. Really, that is a bit stiff. These people would have had no rights whatever if the original piece of legislation had been allowed in this respect to lapse on Sunday or Monday
82
next. Yet we are now told that we are discriminating against them because we rescue some people from the Conservative morass, if I may use that phrase, and do not rescue them all. We have our reasons for making the distinction and I have tried to explain them. It is monstrous to suggest there is discrimination in any pejorative sense. It is as if you had half a dozen drowning men and you rescued only three of them. And we did not drown them.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, may I ask this question? The noble Lord keeps trying to get the House to take the view that the 1956 Act contained a dividing line similar to this dividing line. It did not. What it did was to say that the whole range of people who bought between 1939 and 1955 would be eligible. What it said was that the Act would run for ten years, and it left the door open for the Act to be extended, as it is going to be extended now, although only to a limited extent. That is not imposing a dividing line.
LORD MITCHISON: There was no word or intention of extending the Bill. I do not think I need say any more.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RAIL COMMUTER TRAFFIC CONGESTION
6.42 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the increasing congestion of the daily commuter traffic on the rail services both into London and into provincial cities and whether they are now able to announce their future plans to relieve this congestion. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in raising this subject of commuter traffic this evening, I do so in the belief that it is one of the main social problems facing the Government at the present time, ane one which must be acted on very quickly if the Government are to avoid a general thrombosis spreading through our cities. Before coming here to-day, I sought the views of the railway authorities, city planners and some local authorities. One is left with the impression that the challenge of this problem must be

83
accepted by three partners. First, good planning; secondly, capital expenditure; and, finally, State subsidy.
Perhaps I may first describe the present commuter traffic problem as I see it. At present 90 per cent. of this traffic is looked after by public transport and the remaining 10 per cent. by private transport. The bulk of the responsibility lies with the railways. Those who commute daily by rail are finding it more and more difficult to obtain a seat. In some areas, notably in Kent, over one-third of the passengers are forced to stand, sometimes for up to an hour, when travelling to and from their work. Many of these people leave the heavily congested surburban trains to battle their way on to the Underground services. By the time these people reach their destinations, the first thing they require is a cup of tea to revive them. I do not think that I have exaggerated the situation at all.
The railway authorities are, of course, very concerned at this state of affairs and their view was expressed clearly in the Report, Re-shaping of British Railways. They admit that in many areas, particularly South of London, saturation point has been reached and passengers suffer extreme discomfort. The railway authorities say that they are doing their best to extend capacity. I understand that they are enlarging carriages, lengthening platforms and trains, and even improving the signalling system. But the crux of the matter, surely, is that the capacity of the system is limited by physical restrictions and any real expansion of capacity requires a large capital investment.
If one looks at the South-East Study Report one notices that a figure of £100 million is mentioned as the capital required, but the railways point out that the existing commuter services cost them something like £13 million a year at the present time. I understand that this sum could well reach £20 million within two or three years. Naturally, the railways ask whether they are expected to subsidise this unprofitable service. Equally they appreciate that any increase in fares would push more traffic on to the roads, which is not exactly what is required.
If one discusses the problem with city planners and local authorities, one finds that they are equally aware of the situa-
84
tion. They are concerned because it is useless to provide housing land when the rail capacity does not match it. A survey recently made in Kent showed that in every new housing estate 70 per cent. of the population were actual or potential commuter passengers. Many local authorities despair at trying to provide a counter-magnet to London. They say that industry and jobs should be brought with the overspill population, or the problem will never be solved. In other words, it is necessary to decide on a drastic form of decentralisation and reverse the present trend of employment growth in central areas. But the immediate crisis which the planners see staring them in the face is the annual increase of commuter travellers. I understand that it is something like 22,000 passengers a year on the railways, and the question is rightly asked: How can the present services absorb this increase?
When one examines the active part the Government play in this crisis, one finds it is very small. They appear to hide in the wings and urge with a very loud voice, but apparently take very little action. Surely now is the time for the Government to step in as the third partner, to co-ordinate the service and also to act in a financial capacity. The importance of co-ordinating services was again revealed in the Report on reshaping the railways. In my discussions with a Liverpool planning officer I discovered that his council had this problem. They found they could obtain no cooperation between the rail and bus services. In this case the bus companies were afraid that such co-operation would lead to the creaming off of their profitable services. Believe it or not, two of the bus companies were municipally owned. Surely the Government could take action and set up a unified transport authority for such areas. The Minister should take up two other points on this question of co-ordination. First, he should see that local authorities are given more power over transport, along with land use; and, secondly, he should see that public transport undertakings do not deliberately undercut each other and so cause both services to become uneconomic.
To turn to the financial side, the issue is simply this: is the State or is it not to subsidise these commuter services? I believe that it should and, furthermore,

85
I believe that local authorities could help as well. If one takes an area such as may be found in Surrey, where there is a large population of commuter travellers, surely it would be right, when such populations are benefiting from low subsidised fares, that they should contribute something towards a State subsidy. I believe that this argument would be quite acceptable to the local authorities in such areas if they saw that the result would lead to an improved commuter service.
Finally, I do not feel that I can sufficiently emphasise the urgency of this problem and so perhaps I cannot do better than end with a quotation from the final sentence of the Steering Group Report. Urging the Government to take action over the growing traffic crisis, the Report went on to say:
" We must meet it without confusion over purpose, without timidity over means and, above all, without delay."
6.49 p.m.
THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, I am quite sure that we are grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for raising this vital subject. Some of your Lordships will have heard quite enough from me already for one evening and therefore I do not propose to detain you for more than a few moments.
We face an ever-increasing problem, with the gradual strangulation of the roads and streets in the great cities of this land. This surely must be an opportunity for the railways to ease the burden by means of a competitive and alternative method of transport; so that more of the people who now drive their cars into the cities will decide that they would get a better deal and arrive more quickly at their place of work, if they travelled by rail. This seems to me to provide a golden opportunity for the railways to strike hack. Much as I approved of the Question put down by my noble friend, I was not altogether happy when I heard him talk about a unified transport authority. I must say that it would be something at which I should look very suspiciously. I feel that if people could get to work by rail it would help those wishing to use their cars for shopping for buying weekly supplies, and all the rest of it. As my noble friend has said, the fact that people are compelled to stand in railway carriages shows that
86
there is a demand for more accommodation.
I see this as a challenge to the railways. Things are going their way. People like to use the railways. And it is up to the railways to deliver the goods and persuade people that it is better to go by rail than go "one man, one car", because it is this which causes the chronic congestion we have in all our great cities to-day. I sincerely hope that the Government will take note of my noble friend's Question and will do all they can to stimulate the State-owned railways to meet the challenge that has been placed on their doorstep.
6.50 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for drawing attention to this important subject tonight. Anybody who has travelled by either Underground or Southern Railway suburban services during the rush hour realises what a terrifying experience this is. Frankly, I cannot see any solution without the expenditure of an enormous amount of money, because the trains are carrying absolutely up to the limit at the moment and are running, as I have said before, almost within sight of each other, so that one cannot put more on the line. What we need are more tracks; and, of course, particularly in the case of the Underground, that is a very expensive business.
What I think might be done, just for the sake of convenience, is this. At the main line termini there could be a little more direction and controlling of passengers, so that they are not all rushing in different directions and bumping into each other. On the Underground, the supply of a few more automatic change-giving ticket machines would be useful. It is an extraordinary thing that whenever I travel by Underground and want to get a ticket from one of these machines, I find a metal plate over it saying, "Not in use". One does not necessarily have the exactly change, so more of these change-giving machines would have a great value.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I would throw only one point into the discussion. On surface railways, if we take the cubic content of a train, we find that roughly 10 per cent. is the space allocated for seating of passengers. If we

87
could increase that proportion to 20 per cent., which ought not to be beyond possibility and would not be very costly, we could carry twice the number of people sitting. Half of those passengers now have to stand in these trains. It is high time that a commuter carriage was designed to give more seats. People may still have to be packed like sardines—but let us have sitting sardines instead of standing sardines.
6.54 p.m.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and to other noble Lords who have spoken this evening. A great many interesting points have been raised, but I am afraid that I have time to deal with only a few of them. Taking my cue from the noble Lord's Question, I propose first to try to get in perspective the present state of rail commuter services, and what the possibilities for development and improvement are. First, it must be said that both the provision of rail services and the planning of their improvements is primarily the responsibility of the operators—the Railways Board with, in London, the London Transport Board. The Government's; responsibilities are confined to matters such as investment, as the noble Earl mentioned, and rail closures; and, of course, in a wider context, the Government's regional and economic policies provide a framework within which public transport must operate. But it is the Boards who are directly responsible both for day-to-day operation and for the planning and carrying out of improvements to the rail system.
The Boards are well aware that there is serious congestion on some of the commuter rail services, but the picture is not quite so bad as it has been painted. Let us take the Provinces first. I know that the noble Earl, in his speech, paid most attention to the London services, but his Question covers the country as a whole. The position is that, outside London, peak traffic on most suburban rail lines has been falling. We asked the Railways Board for their comments on the Question we are debating to-night and they have said that, in general, they do not concede that there is in fact any increasing congestion on the commuter trains serving
88
the big cities outside London. And this emphasises the noble Earl's point that London is the big problem. For example, in Glasgow, which is second only to London in the volume of suburban rail traffic, the Board say that, although some standing occurs over relatively short distances, the trains are not overcrowded and conditions are tolerable. On the occasions of one-day bus strikes in Glasgow, and when other surface transport has been disrupted by fog, carryings on the Glasgow commuter services have increased by 25 per cent. This shows that the physical capacity is there.
In fact—and this is a point I want to emphasise—the provincial rail services are faced with quite another problem than congestion. Their main difficulty is that on many lines there are not enough people travelling to cover the costs of providing the services. On some of these lines the commuter traffic is substantial and cannot be catered for other than by rail. That is why my right honourable friend refused consent to the closure of the Manchester—Bury electric service and of the service from Glasgow to Edinburgh, via Shotts. Thus, outside London, it is not a question of making plans for relieving congestion on the commuter rail services. Rather, the congestion is on the roads, and rail services may be needed to relieve this congestion. A major rôle for public transport is to provide for the bulk of journeys to work in the central areas of large cities; and where there is a substantial volume of commuter traffic, rail transport has large advantages over road transport.
We believe that long-term plans for the rail services in each urban area should be based on a study of the transport needs for all purposes and by all forms of transport in the area. Studies of this kind are in progress, or planned for all the big conurbations. Their method is first to establish the requirements of the passenger movement in future years, taking into account the growth of, and any shifts in, population and employment. Then plans can be made, embracing rail, road and bus, for an effective passenger transport system to cope with commuter and other needs.
If I may turn to London, on which the main emphasis has been placed this evening, congestion is severe on many services.

89
Many of us know from personal experience the appalling crush on some of the trains at the height of peak. But let us first look at the problem from the operators' point of view. They have been faced with a steadily increasing number of commuters who are travelling longer distances and concentrating their journeys into a shorter peak period of travel. During the 'fifties employment in Central London increased at a rate of something like 20,000 each year. At the same time, road congestion became worse and prevented the buses from taking their proper share in the increased load. The net result has been a growth in rail commuting by train and Underground during the last twelve years from 750,000 to 900,000 each day.
At the same time, there has been a drift of population away from London to beyond the Green Belt: the population of the outer part of the London Passenger Transport area increased by 550,000 during this period. And with an increasingly standardised day, the concentration in the peak is worse than it was. Within the peak hour on British Railways there is even a super-peak of twenty minutes which accounts for 40 to 50 per cent. of the total traffic. To deal with 40 to 50 per cent. of the traffic within twenty minutes, with this density of traffic, is a headache for those who have to operate it. In spite of this increase in demand, many services are far better than they were. It is easy, and natural, for the frustrated traveller of to-day to look back nostalgically to a rosy past. But, so far as most London commuters are concerned, this rosy past is pure imagination. Liverpool Street and Fenchurch Street may not be heavens on earth, but would anyone choose to go back to the old steam services on those two lines, daily miracle though the service may have been from an operational point of view?
There have been many other striking improvements. For example, in the rolling stock on the Central, Piccadilly and Metropolitan Lines; the new trains carry l5 per cent. more people and are much more comfortable. And in the Kent services, to which the noble Earl referred (and, as he said, they are the most crowded of all), the Railways Board have done what they can to increase capacity by lengthening platforms and, providing ten-car instead of eight-car
90
trains. Many more improvements are in hand. Most notable of these is, of course, the Victoria Line, due for completion in three years' time. This new Tube will enable many journeys to be made more directly and quickly, and will give considerable relief to some of the most congested parts of the existing Underground system.
The noble Earl, quite rightly, not only emphasised the present, but asked: what of the future? What are the future plans to relieve congestion on the London commuter services'? The Railyway Plan for London was prepared by a joint Working, Party of British Railways and London Transport, was was submitted to my right honourable friend in March of this year. The main proposals are for three extensions to the Underground system—the Victoria Line extension to Brixton, the Fleet Line, and the Aldwych-Waterloo Line, and minor railway works to increase capacity. The estimated cost of this London Plan as submitted is over £125 million. The plan is a tentative one. Noble Lords may have read the evidence of the Select Committee on London Transport, paragraph 472, in which it is said of the largest item in the plan:
" The Fleet line lies further ahead. The Board stressed that it needs much more work. They have not completed the survey for the lines and they must have further discussions with the Planning Authorities concerned. Only then could the Board decide whether or not to recommend the Government to approve it. At present the delaying factor was the work that they themselves had to do; no out-side body was holding it up."
In view of the tentative nature of the plan, and the uncertainty of some of the assumptions underlying it, my right honourable friend asked the Board not to give it general publication. The plan has, of course, been available as a working document to the authorities concerned with transport planning in London and the South East. In view of the work yet to be done, the plan as a whole cannot be acted on immediately. But two of the proposals in it—the Aldwych—Waterloo Line and the Victoria Line extension to Brixton—have been developed in detail and formally submitted to my right honourable friend, who is now considering them. I hope that his consideration will not be as long as that of the previous Government in regard to the Victoria Line.

91
In the long term, the elimination of congestion on the rail commuter services in London requires, as the noble Earl has suggested, a co-operative effort from Government, local authorities and the Transport Boards. In the Government's view, transport cannot be planned in isolation from town planning as a whole, and this, to be successful, must take account of a number of important factors—land use, employment, and population, to name the most important. One of this Government's earliest actions was to put a stop on office building in the metropolitan area. That should at least check the continuing growth of employment in London. The Boards have been working together on possible further developments of London's railway systems to follow the Victoria Line. Their plans will have to be considered together with road proposals as part of a coordinated transport plan for London. The Government are determined that public transport in London, of which the commuter rail services are an important part, should be developed so as to meet the needs of a great city and provide a high standard of service to all those who live and work in it.
The noble Earl asked three other questions, which I took down. The first was in regard to a subsidy for commuter services. With great respect to the noble Earl—and we are all grateful to him for the manner in which he introduced the debate—this really is outside the general scope of this debate. But, as I have indicated during my speech, outside the London area, and in some cases inside the London area, commuter rail services do lose money, and, therefore, in the deficiency grant which the Government pay to the Railways Board there is a subsidy to the traveller. So far as London is concerned, Londoners will know that the Board's financial problems have been the subject of urgent study by the Government, and a statement will soon be made about London Transport fares.
The noble Earl referred to the powers of local authorities as transport authorities, and though I do not want to widen the gap between the noble Earl and his noble friend the Duke of Devonshire, I must say that I entirely agree with the noble Earl that when local
92
authorities operate bus services, many of them running duplicate services in each other's area by agreement, there is perhaps a tendency to overlap. We agree that you cannot plan transport for a conurbation on the basis purely of local authority operation of bus services within that area. We take the view that, as a result of the transportation studies which are now taking place, some changes in organisation in the conurbations may be necessary. I hope that we shall have the co-operation of local authorities in this matter, although it means a diminution of certain local authority functions as they are at present. We are considering transport for the people, and transport area authorities over an area.
I was sorry to hear what the noble Earl said about the Liverpool experiment, because I have always understood from one report I have seen that the Working Party in the Liverpool and Mersey area were securing a great deal of cooperation, and in the Ministry we have high hopes that something tangible will come from that report.
The noble Earl raised the question of duplication of services. Of course, in urban areas we must have at least some duplication. For instance, London Transport run buses over the whole length of Oxford Street, while underneath runs the Central Line. They perform two different functions, surface transport being much more for the short journey, whereas the Tube train carries people on longer journeys. All fares are governed by the Transport Tribunal in London, and outside London bus fares are controlled by the traffic commissioners. Personally—and this is only a personal point of view—I do not know of any fares which are deliberately lowered in order that there can be competition between road and rail services. If the noble Earl has any such examples, we shall be only too pleased to look at them. Whilst we at the Ministry cannot do anything about them, we can, of course, pass them on to the traffic commissioners, who will look at them in the light of operations in the area.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the automatic ticket machines of London Transport. This method would be better if everybody was honest. But from personal experience I can tell the noble Lord that the number of people

93
who try to get Tube tickets with milk checks in those automatic machines, and who interfere with the mechanism, is considerable. London Transport are at the moment considering a much bigger extension of automatic ticket issuing. They are also looking at automatic signaling and also other things under a general mechanization policy, but we hope that all developments will be to the benefit of the public.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House that he had received, under the proviso to Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, a notification that the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia Order 1965, had come into operation before being laid. before Parliament, with an explanation thereof.
The said notification and explanation was ordered to lie on the Table.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (BANK ASSETS) ORDER 1965
Order made under Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 by Her Majesty in Council.
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for Affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

RESERVE BANK OF RHODESIA ORDER 1965
Order made under Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 by Her Majesty in Council
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) under Standing Order No. 62 on Friday last for Affirmative Resolution, and referred to the Special Orders Committee for consideration under Private Business Standing Order No. 216/3.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS
Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have appointed a Committee of twelve Members to join with the Committee appointed by this House to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session.
Ordered, That the evidence taken before the Joint Committee from time to time be printed, but no copies to be delivered out except to Members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit until further order.
Leave given to the Joint Committee to report from time to time.