IMMIGRATION BILL

HL Deb 03 August 1971 vol 323 cc1009-86

3.8 p.m.

LORD WINDLESHAM

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windlesham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair]

Clause 26 [General offences in connection with administration of Act]:

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment 107B is agreed to I cannot call No. 108.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 107B: Page 25, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).

The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I move this Amendment in association with Nos. 108A, B and C. These paragraphs indicate offences which are incidental to the major offence of illegal entry. I submit to the Minister that they are covered by the penalties for the overriding offence and it appears to be undesirable that persons should also be subject to criminal liability for offences which are all in reality part of the basic charge. On those grounds, I beg to move.

LORD DENHAM

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says that all these offences are incidental to the main offences under the Bill, and therefore feels that they are not necessary. We feel strongly that they are necessary for a variety of reasons. First, a patrial may refuse to submit to examination, or refuse to register at an hotel, and he cannot be refused permission to enter. The offences under Clause 26(1)(f), in connection with police registration or hotel registration are committed by people already in the United Kingdom, and so it cannot be argued that they could be adequately dealt with by refusal of permission to enter. Some of these offences might be quite trivial, and the court might think it adequate punishment to inflict a fine. To argue that the person concerned should not be allowed to stay in the United Kingdom at the cost of a small fine, but should be refused permission to enter, cannot be in the best interests of those for whom the noble Lord is concerned.

LORD BROCKWAY

As on other occasions, I do not propose to press this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 108: Page 25, line 37, after (" he ") insert (" without reasonable cause ").

The noble Lord said: This is a fairly small point, but I think it is not unimportant. Clause 26 provides that a person shall be guilty of an offence in certain circumstances, and the first of these is if he refuses or fails to submit to examination under Schedule 2 of this Act ". In some of the subsequent types of offences the words"without reasonable excuse"are included. The whole object of this Amendment is to insert the words"without reasonable cause"in relation to in the first of these offences, so that it will read: if he without reasonable cause refuses or fails to submit to examination under Schedule 2 of this Act. The types of examination with which Schedule 2 is concerned are examinations, first, by an immigration officer, and secondly, by a medical inspector. It might at first sight seem that where such an examination takes place at a port of entry, either by the immigration officer or by the medical inspector, it would be difficult for a person to have a reasonable cause for refusing or failing to submit to such an examination. That I accept. But if your Lordships look at Schedule 2, you will see that there are some medical examinations which can take place not at the port of entry, but after the person has come into the country: that is under paragraph 7 of Schedule 2, by which directions can be given to a person who has been permitted to come in that he shall at some subsequent date or dates present himself to a medical inspector in order that a further or initial medical examination can be made.

It is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which a person might inadvertently, because he is ill, or detained, or cannot keep the appointment, fail to present himself for such an examination. All that my Amendment is designed to do is to enable it to be a defence to any such charge that he can say that he had a reasonable cause for not presenting himself for such examination. I daresay that this is something which is acceptable to the Government, and I hope that it is. It does not involve any matter of principle, but it would avoid the possibility of somebody being foolishly prosecuted when he commits this offence by pure inadvertence.

LORD DENHAM

This Amendment was moved in Standing Committee in another place, and after discussion it was generally agreed that nobody could think of any occasions when the words"without reasonable cause"would really be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has introduced some new arguments on this, and we should like to look at what he has said. We do not think there is any real worry here, but if the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, perhaps we can look at the matter again. I am advised that failure to submit to a medical examination could come under Clause 24(1)(d), which provides for"reasonable excuse ". We are almost certain that there is an answer to the noble Lord's suggested new case but, as I say, we should like to look at the point again. I will let him know how we feel about it.

LORD FOOT

I am obliged to the noble Lord, and I am almost satisfied with that answer. But I suggest that if your Lordships look at Clause 24(1)(d), which deals with failing to comply with a requirement imposed under Schedule 2 to the Act to report to a medical officer of health, where the words,"without reasonable excuse"are included, and you compare it with Clause 26(1)(a), where the words are not included, there is a conflict in the two clauses:"without reasonable excuse"applies in one case and not in the other. If the noble Lord will look at this point again, I think he will find that the way to put it right is to insert the words"without reasonable excuse"into this clause, so that the two clauses fit together. However, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.19 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 108D: Page 26, line 21, leave out (" or other person lawfully ").

The noble Lord said: I think the members of the Committee will realise that this is a point of substance and importance. Clause 26 begins by saying that a person shall be guilty of an offence, and then there are listed the causes. The last of these causes, in paragraph (g), is: if, without reasonable excuse, he obstructs an immigration officer or other person lawfully acting in the execution of this Act. It is the words"or other person lawfully acting"that I wish to delete. I wish to do so because the provision as it stands would extend the protection to members of private organisations. They are employed by such organisations as Securicor. Curiously enough, I have been in close association with Securicor from its inception, and I want to pay a tribute to the bravery of their staff. Nevertheless, it is a private organisation and the public have no control either over the organisation or the selection of its personnel. This applies not only to Securicor, which is the best known, but to other organisations. I suggest that it is wrong in principle that special powers or protection should be given to other than police officers, who are public servants and under public control. I suggest that this is a principle of great importance and that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to justify any departure from it. I beg leave to move this Amendment.

LORD WINDLESHAM

Under Clause 26(1)(g), the paragraph to which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has drawn our attention, it is an offence to obstruct without reasonable excuse an immigration officer or other person lawfully acting in execution of this Act. As the noble Lord has explained, he would like to see the deletion of the words"or other person lawfully ". Under the existing law it is an offence against the Aliens Order 1953 to obstruct any officer or person in the exercise of his functions under the Order; and it is also an offence against Section 4 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 to obstruct an immigration officer or other person lawfully acting in the execution of Part I of that Act. So it is worth noting that these provisions not only exist in the present law but that the present law does not qualify them in the way that the Bill before your Lordships does; because here we have the words added without reasonable excuse ". So there is an additional safeguard in the wording of the Bill. Clause 26(1)(g), like the corresponding provisions of the existing law, is not intended to confer any personal immunity either on the immigration officer or on anyone else who is concerned with the operation of the Act, but only to provide a sanction against attempts to disrupt or impede the operation of immigration control.

The"other persons"mentioned in the provision would not only include the employees of private organisations such as Securicor which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned—and he is quite right: it does include them, but it would be wrong to give the impression that it covers only people in that position—it would also include the port medical officers and their assistants acting under paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2, and also the employees of shipping companies and State airlines who are responsible under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 for ensuring that a person leaves the country in accordance with removal directions that have been made. It seems right that any deliberate attempt, without reasonable cause, to hinder any person in one of these categories in carrying out his lawful duties should continue to be an offence, as it is under the present law.

LORD BROCKWAY

Without support from other parts of the House, I will not press this Amendment and now beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 agreed to.

Clause 27 [Offences by persons connected with ships or aircraft or with ports]:

LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 109: Page 26, line 31, at end insert (" in the United Kingdom ").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 109. This is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 128. The second Amendment affects paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 and its purpose is to ensure that where directions are given under paragraphs 8 to 14 (after refusal of entry or illegal entry) or under paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 (on deportation) for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom, the captain of the ship or aircraft should be required to prevent him from disembarking until the directions are fulfilled, and has express legal authority to detain him on board until he reaches his destination. As the Bill stands there is the anomaly that although the removal directions will specify a destination and the person concerned has an appeal as to destination under Clause 17, though in some cases exercisable only after removal, the captain of the ship or aircraft to whom the directions are given has no clear authority to enforce them by restraining the person from attempting to disembark at some other destination.

The Amendment is being made at the request of the Chamber of Shipping and B.O.A.C., in order to ensure that a carrying company is not put at risk of a legal action being taken against it in this country because it has sought to enforce directions given to it by the Immigration Service. Clause 27(a) makes it an offence for the captain of a ship or aircraft knowingly to permit a person to disembark when required to prevent it. The first Amendment ensures that the scope of this offence remains limited to disembarkation in the United Kingdom, because it is not necessary or desirable to apply Clause 27(a) to acts committed outside the United Kingdom.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 28 agreed to.

Clause 29 [Contributions for expenses of persons returning abroad]:

3.27 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 110: Page 28, line 16, leave out from (" may ") to (" to ") in line 18, and insert (" subject to the following provisions of this section, provide funds to the extent that he may, with the approval of the Treasury, determine ").

The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is, in effect, a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 113. As your Lordships will observe, there are two other Amendments to this clause which in part, though not entirely, meet the points mentioned in our Amendments. Clause 29 is a very short clause, but it has caused as much controversy as any clause in this Bill because it deals with the proposal that the new authority should contribute to the expenses of persons being repatriated. As your Lordships will now be aware, there are already arrangements for persons who are in receipt of social security benefits to receive some assistance if they desire to return to their home countries; but the object of this clause is to extend such a provision to persons who are not patrial, who are not covered by the social security provisions, but who may wish to leave the United Kingdom and go to a country or territory where they intend to reside permanently. Such a payment is intended not only to cover their travelling expenses but also the expenses of members of their families or households.

I think most of us would be in general agreement with the idea that if someone had come to this country and found it really impossible to settle satisfactorily, for whatever reason, and who therefore wished to return home or perhaps to go elsewhere—and I will touch on that point in a moment—it would be in the public interest for help to be given to them to do so. Therefore the reasons why we are querying this clause and propose to amend it fairly extensively lie in the references that have been made to the provision for repatriation by spokesmen in the Conservative Party, and of course most particularly by the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, Mr. Enoch Powell. We have to take his remarks seriously because he does, after all, represent a certain section of opinion in this country. He has made very clear in what he said, both in Committee and on Third Reading in another place, that he does not accept what we entirely believe to be the attitude of the present Government; namely, that these provisions should be used only for those who wish to go and that there should be no kind of pressure upon them.

I have no doubt that the attitude, not only of the Secretary of State but of Ministers representing Her Majesty's Government in this House, would be in line with ours, that these provisions should never be used except for those who wish voluntarily to leave and that they should not be under any sort of pressure, but unfortunately the Bill does not say that. This is why we are anxious about it. It is quite plain that those who hold the views of Mr. Powell wish to make this not just a safety net clause, but an instrument of policy deliberately to return as many as possible of those who have settled in this country from the new Commonwealth, and to return them from whence they came. Mr. Powell makes no bones at all that this is his view of what would be desirable. He has made various observations—I shall not worry your Lordships by quoting too many of them, but among other things he is quoted as having said—

LORD ABERDARE

Will the noble Baroness—

BARONESS WHITE

I am not quoting directly from what he said in the House, but I believe that I can quote what he said outside. He said outside the House, and I understand that I can only refer to what he said outside the House: Nobody who has listened to what the Conservative Party has said on this subject both during the General Election and before could have supposed that there was any intention to limit the availability of assistance for any immigrant who voluntarily applied for it. Such limitation would in effect be a serious breach of what I understood to be the undertaking of this Party when it went to the electorate ".

LORD ABERDARE

Will the noble Baroness say from what she is quoting?

BARONESS WHITE

This was a speech which I understand the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, made outside the House. It was quoted in another place, but from a speech which he had made outside the House. On Third Reading in another place—which of course one cannot go into in precise words but I think it perfectly proper to indicate—the right honourable Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, made it very plain that his view differed entirely from the attitude of the Government and that in his view this provision should be used, not as a social service safety net, but as a deliberate instrument of policy.

For these reasons, therefore, I think we must look much more closely at this clause than one would have done had one taken it just at face value, which suggests that help might be given in suitable circumstances for people who wish to return home. We feel that in view of the statements which have been made by certain members of the Conservative Party it is most important that we should include in this clause a reference to a voluntary principle and make it perfectly plain that these provisions are intended to apply to those who, as I say, not having settled here satisfactorily wish to return home and who may be able to show that they are not in a position to meet all the expenses even though they are not in receipt of social security benefits.

We also wish to know how the Government propose to work this scheme because, again in the debates in another place, the Secretary of State indicated that he had had preliminary discussions with International Social Service and that he was minded to use that organisation (which is a very reputable organisation with considerable experience) to operate this part of the Bill. But we are not at all clear what the relationship would be between the Home Office and that organisation, or any other organisation that the Home Secretary might have in mind. We should like to have a great deal more information. Some time has elapsed since the discussions in another place and I hope very much that the Minister can now tell us just what is proposed.

From such inquiries as I have been able to make, I understand that International Social Service would not act directly as an agent for the Secretary of State; that it would be available to help in making arrangements if requested to do so, and would hope to receive some contribution to its administration expenses in performing this service, but that it would not itself, I understand, administer these grants, if it did not administer them, I am not quite clear in what way they would be administered, and we should like to know what sort of arrangements the Home Secretary has in view. This may be a very expensive and sensitive operation in certain circumstances.

We should also like to know whether other organisations might possibly be used for this purpose. The one I have mentioned has its headquarters in London. I am not sure whether its operations extend, for example, to Scotland. We should like to have more information about this aspect because there is nothing at all in the Bill as it stands to indicate that such provisions may be made. It is for this reason that we have suggested in the second of the two Amendments—I think it convenient to refer to the second of them while proposing Amendment No. 110—that the Secretary of State should clarify this matter by making regulations which can be placed before Parliament and should be approved by Parliament, and that in making such regulations he should make it plain that such assistance is for voluntary repatriation, and specifically only for voluntary repatriation, and that there should be no suggestion either of a threat or an inducement to people to apply other than the straightforward payment of necessary expenses.

There are one or two other points on which we would like further clarification. I think I am correct in supposing that if someone came to this country and did not settle here, but did not wish to return to the country from whence he came—for example, someone who when he found he could not stay in this country, if he were a Jewish person coming from one of the Iron Curtain countries, wished to go to Israel—assistance would be available for such a person and his family to go to Israel rather than to the country from which they originated. That is one point.

Another point that we should be quite clear about is again on this technical conception of"patrial"which the Government are putting forward and the fact that there will be mixed families some of whom are patrial and some are not. Presumably in the fourth line of the clause, where reference is made to the expenses of persons who are not patrial, whereas a couple of lines further down reference is made to"expenses for members of their families or households ", it is the head of the family who is considered non-patrial. There may be patrial members of the family who would be included in the expenses of"members of…families or households ". We should be quite clear about what is meant here before passing this clause, for it is not quite clear as the clause stands. When we were discussing another matter concerning families it was said that there could be some families who were pa trial and some who were not. We should like to be entirely clear on this point.

From what I have said, I am sure that in the immigration community in this country, because of the speeches to which I referred earlier in my remarks, there has been considerable distress and apprehension about this clause. So far as the Government are concerned, I am sure that their intentions are not unreasonable. But the clause, unless it is amended and improved in various respects, could leave the way open to some restrictive behaviour on the part of a future Administration, if they were prepared to yield to political pressure. Therefore we feel it is essential that this clause should be significantly amended before the Bill leaves your Lordships' House. I beg to move.

3.41 p.m.

LORD WALSTON

May I support my noble friend, and add one particular point which she barely touched upon at the end of her speech? It is with regard to the effect on the immigrant families in this country. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and his colleagues are as anxious as any of us that those who come to this country should feel that they are at home here and are not in any way being persecuted. I am afraid, largely for the reasons which my noble friend has given of the speeches that have been made in another place and outside of it, that that feeling has to a great extent been dissipated, and this repatriation clause is, understandably, looked upon by those who do not go into the full details of it, but simply hear about it from outside, if not as the intention of Her Majesty's Government to get rid of a significant number of existing immigrants, at least as a taking of power by the Government to enable them to do this at any time that they wish. I agree entirely that that is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government, and is certainly not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, but I assure noble Lords that what I have described is the reaction of many immigrants to this country. The acceptance of this Amendment would allay those fears, unjustified though they may be, and make it abundantly clear that this is a clause which is designed to help and not in any way impede or pursue the immigrants with any form of vendetta. I urge the Government to accept the Amendment.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment, but not in quite such mild terms as she moved it. This is one of the shabbiest provisions in the Bill. I cannot believe that such a provision has ever before been put into an Immigration Bill. We all know the politics behind this provision; we know the kind of people which it is meant to appease. We are all being rather careful in not describing these people, or talking about them, but we all know them. The truth is that when an immigrant wants to go home—and I quite understand that after this Bill has been passed it may be that more may want to go home than have previously wished to do so—he saves up, and may apply to voluntary organisations which can help, and he does this of his own accord. Then he goes home to his sunny island, or wherever he came from. This clause can only make community relations worse; it can do nothing to help race relations, and I deplore it. I strongly support my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD BARNBY

The noble Lord, Lord Walston, said that this clause would increase rather than dispel apprehensions about the Bill. I find it hard to understand why there should be so much apprehension about it. I am not quite clear about the mechanics of its implementation, but the bare proposal in Clause 29 is to provide means whereby those who have come to this country and wish to go back to where they came from should be assisted. I was perplexed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, when she used the phrase"to be compulsorily returned ". The whole point is that they should have the opportunity to return, and the Government propose to provide funds for them to go back. With regard to migration, we know that there are a great number of people who embark on such a course—whites or non-whites—and after the first part of the experience they feel they wish to go back to where they came from. It would be logical that we should he as generous as possible so as to enable people to obtain the resources with which to go back. Far from being concerned as to whether too many people will be involved, we all know from the discussions on this Bill that long talks have been carried out on matters which could affect relatively small numbers of people compared with the large migration that has taken place.

I cannot refrain from interpolating now that when I was a young fellow I lived in the United States. I saw 900,000 people a year entering the United States. That is a lot of people. Of course conditions were very different. We all remember the move from Turkey back to Greece—that was not voluntary but was obligatory repatriation. To return to the point, need we be unhappy? We are not short of population in this country. I read the other day that in the past five years 76,000 people were killed on the roads in this country against 122,000 who were killed in the same period in France. That seems pretty substantial warfare on the roads. I am among those, quite candidly, who think we should not be any worse off if we had fewer people in this country. There are those who suggest methods of birth control, and other ways of immigration restriction. We are applying ourselves at the moment to the simple matter of assisting the repatriation of possibly a few people from this country.

For a large part of my life I have been associated with migration—I was on the Migration Council for a long time—from this country to the Dominions. I have always believed that it is good for the country because those people will purchase British goods in the countries to which they go. We have evidence of that in the States and in the Argentine. The records show that of those people who migrated, whether to New Zealand, Australia or Canada, a proportion always wanted to come back. They were un-happy, they thought they had taken a wrong decision. If that happens with white people in the Dominions, surely it is much more certain that a great number who have come to these shores, who find themselves in a country very different from their own, often talking a different language, and with a different outlook, will want to go back.

May I give a personal instance? I was in Bradford, Yorkshire, the other day. I was at the airport and hired a taxi. A non-white was standing there who wanted to get transport to the city. I said to him,"Join me in my cab." So he did. I said,"Where do you come from? ". He said,"I have just come from Jamaica; I have been on vacation "."Had a good time? "."Yes. I'm glad to get back now to see my family, but I should have liked to stay there ". I said,"Are you married? ". He said,"Yes, I have three children ". Then I said,"What happened to your wife and children? He answered,"Of course, I couldn't afford to take them. I just saved enough for my own holiday to Jamaica and the wife and children were put on National Assistance. But if I only had the money or could get it I would willingly take the whole family back to Jamaica. That's where I should like to go." I suppose that is one instance of a great number.

I have already suggested to the Committee that a great deal of time has been taken by a number of these Amendments which would affect a very small number of people. If the noble Baroness is right in suggesting that a great number of people might be affected, I am one of those who would not shed tears. If there are a great number in this country, nonwhites, who are not happy here, it is much better that they should go home, and I should be among those who would genuinely support public funds to make them happy and help them to go back to places where they would be happy. I am very much surprised at the attitude taken by the noble Baroness. When it comes to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, with whom I find myself in agreement on many questions and disagreement on others, I doubt whether he is right in saying that more restriction on this clause would be helpful rather than the reverse.

LORD WADE

After listening to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I can only say that I hope his views do not represent the views of Her Majesty's Government. If they do, I should feel even more disturbed at the inclusion of Clause 29 in this Bill. He referred to a very small number of persons, but I would suggest that this clause has had a considerable effect on the minds of, I think, the great majority of communities from the Commonwealth who are living and settled here. The clause has been interpreted very widely as having been inserted for more sinister motives than would appear from the reading of it. Personally, I think it might well have been better if this clause had not been included at all, as it is clear, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, that it may be used as an instrument of policy.

Most of us in taking part in these debates have drawn upon personal experience, and I can only add to the words of others that in speaking to members of the Commonwealth communities who have settled here—and I am thinking of those who have been settled for a number of years—I find the almost unanimous fear that this is the thin edge of the wedge and is going to be used in a way that I do not think the Government intend at the present time. I hope the clause will be amended if it is not thrown out altogether. I support the Amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady White. An an alternative, there is an Amendment which my noble friend Lord Foot has on the Marshalled List, but certainly I should like at this stage to impress on the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the need for some amendment of this clause in order to clarify the position and remove some of the very real misunderstandings that exist as a result of what has been said outside the House as well as inside as to the purpose of this clause.

LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE

I very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. I had some difficulty in relating it to the clause we are discussing, but one of the beauties of your Lordships' House is that we are allowed to range fairly wide. The purpose of this series of Amendments is perfectly specific. It is to clear away the fear in the minds of immigrants that this opportunity offered to help them to go home is a means of getting rid of them. It is as simple as that. This series of Amendments turns on the fact of those who voluntarily wish to leave. Or, in the words of Amendment No. 113, that no funds are to be made available except to a person applying therefor voluntarily. This is the whole point of this series of Amendments. As things of a kind which most Members of your Lordships' House would not agree with have been widely said and widely publicised, suggesting that the best thing we could possibly do with a large number of our black population is to send them home, it seems extremely important that we should make it as clear as a bell in this Bill that any assistance we give them in getting them home is only given if they want to go. It seems to me that Her Majesty's Government should accept this series of Amendments, or modify the Bill in that direction.

3.57 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I think we shall get the clause right only if we are in agreement about what we are trying to do. I am in close agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has just said. My interest in the matter arose first, as I said on Second Reading, when years ago it came home to me that those who had come to this country from the Commonwealth and, after experience of this country, found they had made a mistake, either because of the climate or their reception or because of difficulty in getting work, or for some other reason, were unable to get assistance to go back to their own country unless they first became destitute. This seemed to me to be absurd, and seemed to be doing no good to anybody; certainly it did no good to race relations. Those people had to hang on in this country with their resources dwindling until, when they had virtually nothing left, what was then the National Assistance Board would help with their passage home. I am sure we all ought to want to bring that situation to an end, and if a clause of this kind is required in the Bill let us have it. There should of course be no compulsion or harassment of anybody to go home.

I know that not so much this clause as earlier speeches of Mr. Enoch Powell have caused dismay. I am bound to say that the principal cause of dismay was produced by people, who ought to have known better, who instantly misrepresented Mr. Enoch Powell's first speech on this subject by saying that he was advocating compulsory repatriation. If anybody cares to read that speech carefully he will see that Mr. Powell never said that; indeed, I think he threatened an action for libel against anybody else who repeated that misrepresentation. I never believed in Mr. Powell's idea of a Ministry of Repatriation, or anything like that, but in my view Mr. Powell and others have been quite right in drawing attention to the future dangers of race troubles if the coloured population in some of our big cities rises, as it seems likely to do, to one-third or more of the whole. Those will be very different cities from what we have hitherto known them to be, and a tremendous amount of tolerance will be required if those difficulties are to be overcome.

LORD O'HAGAN

May I ask the noble Lord on what figures he has based his estimate of some of our cities having a one-third coloured population, and by what date?

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

Nobody can say for certain what it will be. The best means of resolving this problem is by dispersal. The total population of coloured people is extremely small and if they were evenly spread through the country there would be no race problem at all. The real difficulty is that the coloured population is so strongly concentrated in a relatively small number of big centres of population. I myself do not have a solution for this; I do not know how one can effectively encourage dispersal. Nevertheless, that would be a much better solution than any form of pressure on the coloured population to leave these islands altogether.

LORD WALSTON

May I interrupt the noble Lord again to pursue this particular point, which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has just raised, because I am quite sure that Lord Brooke does not want to be misrepresented or misunderstood in any way. But when somebody of his eminence and experience goes on record, as he appears to have done now, as saying that it is most likely (I think those were his words) that in some of our cities the total coloured population will rise to one-third, that is something one can well envisage as making headline news in certain papers and causing a great deal of alarm. Unless the noble Lord has substantial figures and estimates and projections with which to substantiate such a figure, I am sure he would be much happier if it were not put in such a concrete and absolute form as he put it.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I am grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I hardly think it would make headline news because I said exactly the same in your Lordships' House four years ago, and have been saying so ever since. I do not think one can escape the fact. Whether it is 33, 30, 25, 37 or 40 per cent., I do not think anybody can determine with certainty at the present time, but as things are going there is likely to be a situation in which something like one-third of the population in some of our big centres of population will by the end of the century be coloured. I greatly hope not only that tolerance will prevail but also that the coloured population will gradually disperse itself, so that these high concentrations, which are centres of potential trouble unless everybody is very wise, will be diminished. But the right way to diminish them is not by harassing people or seeking to send them abroad compulsorily. There should be an absolute denial from the highest possible authority of any talk that there is to be either compulsory repatriation or any sort of pressure to make them go.

My concern is to see this clause so drafted that it will adequately and successfully provide for the kind of case I mentioned in the first instance; that is, the man or the family who have come to this country, have been disappointed by it, for one reason or another, and feel that they would rather go home but are not in a position to afford to remove themselves there—just as my noble friend Lord Barnby described a little time ago. It ought not to be beyond the powers of Parliament; it ought not to be beyond the powers of the Parliamentary draftsman, and it certainly ought not to be beyond the powers of people of good will so to provide, whether by legislation or otherwise, that this object, on which I think we are all universally agreed, shall be accomplished. If this clause, either amended or unamended, can achieve that object, I should have thought we should all be satisfied and have done a good day's work.

LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD

May I, as a Cross-Bencher who has listened with great admiration to speeches on both sides of the Committee, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, just now, put in one word on the side of those who say that not only do we want this clause to do what the Government say they want it to do—which objective Lord Brooke has so admirably set out—but we also want it to be impossible of being used to do something that this House would not want, which, as Lord Brooke said, was to drive anybody out or harass immigrants if they did not want voluntarily to go. To me as a Cross-Bencher that is the one point that is before us. If the Government can assure us that they will bring forward an Amendment of their own, or will in some other way ensure that the word"voluntary"is used, and if it is made abundantly plain that this clause cannot be used to harass or evict anyone, I shall be very happy.

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

May I say one or two words here? First of all, on Amendment 110 I presume that the noble Baroness, Lady White, means it to refer to the first"may"because the word"may"occurs twice in line 16. Secondly, the noble Baroness and one or two other noble Lords have mentioned the words"returning home ". I must respectfully state that there is nothing about returning home either in the clause as it stands or in her Amendment No. 110, or indeed in her Amendment No. 113. The clause as it stands refers to a person going to a country or territory where they intend to reside permanently ". The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, pointed out that many people may have emigrated here and then made a tremendous effort to save up enough money to return home. A great many people from this country have decided to emigrate to Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Newfoundland or elsewhere, and have then discovered that they are not happy there and so they return home. How much better if Lady Gaitskell's idea were that immigrants could save some money and have assistance to return home so that they do not arrive back in their own country completely destitute! It costs a great deal of money to travel across the seas, and if people do not fit in and want to return home it is only right that they should have the encouragement to do so. In respect of putting people's minds at rest, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, I feel that this clause as it stands would put my mind much more at rest if I were an immigrant in this country. I should realise that there was a chance that if I came here and was not happy I might manage to get some money to help me go back home again. This is the important point of this clause.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, touched on the question of climate. I am certain that many immigrants to this country had no idea before they came how cold it is compared to, say, India, Pakistan, or those glorious islands in the West Indies with probably the mildest climate in the world. They may be thoroughly unhappy here, but because they do not have enough money to go home they must remain. From all that has been said in your Lordships' Committee, from both sides, I ask your Lordships to accept one thing. If people are going to emigrate here they must either mix with us and become part of our society, or go back to where they came from. We cannot afford to have separate little cities of different colours, which I am afraid is exactly the sort of thing that is building up. This is disastrous. We have been told by so many noble Lords how worried they are about immigrants reporting to the police, and how they do not fit in. I feel we should give every possible encouragement to immigrants to mix in our society—except possibly for marriage; that is the only case where I hold some reservations. Lastly, having listened to everything that has been said, may I suggest altering Clause 29 by these few words: In line 19, leave out the words"in leaving"and substitute"voluntarily wishing to leave ", and otherwise leave the whole provision strictly alone.

LORD FOOT

Would the noble Earl look at the Amendment I am proposing. Is that not exactly what he wants?

THE EARL OF BALFOUR

I apologise to the noble Lord, and I think there is a great deal in what he has to say.

LORD FOOT

May I interrupt just to say that it is to my absolute astonishment that I find, when I propose to move this Amendment in a moment, I am going to receive the assistance and support of the noble Earl?

4.10 p.m.

LORD ABERDARE

Before we come to the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, we are now discussing Amendment No. 110, coupled, I understand, with Amendment No. 113, for which it is a paving Amendment. These are identical Amendments to those that were moved in another place. In moving Amendment No. 110 the noble Baroness, Lady White, drew attention to the fact that this particular subject of repatriation had been the centre of a great deal of controversy, and indeed that has been reinforced by what has been said throughout this short debate. To start with, I should like to quote verbatim from the words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on June 17, just for the sake of the record in regard to Government policy: The Government do not believe in the concept of large scale repatriation as an act of policy designed to change the pattern of population in this country…. It would be inimical to a policy of better community relations to give the impression that, by the action and policy of Government, our first purpose was to get rid of the people whom we are trying to make welcome here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons; 17/6/71, col. 697.] We are talking in this clause about what was so admirably described in the opening words of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. We are attempting to provide a social service to help those immigrants who want to go home, who are not happy here but who have not got the means to do so.

LORD WALSTON

May I—

LORD ABERDARE

May I just finish? It is a little early to interrupt me because I have not really got going yet. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that there really are such cases. Several of them were quoted in another place, and I think Members of Parliament who have immigrants in their constituencies would vouch for the fact that there are people who want to go home, but who have not got the means and cannot even save the means to do so. As things stand at present, the only ones who can be helped are those who are destitute, whom the Supplementary Benefits Commission have power to help. It is to allay all these suspicions, and at the same time to accomplish the object which the Government have in view, that my right honourable friend has decided to try to find some independent international voluntary organisation to handle the whole of this social service. The one mentioned by the noble Baroness, the International Social Service, is the one of which we are speaking at the moment.

LORD WALSTON

The noble Lord is very kind and I am sorry that I tried to interrupt him before he had really got going. I only wanted to question him a little further on the quotation from his right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The point at issue as I understand it, and as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and also the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, so clearly put it, was the voluntary principle—that there should be no repatriation unless it were voluntary. The quotation that the noble Lord gave us from his right honourable friend spoke solely of large-scale repatriation—that there was no intention on the part of the Government to have any large scale repatriation. He did not bring forward any evidence to show that his right honourable friend was thinking of voluntary or involuntary repatriation. If he could provide a quotation to the effect that it would be only voluntary repatriation I would be a little more satisfied.

LORD ABERDARE

I think I gave way to the noble Lord a little too early after all. Of course it is voluntary repatriation that we are talking about, but I will come to that a little later. This is the main reason why International Social Service has been selected. It is a body which, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, we all hold in the highest regard, and it would take the whole of this controversial matter out of politics, I would hope, and make it what it should be—a social service to help those who really need it. If we are successful in our talks with International Social Service—and I am afraid I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that we are still talking to them: there are no snags but the time has not been sufficient to finalise any scheme with them—I hope that this will allay many fears and will help towards what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, was suggesting.

The difficulty with these particular Amendments is that I am afraid they would not help in our dealings with International Social Service or with another voluntary body. They suggest a fairly massive administrative machinery of regulations which would be all very well and quite acceptable if this was to be a Government scheme, but where it is a voluntary welfare organisation such a rigid arrangement of rules and regulations and annual reports would not be right. It would not help us, and it would not help the voluntary organisation. Indeed, it might well deter them from undertaking this very scheme which we have in mind. That is the reason why I am unable to accept the two Amendments, Nos. 110 and 113. But if one agrees, as I hope your Lordships will, that the best way of achieving an aim which I think we all have in mind, and the best way of allaying everybody's suspicions, is by putting the administration of this scheme in the hands of an independent voluntary organisation, I suggest that it is not right to saddle that voluntary organisation with a lot of rules and regulations. May I now answer two small points that the noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me specifically?

LORD ROBBINS

Before the noble Lord does that, would he perhaps answer a question which I think is directly on the point he is now making? What he has said already has persuaded me—if I needed persuasion, which I did not—that he and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench are entirely in harmony with the sentiments which have been expressed in all parts of the House. What I do not quite understand is the objection to inserting somewhere the adjective"voluntary ", so that this can be pointed out to those unfortunate, simple-minded members of the coloured community who think that somehow they are being"got at ".

LORD ABERDARE

I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has said and I will try to come to that point, which of course is bound up with the next Amendment.

LORD FOOT

If the noble Lord will indicate that he is going to accept my Amendment we could get on with the business much more rapidly.

LORD ABERDARE

I am sorry; I cannot give that indication at this moment. May I quickly answer the two points made by the noble Baroness, Lady White. The first is that such assistance would be available to any person who wished to settle permanently in a country other than the one from which he had come originally. The second point is that the head of the household must be non-patrial but members of his family could be patrial; in other words, that children who were born here, if the family wished to take them also, would be eligible for assistance.

Perhaps after what has been said I really ought to answer something of what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and others have said, although it does trespass slightly on what I was going to say about the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. This proposal to add a few words to the clause, particularly the word"voluntarily ", was in an Amendment put down in another place, although it was not selected, and my right honourable friend has given it extremely careful consideration. As I have indicated to your Lordships, I do not think there is anything between us anywhere in principle on this matter. But we really feel that there is not any very great need to amend the clause as it stands.

The clause itself contains no power to compel anybody to do anything; it is entirely a permissive clause. Assistance can be offered only to those who desire to have it, and even in the unlikely event of a most illiberal Home Secretary having office the clause would still give him no powers to force non-patrials to leave. The real difficulty is that there is no compulsion in this clause and, therefore, there does not really seem any need to alter it. The Home Secretary of the day is responsible to Parliament for his actions. The present Home Secretary is going to put matters in the hands of a voluntary organisation so that power is removed from any pressure groups. Any other action that might be taken in the future by any other Home Secretary would necessarily mean taking that power away from the voluntary organisation, and that of itself would be very clearly a matter in which Parliament would be vitally interested.

We believe that, in view of the fact that there is no power of compulsion in this clause, that it is entirely a voluntary offer of help, that it will be in the hands of a voluntary body and that the Secretary of State will be responsible to Parliament for its administration, there are already adequate safeguards here and that it is not necessary to add anything further.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

Before my noble friend sits down, can he explain to your Lordships why, if this clause can only be used to help people who voluntarily wish to leave and if that is the intention of the Government, the word"voluntary"should not be somewhere inserted?

LORD FOOT

I very much welcome that intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, because that seems to me to sum up the whole point that we are discussing here to-day. There are two issues, as I understand it, before the Committee on this Amendment and on this clause. The first of them is the issue as to whether the Government are right in providing that public funds shall be made available to people who want to go back home or to some other country. There are a few people who dissent from that. For myself, I think it is right that the Government should provide money to enable people to return home if indeed they voluntarily want to go. I accept that, and I think that the arguments for it are really overwhelming.

I think noble Lords on all sides of the House are agreed that no pressure should be brought to bear on people to go home; that they should go home only if they want to go home. I think this represents the general view on all sides of the House. The only remaining question is whether there is some way of writing it into the Bill, into this clause, and is it indeed desirable to do so? As to whether it is desirable to do it, I suggest that we are back on the same argument that we had on the first Amendment moved from these Benches at the beginning of this Committee stage; the Minister will remember what we were urging then. We were saying that the Government have said over and over again that they do not intend anything in this Bill adversely to affect the status or rights of the Commonwealth immigrants already here, and the purpose of our Amendment was—and this was the only Amendment which I think we succeeded in getting, because it received support from all sides of the House—to say,"If it is your intention, what harm is done by writing it into the Bill, thereby allaying the fears, possibly groundless fears, of so many of the immigrant community? ".

The point this afternoon, as I understand it, is precisely the same. The Government have said over and over again that they do not want to pressurise anybody; they do not want anybody to be induced to leave unless they really want to go. The question which we have to resolve this afternoon in these Amendments is whether it is right and the sensible thing actually to write it into the Bill. The way proposed by the Amendment we are now discussing the Minister says that there are objections to, because it raises up a superstructure of rules and regulations and that therefore practically and administratively it is undesirable, if that is so, none of those objections can be raised against my Amendments when we come to them, because they do not propose any superstructure of rules and regulations, but merely that we should write the word"voluntarily"into the clause; that is all. The answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is this, as I understand it,"Well, it is not really necessary, because there is nothing in this clause which talks about compulsion; it means voluntarily ". If it means voluntarily, why not say so?

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

I find the Government's reply very disappointing at a moment when there seems to be widespread agreement about two things in your Lordships' House. The debate has revealed widespread agreement that it is desirable that people who want to go home should be helped to go home before they have become destitute in order to get home. The debate has also revealed widespread concern not only that the law should concern voluntary going home, but that it should be made abundantly clear to the general public that the voluntary principle is there. It seems very odd that there is an unwillingness to write that into the Bill by two or three words. I believe that in itself the reluctance to do so causes unnecessary misgivings, and will do so in a wider public.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

May I thank my noble friend for his answer on this very important point. He certainly reassured me as to the Government's intentions. The point which is being pressed upon him now from all sides is purely a matter of presentation. I speak of the point in Lord Foot's Amendment, as we are now dealing with a general debate on the whole clause. I wonder whether my noble friend would be good enough to agree to take this back and look at it again before Report stage. It is purely a matter of presentation. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that the general public do not understand this point, and if we are not going to alter the substance, putting in some such words as Lord Foot's would be a very great help, I am sure, to get over to the general public the very sentiments my noble friend expressed when he was explaining the Government's intentions. I ask my noble friend to be kind enough to take it back and look at it again before Report.

4.30 p.m.

BARONESS WHITE

We have had a debate which has shown how necessary it was to discuss this particular clause, because we have given voice to anxieties which I think have been felt in all quarters of the House. May I first refer to our own Amendments? I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that these discussions with the International Social Service are still proceeding and he is not therefore able to tell us very much about it. I appreciate also his point that our Amendment, as it stands, would perhaps be over-elaborate for its purpose. On the other hand, I am sure that he will understand that we are anxious to know what exactly is to be the relationship between the Home Office and this particular body, or any other bodies that might in the future be employed for such a purpose, and exactly who is going to handle the money, and on what basis and on what principle of accountability to Parliament, and so on. As, plainly, it would not be fair at this point of time to press any such matter, I shall in a moment ask the leave of the Committee to withdraw our Amendments, because I do not think it would be opportune to press them now. I think we might return to this subject on Report, when we may hear more from the Government as to what precisely their arrangements are going to be.

On the point which surely we all agree is the main one, and which really arises under the next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I would strongly urge my noble friends to support that Amendment. It seems to me that we ought to make it quite clear to the public that we feel this is something that should be put into the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said, perhaps one may regard it as a matter of presentation rather than principle, but I think some of us go further and regard it as a matter of principle. We feel that it should be made abundantly clear and positive that there is no intention to coerce. I do not believe for a moment that there is, but if there is no intention to coerce what possible harm can there be in making it plain, in words, that these provisions are to apply to those"who voluntarily wish to leave "? Having said that, and making it plain that if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, moves his Amendment we shall support it, if necessary in the Division Lobby, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 110.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.33 p.m.

LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 111: Page 28, line 19, leave out (" in leaving ") and insert (" who voluntarily wish to leave ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 111. Some of your Lordships may have observed that a strange thing happened to me just now. When I was turning round in order to pick up this copy of Hansard in order to quote from it, the most reverend Primate mistook me for intending to bring my remarks to an end. There is no need for him to apologise about it, because I regard it as a great honour to be interrupted in that way by the supreme Prelate of the land. I think I can be quite brief now in moving this Amendment, because I only want to add the things that I was going to say if I had not been so nobly interrupted. The point 1 was endeavouring to make was that it has been said over and over again by the Government, both in the other place and here, that they are determined that the provisions of this clause shall only be available to people who voluntarily want to return. I should just like to take up a few seconds of the Committee's time in quoting some of the things that were said on this subject by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on the Second Reading debate, because, if I may most respectfully and sincerely say so, I do not see how this matter could have been expressed better than he expressed it on that occasion. It seems to me to be the expression of a proper and liberal attitude to this matter, and I should like to quote one or two things he said.

First of all, he made the point that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was making, that the Government do not accept any proposals for large-scale repatriation as an act of policy, and so on. Then he went on to say: What we believe, however—and I have some personal experience of this—is that there are circumstances when it is only plain common sense to be able to give travel assistance to an immigrant who himself wishes to depart."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24/6/71, col. 1000.] Later on he said: But what about the man who comes here, who does not settle down, who is not happy even though he may have a job of sorts, whose wife is homesick and who wants to return home…. Is it not desirable to be able to give some financial help towards travel costs when people genuinely ask for it…. Over and over again the noble Lord was emphasising,"We want to make these monies available only to people who really voluntarily want to go home ".

He finished off, when he was referring to International Social Service, by saying that he wanted to make arrangements for financial contributions to be made available under the power contained in this clause: where I.S.S. was satisfied, first of all, that the applicants genuinely wanted to leave and needed help to do so…. Over and over again that has been said. What possible harm is there in transferring those assurances from Hansard and from the noble Lord into this clause of this Bill? That is all that is sought to be done, and in view of the very wide range of support which this Amendment has received in the course of the discussion of the previous Amendment—and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for indicating that she and her friends will be giving their support—I hope that the noble Lord is not going to make it necessary to force this issue to a Division. As a matter of fact, I have a suspicion we might win, but I do not want to win. I should be far more grateful if the noble Lord would give way over this. I do not think any major matter of principle is involved, and it would be a much greater victory if the noble Lord were persuaded by argument rather than if we had to force it to the Division Lobby.

LORD ABERDARE

Naturally I have been greatly impressed by the words that have been spoken and the advice that has been given to the Government from all sides of the House. My noble friends, Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Nugent of Guildford, have been joined by the most reverend Primate and the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I certainly take deep note of what they have said, and if the Committee will allow me, I will take this matter back to my right honourable friend and draw his attention to the weight of feeling in this Committee this afternoon. May I make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about his Amendment. It is a technical difficulty but it is worth drawing attention to the fact that in deleting the words"in leaving"he actually broadens the scope of the clause, and an unscrupulous Home Secretary of the future could make grants of a rather wider character, such as resettlement grants, whereas as the clause stands the payments are limited to the travel expenses of the people concerned. By deleting these words"in leaving ", which limit the clause, he could make it even more undesirable from his point of view. I could not accept the Amendment for that reason. As I say, I have been impressed by what has been said, and if the noble Lord is willing to withdraw his Amendment I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend to everything that has been said.

LORD ROBBINS

May I urge the noble Lord, in making representations to his right honourable friend, to emphasise that what is crucial is not the words,"in leaving"or anything of that sort, but the word"voluntarily ". The argument there is not, I am sure, from any side of the Committee, based on any suspicion whatever of the intentions of the Government. This is a matter of presentation. If any one of us is approached by some unfortunate coloured person who has been bemused by malicious rumours as to the Government's intention, it is true that we can say, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said,"There is no reference to compulsion in this clause. The clause is perfectly innocent of any such intention. Anybody who tells you that is a liar." But how much stronger the argument would be if one could say,"Look at the clause itself. It has the word voluntarily ' in it."

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Aberdare on recognising what is the obvious will of your Lordships. I confess I had hoped, at the beginning of the debate on this clause, that we might reach unanimity. It seemed to me that there was scope for doing so. I cannot think that it is beyond the bounds of human possibility to produce an amended draft for this clause which will meet the main point which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has so admirably expressed. If we can do that on the Report stage, then I venture to think that your Lordships will have done a very good piece of work to-day.

LORD O'HAGAN

In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, very warmly for the assurance and undertaking that he has given, may I raise one more point on this matter of voluntary repatriation? The noble Lord said that the Government are seeking no powers to force non-patrials to leave. I wonder whether I may ask him to include in his deliberations during the Recess a subject mentioned by his right honourable friend during the Twenty-second Sitting of the Standing Committee on this Bill in another place. The noble Lord's right honourable friend was talking about supervised departures—not repatriation, but voluntary self-induced repatriation and this is what I, and I am sure many of your Lordships, would like more information about. He said: …where it has been decided by a court that a young person should be deported we may exercise our discretion and decide that it is a case where voluntary departure under supervision is adequate, rather than deportation. Where the person, say a youngster, has no money, if he is deported one can pay his fare, but if he goes under supervision voluntarily, then without this provision "— and by"without this provision"he is referring to Clause 29— there is no statutory power to pay the fare, although it is done at present by extra-statutory concession."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Standing Committee B, 25/5/71; col. 1303.] I am not of course attributing to the right honourable gentleman any motives other than those which have been attributed to him by the rest of your Lordships. But I would ask the noble Lord to spell out on Report stage whether the sort of procedure that was mentioned by his right honourable friend could be used as a Powellite technique for repatriating people against their will, even though, apparently, it is not intended to do so.

LORD ABERDARE

I shall certainly look into the noble Lord's remarks. Of course, supervised departure is an alternative to deportation. It is used only to help where the members of the family are leaving with somebody who is being deported; or a young person who would otherwise be deported is helped by this method to avoid the stigma that might be thought to attach to deportation. But I shall certainly go into the matter.

LORD O'HAGAN

I just wanted to make sure that that was voluntary, as well as everything else.

LORD FOOT

If no other Member of the Committee wants to speak upon this Amendment, may I say that I am very grateful to the Government for the concession which they have made. At this stage, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BROCKWAY

I am so happy with the result of the earlier discussion that in making my few remarks I shall not press for the deletion of this clause. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has made my speech for me. I regard this matter as a social service, as he emphasised, and my regret is that it is included at all in an Immigration Bill. The fact that it is so included has contributed to the doubts and suspicions that have arisen. At the present time, the Department of Health and Social Security has considerable powers in these respects but they are inadequate. None of us who has any knowledge of immigrant communities doubts that there are among them, for reasons of inability to earn a living, for reasons of health, for compassionate reasons of family association, or inability to acclimatise to our way of life, many people who wish to return, and we should want to assist them in doing so. But I should have sought to urge that this is a matter not for an immigration Bill, but for the type of social service which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has himself emphasised. It might have been possible to extend the powers of the Department of Health and Social Security and speed up their methods, which are now deplorably delayed, in order that this matter could have been dealt with in a way that would not have caused doubt. The noble Lord may wish to comment.

LORD ABERDARE

I wish only to say to the noble Lord that I am back on my familiar ground if he is talking about the Department of Health and Social Security. But the scope for the Supplementary Benefits Commission in repatriating people is very limited. I shall not go into details, because I am sure the noble Lord knows them. There have to be very many conditions satisfied and a man has to be pretty destitute before the Supplementary Benefits Commission can pay his fare. I really think that we are going to get further by working through International Social Service, if we can make an agreement with them, than by any other way.

LORD BROCKWAY

I recognise at once that it is good that we are going to do this through the International Social Service, but there is no reason why it should not be done through the Department of Health and Social Security. If it had been done in that way, the present suspicions would not have arisen. But in view of the happy conclusion to our previous debate, I shall not press for the deletion of this clause.

Clause 29 agreed to.

Clause 30 [Return of mental patients]:

4.49 p.m.

LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 114:

Page 28, line 33, at end insert— (" (2) Under section 90 of the Mental Health Act 1959 (as under section 82 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960) the Secretary of State shall only authorise the removal of a patient if it appears to him to be in the interests of the patient; and accordingly in section 90 after the words"and for his care and treatment there"there shall be inserted the words"and that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him ".")

The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I hope your Lordships will accept, because it is to meet a point that was made in another place on the Report stage. At column 711 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary undertook to introduce an Amendment of this sort to meet the point that he should authorise the removal of a patient under this clause only where it is quite clearly in the patient's best interests medically to do so. I hope your Lordships will agree that this Amendment meets that point, that the Home Secretary's power should be strictly limited to the cases in which removal appears to him to be in the interests of the patient.

I notice that noble Lords opposite have set down an Amendment following this one, and perhaps I could make a quick comment on that Amendment, No. 115, because there are two points, I think, on which it differs slightly from what I am proposing. One is that it includes a requirement that there should be evidence from two doctors. But I would emphasise that this is not the only type of medical evidence that the Home Secretary will be taking: he will go rather wider than that. He will have to take other expert evidence—particularly as to what facilities exist for care and treatment in the country to which the patient is going to go—so this also has to be taken into account. Nevertheless, on behalf of my right honourable friend I can give an absolute assurance that he will in all cases proceed on the basis of the medical advice tendered to him by those in charge of the patient and will, if necessary, call in independent medical opinion. He has no intention of initiating any action under this clause unless he is first approached by the patient's medical adviser.

The Opposition Amendment would also allow an appeal to an adjudicator. This is another matter to which we have given very careful consideration, and we have concluded that it would not be right to do what is proposed. Since neither the adjudicators nor the Appeal Tribunal would be qualified to reach decisions on matters which primarily hinge on medical evidence, we feel that these are best decided by the Secretary of State in the light of medical advice given to him, including advice about the standard of mental health care in the receiving country. We feel that to allow such appeals to adjudicators would present them with formidable difficulties in the case of mentally ill patients, often coupled with linguistic difficulties. I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment, which meets the commitment entered into by my right honourable friend. I beg to move.

LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE

I think one must welcome this Amendment, but I wonder really whether the clause is worth keeping in. If the Government's promise is properly exercised, I cannot conceive of a single case in which a Commonwealth or United Kingdom and Colonies citizen or patrial could be sent home as a mental patient to his benefit, because the facilities in this country are, in nearly every case, very much better than in the countries from which these people have come. The form of mental illness which is most common nowadays is of the kind that yields to treatment, so that most persons concerned are people who will get better if they are properly treated; and as they will be better treated here than anywhere else, there seems to be absolutely no case for sending them away in their own interest. But I do not want to be difficult about this. I think the noble Lord has given a very full assurance which we can accept. I would only point out that I think very few people will be sent away if the assurance is acted upon.

LORD O'HAGAN

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, remarked the other day how silent I was being on the Committee stage of this Bill. I took that as an invitation to speak more frequently, and I hope that the noble Lord is not regretting it. All I am going to say now is that I am authorised by the National Association for Mental Health to say that they like the Government Amendment. Whether they would like the Opposition Amendment even more, I do not know; but they like the noble Lord's Amendment.

LORD ABERDARE

I am very grateful to both noble Lords. I think the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, is that it will involve very few people indeed. Under the existing power something like eight foreign nationals are removed each year. They really are very much happier sometimes to go home, and it also speeds their treatment just because these people who are mentally ill very often recover very quickly at home, provided that the facilities are good. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I hope that when he speaks in future he will be equally helpful.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 30, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD BROCKWAY

Again, I have only a few words to say on this Question. My desire to see this clause deleted is on the same grounds as I put forward on the previous clause: that I regret to see it included in an Immigration Bill. It is a matter of health, and it would have come much more naturally, and without arousing any suspicion, if it had been a subject for the Department of Health and Social Security. It is an intensely personal and an intensely sensitive matter, and I would have hoped that the welfare officers, many of whom are very experienced, who would be reporting to the Department of Health and Social Security would have been the source of initiative on decisions in this matter. I do not entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Donaldson has said, although his argument would rather favour my proposal for the deletion of this clause. I do not entirely agree with him, for this reason: from my own experience I have found immigrants who were suffering from mental illness when the cause of that mental illness was the conditions under which they were living in this country and the different way of life in this country from the way of life to which they had been accustomed. Because of that. I feel that it might be desirable, and help their recovery, if they did return home. My regret, I repeat, is that this provision is included in an Immigration Bill, which in my view gives a wrong impression of the purpose which we have in mind. Again, if the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, wants to make a comment. I will withhold my objection. The noble Lord indicates that he does not wish to do so. I do not press my objection to this clause.

Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 31 and 32 agreed to.

Clause 33 [Interpretation]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HATLSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE) moved Amendment No. 116: Page 30, line 29, leave out from (" means ") to (" adopted ") in line 31.

The noble and learned Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend I rise to move this Amendment. I am afraid that this and the next one are rather dull little Amendments. Amendment No. 116 is paving for No. 117, and is rendered necessary because there was a race between Section 4 of the Adoption Act 1968, which has not yet been brought into force, and the coming into law of this Bill. A commencement order has not yet been made for Section 4, but it is likely that the section will be brought into force some time this summer; that is, probably before this Bill becomes law. Once one has accepted this as a probability, the two Amendments become drafting Amendments, necessitated because of this fact. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move Amendment No. 117.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 32, at end insert (" or by any adoption specified as an overseas adoption by order of the Secretary of State under section 4 of the Adoption Act 1968; ")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.0 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 117B: Page 31, line 20, leave out subsection (5).

The noble Lord said: I desire to move this Amendment largely to obtain information. Subsection (5) of this clause reads: This Act shall not be taken to supersede or impair any power exercisable by Her Majesty in relation to aliens by virtue of Her prerogative ". I want to ask what these powers are. The powers which are in the Bill already are so comprehensive and of such detail that I find it difficult to think that any additional powers are necessary. When immigration is to be regulated by the rules under the Bill, why should it be necessary to have extra powers of this kind, powers of which we have no knowledge? Why should these powers be extended by the Royal prerogative?

LORD WINDLESHAM

I think I can answer the noble Lord quite briefly. The prerogative powers in question have existed for very many years. They include the power in the Crown in times of war to intern, expel or otherwise control enemy aliens at its discretion, which is exercised on the advice of the Home Secretary. As noble Lords will know, the power of internment was exercised during the Second World War; its legality was tested in the courts and was accepted by the Court of Appeal. It is possible that these powers might have to be invoked again in some future war—although we hope that such a time may never arrive. The Government do not think it necessary to surrender these powers, which go back many years. We are talking about residuary prerogative powers for the kind of exceptional circumstances which have arisen in this century only on the occasion of the two World Wars.

LORD BROCKWAY

I am relieved to know that this refers only to circumstances of war. I will make this comment. Surely in those circumstances a State of Emergency would be declared which would give this power; and this power would therefore still be unnecessary in this Bill. But in view of the assurances given by the noble Lord I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 [Repeal, transitional and temporary]:

5.5 p.m.

LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 119: Page 32, line 22, at end insert (" and such leave shall not be revoked.")

The noble Lord said: Subsection (4) of this clause reads: A person who at the coming into force of this Act is neither patrial nor exempt under any provision of this Act from the provisions relating to those who are not patrial, but is then settled in the United Kingdom, shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as having been given indefinite leave to enter or remain. The Amendment proposes that there should be added the words: and such leave shall not be revoked ". When on an earlier debate we discussed the word"indefinite"and I suggested that it should be replaced by the word"unlimited ", I withdrew the Amendment; but the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, regretted that I had not pursued the matter further. My reason for not doing so was partly because I was anxious to get to another important Amendment and partly because the noble Lord opposite had drawn my attention to the definition on page 30 of"limited leave ". I am still not absolutely satisfied. In the interpretation clause ' limited leave ' and ' indefinite leave ' mean respectively leave under this Act to enter or remain in the United Kingdom which is, and one which is not, limited as to duration. Does that mean that it can be withdrawn? I am raising this point in order to ascertain whether the position is completely clear. For that reason I am proposing the addition of the words"and such leave shall not be revoked ". I beg to move.

LORD DENHAM

I am advised that this Amendment is not necessary. There is no difference between us on this point, but the Amendment is not necessary because there is no power in the Bill as it stands to revoke an"indefinite leave"to enter or remain.

LORD WADE

I think we are getting into the realms of semantics. In spite of the fact that I am always a little suspicious when the Government say that anything is unnecessary, I will pay heed to the advice and ask the Committee's leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 34 agreed to.

Clauses 35 and 36 agreed to.

Clause 37 [Short title and extent]:

LORD O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 120: Page 34, line 1, leave out (" Immigration ") and insert (" Migrant Workers ").

The noble Lord said: Stimulated by the sudden appearance and the equally sudden disappearance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack I am almost tempted to embark upon a Third Reading speech now to get him back again; but I will restrain myself and speak briefly to this Amendment which is designed to make things clear. I hope it will commend itself to the Committee. Recent immigration Bills have had a marked impact on numbers; this one will not, and the Government have said so repeatedly. I think that many people believe that the words"Immigration Bill"and the concept of an Immigration Bill mean automatically a reduction in the numbers of black immigrants or in the numbers of black people here. In the interests of clarity and in order to help the Government carry out the intention of promoting good community relations, I think it would be helpful for the general public if the Bill were to have a different name, as it is so different in character from previous immigration Bills.

The Bill does not entirely replace the present legislation: the administrative procedures which control numbers and the regulation and registration procedures are not affected. Really the Bill states which classes of persons are here as of right and which classes of persons are not here as of right. It is mostly concerned with those who come here, without security of tenure, to work and without the right to bring in their families. In short, it is mostly concerned with migrant workers. Thus the title"Migrant Workers Bill"expresses both the objectives and the results of this Bill and explains how aliens and most Commonwealth citizens will in fact become migrant workers and nothing else. The title"Immigration Bill"is misleading. It would be both within the spirit of the Trade Descriptions Act and the new style of Government if the title could be altered to"Migrant Workers Bill ". I beg to move.

LORD WINDLESHAM

The title"Migrant Workers Bill"would imply that this Bill provides solely for workers from overseas to be admitted for limited periods only, after which they would have to return to their countries of origin. There is nothing to that effect in the Bill. On the contrary, the draft immigration rules published with it make clear the Government's intention that overseas workers from all countries should he able, as are aliens at present, to qualify for permanent residence after four years' approved employment here. The noble Lord, as he said earlier, has been silent during the Committee proceedings. I think that he was here for a good deal of the time, but he must have had some fairly protracted absences if he thinks that the title of"Migrant Workers Bill"would be appropriate. The Bill deals with the whole structure of immigration control; with the people who are exempt from control and the grounds on which they are exempt, and with people who come here for visits or for any reason other than work. We have spent about two days discussing the appeal system, which has nothing whatever to do with work permits and migrant workers. The Bill consolidates and continues the immigration appeal system set up under the 1969 Act while making some changes. It deals with the whole question of deportation and with criminal proceedings. How could we have deportation in a Migrant Workers Bill? No, my Lords; this Bill is what the Government said it would be a comprehensive review of the law, temporary in character as that law is at the moment, which has been written on to the Statute Book in the course of over half a century. I think that the existing Title of the Bill is more appropriate.

LORD O'HAGAN

I thank the noble Lord for giving a serious answer to my Amendment and giving me such a kind and magisterial lecture on the merits, as he sees them, of the Bill. I have a little lecture which I have stored up for Third Reading, in which I explain what ought to be in a proper Immigration Bill, but for the time being I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Registration as citizen by reason of residence, Crown service, etc.]:

5.12 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment. No. 121A: Page 35, line 37, leave out from"(Kingdom ") to end of line 39.

The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment would be to remove he requirement of residence without conditions for five years as a ground for registration as a British citizen. I do not intend to make the argument long. Surely, if residence has been continuous, it is irrelevant whether conditions have been imposed during that period. Is it really necessary to have this condition? I beg to move.

LORD WIN DLESHAM

In rising to reply to this Amendment I think I really must regiser a protest. This Amendment is the first of 33 Amendments which were tabled yesterday and appeared on the Sixth Marshalled List for the first time. We know the noble Lord's interest in this subject and we are always ready to discuss with him and answer his questions on matters about which he feels strongly, but I feel that to put down, not just one or two, but a complete set of 33 independent Amendments the night before puts a great strain on those who are trying to make sure that the noble Lord has a full and accurate answer, apart from anything else.

LORD BROCKWAY

I recognise the strength of what the Minister has said. I have already paid tribute to the way in which he has conducted this Bill. I would just say this to him. Those of us who are Back Benchers do not have the service which he and the Government and some other Members of the House have, and it has been extraordinarily difficult during the proceedings on this Bill to prepare all the Amendments and briefs in favour of them. I regret very much that these last Amendments to the Schedules have been put down so late. This was not because of any deliberate intention, but because on previous days I was so much involved in the other issues before the Committee. I assure the Minister that I have no intention of being unfair in this matter or unsympathetic to him or to the civil servants who have had difficulties as a result.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I will not pursue this matter any further. Of course I accept what the noble Lord has said. In reply to the Amendment which he has just moved, the present situation is that Commonwealth citizens are entitled to be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies on completion of five years' residence in the United Kingdom. Under the Bill, they will be able to apply for registration after five years' residence, but registration will be at at the discretion of the Secretary of State. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 makes transitional provision whereby Commonwealth citizens resident at the end of July 1971 are to be entitled to registration on completion of five years' residence free of conditions.

This Amendment seeks to provide that in these transitional cases there is to be an entitlement to register on completion of five years' residence whether or not any part of that time is spent subject to conditions. The Schedule is another example of where the Bill provides safeguards for Commonwealth citizens. There is an automatic entitlement to acquisition of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, when five years of residence free of conditions ends. The Amendment is based on the view that, provided residence has been continuous, it is irrelevant whether or not conditions have been retained on the person concerned. But this seems to miss the point; it is only when a person's conditions have been cancelled that he can be said to be accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom. The Amendment would, for example, give an automatic entitlement to registration to a person resident here at the end of July 1971 who had succeeded, by various temporising devices, in spinning out his stay for five years, notwithstanding that at no point had he ever been accepted for permanent settlement. The Government do not accept that such a person would be appropriate for registration as provided under the Schedule.

LORD BROCKWAY

I thank the Minister for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.20 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 121B: Page 37, line 5, leave out (" may ") and insert (" shall ").

The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, may I speak also to Amendments Nos. 121C and 123A, which deal with a similar point. This Amendment is designed to give the right of registration irrespective of national origin. Amendment No. 121B, which is now before the Committee, removes the Secretary of State's discretion in regard to registration, and makes this automatic provided that the individual has been here continuously for five years and has enjoyed the relevant employment. Why necessarily should there be doubt about this, and why are the qualifications which are in the Bill necessary? I beg to move.

LORD WINDLESHAM

The current position is that an alien may apply for naturalisation after five years' residence, the decision being at the discretion of the Secretary of State. A Commonwealth citizen is entitled, as I explained on the last Amendment, to registration after five years. Under the Bill, leaving the transitional cases which we debated on the last Amendment on one side, Commonwealth citizens are brought broadly into line with aliens, their registration becoming a matter for the Secretary of State's discretion. This Amendment seeks to provide that any person, whether an alien or a Commonwealth citizen, shall be entitled to registration on completion of five years' residence without any discretion in the Secretary of State to refuse the application.

The Amendments would seem to us to be defective in applying registration to aliens, since registration is a procedure which applies only to Commonwealth citizens. But this technical defect apart, the Amendments would not be acceptable in substance, since they would seek to reverse the decision which has already been taken by your Lordships and by Members of another place, to the effect that registration for Commonwealth citizens in future is to be discretionary. They would also be unacceptable, in the view of the Government, in that they would give aliens an automatic entitlement to registration on completion of five years' residence. It is the verb"may"in paragraph 5(1) which introduces the discretion, and the conditions that have to be fulfilled are set out in heads (a) to (e) of that sub-paragraph.

BARONESS WHITE

Did I hear my noble friend say that he was proposing to move Amendment No. 121C as well?

LORD BROCKWAY

Yes.

BARONESS WHITE

That being so, if by any chance that Amendment were carried, Amendment No. 122 would be subsumed under it. So perhaps it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I discuss Amendment No. 122 at this point. This is one of the conditions included in those which will be required in future for Commonwealth citizens who wish to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies; it refers to"sufficient knowledge of the English language ". I raise this point for two reasons. One is to ask the Government about their attitude towards the Welsh language. This is not a purely frivolous point, because the Welsh language is recognised by statute in Wales as being of equal validity with English. Therefore it seems to me perfectly proper that in a situation of this kind the Welsh language should be regarded as having equal validity with English; and if we are to make any conditions concerning knowledge of language, anybody who has sufficient knowledge of the Welsh language would surely be entitled to be registered as almost anything. It is an extremely difficult language to learn.

But there are Welsh persons living in communities in various parts of the world where Welsh is maintained as the family language. Some years ago, a relative of mine came back to this country from Patagonia; he could speak only Welsh and Spanish, and had no knowledge at all of English. His father had been born in the United Kingdom, but he had been born in Patagonia. There are other Welsh communities in various parts of the Colonies where it is reasonable to suppose that the children would have been brought up with Welsh as the language of the home. As the Welsh language is, as I have said, recognised by statute as having equal validity with English in the Principality of Wales, and as these conditions apply to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, it seems to me that we ought at a later stage to insert a reference to Welsh as well as to English. I do not think that would cause undue difficulties. I hope that the Government will take notice that we may wish to do this.

I turn now to the words"sufficient knowledge of the English language ". We should like some further information as to how the Government propose to deal with this matter, because I think it is causing a good deal of concern in certain quarters."Sufficient knowledge"is not an easy term to define. Sufficient for what? Sufficient to shop in the supermarket? Sufficient to go to the post office? Sufficient to claim sickness benefit? Sufficient to carry on a philosophical conversation? There are so many degrees of"sufficiency ", according to the circumstances in which the language is to be employed. I think we should have some indication as to what sort of standards are to be applied, and who is to apply them; and also what steps the Government might he taking—although obviously they would not be referred to directly in the statute—to assist in teaching English as a second language to those who come here as adults. I am not speaking of those who are in school, for tuition in English is provided for them. I am thinking particularly of women, who often find it difficult to obtain much knowledge of English because, naturally, they are confined much more to their homes; they do not have occasion, by going out to work, to pick up some smattering of the language.

Before we agree to this condition as being a requisite for registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies I think that we should hear a little more from the Government as to how they propose to deal with it. I might also say that there are parts of the Commonwealth where English is spoken, but it is a rather different kind of English from that commonly spoken in parts of the United Kingdom—and I am thinking more particularly of the Caribbean. Can we be assured that those who believe they speak English, and in their own eyes certainly do so, will not be put at a disadvantage by any sort of test or examination that the Government propose to conduct?

LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE

I think I am right in saying that we are now discussing Amendment No. 122. If that is the case, I should like to go rather further than my noble friend has done. The Amendment asks that the condition that the applicant for registration should have knowledge of the English language should be omitted. This, I think, is really the point at issue. If there is a qualification of this kind, it is important to see what the point of it is. Everybody, I suppose, would agree that people who come to live here would do well to speak the language. But that is not the issue. The issue is whether it is sound to make it a condition that they shall do so.

One has to visualise that the person who comes here and applies for registration has been here for five years. Whom do the Government say this provision is aimed at? I suppose that any worker would be on a work permit for five years, which means that at the end of the first year he would have had a satisfactory report from his employer (otherwise he could not continue his employment) and at least speaks the language well enough to get on with his work. So it is not likely to be such a man who is involved. I suppose it might be his aunt or his mother. Is it really worth putting in a qualification of this kind for one or two old people? They have probably learned to shop, anyway. It seems to me that we should be clear what we are going for. Is this provision a plus or a minus? I think I have said enough to show that it can hardly be much of a plus. It cannot affect many people whose absence of knowledge of the language would do any harm to anybody. I think we must next consider whether it is a minus. The Community Relations Commission do not like it. They have said they think that it ought to be removed and they do not see the reason for it. On the whole, I can think of no reason for keeping it and of several reasons for keeping it out.

There are two practical reasons for keeping it out. The first was touched on by my noble friend: if you have to satisfy someone that you have a sufficient knowledge of something you have to satisfy a test, and if you have to satisfy a test somebody has to apply that test. At the moment this is done, not very satisfactorily I may say, in the case of students coming in, by immigration officers. There have been a number of cases that have given rise to serious complaints because a student with a short-term permit, who has been accepted by a university, has been turned down on language grounds by an immigration officer. I do not want to go into this at the moment, but I can give noble Lords three examples.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I am baffled by the references made by the noble Lord. We are talking about applications for naturalisation, or registration in the case of Commonwealth citizens, where a language condition has to be fulfilled. I do not see how such a condition could conceivably apply to a student entering this country and having discussions with an immigration officer.

LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE

The only relevance is presumably that the immigration officer will be the person who has to be satisfied.

LORD WINDLESHAM

No. If I may say so, this displays a total lack of comprehension. The provision has nothing to do with immigration officers or the entry of students. We are talking about people who have been in this country for five years, and very often a good deal longer. When the time comes they may decide to take up British citizenship and apply to do so. There is no question of students talking to immigration officers at the ports.

LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE

I accept that with pleasure. It is very much better if that is so; but the noble Lord still has not told us who conducts the examination. I do not know whether he would like to do that now or later. I find it difficult, if there is to be an examination in the English language, to visualise the kind of standard that would give satisfaction. I really believe this to be quite an awkward matter. Secondly, if the standard is not absolutely rigid there is cause for complaint, because people will say,"He passed, and I did not ", and in the long run you are really dropping a piece of gravel into the wheels. You are making it more and more difficult for these people to become citizens in a convenient way. I cannot understand what is to be gained by this action. If I could, I should feel less hostile to it. I feel that there are objections here and the fact that somebody has got to conduct an examination is one of them. The fact that there are no firm standards of examination means that this could he used like a potato riddle—if you have too many immigrants you can make it more difficult, whereas if you have too few you can make it easier. It may never in fact be done, but it would be thought to be done. I think these are great disadvantages and I am unable to see the point of retaining this condition. I should be grateful if this matter could be explained.

LORD GRIDLEY

Might I just put forward this point of view in connection with this Amendment? It seems to me that there is a need that a person who wishes to become a citizen of the United Kingdom should know enough about our customs, our laws and so on, to be able to speak our language. Perhaps my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong about this, but it seems to me that a citizen would have the power to vote in elections. He would be playing his part in the community; he would, we hope, be fully settled and integrated with this country. Therefore I think it would be quite reasonable to have this provision in the Schedule that such a person, before he becomes registered, should have sufficient knowledge of the English language and accordingly I would support this provision. May I say, in conclusion, that it was an essential requirement for many of us who served overseas that in the performance of our duties we should understand the customs and the cultures of the country in which we served and that we should make a very close and efficient study of the language of the country. For those coming to this country, I think this is an essential requirement if they are to share all the privileges, and indeed the responsibilities, of citizenship.

5.35 p.m.

LORD SLATER

I was very interested in the observations and comments made by my noble friend Lady White when she talked about the Welsh language, because we know that the Welsh language is recognised in Wales, although it is part of the United Kingdom. I remember some years ago sitting on a Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Diamond (Jack Diamond as he was then), was chairman. My noble friend Lord Maelor, who was known as Tom Jones at that time, was also a member of the committee. He wanted to know why he could not speak in his own native tongue and why he had not the right to do so. But, to come back to the particular point of speakers of English, there are many forms of dialect; I could myself speak in a form of dialect which noble Lords would be unable to understand. I should be speaking English, though it might not be recognised as English, and it would be divorced from the way in which English is usually spoken, in grammatical terms.

As regards immigrants coming into this country, I have attended many meetings of the Council of Europe, and have also been to Moscow with the Leader of the Opposition; and what I discovered was that the second language, which students now learn at their universities for purposes of travel, is English. The two classified languages in the whole of Europe are French and English. This is what we had in the Council of Europe; so I cannot see any great difficulty regarding immigrants and others coming to this country. There should be no great difficulty in regard to our particular language. I have much sympathy with the ideas expressed by my noble friend Lady White. I have no doubt that, as she said, this point will come up eventually, if not in the near future. It has arisen in Wales, as we have found already, because post offices have Welsh names; there are Welsh stamps and Welsh facilities for the people there, although they are still part of the United Kingdom. It is possible that we may find this spreading to Scotland where, for example, you have the Gaels, who do not speak one word of English yet are connected with the United Kingdom. I certainly wish to support what was said by my noble friend Lady White.

LORD WADE

We have had quite a wide discussion on Amendment No. 122 although we have not yet reached it. It would be helpful—perhaps this is what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is about to tell us—to know how this test is to be applied. I can see many practical difficulties, but we are in the dark until we know how it will be done. In dealing with that there is one small point to which probably I should know the answer. What is the position when a man has been here for more than five years and satisfies all these conditions but whose wife scarcely speaks any English at all? There are a good many cases. Does that affect the position?

LORD GARDINER

Apart from the language we are supposed to be discussing, can the Minister give any indication of the sort of case in which the Secretary of State would refuse naturalisation although all the conditions are met? Is there any real reason why"may"should not be"shall "? Secondly, are these requirements there simply because they have always been the requirements for naturalising aliens and it is many years since anyone really applied his mind to whether any of them was actually necessary?

LORD STONHAM

Having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, I wonder whether there is any justification for including this language requirement at all. As he said, we are considering only people who have lived here, got their living here and worked here for at least five years, and in many cases a good deal longer. It is scarcely conceivable to me that they should have lived here and worked here and got jobs here without having acquired a working knowledge of the language that might not even satisfy an academic but it would satisfy most people. It might even satisfy Welsh-speaking people because the same applies to them. I think they would have to acquire a working knowledge of English. It seems therefore that not only do we want to know why this proviso is in the clause but what is the justification for it. Would it not be much better to meet the problem by deleting it and accepting Amendment No. 122?

LORD WINDLESHAM

If I may take my theme from what the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said, which I thought struck home at the purpose of this part of the Bill, if someone is a citizen of another country and has come to live and work in the United Kingdom, and if after a period of not less than five years—very often more—he decides that he would like to be a citizen of this country, he is taking a big decision. Very often we allow dual citizenship in our law but many other countries do not—it is rather the exception now. The decision will mean giving up his own citizenship or nationality and becoming a full member of our society. Throughout the world I am told that it is a common requirement that there should be a standard of language which the applicant should achieve. I shall come to the question of why that should be so, which was correctly and interestingly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade; but it is a general requirement of citizenship proceedings and applications for citizenship in other parts of the world that there should be a knowledge of the language.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me about the sort of cases in which the Home Secretary decided not to grant an application for naturalisation. There are a certain number of these cases which I see in my Department, and they are difficult ones. These are decisions taken by the Secretary of State, and he is relieved by Statute from the obligation to give reasons, specifically relieved by Statute, and he does not do so. Although there is not very frequently a large number of these cases, when refusals do occur they are normally quite controversial. Someone who has made an application and has been refused naturalisation naturally feels strongly about it and wants to know why the Secretary of State has so decided and why he should be relieved by Statute from giving his reasons. But the grounds for refusal would generally, I think, fall under paragraph (c), that the applicant was not of good character.

LORD GARDINER

I am sorry to interrupt, but what I asked was what were the circumstances in which the Home Secretary would refuse naturalisation although all these conditions were met, because if he does not refuse"may"ought to be"shall ".

LORD WINDLESHAM

I cannot answer that question without notice. I think the quick answer would be that it would be difficult to have a list which was absolutely inclusive and covered all possible circumstances. There would almost always be the probability that something would lie outside that list, although normally I think it would be because one condition was not met. I will look into that point and, having done so, will write to the noble and learned Lord and give him the result of my researches.

Under the Bill, the requirements for registration will be broadly in line with those at present applying to the naturalisation of aliens; and they will be identical on this question of the language requirements. The Second Schedule to the British Nationality Act 1948 requires an alien applying for naturalisation to have sufficient knowledge of the English language. In making registration for Commonwealth and Irish citizens discretionary, the Government think it reasonable to require that applicants wishing to throw in their lot with this country should acquire a knowledge of the English language. I say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that I am advised that for the purposes of this Bill English does not, we think, include Gaelic or Welsh.

BARONESS WHITE

But will it include those languages if we put down an Amendment to that effect? I might pursue this. There is the Welsh Language Act which gives equal validity in the Principality to the Welsh language and that is of some substance.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I will certainly look at that. It is an extraordinary point to come up, and I take it. I only question the last comment of the noble Baroness, that it is a point of some substance. I think it is one that will occur in very few instances indeed, but there is one point, to which I shall come, bearing on that. A fear has been expressed, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said, that this requirement of ability to speak English might be a bar to assimilation, particularly of people from the Commonwealth. But, on the contrary, we believe that the requirement of knowledge of English is, if anything, likely to encourage assimilation. It is a general requirement of most countries that applicants for citizenship should have mastered their language. As to jury service, it is open to the appropriate authorities to satisfy themselves that people selected as jurors can follow the proceedings intelligently and in matters of that sort, as in other aspects of citizenship, a knowledge of the language is a crucial instrument by which these civic privileges and rights may be fulfilled.

The noble Baroness, Lady White, and some noble Lords who have spoken in the debate asked me what the words"sufficient knowledge of the English language"in the Bill amount to in practice, and how the Secretary of State will satisfy himself on this point. This, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner has just pointed out, has for many years been a requirement when aliens have applied for naturalisation. As a result, the Home Office has long experience of applying the requirements. I may say, in passing, that there is a separate department of the Home Office, the Nationality Department, which handles these applications for citizenship from aliens and from Commonwealth citizens. The requirement is not applied in an exacting way. When inquiries are made in the course of an application for naturalisation, the applicant is personally interviewed. Provided that he is able to understand what is said to him by the interviewing officer, and to answer questions and give an account of his life without the aid of an interpreter, we shall be satisfied on this score. Only if the applicant obviously has an extremely poor grasp of the language is a dictation test applied.

As to the knowledge of English required, the applicant is expected to be able to make himself understood for normal everyday purposes. While the detailed arrangements for registration in the future (because what I have been saying applies only to aliens at the moment) have not yet been settled, it is envisaged that the procedure for registration may well be rather less rigorous than that for naturalisation, which involves, for example, placing public advertisements in the Press. It might perhaps be based simply on an interview with the applicant and a check on records, and provided that the applicant was able to make himself understood without an interpreter at the interview this would be the end of the matter, so far as knowledge of English was concerned. The requirement of knowledge of English will not apply to any Commonwealth citizen who at the end of July, 1971, was lawfully in the United Kingdom and ordinarily resident here free of conditions. The position of such a person is safeguarded under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1; he will continue to have an absolute right of registration on completing five years' residence without having to satisfy any requirement as to knowledge of English.

May I now come on to the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about wives? If it is accepted that it is reasonable to expect heads of families to acquire a knowledge of English if they wish to register and so acquire our citizenship, it may nevertheless appear unreasonable to expect their wives to acquire a second langauge, since they may not have the same opportunities to learn from English speakers as their husbands and children will. We can satisfy the noble Lord on this point because once the husband is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—in other words, if he has been accepted by this process of registration—his wife will have an automatic right to register under Section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act 1948, irrespective of the length of her residence, her character or her knowledge of the English language. This automatic right is not affected by the Bill. The matter of her language ability would not be relevant, although from what I have seen in the Midlands and elsewhere—and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, knows about this from his experience in Yorkshire—local education authorities and community relations councils are making considerable efforts among the wives, especially of Asian families, for small groups of four or six people to meet together in their homes to try to help with language teaching and to familiarise people with British customs.

LORD BROCKWAY

We are getting a little confused in our discussion because the Amendment before us is Amendment No. 121B.

LORD WINDLESHAM

Yes; I replied fully because the noble Baroness moved her Amendment No. 122.

BARONESS WHITE

I did not move it.

LORD WINDLESHAM

No. The noble Baroness, quite properly, spoke to the Amendment because it was on a related point. It seemed both to the noble Baroness and to myself that it was as well to have one general debate—and we have had a very interesting one—rather than to take the Amendments one by one.

LORD BROCKWAY

I agree entirely. The last thing I wanted to do was to create more controversy. I want to help by saying that I will withdraw Amendment No. 121B, and I will not move Amendment No. 121C. That means that we shall have Amendment No. 122 before us. May I express appreciation of the contribution which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made on my Amendment? When the Minister communicates with the noble and learned Lord would he also communicate with me about the conclusions of his inquiry? I beg leave to withdraw No. 121B.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 122: Page 37, leave out line 12.

The noble Baroness said: We have had a full discussion on this Amendment. In the circumstances, I will refrain from moving—

LORD O'HAGAN

I wonder whether I may ask a further question of the Minister?

BARONESS WHITE

In that case, to put us in order, I will move Amendment No. 122.

LORD O'HAGAN

I wonder whether I may ask the Minister for a little more detail about the nature of the test so far as character and, particularly, knowledge of English is concerned? I understand that at present in some circumstances a policeman calls at the house and makes an on the spot test of an alien to see whether he fulfils the requirements for good character and knowledge of the English language. Is this procedure going to be extended? Are there going to be special training programmes for people carrying out these duties? What qualifications will they be required to have so far as the use of language is concerned? In short, could the noble Lord outline the practical aspects of the tests? If he has done so already, and I have missed his answer, then I apologise.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I have referred to this matter, but I was speaking rather quickly at the time and was not as specific as the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, would like me to be. I said that the detailed arrangements for the future had not yet been settled and that it is envisaged that the procedure for registration may be rather less rigorous than that for naturalisation, perhaps based simply on an interview with the applicant and a check on the records. The interview may well be at the Home Office rather than with the police, or whatever seems to be the simplest and most straightforward way of making these inquiries. It is our hope that it may be somewhat less formal than the procedure which has applied in the past.

LORD O'HAGAN

I heard that reply on the first occasion and I will not detain the Committee. Will the noble Lord be able to give more details when we get to the next stage of the Bill? Will these procedures have been worked out by then?

LORD WINDLESHAM

I should like to take note of that point; I know the noble Lord's interest in this subject. At whatever time I am in a position to tell him what the proposed procedure is I shall do so, but I should not like to tie myself down necessarily in October.

LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE

I am not happy. We have not had any reason for including this clause. The noble Lord has said nothing to refute my view that there will be practically nobody to whom this requirement will apply after five years. If this is the case, is there any point in having a possible irritant in the Bill?

LORD WINDLESHAM

In the case of aliens, I am afraid that, strange though it may seem, there are people who have been here for five years who do not have a knowledge of the English language. I have seen such cases.

BARONESS WHITE

We have indicated that some of us are not happy about this condition. I do not want to press the Amendment at this point, but should like to consider more carefully what the noble Lord has said. A number of us are not fully convinced that this is really worth the trouble or the apprehensions involved. At this point I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 123: Page 37, line 25, at end insert (" in the Dependencies or ").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends and myself. We should like to know why it is that in certain circumstances"relevant employment"includes work in a Colony or Protectorate, or service in the employment of a society, company or body of persons established in a Colony or Protectorate, but when we come to Crown service there is no reference to Crown service other than in the United Kingdom itself. In the changed circumstances of the Commonwealth, those territories which remain as Colonies and/or Protectorates are few in number nowadays and, with the exception of Hong Kong, are small. As we have taken away from the citizens of those areas rights which they have previously enjoyed, so that there is not very much left for them by way of benefit of being Colonies or Protectorates of the United Kingdom, surely in this relatively small sphere we might include Crown service in the Dependencies as one of the qualifying factors that should be taken into account for registration. I do not want to make very heavy weather of this point. The sort of people one has in mind are the citizens of Gibraltar, and it seems to us that this might be a gesture. In our disintegrating Commonwealth, surely Crown service in one of the Dependencies, not only in the United Kingdom, should be allowed to count for virtue, so to speak, in this field of registration. We should like to know what the Government think of this.

LORD DENHAM

Appendix A to Schedule 1 of the Bill is to form Section 5(1)(a) of the British Nationality Act 1948, and there is a definition of"Crown service"in Section 32(1) of the 1948 Act which is as follows: ' Crown service under His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom '"— which are the words the noble Baroness is seeking to amend— means the service of the Crown under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom, or under His Majesty's government in Northern Ireland, or under the government of any colony, protectorate, protected state, United Kingdom mandated territory, or United Kingdom trust territory, whether such service is in any part of His Majesty's dominions or elsewhere; I think the noble Baroness's worries will be covered by that.

BARONESS WHITE

I am delighted to hear it. The confusing thing in other parts of this Appendix to Schedule 1 is that there is specific reference to employment in a Colony or Protectorate. It is confusing to someone who is not necessarily knowledgeable about the other Statutes, and I wondered whether the Government could not look at this and make it clear in this Bill that the words"in the United Kingdom"mean something very much broader than the words actually say; or if we could have a cross-reference to the Act from which the noble Lord has just quoted it might help. People, community relations officers and the like, will have to be advising immigrants in this country on these matters, and it would help public relations if we could at least have a cross-reference.

LORD DENHAM

I will certainly look at that. I do not know whether one could have a footnote or something like that in a Bill of this kind, but the Amendment from noble Lords opposite would I think do slightly less to cover the point than is done at present.

LORD SLATER

Would the noble Lord inform us what classification will be given, if we join the Common Market, to people who come from various countries to this country? How will they fit in with the Act already quoted to the noble Baroness, Lady White?

LORD DENHAM

I cannot see that it will make any difference.

LORD SLATER

They will not be citizens of the United Kingdom and they are not members of the Colonies or even of the Commonwealth. They belong to other States which are outside and they will be more or less immigrants. They will not have been members under the Constitution which we have always been accustomed to and worked with for generations. How are those people to have the same freedom in this country unless there is special legislation?

LORD DENHAM

This Amendment refers to Crown service under Her Majesty's Government.

BARONESS WHITE

I appreciate the explanation given by the noble Lord, but I hope he will seriously take into account the point I have made in regard to the drafting, to see whether he cannot bring in at least a reference to the other Statutes. In the confident hope that he will do something about it I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Administrative provisions as to control on entry and departure]:

6.5 p.m.

LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 124:

Page 39, line 6, at end insert— (" (5) An immigration officer, for the purpose of satisfying himself whether there are persons he may wish to examine under paragraph 2 below, may search any ship or aircraft and anything on board it, or any vehicle taken off a ship or aircraft on which it has been brought to the United Kingdom.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 124 on behalf of my noble friend. Under the present law, and under the Bill as it stands, immigration officers have no power of search for smuggled immigrants such as customs officers have to search for smuggled goods. Their only power of search (under paragraph 4(3)) relates to passengers and their baggage. The growth in recent years of a traffic in illegal immigrants makes it desirable that there should be the power given by the Amendment to search ships, aircraft and vehicles: the power to search vehicles is particularly needed in dealing with car ferries, where there is always a risk of illegal entrants being concealed in car boots, caravans, et cetera. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 124A: Page 39, line 42, leave out sub-paragraph (1).

The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment very briefly. The point I want to put to the Committee is that in the difficult circumstances of immigrants coming to this country—difficulties of language and of background—to say that refusal on their part to co-operate with an immigration officer should be relevant to refusing entry seems to me to be going too far. This could easily be due to misunderstanding, maladjustment, tiredness after the journey, strange conditions. I would hope that we would not regard this as a condition under which entry would he refused. That is the purpose for which I am moving this Amendment, and it may save time if I take Amendment No. 124C with it.

LORD WINDLESHAM

In the Government's view it is in general right that a person entering or leaving the country should be obliged to give the immigration officer who examines him the information that the officer needs for the purpose of his functions. Withholding such information only slows down the operation of the control and so causes difficulty not only for the passenger himself but also for his fellow-travellers. The same obligation as appears in the Bill is now imposed by Article 7(2) of the Aliens Order 1953 and also the First Schedule to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962; and its existence has not given rise to serious complaint. Therefore this power has been on the Statute Book for a number of years and immigration officers have not misused it.

The Wilson Committee, which has been referred to several times in the debate, said in their Report at paragraph 162: the impression we have received in the course of our inquiry is that, generally speaking, immigration officers act with fairness and respect for the rights and feelings of the people with whom they have to deal. In questioning people about their intentions and family circumstances, the officers are only carrying out duties laid clown by Parliament. Clause 26 (which relates to this Schedule, as amended in another place) makes it a defence to a prosecution for refusing or failing to provide information that there was a reasonable excuse for the refusal or failure. We feel that this added protection should cover any exceptional cases of the type that the noble Lord may have in mind.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

I will not delay the Committee, but may I say a practical word on this matter as somebody who has suffered? I hope the Government will keep in mind the possibility of allowing a little time lag to somebody who has made a long journey. On one famous occasion I flew all the way from Sydney, in Australia, to London, pretty well without a break; I had been practically all round the world, having had cholera injections and so forth. I arrived at London Airport, and a careful medical officer noticed that my vaccination card had not been stamped months previously in the city of Stoke on Trent by a little wench behind a counter. I was tired; I had been flying for 36 hours. I was hungry, dusty and dishevelled. I did not want to"pull rank ", for I like to be treated as anyone else is. However, he said to me,"Why haven't you done this and why haven't you done that?" I felt like exploding, and I said that I was tired. In the end I co-operated by pulling up my shirt sleeve and saying to him,"Make another hole in my arm." Those who are the least irate of people sometimes need time when they arrive in a foreign country, and I hope that some kind of provision to cover that situation will be made, so that the human situation is covered for people arriving in a strange country from afar. That is all I would ask the Minister.

LORD WINDLESHAM

That is a very reasonable request. The Immigration Service tries to operate on exactly that basis. There is a power whereby, if the immigration officer decides on the face of it not to admit somebody, the person can be held at the airport so that he can go to bed for the night if, say, an interpreter is needed, or if a friend or a solicitor or somebody of that kind is coming to make representations. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, is with us. His service comes into play here. The United Kingdom Immigrants' Advisory Service has counsellors at the ports who are there to help in these difficult cases. As I have mentioned previously, as a matter of practice no immigration officer on his own authority refuses entry to anyone into this country; the matter has to be referred to the chief immigration officer. But I entirely take the spirit of what the noble Lord has said, and it would not be challenged by the Immigration Service.

LORD BROCKWAY

In view of what the Minister says I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment. I shall probably be worrying him, as he anticipates, about the way in which these assurances are dealt with.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.15 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 124B: Page 40, line 12, leave out (" appearing to the immigration officer to be ").

The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will see at the top of page 40 of the Bill a description about the procedure followed on the examination of an immigrant arriving in this country. Subparagraph (2)(b) refers to a person, conveying documents of any relevant description "; and"relevant description"is defined as: any description appearing to the immigration officer to be relevant ": My Amendment would delete the words"appearing to the immigration officer to be ". I seek that deletion on the grounds that it is a very unsatisfactory phrase which is indefinite and bad to have in an Act of Parliament. I would urge upon the Committee that if this phrase were deleted the clause would not suffer and there would not be this suggestion of the right of the immigration officer to decide this issue in a subjective way. I beg to move.

LORD GRIDLEY

In answer to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I personally have had some experience overseas in a customs and immigration service of knowing what is required by persons entering any country; and this must equally apply to entry into the United Kingdom. If one wishes an immigration service to carry out its duties, the first requirement is obviously to obtain officers and members of that service of the highest qualities, capabilities, integrity and honesty. I am quite sure that in this country the members of the present Immigration Service—the officers at the ports of entry—are of the highest calibre. If we want to administer any Act and carry it out dispassionately, and in the interests of people coming here and of our own citizens, then we should obviously take care to ensure that we have the right people in the right place. I personally feel that, although the noble Lord has always exhibited so much interest in our overseas friends and people who come from the Commonwealth—indeed in anybody who is coming to this country—he is seeing behind this requirement difficulties and anomalies which do not exist. If we wish to administer such a Bill we must necessarily give these powers of discretion to the immigration officers, and I can see no objection to this provision remaining as it is.

LORD SOMERS

May I add to what my noble friend has just said? If it is not to be the immigration officer who decides what is relevant, then who does decide?

LORD STONHAM

I suggest that it is far better if the immigration officer does so decide. We have already agreed to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, which gives the officer very considerable powers and responsibilities as regards search and investigation. We agreed to that without a whisper simply because of our confidence in immigration officers—a confidence that is very well founded. I am extremely sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lord Brockway in this matter, but when I first read the Amendment I thought it was to insert the words concerned, and I felt that it was very good. Now that I realise we are asked to leave out these words, I feel, and I am sure that anyone who has had experience of immigration officers also feels, that we should be well content to leave them to decide in their judgment what papers or documents are relevant. I hope that we shall keep the provision in the Bill.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his support and I will pass on what he said about the Immigration Service to the Chief Inspector, because I know, in view of his own connection with the Service and his long tenure at the Home Office, that that comment will be particularly appreciated. Here again, these are features of the present law going back to 1953 and 1962. The subject was discussed at some length in another place in 1962 when a similar provision of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act was amended, and welcomed by spokesmen on both sides of the House in its final form as being a reasonable accommodation. The words"appearing to the immigration officer to be ", which Amendment No. 124B would delete, are needed because it is right that the power to ask to see documents should depend on the officer's assessment of their relevance as it seems to him at the time. It may be that when his examination is concluded, and he has a more complete picture of the facts, it will emerge that the documents were not as relevant as they seemed to him when he first started it. But it would not be right in those circumstances to say that he in asking for the documents had exceeded his powers.

BARONESS GAITSKELL

Although there can be no reflection on the difficult task of immigration officers in these cases, it seems to me that these words in a legal document are open to objection. I do not know what other words could be used, but such loose and fluid words as"appearing to the immigration officer to be relevant"become very subjective and it would be a good thing if other words could be found to replace them.

LORD BROCKWAY

I think the Minister knows my intention. I do not wish in the least to criticise the Immigration Service. He was kind enough to say the other day that he would pass on to them what I had said, just as he has now done in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I was not directing attention to the immigration officer. I was directing attention to the word"appearing ". The criticism would be just as strong if it were"appearing"to a group of Members of Parliament, or to a group of Members of the House of Lords or, I would even say, to the British Lions Rugby Team.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

Oh no, we cannot have that.

LORD BROCKWAY

They are my heroes at the present moment. The entire object of the Amendment is, as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell has said, to find more definite terms which are not so subjective and so vague. I hope that the Minister will look at this before the Report stage, and on that optimistic note I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

I had hoped that the noble Lord would look at this again, and—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!

LORD DAVIES OF LEEK

I am sorry, I will not detain the Committee if the noble Lord has withdrawn the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 124D: Page 40, line 18, leave out from (" or ") to end of line 19.

The noble Lord said: If the Committee will refer again to the Immigration Bill itself it will be found that in paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 2 rights of search are given in the case of baggage which may convey documents that would be illegal. To that one does not object. What one does object to is that this power is given not only to the immigration officers but to a person acting under the directions of the officer. He may not be an immigration officer; he may not be a constable; he may not be a public servant. He is much more likely to be an individual employed by a private agency such as that to which I referred earlier. It seems to me that in this task the State should employ only its own staff and should not employ persons who belong to private agencies. It looks to me as though that is the meaning of the present clause and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's explanation of it. I beg to move.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks. Securicor employees are not in fact used to carry out searches under the present law, and will not be so used under the Bill. The persons who conduct searches under the direction of immigration officers are usually employed by the Board of Customs and Excise, so that they are State employees; but where such a person is not available and a woman or girl has to be searched, the Immigration Service will ask the help of, for example, a police matron or a woman police officer.

LORD BROCKWAY

I am entirely satisfied, and with the goodwill of the Committee I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.25 p.m.

LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 125: Page 40, line 27, leave out from (" with ") to (" proceedings ") in line 28.

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Windlesham, I beg to move Amendment No. 125. Paragraph 4(4) of Schedule 2 in its present form provides that any documents produced by or found on a passenger when examined by an immigration officer may be detained by the officer for up to seven days in any case, and for longer if he is of the opinion that they may be needed in connection with legal proceedings. At the Report stage in another place Opposition Members criticised this provision, and said that an immigration officer should not have power to retain documents in connection with civil proceedings. My right honourable friend promised to consider this point. The effect of this Amendment and the next one is that documents may be retained only in connection with any proceedings on an appeal under this Act or for an offence ". I think that that meets the criticism made in another place. I beg to move.

LORD GARDINER

I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. Possibly I am being very stupid, but I seem to have got this wrong. With these Amendments, will not the second half of the paragraph now read: …and if on examination of any document so produced or found the immigration officer is of the opinion that it may be needed in connection with on an appeal under this Act or for an offence, he may detain it…"? It does not seem to me to work out right. I should not have thought that one would need a document for an offence, but I have probably got it all wrong.

LORD STONHAM

I think we should use the word"proceedings"to make it read: …if on examination of any document so produced or found the immigration officer is of the opinion that it may be needed in connection with any proceedings…

LORD GARDINER

That has been deleted.

BARONESS WHITE

It is the first word,"proceedings ".

LORD STONHAM

No, it is not deleted.

LORD DENHAM

My reading of the words is somewhat different. The words removed were the two words"any legal ", and I think the noble and learned Lord will find that makes sense.

LORD GARDINER

But the word"proceedings"is deleted in line 28.

LORD DENHAM

This is only a drafting point and I will look at it. If the noble and learned Lord is right we will certainly put in a drafting Amendment at another stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 126: Page 40, line 28, after (" Act ") insert (" or for an offence ").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, which is consequential.

LORD GARDINER

With great respect, this Amendment is only consequential in that neither Amendment makes sense. I can understand that one needs a document for proceedings, but what do the words"or for an offence"mean? It really does not seem to me to make sense.

LORD DENHAM

I am advised that the effect of these Amendments would be that documents may be retained only in connection with any proceedings on an appeal under this Bill when it becomes an Act, or for an offence.

BARONESS WHITE

As my noble and learned friend has said, it would be much clearer if it were differently drafted—putting the"offence"before the"Act ", making the sentence read:"on an appeal or for an offence under this Act ".

LORD GARDINER

I should be quite happy if it could be looked at.

LORD WINDLESHAM

Of course we shall study what the noble and learned Lord has said. If the drafting turns out to be not correct, we will certainly come back with drafting Amendments at another stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 126B: Page 41, line 40, leave out (" an immigration officer ") and insert (" the Secretary of State ").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is for the purpose of substituting"the Secretary of State"for the term"an immigration officer ". I think it is worth while reading the present terms, in line 40 of page 41. They are these: Where a person arriving in the United Kingdom is refused leave to enter, an immigration officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (2)… do a whole series of things. I suggest that these powers are too great, too important for an immigration officer, and that instead of the immigration officer"we should here use the term"the Secretary of State ". With all the duties that the immigration officer has to perform, it seems to me that to give him these additional powers would be demanding too much of him. I beg to move.

LORD WINDLESHAM

Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 2 give an immigration officer power to arrange for the removal of persons refused leave to enter and illegal entrants, by giving the captain of the ship or aircraft removal directions. These Amendments, rather like the earlier ones we discussed, are based on the view that immigration officers should not have some of the powers that they do have, and that removal directions should be given by the Secretary of State. I am advised that here again the powers are, in substance, no greater than those already possessed by immigration officers, and that as a matter of practice it is not possible for any one other than the Immigration Service to give removal directions promptly to the carriers in these cases, which occur at any time of the day or night, weekday or weekend.

I think the noble Lord would recognise that even if this Amendment were carried it would not be the Secretary of State personally who would give the removal directions. The directions would be given by officials in the Immigration and Nationality Department of his office. In practice, there would not really seem to be very much difference. As the noble Lord knows, in these cases the Immigration Service are guided both by their own senior officers, and, in very many individual cases, which raise questions of policy, by officials of the Immigration and Nationality Department of the Home Office. So I think in practice there is not a great deal between us, whether one uses the words"the Secretary of State ", to include Home Office officials acting under his authority, or whether one uses the words"immigration officer ".

LORD BROCKWAY

I think there is a difference. The Minister knows that sometimes I come into conflict with a decision of an immigration officer and refer it to the Home Office, and it is always considered immediately and deportation may be deferred. The responsibility of the Home Office is much nearer to the Home Secretary, even if the Home Secretary does not give the decision, than is an immigration officer at the airport, I think. Therefore there is a real distinction between the use of the term"immigration officer"and the words"Secretary of State ". I should like some comment from the Minister on that point.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I really have not got very much that I can add. I think it is really a distinction that seems much stronger on paper than it is in real life. As I said in replying to the Amendment, the Immigration Service are day and night, weekdays and weekends, at the ports, and they are the people who exercise the immigration control. I have given the figures before; last year 14 million people came in through 50 different ports which are permanently staffed day and night by the Immigration Service. So in most cases it would seem right that they should carry out the law. Where there are difficult cases, such as those the noble Lord referred to, which are taken up by Members of your Lordships' House or of another place, they are then invariably examined by Ministers; and when representations are made by others they are examined by senior officials. But one must not get the impression that this is only done where representations are made. If the Immigration Service are in doubt they will refer to the Department for guidance, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, will confirm that there are many difficult cases referred by the Service to the Department. So in practice I think the difference is not quite as much as would appear.

LORD BROCKWAY

I thank the Minister. I did speak from experience rather than from what I read on paper. In view of his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.39 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 126D: Page 43, line 14, leave out from (" leave ") to (" an ") in line 15.

The noble Lord said: I should like to have the attention of the Committee for a moment or two on Amendment No. 126D; it relates to line 14, page 43, and seeks to leave out the latter sentences. These latter sentences refer again to vague phrases—" intentions ","reasonably suspect ", and so on. It is always difficult to judge whether or not someone is intending to do something. This phrase asks only that there should be reasonable suspicion that someone is intending to do something. That again seems to me very vague language for an Act of Parliament. We know that other legislation with the concept of"reasonable suspicion"has been found unsatisfactory, and I would urge that nothing of substance would be lost by deleting these vague sentences. I beg to move.

6.40 p.m.

LORD GRIDLEY

May I make one very short intervention in connection with this matter, and refer again to what I said when I spoke to another Amendment a short time ago. Here again it seems to me that you must give a certain amount of authority to the qualified and responsible immigration officers on the spot, to exercise the powers which Parliament bestows upon them under this Bill. It is up to them to assert what is a reasonable suspicion of intention on the part of anybody coming into this country. If anybody is aggrieved by any action taken by the immigration officer, I understand that there is a power of appeal against any decision made at the port of entry, and in the circumstances this would be sufficient to see that justice was done. That is all I want to say on this particular Amendment.

LORD GARDINER

It had not seemed to me that we could really ask the Committee to re-write Schedule 2 this afternoon. There are always limits to everything, and I suppose that when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or I describe our immigration law as the most liberal in the world, the sort of thing we have in mind is more, perhaps, to be found in Schedule 2 than anywhere else. Immigration officers who are civil servants, can arrest as if they were policemen, and arrest without warrant. Whereas a policeman usually must have reasonable cause to believe a crime has been committed, he can act on suspicion, and even when he is off duty. I hope that in this particular case the Government will consider this point. I appreciate that nobody has really tried to humanise this part of our law. As we all know, it took this extreme form originally because it was passed on the night of August 4, 1914, and it has been re-enacted under Expiring Laws Continuance Bills more or less every year since. That was its origin. Nothing really could be done until one had got a right of appeal, and the real breakthrough came with the Wilson Report, after many had been fighting this issue for twenty or thirty years. The Immigration Appeals Act for the first time provided that somebody could look at what the civil servants were doing, which somebody who was not a civil servant did not know before. There was an independent adjudicator to see what was actually happening.

Having declined eight offers from publishers for my biography, I do not propose to explain how that came about, though it obviously would not have come about if we had not had a Home Secretary who was both interested in civil liberties and a strong Home Secretary, because the pressure of civil servants not to give up powers which all their predecessors had was immense. We recognise now that we are very lucky in having Mr. Maudling as Home Secretary, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of St. Marylebone, as Lord Chancellor, and, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, as representing the Home Office here. If, before we finally leave this Bill, we could cut out some of the worst excesses, it would be something. Here is a man who has done nothing wrong at all, and the immigration officer, if he suspects him, has the considerable power of directing the captain of the ship to take him away. That is that; he is gone. I have the highest regard for the way the immigration officers work, but this really, for any system of law, is a very fierce power when the man has done nothing wrong at all. He has not broken any condition, he has been given leave to enter, and simply because the immigration officer is reasonably suspicious that lie may be going to do something wrong he can order the captain of the ship to take him away to some other country, and that is that. This being such an extreme case, I hope that the Government will be prepared to meet it.

LORD WINDLESHAM

The noble and learned Lord has gone very wide on this Amendment, to paragraph 12 of Schedule 2, which is confined to seamen and air crews. He took this as an example of, as he regarded it, Parliament having given too great powers to immigration officers in the past and continuing them from year to year. I think in nearly all this list of Amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, the power has been not only in the aliens legislation but in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, and that applies here. Paragraph 8(3) of the first Schedule to the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962 is in similar terms.

Very often there is a practical reason behind these particular provisions which it is rather difficult to be aware of just from looking at the words on the paper. It is my responsibility, as it was of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham (who was present in the Committee earlier), when he stood at this Dispatch Box for five years for the same Department, to point this reason out. This Amendment, No. 126D, and the two after it, 126E and 126F, which really have a cumulative effect, would delete from paragraphs 12(2), 13(2)(a) and 13(2)(b) of Schedule 2 the words, or is reasonably suspected by an immigration officer of intending to do so ". The provisions affected are those which empower an immigration officer to give directions for the removal of a person who, having arrived to join the crew of a ship or aircraft, overstays the time allowed to him for that purpose; or having arrived as a crew member, overstays shore leave; or having arrived as a crew member, overstays a limited leave given to him for the purpose of joining another ship or aircraft or for the purpose of hospital treatment or for repatriation by the shipping company; or who is reasonably suspected of intending to overstay. Noble Lords who have looked at the Schedule and the Bill itself will know that there are certain special categories of immigration control for the crews of ships and aircraft. They are, after all, in a different position from visitors and other passengers intending to enter this country. The crew of an aircraft or a ship do not intend to remain in this country, and do not intend to land for any purpose other than perhaps to spend a period of a few hours; so our immigration laws make special provision.

It has been suggested that the concept of"reasonable suspicion"is one that confers too great a power on the immigration officer. I do not know how far one can really counter that argument. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on at least two previous measures before your Lordships (the Misuse of Drugs Bill, and the Fire Precautions Bill), arguing very strongly for the insertion of words of this kind, that people should act only on"reasonable grounds"or on"reasonable suspicion ". The word"reasonable"is one I know noble Lords felt very strongly about. We have that word here in the Schedule before us. It appears in the formula,"reasonably suspected "—not just"suspected ", but"reasonably suspected by an immigration officer ". What would be lost by these Amendments, if they were accepted, is the power of the Immigration Service to forestall desertion by a seaman by taking action before the due date of departure to ensure that he sails on his ship. Once a seaman has remained behind after the ship on which he was due to go has sailed, there are often, understandably—noble Lords will appreciate this—great practical difficulties in then effecting his removal. The owners of the ship may be overseas; they may have no agents here; the shipping line may be one that very rarely sends vessels to this country.

It is for practical reasons of this kind that the power exists in the present law (in the Aliens Order 1953, Article 9(1), and as I mentioned in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner—in Schedule 1 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962) to give removal directions in respect of a seaman who is reasonably suspected of intending to overstay. The exercise in the past of this power to I take preventive action has not given rise to complaint and the power, it seems to us, is still needed. I hope that noble Lords will find this explanation of the practical need for a power of this sort helpful, and that it may meet the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in putting down this Amendment.

LORD GARDINER

My noble friend Lord Brockway will decide what course to take, but I should have thought the noble Lord might have said that he really would consider all these"reasonable suspicion"cases. I quite agree that with crime as it is, and with overworked police, obviously there is a lot to be said for sending somebody to prison, not because he has done anything wrong, but because a policeman reasonably suspects that he is going to do something wrong. But none of us would stand for that for one moment. I cannot see any real moral distinction between that and saying,"It is handy for the immigration officer to be able to put somebody on a ship and pack him off on reasonable suspicion, because if he deserted and committed an actual offence he would have to be fined."

This thought could be applied equally well to all criminals. It would save a lot of trouble if they could be sent to prison before they committed an offence. On the other hand, it obviously would not be just to send anyone to prison merely on suspicion, however reasonable the suspicion was. This is a case in which the man has done nothing wrong. He has not overstayed his leave. All that has happened is that the immigration officer reasonably suspects that he is going to, and to make sure that he does not he pushes him on a ship and sends him off. It is not right.

LORD WINDLESHAM

The noble and learned Lord is at his most persuasive. But really, this analogy of a policeman saying, I reasonably suspect that you may be about to commit an offence and I think you should go off to prison"will not do; it is a ludicrous over-statement of the position. Let us pause and think over what we are talking about. We are talking about the crews of aircraft or ships. For years the immigration laws have made special provision for seamen so that they can land and spend a few hours or days here before their ship sails again, without going through the whole formal process of examination by an immigration officer. I speak subject to correction, but I am not sure that they even need to have a passport stamped. It is made as easy as possible for the crews.

If the immigration officer had, not suspicion, but reasonable suspicion (because it is a qualified phrase) that the seaman was likely to desert or to remain here after his ship had gone this special leave to enter on reasonable grounds would be terminated. This is not a question of punishment or of saying,"You must go to gaol because I think you are about to commit an offence "; it is saying,"I have reasonable suspicion that you are going to desert, and before your ship sails I think you ought to get back on to it."

LORD BROCKWAY

Before the Report stage, I hope that in quieter retreat the Minister may be able to consider what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.54 p.m.

LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 127:

Page 45, line 13, at end insert— (" Provided that such person may not be detained for a period in excess of seven days unless—

1. (a) a justice of the peace is by written information on oath satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for so detaining him; or
2. (b) in Scotland, a sheriff, or a magistrate or justice of the peace, having jurisdiction in the place where such person is detained, is by evidence on oath so satisfied.")

The noble and learned Lord said: This is an Amendment to provide that persons here referred to could not be detained for a period in excess of seven days unless they were taken in England before a justice of the peace who is, by written information on oath satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for so detaining him: or (b) in Scotland, a sheriff, or a magistrate, or justice of the peace, having jurisdiction in the place where such person is detained, is by evidence on oath so satisfied. I have not discovered the ultimate limits, if any, on the power of an immigration officer to detain people in this regard. It appears at first sight to be unlimited. But it is an ordinary principle of justice, even where people are arrested by the police, that they must be brought before a court within a certain limited time. It is recognised as part of the rule of law in, I think, all civilised countries. Therefore, it seems right, unless the Government have any particular explanation for the present position, that after seven days the detention should not be continued unless a justice of the peace is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for the detention. I beg to move.

LORD JANNER

I should like to support this Amendment, for the very simple reason that it is proper that a person who is detained should have an opportunity of putting his case before an impartial person within a certain time. I am not suggesting for one moment that there would be any partiality on the part of the people concerned, but a person should be able to put his case before a justice of the peace who has reasonable opportunities to decide issues of this sort. We are discussing here the possibility of a person being detained longer than the law allows in other respects, so I hope that this concession will be made.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I think I can meet the points of view expressed by noble Lords by referring them forward to the Government's Amendment No. 131. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we debated Amendments Nos. 127 and 131 together.

LORD GARDINER

I see a possible disadvantage in that course, in view of the time. The debate could be rather long.

LORD WINDLESHAM

I was hoping to satisfy the Committee with what I have to say now about Amendment No. 131, because I think it meets what noble Lords are trying to do by Amendment No. 127. There is one change, but it might be an acceptable one.

LORD GARDINER

But it is rather long, is it not?

LORD WINDLESHAM

What I should like to do, if I may, is to speak for about five minutes. If noble Lords feel that what I have said meets their point, they might then wish to withdraw Amendment No. 127. But if they feel that it does not meet their point, then we can adjourn for an hour for the other business and resume the debate on the Amendment. That would enable us to dispose of this Amendment if what I have to say meets the noble and learned Lord's point, as I hope it will.

The Government's Amendment No. 131 provides that a person who is still detained under paragraph 16(1) seven days after his arrival in the United Kingdom, without his examination under paragraph (2) having been completed, is to have the same right to apply to an adjudicator for bail as is given by paragraph 24 of the Schedule to someone appealing against refusal of entry. For technical reasons, it is necessary to set out very fully in the Amendment separate provisions corresponding to those of paragraphs 26 to 28 about the consequences of bail-breaking (the forfeiture of the recognisance and the arrest of the bail-breaker).

The way in which the Government's Amendment differs from the Opposition's Amendment No. 127 is in that the question of continued detention or release is to be decided by an adjudicator rather than by a magistrate. In other words, having heard the debate in another place, my right honourable friend accepted the case on its merits. But he felt that the most appropriate body of people to consider applications of this sort would be the adjudicators within the immigration appeal system, rather than the magistrates. The adjudicator has special knowledge of immigration control, and we believe that he would be better qualified than a magistrate to assess the need for continued detention and the degree of risk involved in releasing the person concerned before a decision on his admission is reached.

That, I think, is all I need say, since we are now coming up to seven o'clock. We accept the principle. We feel that the adjudicator would be a more appropriate person than a magistrate to decide.

LORD GARDINER

There are a number of points which I should like to raise, if I may.

LORD WINDLESHAM

In that case, I beg to move that the House do now resume for an hour until eight o'clock.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.