Lords Sitting of 19 July 1971

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

SWINCOMBE RESERVOIR DECISION
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, owing to the shortage of water in the Plymouth and South-West Devon areas and to the threat of floods affecting people's homes, livelihood and farms, they will take steps to reverse the decision against the creation of a reservoir on the Swincombe site which could supply the necessary water to both areas and relieve the flood hazard.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): No, my Lords. It is for the river authorities or the statutory water undertakers in the South-West to consider whether they should again seek authority for a reservoir at Swincombe. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State understands that they would probably need another Private Bill. If a Bill came before Parliament with any such proposal it would be up to Parliament to decide.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that somewhat unsatisfactory Answer, may I ask him three supplementaries? First, is he aware that when the Swincombe site was turned down by the Committee, which had not even seen it or heard all the evidence, hundreds of people in the 18 other possible sites listed in the Section 14 Survey were put in the position of wondering whether it was their homes and livelihoods that
650
were threatened? How would the noble Lord like to live with the anguish of this Sword of Damocles hanging over his head? Secondly, is he further aware that the latest three"front runners"for reservoir sites in South Devon are on good farming land and are of outstanding beauty, which is more than cart be said for the moorland bog? Lastly, can he take some action to curb the activities of a certain sterilisation society which has already held up water supplies for North Devon for ten years and looks like doing the same for South Devon?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is not for me to comment upon, still less to criticise, the decisions of a Committee of another place; no doubt they had good reasons for the decision they came to. As to other sites, the noble Lord will recognise that this raises issues different from that in his original Question, but if he cares to put Questions down on them I will do my best to answer them. I am not sure to which particular society he is referring, but, of course, societies for the preservation of the countryside and amenity have every right to put their case in inquiries when they are held and to put their case before Parliamentary Committees when they are sitting.
LORD FOOT: My Lords may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the reply he gave to the original Question will give a great deal of satisfaction to all those who are interested in the preservation and maintenance of our National Parks? And may I ask the noble Lord, secondly, whether it is not correct that the Plymouth Corporation had every opportunity of deploying before the Committee of the Commons all the arguments in favour of the reservoir at Swincombe; and, their having deployed them, the Committee turned it down.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I would rather not go further than I went in my first supplementary answer as to the details of what went on in the Committee of the other place.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is not the noble Lord being a little bit distant and relaxed about this subject, and has he not found that local authorities and

651
water boards welcome advice behind the scenes before they start? And is not the obvious answer to combine a desalination plant with a seaside power station somewhere in the South West?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, that may be so, but, as the noble Lord knows, we have the advantage of having the report of the Central Advisory Committee on Water before us. We are studying this, and its proposals do provide us with an opportunity of improving the framework in which these very difficult decisions can be considered and settled.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the greatest contribution that has been made in this difficult field is the recent amending Act, the Water Resources Act 1971, which my noble friend put on the Statute Book, having inherited it from noble Lords opposite? This will enable river authorities to proceed by statutory order and public inquiry rather than by Private Bill, a method that is quite unsuitable for dealing with these matters which really raise national issues.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend for making that further point. I did not make it in my first Answer only because it does not actually apply in the case of Swincombe.

EDUCATION: BARNET AUTHORITY'S PROPOSALS
2.42 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds the Minister of Education has disallowed the proposals of the Barnet Education Authority for comprehensive education within its area.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, the Barnet Authority submitted statutory proposals under Section 13 of the Education Act
652
1944 (as amended) in respect of 23 county secondary schools. Of these, the Secretary of State approved 16 proposals and rejected seven under Section 13(4) of the Act. The Secretary of State considered that the Authority's proposals to link separately organised schools would tend to produce difficulties of organisation. In her view these difficulties were increased to an extent which was to the educational detriment of the children concerned, in one case, because the two schools were over three miles apart and, in another case, because of the need for pupils and staff of both schools to travel between three widely separated sites. A proposal to establish a six form entry comprehensive school was rejected because for the foreseeable future the accommodation would have been seriously sub-standard for a school catering for all levels of ability. Finally, the Secretary of State rejected a proposal to establish a single comprehensive school in two sets of buildings because the distance of more than half a mile and the need for staff to travel betwen the buildings would have considerably limited the effectiveness of the education provided.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that detailed reply. Does not this action by the Minister contradict her circular in June which insisted on the autonomy of local education authorities? Is he aware that Barnet Council is a Conservative Council, and that by 37 votes to 20 it has reflected its very grave concern about the decision of the Minister? Is the noble Lord further aware that the council has taken great care to consult both parents and teachers, and that they are overwhelmingly in support of the plan which the council has adopted?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the decisions on seven of the 23 schools were not at variance with Circular 10/70. It has never been a sufficient basis for the Secretary of State's approval of individual proposals under Section 13 that they should be shown to conform to an overall reorganisation plan, or any overall plan. Each statutory proposal must be looked at in detail on its merits in the light of all the evidence available at the time, including of course any statutory objections. I am aware of what the noble Lord said about the Barnet Council, and, as I hope I made clear to your

653
Lordships on a previous Question a few days ago, good plans for reorganisation come from all parts: Conservative, Socialist-controlled, and Independent local authorities. Consultation did not form part of the reasons for the refusal of any of these seven schools.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, will the noble Lord explain why he thought it wrong for the last Government to compel local authorities to create a system of comprehensive secondary education when they did not wish to do so and now seeks to prevent local authorities from establishing a system of comprehensive secondary education when they wish to do so?
LORD BELSTEAD: Because, my Lords, of the 23 schools which are the subject of this Question there was an educational consideration in the case of seven of them which form part of my right honourable friend's Circular 10/70. It was on that ground, in each of these seven cases, that my right honourable friend felt that she could not include these seven schools among the 16 approvals.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, as I understand it, the people who have to go backwards and forwards comprise one domestic science class of seven pupils, and that this problem has been looked at and accepted by the teachers concerned? Is the Minister also aware that people, certainly those in Finchley, feel very much that they are disenfranchised over this matter because their Member of Parliament is the Secretary of State?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will draw my attention to the particular school to which she was referring of the seven which are under discussion, I shall do my best to answer her question about the movement backwards and forwards of a particular class. In answer to the second supplementary question asked by the noble Baroness, it is interesting that one of the approvals was Finchley Grammar and Hillside Secondary Modern.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister why his right honourable friend applies one standard at Brent and a quite different standard at Walton and Hersham in Surrey, where
654
there was a proposal to establish comprehensive secondary education at Rydens which the Secretary of State made impossible by insisting on allowing parents to opt for selection?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord would wish to be fair with the House on this matter. This is a question of an approval or a refusal under Section 13(4) of the Education Act 1944. The case of Rydens was also a question of acceptance or refusal under Section 13(4) of the Education Act 1944. The part which my right honourable friend felt unable to agree to in the Rydens proposal in Surrey came under Section 68 on a question as to whether the local authority were acting, in the statutory sense, reasonably.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether it is still an element of Conservative local government theory that local authorities should be given more power over their local affairs with less interference from Whitehall? If that be so, how does he reconcile that theory in this case with the Government's practice?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think it is a tenet of this Government that we give more power, if we possibly can, to local authorities, and we are trying to find the resources to match our will.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain what he means by, "if we possibly can "? Does he really mean that when the Secretary of State wishes it to be otherwise, it is so otherwise?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. I am reminding the House of a matter which noble Lords with a long experience of local government know better than I do; that is, that local government is, in many ways, a partnership between local and the central Government, and sometimes you have to feel your way forward carefully and not direct from the centre.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, do the Government appreciate, as those of us who live in Barnet do, that after the education authority made all its plans with the full support of teachers and parents alike, this very late decision by the Minister is throwing the whole of their educational arrangements into complete confusion?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State wrote to the authority on December 23 last year warning that, because each proposal must be decided on its merits under Section 13(4) (and this includes a statutory two-month period for objections, and must include the time for proper consideration of the objections), it would he very difficult to reach a decision before March, 1971, at the earliest. My right honourable friend did this purposely, knowing that the local authority were wanting to reorganise in September, 1971, and she was really doing her best to make the matter as easy as possible for the local authority.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciated the first part of the answer, but the noble Lord went into details. As a resident of Barnet, may I just refer to those details? Is it not the case that the Minister objected particularly to a merger of two schools and the enlargement of a third? In the case of the two schools, Friern Barnet County and Woodhouse Grammar in North Finchley, is it not the case that the council has now proposed that there should be separate headmasters and that the exchange of pupils should refer only to the senior classes; and in the case of the enlargement of Whitefield School, Cricklewood, is it not the case that the council has indicated that it would bear the cost of the extension of the laboratory in two or three years?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I can honestly say that I am not aware of these points. I would imagine that if the first point was so—and I am sure that if the noble puts it forward it is so—this would have to be the subject of statutory notices once again, because these have now been refused. I should have thought that the same might apply to the second point.

NAMING OF MOTORWAYS
2.41 p.m.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether considerations will be given
656
to the naming of stretches of motorways, and, by way of example, will consideration be given to naming the recently opened extension of the M.6 between Carnforth and Penrith as the"Westmorland Highway ".]
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the major motorways, in addition to numbering, are given names identifying their terminal points. It might be confusing to long-distance travellers if relatively short sections of them were to be given local names; but subject to that consideration Her Majesty's Government would not be obstructive to regional desires for appropriate names.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask whether he is aware that in various parts of the world national highways have descriptive nomenclature for stretches of road which are of considerable interest to visitors from overseas? Does my noble friend not agree that anything that can be done to make it more interesting for tourists in this country who are travelling over our motorways is desirable? Perhaps further consideration could be given to this proposal on this ground.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, certainly. Such foreign motorways as I am acquainted with have names which are descriptive of their entire length; but I recognise that my noble friend may have information on this subject of which I am not aware. Nevertheless, the subject could be given further thought in the light of my noble friend's question.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in view of that reply, could the Minister state what representations have been made by highways authorities who are the agents of the Government in regard to major development on the highways, or whether any representations have been made by the local authorities or through their associations within the ambit of operations envisaged in this Question?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, so far as I am aware we have not received any representations of the kind contained in this question. If I find that I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord.

MAN-PACK RADAR IMPORTS
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to buy man-pack radar from overseas for defence purposes; and if so, what would be the overall cost to our balance of payments.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the future provision of a man-pack radar for use by the Army is under consideration. Several possibilities are being examined, but no decision has yet been taken.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that the British electronics industry, which is the foremost in Europe, will be undermined and destroyed if the basis on which Exorcet was purchased is extended to man-pack and other projects? Is this not a result of the Services failing to state their operational requirements with the maximum of clarity and the minimum of delay? If we are to spend another £50 million, as has been spent in foreign exchange on Exorcet, should not the industry on this occasion have firm orders as an offset? Is the noble Marquess aware that local United Kingdom manufacture is a poor substitute for home-based research and development and manufacture, which not only produces the goods for our Services but leads to very healthy exports?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I would agree with the last part of my noble friend's Question. As to the first part, I should prefer to leave the comments on the Services to my noble friend the Minister of Defence who, unfortunately, is not here to-day. The Government are well aware of the needs of British industry in this respect and it is one of the considerations which is being borne in mind at the moment regarding these proposals.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, could the noble Marquess tell us whether, in the use and development of such
658
equipment the zinc-air battery developed in this country will be given high priority? This is something of very great importance and is the best lightweight battery that there is. I am not "plugging" it for personal reasons.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am afraid that I should require notice of that question. I entirely accept that the noble Lord is not"plugging"it.
LORD HOY: My Lords, would the noble Marquess confirm or deny the assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that this project is going to cost £50 million?
TIIE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords, I cannot comment on what this project is going to cost.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Marquess, when studying my remarks in Hansard, observe that I was not suggesting that the man-pack radar might cost £50 million, but that the Exorcet cost more than that and we did not want to repeat that mistake.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, could the noble Marquess tell us the difference between"overall cost"and"cost "?

E.E.C.: BRITISH ENTRY AND INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council is making a Statement in another place this afternoon on E.E.C. information. With the leave of the House, I will arrange for this Statement to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT in accordance with the Seventh Report of the Procedure Committee.
The Statement was as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, with your permission I should like to make a Statement about the provision of information to the public about entry into the European Economic Community.
" The House will recall that the decision to make application for membership of the Community was approved by the House by a majority of 426 in 1967. Therefore both the previous Government which decided to make this application and the present

659
Government have felt it right to put out information at important stages in the negotiations. The Labour Government issued its White Papers and this Government issued a White paper at the conclusion of the main issues in the negotiations.
" There have been widespread demands for information to the public. In response to these, as was announced by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on June 28 and by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on July 5, the Government decided to issue along with the main White Paper a free short version which covers the same ground.
" So far as Parliament was concerned, the Government decided exceptionally to make twelve free copies of the main White Paper available to each Member, and this decision has been widely welcomed in the House.
" The Labour Government issued a series of free Factsheets in 1967. The present Government has also issued a series of eleven Factsheets on Britain and Europe on generally similar lines.
" Before deciding to take this course the Government naturally considered the relevant precedents for making available information on important public issues, including a number of cases from the time of the previous Administration.
" The Government concluded that there was ample justification from past practice for giving the country clearly and simply the information which has been so widely demanded and for reporting to the nation the outcome of the negotiations which had been initiated by a decision of the House with an overwhelming majority."

ANGUILLA BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DIPLOMATIC AND OTHER PRIVILEGES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.

CIVIL AVIATION BILL
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Earl Ferrers be appointed to the Committee in the place of the Lord Carrington.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

IMMIGRATION BILL
2.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved. That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Windleshczni.)
On Question, Motion agreed to. House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General principles]:
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
(" ( ) Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of taking away any right enjoyed by a Commonwealth citizen immediately prior to the coming into effect of this Act who was at that time ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and whose residence was not subject to any condition, and nothing in this Act shall adversely affect the status of such a Commonwealth citizen.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in the names of my noble friends and myself. As your Lordships are aware. Clause 1 of the Bill sets out what are called general principles. The purpose of this Amendment is to insert in Clause 1 the following principle:
" Nothing in this Act shall have the effect of taking away any right enjoyed by a Commonwealth citizen immediately prior to

661
the coming into effect of this Act who was at that time ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and whose residence was not subject to any condition, and nothing in this Act shall adversely affect the status of such a Commonwealth citizen."
I think it would be helpful if at the outset of the discussions on the Committee stage a clear statement were made as to the position of those who come to live here from the Commonwealth and are residing here at the present time. I doubt very much whether the Government yet fully appreciate the extent of the feeling of insecurity which has been created, following the introduction of this Bill. This is a matter which affects the host community as well as the newcomers. I believe that harmonious community relations are important to the country as a whole; that a sense of insecurity creates tension and that that in turn makes good community relations more difficult to achieve. Therefore, before we come to discuss the many objections to this Bill—the extent to which it introduces discrimination, the proposals for the registration of newcomers, the provisions for deportation, the unsatisfactory position with regard to appeals—all of which will be discussed, together with other matters, during this Committee stage, it is important that Parliament should make clear beyond any shadow of doubt the position of those Commonwealth citizens who are already here.
Although the Government have stated that it is their intention not to take away rights from, or reduce the status of, the Commonwealth citizen already resident in this country without condition, nevertheless there is widespread anxiety among immigrant communities that they will not in fact continue to enjoy the present degree of security. In order to allay these anxieties and to ensure that the Government's expressed intention is achieved, my colleagues and I seek to introduce this principle as set out in the Amendment. I am aware, of course, of the assurances given by Mr. Maudling in another place. For example, on Second Reading on March 8, 1971 (column 47 of Hansard), Mr. Maudling said:
"Those Commonwealth citizens already here free of condition, broadly speaking all working immigrants here, will not be affected. They will he allowed to work where they wish as at present. They will be allowed automatic citizenship as at present. There will be no new papers to be carried, they will be allowed to bring in dependants."
662
But, unfortunately, the Bill does not actually say this. And I think your Lordships will agree with me that assurances are not enough. There is a great difference between an assurance given by a Minister, duly reported in Hansard, and a clause in the Bill. I have therefore attempted to translate into legislative form the assurance given by the Home Secretary.
There is one unusual feature of this Bill. It sets out at the beginning the general principles, and if that is considered desirable, if it is thought fit to begin with general principles, then surely it is all the more important that the principle to which I have referred should be included in Clause 1. About ten days ago I invited a group to my house representing all the main immigrant communities. It was a comparatively small group but it was very representative; it included Kenya Asians and people who have been living here for a number of years. They were settled, in the normal sense of that term, and bringing tip families, their children having been born here. It was interesting to hear their point of view on a number of matters. When it came to this Bill, I was surprised—perhaps I should not have been—to find the degree of concern about the effects of the Bill. They felt very much more insecure, although they had been here for a number of years. For one thing, they did not believe that this Bill was the end of the story. They thought that there would be further legislation, and it was clearly the view of these people and of those whom they knew in their community that they were no longer safe, that their future was insecure. I suggest that if a subsection clearly spelling out this principle were included in Clause 1 dealing with general principles, it might go some way towards overcoming that concern.
I should like to make clear that support for this Amendment does not imply approval of the other principles contained in Clause 1. I would stress that. There are a number of noble Lords who do not like any part of Clause 1, and at a later stage those views will be expressed; but support for this particular Amendment does not imply approval of the rest of the clause. On the other hand, looking at it from the point of view of the Government (and for a moment

663
I will try to do this), the Amendment does not conflict with Government policy, and I suggest that the least the Government should do is to try to lessen the harmful effects already caused by the introduction of this Bill.
There is one other reason which I should like to mention. If I refer to Mr. Powell, I hope it will be the only occasion on which I shall mention him during the course of discussions on Committee stage, but Mr. Powell recently visited Huddersfield, and from the reports which I have received the whole theme of his speech was the need for bringing about the emigration of those coloured people who are at present living in this country—call it repatriation, or what you like. The whole of his theme was that the numbers already here must be reduced and he hoped that use could be made of this Bill to bring this about. Personally, I do not believe that this campaign for getting rid of our Commonwealth immigrants will succeed, but that is only my personal opinion. It could be achieved only by compulsion, and when it really came to the point I do not think that the British people would stand for it, because it is so contrary to our British tradition. But there is no doubt that speeches on these lines have a harassing effect. They are a form of harassment and are very disturbing to those who are living here. They are bound to make people feel more insecure and therefore add to the difficulties of those who are working for improved community relations. This, I think, provides an additional reason for what I call a declaration of intent. I do not think that it is sufficient to say that if we read the Bill carefully we shall be able to deduce what is contained in this Amendment from the Bill as it stands. Something more than that is required.
As to the wording, the Amendment has been drafted by my noble friend Lord Foot and myself. We think it appropriate that it should be inserted immediately after subsection (1) of Clause 1, but if the Government agree that these words should be inserted but they can improve upon them—and I have scarcely known a case when the Government draftsmen have not said that their wording is better than the Amendment put
664
forward—and are willing to accept this principle in some other form with the same aim, I shall be content. I would agree that if it came immediately following subsection (1) some slight alteration to the wording of the present subsection (2) might be required, but that is only a drafting point. If the Government would agree to this proposal I think it would be a great improvement. On the other hand, if the Committee approve Clause 1 and there is no general statement on the lines that I have suggested, then the fears to which I have referred will be intensified and we shall have set off with a bad start to the Committee stage of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see fit to accept the Amendment and that it will commend itself to the Committee. I beg to move.
LORD BROCKWAY: I hope that the Minister will respond to the appeal that has been made. I want to draw attention to one particular aspect. This Bill removes the right of a wife or child under 16 of a Commonwealth citizen resident in the United Kingdom to join him. We all welcome the fact that the Home Secretary has given an assurance that Rule 37 of the Draft Rules on Control and Entry will not apply to Commonwealth citizens already here. But, supporting the case that has been made out by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, I think that something more than an assurance is necessary here. This Bill is a co-ordinating Bill: that is about the only thing that can be said in its favour. But in that co-ordination, should it not include a clause similar to Section 2(2)(b) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, as amended by the 1968 Act? That section gave a definite statutory decision on the matter which we are now raising. I do not want to intervene at length, but I hope that in this first Amendment to the Bill the Committee will be able to approach the issue from the point of view of good relations between the immigrant community and the majority community in our nation. I draw attention to the fact that the Community Relations Commission, non-partisan, looking at this problem in an overall way, has recommended that there should be an Amendment to this Bill on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has suggested.
3.13 p.m.
LORD JANNER: I venture to intervene in this debate for a few moments. First of all, I should like to say that I am much indebted to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for having expressed certain views in the Second Reading debate. Everybody here knows that I am of the Jewish persuasion and participate to a considerable extent in matters appertaining to Jewish interests. I am taking the earliest opportunity of expressing my thanks to my noble friend. That community, of which I am a member, consists to a considerable degree of immigrants who came at one time or another, and more particularly in recent years, to this country.
The other reason why I intervene is because I happen to have been a member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Race Relations. I ask your Lordships to understand that, rightly or wrongly—and I am sorry to say that I think rightly—Commonwealth immigrants to this country are deeply disturbed by the implications of this Bill. As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the Bill not only is bad in itself but opens up the possibility of much more legislation being passed to their detriment. The fact is that those who are here are very sensitive—and one can readily understand it—to any step which is being taken. They sometimes face rather unhappy experiences, and they look to the Government and to the country generally to protect them against any possibility of discrimination and misunderstanding. The Bill, in my view, creates an artificial tension. That is understandable and I do not think any member of the Committee will disagree. It makes the individual fearful of what might happen. It is most important that when we start on a Bill of this nature it should be made abundantly clear to the community which is affected that the position of those who are here will not he altered in consequence of the provisions of the Bill.
There have been pronouncements by the Government, in many cases very outspoken, that they do not intend in any way to interfere with immigrants who are here; but this Bill whatever one may say about it, will seriously affect Commonwealth citizens who wish to come to this country. Consequently, the feeling of those already here to put it at its
666
lowest, must be one of doubt and anxiety. I make this appeal to the Government. If indeed the position is as is described in this Amendment, and if they mean what they have said, then I ask them not to regard an Amendment of this nature as being unnecessary, even on the ground that the Bill contains terms which indicate that this is the case. Only good can come from making that perfectly clear at the commencement of this Committee stage. I hope that the Government will accede to the requests that have been made.
3.20 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: The spirit underlying this Amendment is something of which all noble Lords must approve. The purpose of it, as has been explained, is to set at rest doubts and fears which have been aroused among immigrants who are already here. I personally think that a very grave responsibility rests on those leaders of immigrant opinion and others who have stimulated those doubts and fears, because in fact there is virtually nothing in the whole of this Bill which could justify such a doubt or such a fear unless the existing immigrant is to misbehave himself and prove himself a bad citizen.
As I say, the principle of this Amendment would carry all of us along with it. What we have to look at, as with all legislation, is the words, and as I read this Amendment it would render it impossible to make small but important changes in the law which I believe are desirable to deal with a small number of bad cases. I feel sure that my noble friend Lord Windlesham will indicate what those difficulties are, but I cannot support this Amendment in these terms as a change in the Bill, although I thoroughly approve of the spirit and purpose underlying it.
LORD DONALDSON OF IONGSBRIDGE: I should like very briefly, because I do not think we can enter into a Second Reading debate, to deal with the remarks which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has just made. Obviously we do not accept most of them, about whipping up ill-feeling by immigrant leaders. I disagree very much with that statement and believe it to be entirely untrue, and it is a great pity that at this stage it should have been

667
said. However, this is not the Second Reading and I do not want to debate that.
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and those on the Liberal Benches for giving the Government an opportunity to show their good will. I do not believe that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, or indeed the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, are enemies of the immigrants. I think that some of their colleagues are, but we all have colleagues who are a problem to us. The Government have the opportunity to-day to accept this Amendment, which states nothing which is not adduced from the Bill, and which states nothing which has not already been promised to us by the Home Secretary. It would make a very great difference to the atmosphere of the Committee stage, which could be constructive but which, my Lords, might not be if we get no signs of peace from the other side. It might make a very great difference to the whole future of this problem if the Government would agree that this Amendment says what they mean, and accept it.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I wish to say only three sentences. I support this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, but with a sinking heart because there are so many things in this Bill which I am against. But this Amendment is very important because the Secretary of State's powers are to be increased by the Bill. That is all very well when we have a nice liberal Home Secretary like Mr. Reginald Maudling, but should we have a Home Secretary who is not so liberal but of quite a different ilk, I think that this particular Amendment would be very important indeed.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: It is not my intention either to detain the House for long or to make a Second Reading speech. If the Bill is in such a wonderful state that there is no need for this Amendment, as was suggested by a noble Lord opposite, if there is nothing in the Bill to justify our fears, why not put that into language to make sure? What is the objection to putting in a few more phrases to make it crystal clear?
668
The object of the Bill, we are told in black and white, is to get"a single code of permanent legislation ". I believe that one of the things we should eradicate is the horrible thing which is running right through the world: fear, religious fear and colour bar fear. Here would be a chance for this country once again to take a lead. Because we are no longer a great military power we should not in panic abdicate the moral leadership which we have given to the world at different times in our history. Here is an opportunity to show we do not.
We were pushed to the other side of Offa's Dyke, and on another occasion we were opposed by those in the Norman castles many times fears between different tribes and races of this country have been alleviated. A lead has to be given in the world, and I should like to see it come from here. I should like to see put in words into the Bill to show our honesty of purpose.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: I think Her Majesty's Government are only too well aware that this Bill has been received with a very great degree of misgiving in organised religious circles, by the Council for Civil Liberties, and organisations of that type. I should welcome it very much if one set of difficulties could be removed by the Government's acceptance of this Amendment. I would not immediately concur in all the arguments raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. We can hardly get into a position where all fears have to be immediately recognised in legislation without examination of the basis in fact of those fears. But the difficulty I feel at the moment is this. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had to say in making his speech that there might be certain cases which have to be provided for. I think the Home Secretary, in the passage that was quoted, had some short qualifying phrase at one point, such as"broadly speaking ", or something of that sort. The Government may be faced with a choice between accepting this Amendment and retaining certain very marginal powers. All I would say is that I hope, if they have to make that choice, they will choose acceptance of the Amendment and abandonment of those marginal powers.
LORD SOPER: I am very pleased to add my support to what has just been

669
said. It may be within the knowledge of your Lordships' House that at the Methodist Conference a few weeks ago, while there was unanimous disapproval of this measure, the salient feature was the repetition of assurances that this would adversely affect personal relationships between immigrants coming here and those who already live in this country. It is that which is the outstanding problem, as I see it, of allaying a personal sense of injustice. Whatever may be the particular legal point, and however arguable it may be, anything that can be done, even within the framework of this Bill, to allay those suspicions and fears, it will be reasonable to do. For the life of me I cannot see why the Government cannot accept this Amendment. It would do something to remove the principal objection to the Bill, which is a personal objection and not a legal or political one.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: The only effect the Amendment would have, so far as I can gather, is that it would remove the Secretary of State's power to arrange for somebody to be deported upon being convicted of a crime under Clause 7; and even then that could take effect only if he had not lived in this country for more than five years. I feel that this Amendment could weaken the security of the general public in this country by possibly allowing an undesirable person to remain in this country after being convicted of a crime. I do not think that this is in the general interest of the community.
Limp JANNER: Would the noble Lord enlighten me as to how what he is talking about differs from the present position in regard to deportation?
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: There is nothing in this Bill which will prevent any person who is at present ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom from remaining here, so far as I can gather. He can be deported only if he misbehaves himself.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I am sorry to interrupt, but a man's wife, son and daughter can be deported with him, even if they have not misbehaved themselves: not a small point.
LORD BROCKWAY: I, too, am sorry to interrupt, but I wonder whether the noble Earl listened to the point I made: that the Bill now removes the right of the wife or child under 16 of a Commonwealth citizen who is resident in the United Kingdom to join him. Is that not an element which he has completely overlooked?
3.32 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am very grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, introduced this very important Amendment because I think it raises a considerable principle. Had it been my pleasure to move the first Amendment in this Committee I should have liked to say something about an absent colleague of your Lordships' House. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has said, I now feel bound to do it.
The House lost a very great coloured man some weeks ago, a man who was born the son of a slave and died a Member of your Lordships' House: I refer, of course, to Lord Constantine. He not only served his island in the West Indies but he served this community, both coloured and white. We in this Chamber were richer for his presence. He was a great community leader, but he always stressed throughout his work and his speeches to his community that they who come from the West Indies to this country, while their love may still be with the islands they have left, owe their duty and responsibility to the people of the country in which they have settled. There may be some community leaders who, in the heat of the moment or in moments of despair, say things which they would prefer not to have said; but my experience is that the community leaders of this country, despite great difficulties and disappointments, do a very remarkable job. We must all be conscious of our own kith and kin, if I may use that phrase, who through the various organisations work with tremendous zeal and passion to improve relations among our communities. As I said on Second Reading, the thing that really concerns me about this Bill—and I can well understand that it should disturb the communities, too—is that our own people who have this responsibility are themselves very gravely concerned.

671
I would ask your Lordships to look at Clause 1, setting out the general principles. If I may have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I would ask him to look at Clause 1, which speaks about those who will have a right of abode in this country; and they are set out in detail in Clause 2. There is no doubt as to who will have a right of abode in this country. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 says:
" Others may by permission live, work and settle in the United Kingdom…"
The people concerned in this Amendment are those who will not be covered by subsection (1) as patrials, those who have a right of abode. It is quite clear that within this Bill such people fall under subsection (2) and remain in this country only by permission. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has said, the Home Secretary has made it quite clear that it is the Government's intention that those who are now in this country legally and lawfully shall retain their present rights. But the Bill does not say that. What we wish to see is that what the Home Secretary has said is incorporated in the Bill. I would ask for the support of any of the noble and learned Lords, but my understanding is that the courts never taken account of what is said in Parliament; they are concerned only with what is written in the Bill and what construction they can put upon it. So all the assurances that are given in Parliament, in terms of the courts, are completely and utterly worthless. Therefore we ask that this important assurance given by the Government should be put into the Bill and should have the same weight as other provisions of the Bill.
It is perfectly clear—and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will challenge it—that since the persons involved in this Amendment cannot possible come under subsection (1) they must fall within subsection (2); and subsection (2) is quite specific that they may remain here only by permission, whereas clearly the Home Secretary gave an assurance that their position would not be altered by this Bill. It may be that the Government are reluctant to accept this Amendment because they think that, if they do so, there may be an odd person who has not been here for five years who might fall within that area where it
672
would be justified to deport. If that power does not exist to-day—and I do not believe it does—it means that we are to some extent becoming involved in retrospective legislation; we are taking away the rights of a group of people which have existed in the past. I should have thought that that in itself is not right, but I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it would not be justified to place many thousands of our own citizens—let us regard them as our own citizens—in a worse position to-day merely because we may need the power to deport perhaps a handful, at the very most, to their own countries. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to rise now and say that he is able to accept this reasonable Amendment. If he cannot—and this is in no way a threat—we shall have to take a much more critical view of the Bill as a whole. It seems to me that if the Government cannot accept this Amendment there is a very hard road for all of us in this Committee stage.
3.40 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I welcome the spirit in which this Amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. It has made an excellent opening debate to our Committee stage on this Bill and I applaud the generosity of thought which lay behind the way in which he put forward his case to your Lordships. Although I can understand and sympathise with his motives, I do not think it would be right for the Committee to add these words to the Bill and I hope that, when he has heard my reply, he may feel able to withdraw the Amendment, having raised in this opening debate the all-important subject of community relations.
The Bill is about immigration control—about people who come into this country, the terms on which they come in and go out again. It does not affect citizenship in any fundamental way. The only changes are changes related to immigration control. The Amendment speaks of"right"and"status ", two words that are capable of differing interpretations. There are changes in this Bill. Inevitably, some of them flow from changes in immigration policy, but some of them are new in themselves; for example, the liability to penalties for knowingly harbouring illegal immigrants. It has been represented to us that this is an infringement of the rights of those already settled

673
here. A policeman may come to the door of their house and ask,"Are you harbouring an illegal immigrant?" That is not the case at the moment; there is a new offence of assisting illegal entry. This is a desirable change and one which we will be debating when we get to that Part of the Bill.
Again, there is liability to deportation as a member of the family of a person who has not been setled here for five years, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—quite correctly—as a change from the present situation, a controversial change and one which we shall be debating. On Second Reading I explained that the Government intended to table an Amendment to this Part of the Bill providing a right of appeal, so here is another change. Some may think it right, some may think it wrong. There is the change referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, as regards the right to bring in dependants. At the moment this is a statutory right, contained in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962; in future the right will be preserved, and we think adequately preserved, by the immigration rules which are to be subject to Parliamentary control. There is a list of Amendments down on that point on the Marshalled List, and here again they are controversial. People have differing points of view on all these changes and we shall be debating them. Whether they are changes which will affect the rights and status of those already here is difficult to say, but let me say a word or two about"status ". This is a word which has a slightly more precise meaning than"right ".
The Bill does not affect the civic rights and privileges enjoyed in this country by all Commonwealth citizens by virtue of their status as British subjects. This is the proper interpretation normally given to the word"status ". This proposition is true whether the persons concerned are established here already or whether they come to this country after the Bill is in force. I accept that the Bill has an effect, an impact, on immigrant communities. Anyone with any knowledge of this subject knows of the interaction between immigration policies and community relations.
There have undoubtedly been uncertainty and misapprehension on this
674
score. If I may pick out the two subjects which have been most widely misunderstood they would be police registration and repatriation. We shall be discussing both those matters later on during the Committee. All I need say now is that it is not the case that police registration will be required of all Commonwealth citizens or, indeed, of any Commonwealth citizens already established here. It will apply only to those entering with work permits in the future. Nor is Clause 29 of the Bill a basis for any large-scale programme of repatriation designed to alter the balance of population in this country. This is a straightforward welfare provision which will be greatly to the advantage of those who stand to benefit under it. Surely, what everyone with a genuine interest in community relations ought to be doing is to try to minimise any feelings of insecurity that may have been aroused amongst immigrant communities.
Some of the criticism's of the Bill have been sweeping; some have been ill-judged—and I am not necessarily speaking now of those advanced in Parliament. They have done damage to community relations by implying that the citizenship or civic status of people from the Commonwealth is threatened and that the Bill will worsen their position under the immigration laws. How many people, I wonder, who are actively engaged in community relations work have chosen to point out that not only are the existing rights of Commonwealth citizens already settled here preserved in all material respects but that where necessary explicit provisions have been written into the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked,"Why does not the Bill acknowledge some of these points?"I have news for him; it does. Let me give some examples.
The Bill makes provision in Clause 7 to preserve the immunity from deportation of Commonwealth and Irish immigrants with five years' ordinary residence and to enable them to acquire immunity under the current law where they have not already done so. The Bill takes away from no one settled here his absolute entitlement to register as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on completion of five year' settlement. The Bill in no way impairs the civic privileges of Commonwealth citizens: the

675
right to vote, to serve on local authorities, to serve as a Member of Parliament, or to join the Armed Forces of the Crown. These privileges flow from the status of British subject and are not affected by the Bill.
My Lords, the Bill renders no one liable to compulsory repatriation, whether here already or coming in the future; and it obliges no one accepted for settlement to register with the police. Moreover, as the Government have made clear, it is our intention to permit the continued entry of wives and children of Commonwealth citizens resident in the United Kingdom, and paragraphs 39 to 43 of the Draft Immigration Rules for control on entry provide for this. I should point-out also that the Amendment would not in any event do what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, would like it to do in this respect. It would not preserve the statutory rights of entry of wives and children under 16 of Commonwealth residents because those rights are the rights of the dependants and not the rights of the residents. The Home Secretary undertook in another place that the requirement in paragraph 37 of the draft rules that the head of the household should be able and willing to accommodate and main his dependants without recourse to public funds will not apply in respect of the wives and children of Commonwealth citizens already resident here; and the necessary Amendment will be made in the rules when they are finally presented to Parliament.
Some changes in the position of people already settled here are inevitable. It would be quite wrong to overstate them, and we should have some thought of the dangers in breeding quite unnecessary insecurity in the minds of immigrants already established here. This measure provides substantial safeguards concerning the right of entry of dependants, the eligibility to acquire our citizenship by registration, and exemption from deportation after a period of five years. These are the points that really matter in the everyday life of the law-abiding Commonwealth citizen who has come here and made his life in this country. They are safeguarded in the Bill and in the immigration rules and, for the reasons that I have given, it would not be appropriate to accept the Amendment.
3.5 p.m.
LORD FOOT: I find myself somewhat bewildered by the argument put forward by the Minister. He concedes and entirely agrees that the Bill does not take any right away from a Commonwealth immigrant, or reduce the status of any Commonwealth immigrant who is at present resident in this country. He goes on to say that if you look through the Bill with care you can find various points where it has been spelt out that the status and rights of citizenship of the Commonwealth immigrant who is already here are not affected by the Bill. He then goes on to the astonishing conclusion that if this Amendment were to be accepted and we were to write into the Bill that the Bill does not affect the status and rights of these people, we should in some way be increasing the fears of the people. Surely what it would be doing would be allaying them.
The reason why it is so important that this principle should be spelt out in certain terms is because of something to which Mr. Maudling referred in the Second Reading debate in another place. He was talking about the complexities of the Bill and said:
" I am afraid that the Bill is necessarily very complex, because it is a very complex subject, as complex, I must confess, as I have met in my political experience, and that has given rise to a number of misunderstandings in the Press and among the public, some of which I hope to correct this afternoon."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/3/71, col. 43.]
If it is a complex Bill, and if, in order to make sure that the Commonwealth citizen in this country is not going to be affected, you have to read through all the complex provisions to see exactly what they mean, and if this complexity gives rise to misunderstandings and apprehension, surely that is all the more reason for making the situation clear in the Bill at the very beginning. At the worst, nothing is lost, and we on these Benches think that everything is to be gained.
LORD O'HAGAN: I came to the Committee with a completely open mind on this particular Amendment. I did not think that an Amendment on these lines would make much difference to any feelings of disquiet that already exist, so I am perfectly prepared to be persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I have listened in as dispassionate a manner as I can Having heard what

677
has been said from all quarters of the House, and having listened to the reply by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I have the impression that for a considerable part of his speech he was not quite answering the points raised. Without thinking that this would be necessarily a major improvement to the Bill, I remain unconvinced by what the noble Lord has said that it is unnecessary to have such an Amendment, or that it would do any harm, but I am still open to persuasion.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I also have listened to this Amendment with an open mind. Having heard what has been said so far I am uneasy. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made the point that most of your Lordships would have sympathy with the thinking behind the Amendment. I have also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and he has explained to us the difficulties of accepting the Amendment as it stands. Probably there is good ground for not accepting it as it stands, but I ask the noble Lord to think again to this extent: I ask him to consider the matter further and see whether it is possible to bring forward an Amendment on Report stage along the lines which we have heard. We are told that there are some changes, but they seem very small. The noble Lord gave one example of harbouring illegal immigrants. But that applies to all of us and nobody can mind what happens. I am gravely unhappy about the Amendment in the sense that it has been put forward and ask the noble Lord to give earnest consideration to this proposal with the idea that he might introduce an Amendment on behalf of the Government on Report stage.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to speak in support of what has been said. I do not take quite so dim a view as many of my colleagues. The Amendment seems to be completely unobjectionable provided that it can be amended, possibly in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, indicated—at least, it would be less objectionable than it is at the present time. The Government might well listen to what he said and consider the matter again at the next stage. That will give us a reasonably favourable wind on which to carry through the remaining stages in Committee. I hope that the representative of
678
the Government will be able to indicate that he will fall in with this proposal.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: I should like to support my noble friend on the Cross-Benches. I feel uneasy about this matter. I ask the noble Lord to look at the matter again. There may be some objections to the Amendment but, so far as I can see, there are very few, and I think the matter is worthy of careful consideration.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I, too, have great sympathy with what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, has suggested, but I frankly do not know whether his suggestion would be possible. What seems an absurd consequence of this Amendment, if it is passed, is that supposing a policeman came to see whether an illegal immigrant was being harboured, the owner of the house would have a complete defence if he said,"I am a Commonwealth citizen and therefore my rights are not affected by Clause 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 ". That is not what anybody intends, but it would be the direct result of passing this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, shakes his head, but quite definitely at present a Commonwealth citizen, and everybody else in this country, has certain rights which will be affected by the new criminal offences created by Clause 25 of this Bill. If we insulate all Commonwealth citizens now in this country from being convicted of the new criminal offences that this Bill will create, we shall be creating an anomaly. Those are the grounds on which it seems to me that it will be quite impossible to incorporate this Amendment as it stands.
LORD SHEPHERD: I intervene only to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will look at Clause 2(1)(d) he will see that a Commonwealth citizen is referred to. If one takes the case that the noble Lord has mentioned, of a policeman going to a house where there is a Commonwealth immigrant and the Commonwealth immigrant then merely having to say that he is a Commonwealth immigrant, that would apply in regard to the Amendment but it would apply equally in regard to Clause 2. Clearly, if the policeman felt that the man was not within the ambit of the Amendment but was subject to

679
some form of control, it would be for him to prove it. I do not see that this Amendment in any way alters the position.
BARONESS WHITE: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will respond to the invitation which he has now received from all quarters of the House, from all Benches in this House. Can he not appreciate how the Government themselves would surely be helped if they would accept this Amendment, although not necessarily in this precise form? If the only real difficulty is the technicality that harbouring an illegal immigrant or assisting illegal entry might somehow be frustrated by this form of words, that we can deal with. We are still at the early stage of our consideration of the Bill. It would not be difficult for the Government to say that they were concerned about these two matters. I am sure that they would have the sympathy of everyone in your Lordships' House if they accepted the Amendment in its present form but said that they would take it away and look at it again and ask their draftsmen to use their ingenuity. I am sure that where some saving phrase is required, that could be satisfactorily worked out.
What are the persons concerned in the community to think if they have received assurances from the Home Secretary that their position is not to be jeopardised? When they heard those assurances, they were not thinking, I am sure, of these two new offences in the Bill; they were thinking of their general position, of their security as persons, and the security of their families. They received those assurances and now that they are here they are told that they have had the assurances but the Government are too timorous to give them statutory form and they must rest content with the words in a debate. As my noble friend, Lord Shepherd, said, they know enough at least of English law to recognise that this is not good enough for them; that it is not a lasting protection for all time.
I would just say that those of us who are interested in, and concerned with, this matter, who have talked with those in the various communities where there are a large number of Commonwealth immigrants are absolutely convinced that an act of reassurance is necessary. That is
680
what we are asking for at the beginning of this Bill. We shall have our discussions and our debates about the various things we dislike. Family deportation is some thing which I, quite frankly, am passionately opposed to. There are various other things on which we all have our feelings. Could we not at the beginning have this declaration for those who are here, who are already in our midst, that they at least can rest easy, that they will not feel threatened or harassed?
There are some consequences of this Bill, if they are carried through, which, with the best will in the world, are bound to impinge even on those who are already here. We shall discover those as we go along. The intention of the Government has been declared time and time again that those already here—and the date is given; the last day of July, 1971—should without condition have their position fully safeguarded. As your Lordships will see, it is only those persons who are referred to in this Amendment who are affected; those who are resident here are not subject to any condition. It is only those whom we are trying to safeguard, in line with the conditions already laid down by Her Majesty's Government. It would not be a question just of generosity of thought, but also of some generosity of action on the part of the Government. I have spoken to community relations officers, to church leaders, to officers of the main responsible immigrant associations in this country. If you do not help these people, who are doing their best in a moderate way, you will be making their task so much more difficult; you will be playing into the hands of the extremists. Why do that? Why do it when it is so easy not to? I say this with some experience. As some of your Lordships know, I had considerable experience in Commonwealth affairs. At one time I had the honour to be a Minister in the Colonial Office. I have seen what has happened in situations of racial tension in other parts of the Commonwealth. If you do not support the moderate leaders when they are asking for something reasonable, you play into the hands of the extremists. Surely we have had enough experience to learn that lesson by now.
I would plead with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and with the Government to accept this Amendment even

681
if not in these precise words. If there is a difficulty about the word"right"for example, that can be in some way eliminated or amended. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, shakes his head in a supercilious way. This is too important a matter on which to be supercilious. I do not know how to persuade someone who cannot see the force, who cannot see the statesmanship, of making a generous gesture at the outset of proceedings on a Bill of this kind.
LORD GARDINER: It may be that some of your Lordships feel that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, about the illegal entry and harbouring was reasonable. If so, I would just point out that all the Government have to do is to say that they will accept this Amendment, for all the good that it will do to race relations, but that they will wish to precede it by the words"save for section 25 ".
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think the whole House would like to believe what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said with such conviction and certainty: that an act of reassurance was necessary and would have the effects she hoped it would. I can assure her that I was not looking supercilious; I was just turning over in my mind the number of times that I have heard that argument in the last six months in relation to this Bill and its provisions. It is an argument that has been used over and over again. It is right that it should have been used, and I hope it will go on being used, because it is of great importance. It was used throughout the proceedings in another place. My right honourable friend at the very beginning made a major concession on the question of dependants, mentioned by Lord Brockway. He said that the Immigration Rules, which the previous Administration and the Conservative Government before them had left as a matter for the Home Secretary's discretion, should be subject to Parliamentary control. This would be an act to reassure those who were worried, to reassure immigrant opinion. Making some sort of concession on the question of family deportation would be another such act. We have not seen the effects of the reassurance that was given. I am closely involved with this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and others are. I can say that I have not seen the effects
682
of these concessions because I believe that those who are opposed to this Bill are opposed to it root and branch and in principle. If one makes a concession of this sort for a reason of this sort one is hoodwinking oneself. I do not say that of opponents in your Lordships' House. I am saying it of those active in community relations, doing the important and active work they do outside. The noble Earl, Lord Perth—
LORD O'HAGAN: Before the noble Lord moves on may I ask him to repeat that? Is he saying that people who are involved outside your Lordships' House are automatically bigoted and will not listen to reasonable statements from the Government? Is he saying that, or have I misunderstood him? I hope I have.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, the noble Lord has misunderstood me. I did not say that. I hope he will look at what I said, in Hansard.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, used that most reasonable of Parliamentary arguments that strong feelings have been expressed and would it not be possible for the Government to look again at the provision? This is a difficult argument to answer. The difficulties are inherent in the subject. If I felt that here was a matter that could be resolved—there are a number of Amendments of which this is probably true—by further thought, discussion and consultation, I would willingly say so, but I must confess that I do not feel that. Noble Lords have been very general in what they have said. They have asked that, if it is difficult to define"rights ", could this not be overcome in some way? Well, of course, philosophers have been addressing themselves to the subject for about 2,000 years and there is still a great deal of disagreement. I do not think we are likely to resolve the matter very easily. What Clause 1 does is to set out general principles or themes, at the beginning of the Bill. There are four of these; they are declaratory rather than operative in function and are taken up in the subsequent specific provisions of the Bill. The clauses of the Bill are worded so as to avoid any possible inconsistency with the general declaratory principles at the beginning of the Bill.
My difficulty, and the reason why I do not think that, much as I should like

683
to, I can accept the offer and suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Perth, supported by many others, is that to put in a provision of this kind, a general principle, at the beginning of the Bill would be to accept inconsistency. It would achieve one of two things. The noble Lord will find, as we go through the Bill and he becomes a little more familiar with it, that there are things in it which would not be consistent with a straightforward statement of that kind. So either the Bill would have to be altered on all these points, or Parliament would have to accept that it had made at the beginning of the Bill a general statement of major importance and that the provisions subsequent to the statement were not in every respect consistent with its terms.
There is a deep division of opinion, I think, on this matter in your Lordships' House, and if noble Lords feel strongly about it, the subject has been aired and discussed and I think the right thing to do is to leave it to the Committee to decide.
LORD WADE: I am very disappointed with the Minister's reply. I shall not attempt to answer every point he made in his two speeches, but may I just touch on one or two? I do not follow him in his objections to the use of the words"right"and"status ", although I would be ready to agree that if this provision were to be re-worded it might be that some improvement could be devised. But when I look at the Government's own wording in the fifth line of Clause 1(1) I see the word"right ". If the Government use the word"right"why should not we in our Amendment use the word
"right"? I really do not follow that argument.
The other argument which may have caused some noble Lords to doubt the advisability of this Amendment relates to the effect it might have on the offence of assisting illegal entry. But is that a valid objection? Subsection (1) of Clause 1 reads:
" All those who are in this Act expressed to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom shall he free to live in, and to come and go into and from, the United Kingdom without let or hindrance…".
Does that mean that all those people are completely free to assist illegal entry? I am sure that that is not so, cannot be so. If I commit the offence of assisting illegal entry I must expect to pay the penalty for it. The insertion of a general principle at the beginning of this Bill will not relieve me from that liability. If there is any doubt about it that doubt can be cleared up in the wording of the Bill. So I do not think that that is a sound argument at all. It has been stated by the Minister that these provisions are declaratory and that the Amendment which we have proposed is declaratory. It is unusual in a Bill to begin with general principles, but here we have a Bill which sets out certain general principles, and I am very disappointed that the Government have not accepted the general principle which I have put forward.
4.16 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 79.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Clwyd, L.

George-Brown, L.

Amherst, E.

Collison, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Amulree, L.

Coventry, L. Bp.

Granville of Eye, L.

Archibald, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Gray, L.

Ardwick, L.

Crook, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Crowther, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Beswick, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hoy, L.

Birk, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Blackburn, L. Bp.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Hylton, L.

Blyton, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Faringdon, L.

Janner, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Fiske, L.

Kennet, L.

Burgh, L.

Foot, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Burntwood, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Leatherland, L.

Carnock, L.

Gardiner, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Champion, L.

Garner, L.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Chorley, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Lindgren, L.

Listowel, E.

Roberthall, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Stonham, L.

McLeavy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Strang, L.

Maelor, L.

Seear, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Maybray-King, L.

Segal, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Morrison, L.

Shackleton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Moyle, L.

Shepherd, L.

Terrington, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Sheffield, L.

Wade, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Silkin, L.

White, Bs.

Perth, E.

Slater, L.

Willis, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Soper, L.

Wise, L.

Platt, L.

Sorensen, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Stamp, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Eccles, V.

Milverton, L.

Allerton, L.

Effingham, E.

Monck, V.

Balfour, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Northchurch, Bs.

Barnby, L.

Essex, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Poltimore, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grenfell, L.

Ranfurly, E.

Blackford, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hacking, L.

St. Just, L.

Brock, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Burton, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Camoys, L.

Hatherton, L.

Sudeley, L.

Conesford, L.

Hives, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Courtown, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Tollemache, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Latymer, L.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Leathers, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Derwent, L.

Long, V.

Willingdon, M.

Digby, L.

Lothian, M.

Windlesham, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Wolverton, L.

Dudley, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.24 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD had given Notice of Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert (" and the said rules shall, until otherwise laid down by the Secretary of State, be in the form contained in the Draft Immigration Rules: Control on Entry (Cmnd. 4606) presented to Parliament on 23rd February 1971 and the Draft Immigration Rules: Control after Entry (Cmnd. 4610) presented to Parliament on 4th March 1971.")
The noble Lord said: I think the Committee will agree that this is another important Amendment which ought to be included in the Bill. Do I need to remind the Committee again that Clause 1 of the Bill sets out the general principles? We on this side of the Committee believe that, for the reasons given in the previous Amendment, it should be made clear beyond any question that in the framing and the administration of the rules which
686
the Home Secretary can lay down and Parliament will approve there shall be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion. I do not believe that anything will divide the Committee on that general principle. The Government themselves recognise this by the inclusion of these very words in the draft rules governing the entry of immigrants into this country. Those words are contained in Clause 2 of the rules.
Why, then, do we feel that this should go into the Bill when it is already in the rules? For these reasons: first, during our whole consideration of the remaining stages of this Bill, which clearly must be guided by the general principles contained in Clause 1, Parliament should have in its mind that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion. Second, it is equally true that in future years, when Parliament may be called upon to look at a new set of

687
rules, they should be reminded of what was the spirit and intention of Parliament when it approved this Bill and it became an Act. My third reason I gave in support of the previous Amendment; that is, that it should be quite clear to the courts what was the intention of Parliament when it introduced this new Bill dealing with the control of immigration, whether it be from the Commonwealth or from other foreign lands; namely, that there should be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion.
I hope that the Government will be able to respond favourably to this Amendment. It is not only important in terms of Parliament but, as one sees from the Bill, it would be relatively easy for a future Home Secretary to change the rules. He would be able to do it fairly quickly and with the minimum of Parliamentary approval. I think we must be fair and frank with each other: for many years to come Home Secretaries are going to be under continual pressure in regard to community relations. I am in no doubt about that, despite what was said in Committee in another place. There are certain members of the Party opposite who still speak in terms of immigration of which I think the majority of your Lordships would not approve. The pressure is undoubtedly on a Conservative Home Secretary as it would be on a Labour Home Secretary, and therefore one should make it difficult for any Home Secretary to change the rules.
It is important, too, that we should let all our community, white and coloured, know that it will be difficult to change the rules. If we put this clause into the Bill, then any future Parliament that wished to change the position—I do not believe it ever will, but if it did—would need a new Act of Parliament. It would need Government and Parliament deliberately to come to both Houses with a Bill which would be given its First and Second Readings, Committee and Report stages and Third Reading, with all the checks and counter-checks that arise from Parliamentary approval. That would be of tremendous assistance to any Home Secretary when the pressures become great. So we should like to see it in the Bill for that reason.
But there is another reason. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham,
688
said on the last Amendment, I believe that it will give a new feeling to the immigrants who are already in this country, and all those who work in community relations. I know that parts of this Bill are not liked by many sections who work in this field; that is understandable. If it is there, it is the duty of all of us to see how best we can remove these genuine fears. I believe that this Amendment, if it were accepted, would in a small way help to remove those fears and uncertainties.
LORD JANNER: I think this is one of the most important Amendments we have on the Marshalled List to-day. I cannot over-emphasise the necessity of having a categorical statement included in an Act of Parliament on this particular matter of the liberty and the recognition of the three categories to which the Amendment applies. I said a few moments ago that I was concerned with the issue that we were debating in relation to Commonwealth citizens. This goes further, much further. The question here is that if people are not certain that these principles will prevail we should be in a very sorry plight indeed.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord in mid-flow. Is he speaking to Amendment No. 2 or is he directing his remarks more to Amendment No. 3?
LORD SHEPHERD: I fear that I am at fault. My noble friend Lord Kilbracken's Amendments were called in the period of jubilation for this side of the House on the last Division. I had not intended to move Amendment No. 2. I think it was called and I nodded. It was not taken. Then I rose and I thought I was speaking to Amendment No. 3. I thought I made it clear in my speech which Amendment I was speaking to. To regularise the position, if the Chair will call Amendment No. 2 I will not move, and then I will beg to move Amendment No. 3 formally.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think that course will be quite acceptable to us on this side, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for clearing it up.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD GRENFELL): I call Amendment No. 2.
LORD SHEPHERD: Not moved.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" Provided that in the framing of the rules and in the administration thereof there shall he no discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD JANNER: I am extremely sorry. I had assumed that we were talking on Amendment No. 3, because, of course, everything my noble friend said was directed to that. On the colour question, there is no doubt at all that it must be made 100 per cent. clear that there shall not be discrimination, particularly in view of the fact that there is reaction to the Bill itself in the coloured community, and a reaction which I am sure will continue for a very considerable time and will be referred to again in the course of the debate. I would point out to the Committee that people have suffered very considerably from oppression because of their religion and because of their race. I need hardly remind this House of what horrific barbarisms happened in the holocaust in Germany not so very long ago. It would be simple enough for an extreme régime to alter what certainly is not intended by the legislation that is being passed at present. I do not say that such an event can be near or can be far off, but one thing is 100 per cent. certain; that is, that if a Home Secretary were to choose to use the method which is available at the present time he could change the position overnight. We are told that the rules themselves provide sufficient protection for those who are concerned. That may be the position at the present time. But the question is whether those rules should not become so difficult to change that Parliament has to intervene. Ought not we to consider at this stage what may happen? It may be remote, but nevertheless there is the possibility, and a less liberal Home Secretary can very easily alter regulations of this description.
We heard a few minutes ago that rules of this kind have prevailed before without being incorporated in an Act. I have gone into this matter carefully, and if the noble Lord will make the necessary research—if he has not already done so—he will find we have a precedent for incorporating a matter of this description in an Act of Parliament. In 1905 the Board of Deputies of British Jews were responsible to a
690
very considerable extent in arranging that their point of view, in respect of a legislative measure which was coming into force at that time, should be recognised. In dealing with the problem that was raised at that time in respect of political and religious protection, there was in fact introduced into the Bill in 1905 a provision which provided—and I quote the section:
" …in the case of an immigrant who proves that he is seeking admission to this country solely to avoid prosecution or punishment on…political grounds or for an offence of a political character, or persecution, involving danger…to life or limb on account of religious belief, leave to land shall not he refused on the ground…or the probability of his becoming a charge on the rates… "
It may be said that that is not identical with the rights we are discussing at present. My point is that at that time one of the questions that was before Parliament was whether an immigrant would be in a position to support him-self or have to be supported. This particular provision was entered into the Statute to exclude the possibility of that being taken into consideration in respect of a political or religious refugee.
I speak with a fair knowledge of cases in which religious persecution has taken place and in which political persecution has taken place and where asylum has been sought here. There are two clauses in the rules which should be incorporated in the Act itself, and which should—and I hope will—be accepted as of outstanding importance, in order to prevent anybody from altering overnight a situation which the present Home Secretary, I am sure, and the noble Lord and others, would not want to have altered in that manner. There is no earthly reason why, on the precedent that I have quoted—and I am sure there must be similar precedents in various Acts—we should not emphasise the importance of this particular point and in these circumstances I hope that the Government will accept the insertion in the Bill itself of these provisions, so that it will require another Bill, in respect of which the opinion of Parliament must be properly expressed, to alter the position.
4.42 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: The words in this Amendment express a principle which I have tried to reflect in over sixty

691
years in public life in this country. Nevertheless, I do not want to speak at length on the Amendment because we are in Committee, and one does not want to deal with principles, with which one would deal in a Second Reading debate. I just want to put two points which I think are Committee points. First, what disturbed me in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, on the previous Amendment was when he said that the acceptance of that Amendment would be inconsistent with the subsequent clauses in the Bill. We have accepted that Amendment, and I hope that that will mean that the subsequent clauses which are inconsistent with it will be withdrawn or rejected. I recognise, as I am speaking to the Committee, that if we adopt this Amendment many of the subsequent clauses in the Bill will either have to be withdrawn or rejected. As we come to consider those clauses I do not think we shall find any doubt whatsoever that they do discriminate on grounds of race, colour or religion.
The second point that I want to make is that this Amendment may be regarded as unnecessary because it involves the acceptance of a principle, and that after we have laid down certain principles in a Bill we then come to consider concrete proposals. I say to the Committee that the rules which are to be framed may be framed now by my own Member of Parliament, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, who I have recognised is more liberal than many of his colleagues, but rules can also be framed by other Secretaries of State for Home Affairs who are not so liberal as he is. Therefore it is very important, when we are carrying this Bill, that we should lay down a principle in relation to those rules which shall determine their character. For that reason, on a second ground which I think is relevant to the Committee stage of this Bill, I hope that this Amendment will be accepted, so that we shall proclaim that the rules shall not discriminate on grounds of race, colour or religion.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I should like to support this Amendment extremely briefly. I think that this nation is committed to these three principles through the United Nations. It is likely that if one searched
692
the Conservative Party Manifesto one would find them all expressed there. I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and his colleagues do not approve of discrimination, whether racial religious, or colour. Therefore, as there can be no possible objection to putting the words in the Bill. I support the Amendment that they should be put in.
LORD MILVERTON: I rise to say very briefly that I not only consider this Amendment to be unnecessary but also undesirable. I think it is going to deprive the authorities—perhaps it is aimed at depriving them—of a power which they may badly need. I am not a racialist, and I have had a very considerable world-wide experience in dealing with other races. I believe—and I am afraid it is necessary to explain my objection—in the brotherhood of man so long as it means that it is the duty of every race to regard with respect and consideration the traditions and the outlook of other races. If it means that there is a likeli-hood, or even a possibility, of integrating one race with another irrespective of what their traditions may be, then I am totally against it. In this country already we have groups of other races who are already becoming a difficult section of the community. Surely it is necessary that the authorities should have the power to say that in order to avoid the growth of a cancer in the social life of the country—and the world is littered with these examples, and the trouble they cause if not taken in time—they cannot, for the sake of the welfare of this country and the welfare of the people who are coming into it in other ways, allow a certain racial section to be increased any more.
It may be said that this is not a practical view. I speak as an administrator who has had to discard the pleasure of sitting in a study and having beautiful dreams which are not practically possible or desirable. Therefore, I think that this Amendment should not be allowed to go through. Perhaps I could end with a well-known saying:
"Time takes his revenge for all the counsels to which he is not called."
If you allow these communities to grow which are not integrable at all into the life of the country, you will have a problem which you should have avoided by dealing with it in time.
LORD SILKIN: May I ask the noble Lord whether he is objecting to the rule which contains the same provision?
LORD MILVERTON: I did not hear what the noble Lord said.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, said that he objected to the Amendment because it was unnecessary. He can only think it unnecessary because nowhere does the Bill discriminate on racial, colour or religious grounds. Were we to ask any noble Lord here this afternoon whether he was in favour of discrimination on grounds of race, religion or colour, he would say—and mean it—" Certainly not ". I think that that is the attitude of the Government.
LORD MILVERTON: Would the noble Lord say that one must not regard as the first principle the welfare of the people of this country?
LORD STONHAM: This is part of the welfare of the people of this country, an essential part, and has been for hundreds of years. I have talked often with the noble Lord. I know the way he feels and that his own sentiments are at variance with the speech he has just made. But, with respect, I am not so much concerned with him at the moment as with the Bill and with what we all think about the Bill and whether, when we have studied it, we have asked ourselves whether it discriminates on any one of those three grounds. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite have satisfied themselves that it does not. I believe that that is the position of the Government. If that is so, if they are confident in this matter, there is no reason whatsoever why this Amendment should not be accepted and why it should not be written into the Bill.
The first Amendment struck me as a test for the Government's sincerity and for their belief in this Bill. That Amendment was carried. I should be sorry to see this one go to a Division. It ought not to go to a Division; the Government should accept it. I say to the noble Lord that I should not like the unenviable task of convincing the Committee that the Bill is right and the Amendment is wrong; for it is undeniably, absolutely and unarguably right. It is something that every Member of this House believes in. On a matter of this kind we should now
694
have the courage of our convictions and support it. I should like to see noble Lords on the other side of the Committee take part in this debate and say what are their views. I am convinced that they believe this Amendment to be right. And I am convinced that that applies also to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. If the Government are convinced that there is nothing in this Bill which discriminates, then there is nothing in this Amendment to which they can object. I strongly support my noble friend.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: In Schedule 6 we are doing away with the Aliens Restrictions Acts, or most of them. This Bill concerns immigration from all sorts of different countries. I see the principle behind the Amendment and I have nothing to say against people not being discriminated against on the grounds of colour or religion. I think that most of us will recognise any colour and any religion. But we must be careful about the word"race ". Race can involve any nation—one that might be friendly or one that might be very unfriendly to us in this country. Let us remember that just before the last war we deported Italians, Germans and Japanese. I hope that that will never happen again; but we had to do it. It was in order to protect our own interests that the Aliens Act 1914 was brought in. It is possible that the word"race"in this Bill is capable of misinterpretation.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I should not have intervened at this stage had it not been for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. I hope that the Committee will pay the greatest attention to the inflection which has been introduced and which this Amendment is seeking to correct. If this is not explicit, and not explicitly said, the most fantastic embarrassment to the Community Relations Commission (of which I was once a member) and certainly to the Race Relations Board will be caused. Anyone who tries to integrate people in this country regardless of race, colour and creed is going to be extremely suspicious—even more so than he is at the moment—about the meaning of this Bill. Therefore, in the interests of what is being done (and very effectively done in many cases, if conditions are not exacerbated by remarks such as we have heard) I ask that this Amendment be accepted.

695
There is no choice. The Government have no choice but to make it as explicit as this Amendment proposes that it should be made.
LORD WADE: I should not like it to be thought from my silence that I was not supporting this Amendment. I support it. There is another which I shall be moving later. One has to try to draw the line between a statement of principle and the procedure for carrying out the policy of the Government. I take the view that this Amendment comes down on the side of principle rather than on a matter of procedure. I should prefer to see these words inserted in the Bill. Therefore I support the Amendment.
LORD SEGAL: I, too, should like to add my plea to the Government to accept this Amendment. If there be any need at all for this Bill, which many of us doubt, surely the Government, in their ingenuity to try to elicit grounds for discrimination, can evolve other grounds other than those of race, colour or religion. If this tends to be a discriminatory Bill, there are many other reasons which the Government can adduce to exclude persons involved in the administration of this particular clause. I can not conceive that any civilised Government in this day and age could possibly agree to the exclusion of any immigrants on the grounds of race, colour and religion. Many of us are aware of the long tradition in the Home Office of humanity and fairness and careful consideration of the reasons for political refugees and others coming into this country. There exist bodies which will vouch for them, which will give guarantees that they will not be any charge on the public funds. But to refuse to accept an Amendment of this nature, to imply that the Government intend to exercise discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion, is to my mind beyond the comprehension of any civilised individual who is a citizen of this country.
5.0 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Amendment would add to subsection (4) a proviso prohibiting discrimination on grounds of race, colour or religion in the framing of or administration of the immigration rules. The point was fully debated in another place in Standing
696
Committee, when The Opposition put down an Amendment in the same terms. The Standing Committee supported the Government's view that it was unnecessary to include such a provision in the Bill and I should like to explain the reasons for that advice. It goes without saying that there is no difference in any Party over the principle that discrimination on these grounds should play no part in immigration control, but we have had to look very carefully into the implications of an Amendment on these lines.
First, it is as well to distinguish between the framing and the administration of the immigration rules. As regards the framing—that is to say, the policy which lies behind the rules—I shall have more to say in a moment; but on the all-important question of administration what the noble Lord who moved the Amendment is seeking to achieve is already achieved in Rule 2, to which he referred in his opening speech. Rule I is concerned with interpretation and Rule 2 is the first rule of substance in the Draft Immigration Rules: Control on Entry (Cmnd. 4606). The instruction is as follows:
" Immigration officers will carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom."
I think we can all agree that it is the administration of immigration policy that is of crucial importance. What matters is how the instructions given by the Government to the immigration officers responsible for enforcing the policies which have been laid down, and which are contained in the White Paper now before Parliament, work.
As regards the framing of policy, both the present Government and their predecessors have disclaimed any intention of discriminating on grounds of race, colour or religion. Nevertheless, this has not prevented criticism of their immigration policy as being based on colour discrimination; and such criticism is voiced in public speeches and in the Press, as well as in Parliament. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, take the same theme to-day and he used similar language in roundly condemning the immigration legislation of the Party opposite in 1968.
LORD BROCKWAY: As did the noble Lord.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am in enough trouble already to-day. These criticisms, I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will accept, are likely to continue whether or not these words are put in the Bill. What would be the impact of making this Amendment? I do not think that we can suppose, if we are practical, that it is going to still criticisms of this kind. Those who believe that the Government's policy is discriminatory will continue to urge their criticisms, inside and outside Parliament. We cannot complain about this, it seems to me, because the merits of the immigration policy adopted by the Government of the day are political questions, which ought to be argued out and decided by all the apropriate methods. But the results of making an Amendment might well be that this perennial question would also be argued in ways that some noble Lords might feel were not so appropriate.
It would be open to anyone adversely affected by a decision taken in accordance with the immigration rules to challenge the relevant provision of the rules on appeal against the decision or possibly before the courts, on the ground that the provision itself involved discrimination on grounds of race or colour. The basis of such a challenge, we believe, might well be that the provision in question differentiated between citizens or nationals of different countries. Some differentiation, of course, is inevitable in practice, and this is covered in Clause 3(2) of the Bill. An example of a provision which differentiates on this basis, in a way which a Commonwealth citizen might argue was to his disadvantage, is paragraph 38 of Cmnd. 4606, concerning entry clearances which are required by dependents coming for settlement. This applies also to aliens who are visa nationals, but it does not apply to aliens with whose countries we have visa abolition agreements. So there is a differentiation there.
On the other side, a rule which benefits Commonwealth citizens only, and not people from foreign countries, is contained in paragraph 10 of Cmnd. 4610, relating to what are called working holidays extending for up to, but not more than, a period of three years. It would be quite wrong, we believe, to require the appellate authorities or the courts to determine politically controversial
698
questions, as they will be, about the merits of the Government's immigration policy. The Government should be answerable for that policy to Parliament, and political questions, we believe, are not best decided by judicial tribunals.
It is for these practical reasons that we do not think it would be wise to add these words to the Bill. But I can say to the noble Lord opposite, and to others who have spoken, that we quite understand the thought behind the Amendment, and in the all-important matter of the application of the immigration policy the principle is contained in the immigration rules themselves.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am bound to say that I find the noble Lord's speech utterly unconvincing and pretty wide of the mark, so far as the Amendment is concerned. I agree with him that perhaps the most important factor is the administration of the rules. But the intention of the Government is perfectly clear: it is set out in subsection (2) of the Draft Rules. I have no doubt at all as to what are the intentions of the Government and the present Home Secretary, but, as I indicated in my speech, they can be removed very easily. In the interests of immigrants, and of all those who work within community relations, I suggested that we should put beyond doubt that the whole operation of this Bill will not be based on discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or religion by establishing this clearly in the general principles. If any Government or any Home Secretary wish to alter it, they are perfectly entitled to do so, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that in the end it is Parliament who has to decide. And it is for Parliament to lay down the policy. The policy should not be changed by a mere deletion of some few words in the rules, but should be changed only by a Bill which has gone through both Houses of Parliament.
As to policy, I thought the noble Lord was getting the question of nationality slightly mixed up with race, colour and religion. If the Government decided that for some political reason they would keep Kenyans or Tanzanians out of this country, then I suppose they could. They would not be affected by my Amendment,

699
because a Kenyan, Ugandan or a Tanzanian is governed not by race but by his own nationality. However, it would be within my Amendment if the Government decided that they were going to keep Africans as a race out of this country. I do not believe that they would ever dream of so doing, but I want to ensure in the Bill that they cannot do so.
Again, on the question of colour I suppose that an African is black. There are varying degrees of blackness. I do not see how this particular description could cause difficulties to the Government. I do not want to delay the Committee too long, but I come back to what I said at the beginning: that this is an important principle. The Government have accepted this principle in the rules. What I and my noble friends wish to ensure is that this important principle shall be clearly established in legislation, and that if it is to be changed it will be changed only by an Act of Parliament and not by something that is just slipped through.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Before the noble Lord sits down, I should say that I follow his argument, but it seems to me that it is really directed at the later Amendments concerned with the Parliamentary approval of the rules. There is a series of Amendments on the Marshalled List on this subject, and we shall be discussing them when we come to them. The noble Lord's arguments will apply when we are discussing whether or not the immigration rules should be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, the Affirmative Resolution procedure, or whatever it may be. The noble Lord has not, I think, dealt with my reply. I have said that I am with him on this matter, and there is no difference between the two sides on this relatively narrow point. This Amendment was first put down in another place, and we have had many months to study it. We believe that there would be practical implications of the type that I have explained; namely that the basis on which a rule is framed could be challenged through immigration appeals system or through the courts. Charges of discrimination are made, and we do not think that writing these words into the Bill will prevent them from being made.
700
All we should be doing would be to place these political decisions in the hands of the Appeal Tribunal, the adjudicator and the courts. This is our difficulty, and I am not sure that the further comments of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, took account of the points I was making in reply.
LORD SHEPHERD: What I am discussing at the moment is a question of principle. I hope that the noble Lord will get quite clear in his mind that this is a question of general principle in the Bill. If the noble Lord wishes to make some variation on how policy or administration is conducted, I believe that he already has that power in Clause 3(2), which says that Clause 1(4):
" shall not be taken to require uniform provision to be made by the rules as regards admission of persons for a purpose or in a capacity specified in section 1(4)…".
It seems to me that there the Government have already given themselves some opportunity and flexibility. At the moment, all I am clear in my mind about is that we should get this one fundamental issue established: that throughout this Bill there shall be no discrimination on grounds of race, colour and religion. If the noble Lord cannot meet us, then I think I must invite my noble friends and the Committee to support me on this important principle.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord is in a fighting mood. He is making his point forcefully, but does he feel that by putting these words into the Bill this principle will be universally adhered to: that everyone will say,"Parliament has said that there shall not be discrimination on these grounds and therefore these challenges to our policy and our rules will not be made "? I do not think he would be as unrealistic as that. It seems to me that he is constructing a major principle out of what is, after all, a relatively narrow point.
5.11 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: With respect, it is not a narrow point; it is a major principle. I am wondering whether the noble Lord can enlighten me—and I ask this question for illumination. As he knows, in the set of rules concerning entry there is specific mention of the duty

701
laid upon immigration officers not to discriminate on grounds of race, colour or religion. Therefore it is already something which is to become a Parliamentary instrument by the agreed procedure which the Government have granted. So he cannot be objecting on that ground. A similar reference is not included in the other set of rules, concerned with the treatment of immigrants after they have entered this country. As I understand it from the discussion which took place elsewhere, this was because at the point of entry one is not yet in this country, and one is therefore not subject to the Race Relations Act. Once one is in this country, one is subject to that Act. It would therefore appear that under the Race Relations Act one could fairly argue that it would be improper to discriminate. It was not quite clear from the discussions in the other place whether that was the reason why this is in one set of rules but not in the other set of rules. But if it is to be in one set of rules, and if the reason why it is not specifically in the other set of rules is because they are assumed under another Statute, then what is the real objection of the Government to including in this Statute a specific reference to something which we are all agreed, with, I think, the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, is a matter of principle that we accept.
LORD JANNER: I feel strongly on this matter, and I hope the Committee will forgive me for intervening. I should like to ask the noble Lord and the Government whether they are genuine in the expression that they give in the rule that has been referred to, that this discrimination should not be exercised. If so, what on earth prevents them from seeing that a future Home Secretary cannot overnight change the rule? Why not let Parliament decide?
LORD WINDLESHAM: We are coming back to what I think is a difference of considerable importance, as I mentioned in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd; and that is the question of Parliamentary control of the immigration rules. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will follow me on this. He asked me a question, and I should like to give him a reply, but if he is going to
702
talk to his noble friends he will be in the same position as he is now. The immigration rules will be subject to Parliamentary control. Therefore, unless Parliament agrees with him, there is no question of the Home Secretary of the day suddenly changing the rules. If Parliament does agree with him, he can change the rules; but if Parliament does not agree with him, Parliament can negative the rules. This is not true of the immigration rules at the moment. Here we have a major change, a change of substance, made by the Home Secretary when the Bill went through another place. When we talk about Parliament's agreeing, we are talking about the sovereignty of Parliament. It is for Parliament to agree that a future Home Secretary may change the rules, in the same way that it is for Parliament to agree to a future Home Secretary's changing the Bill. Parliament could alter what is in the Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, asked me about the two White Papers, and pointed out, quite correctly, that the instruction to immigration officers that they should carry out their duties without regard to the race, colour or religion of people seeking to enter the United Kingdom was contained in the draft immigration rules for control on entry, but not in the second White Paper concerning control after entry. The main reason for this is that the immigration rules for control on entry are directly binding on immigration officers. These are the instructions they have from the Home Secretary of the day as to how they are to carry out their duties. They are directly binding on the immigration officers because it is with the immigration officers and their responsibilities that this White Paper is concerned. The second White Paper is concerned with control after the person has been admitted to this country, and a wide range of people are concerned in the operation of these provisions. I think that is the answer to the noble Baroness.
LORD SHEPHERD: But they would be subject to the Race Relations Act?
LORD WINDLESHAM: In some cases, but not all, because Crown servants are not, generally speaking, affected by the provision of services under the terms of the Race Relations Act.
THE EARL OF PERTH: I followed what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I think I am very much helped by it; but there is one thing I should like to ask him. In relation to the rules laid down for immigration officers, I understand that there are these very important words"subject to Parliamentary procedure ". This means to say that the Home Secretary lays the rules in front of Parliament. Are those rules subject to the Negative Resolution procedure or to an Affirmative Resolution?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Negative.
THE EARL OF PERTH: For how many days is it to stand?
LORD WINDLESHAM: This is set out in the Bill. If the noble Earl will refer to Clause 3(2) he will find all the details there.
5.24 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: Is it not a fact that the rules come into force as soon as they are made by the Secretary of State? Is it not right that under Clause 3(2) he has
" from time to time to lay before Parliament statements of the rules, or any changes in the rules, laid down by him…."
and then,
" If a statement laid before either House of Parliament under this subsection is disapproved by a resolution of that House passed within the period of forty days beginning with the date of laying…. then the Secretary of State shall as soon as may be make such changes or further changes in the rules as appear to him to be required in the circumstances and lay a further statement before Parliament accordingly ".
Am I not right in saying that the rules come into force as soon as the Home Secretary chooses to make them, and remain in force while from time to time he makes statements about them before the House? If Parliament disapproves of them, they remain in force—is that not right?—and all that happens if Parliament disapproves of them, if Parliamentary time can be found in 40 days, is
704
that the Home Secretary has to make a further statement on such changes as appear to him to be required; but for all this time the rules are in force. Is that not right?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, we must not have any doubt in our minds about this. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has said is true, and noble Lords must not lose sight of this.
There are millions of visitors coming to our ports every year. I do not have the figures as to immigration officers, but this is a very substantial service. These people are entitled to know under what rules they are expected to act. These rules are published and laid before Parliament. It would be quite impossible to expect any service of this kind not to operate on the basis of the published rules. If Parliament disapproves of them, this clause says that the Home Secretary must go away and think again and come forward with more rules, and if they are approved they will be substituted. It would be totally unrealistic for noble Lords to expect that if a rule were disapproved to-day it would be deleted and the immigration service would have no rules until such time as a new rule had been substituted.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am very anxious that we should make some progress on this Bill. I intervene now wondering whether the Committee would feel that this is the moment at which we should come to a decision. If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, he has accepted the description and method under which this Bill will operate in making rules as explained by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. In fact, what has happened is that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has sought—I do not think deliberately—to create the impression that there is quite a considerable amount of Parliamentary control before the rules come into operation. It is quite clear that rules come into operation immediately the Home Secretary makes them. Therefore the Home

705
Secretary can make rules, and he can change those rules which have these important words in them. This is the reason why we wish to see in the Bill that these important principles cannot be changed unless the Home Secretary comes to Parliament with an amending Bill. I ask my noble friends and those through
out the Committee who feel our way to vote on this Amendment.
5.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 96.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Gardiner, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Archibald, L.

Garner, L.

Platt, L.

Ardwick, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

George-Brown, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Beswick, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Robbins, L.

Birk, Bs.

Granville of Eye, L.

Royle, L.

Blackburn, L.Bp.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Heycock, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Shackleton, L.

Burgh, L.

Hunt, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Sherfield, L.

Caradon, L.

Hylton, L.

Slater, L.

Carnock, L.

Janner, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Chorley, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stonham, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Strang, L.

Coventry, L.Bp.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leicester, L.Bp.

Tanlaw, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wade, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Maelor, L.

White, Bs.

Exeter, L.Bp.

Moyle, L.

Wise, L.

Faringdon, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Foot, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Eccles, V.

Monck, V.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monson, L.

Auckland, L.

Essex, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Ferrers, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Goschen, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Barnby, L.

Gray, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Beauchamp, E.

Greenway, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

Grenfell, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gridley, L.

Poltimore, L.

Bessborough, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Ranfurly, E.

Blackford, L.

Hacking, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Hailes, L.

Rothermere, V.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Rothes, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Hatherton, L.

St. Just, L.

Caccia, L.

Hives, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hood, V.

Sandford, L.

Colgrain, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Shannon, E.

Courtown, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Latymer, L.

Stamp, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Stonehaven, V.

de Clifford, L.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Denham, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Teviot, L.

Derwent, L.

McFadzean, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Digby, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Drumalbyn, L.

Merrivale, I.

Vivian, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Windlesham, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Willingdon, M.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Amendment to Amendment agreed to.

5.34 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" Provided that in framing the rules and in the administration thereof no Commonwealth citizen shall be deemed to be in breach of the condition of his work permit through illness and where he has a medical certificate certifying his inability to perform the employment specified in his work permit or through unemployment except where he wilfully refused employment on conditions at least equal to the employment specified in his work permit.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing on the Marshalled List in the name of my noble friends and myself. This Amendment and the following ones are concerned with the rules which we have already been discussing. We felt it was necessary to make some reference to these rules because, as our immediately preceding discussion will have revealed to your Lordships, they are going to be of extreme importance in the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, and if we do not make some indications at this stage of the provisions which we feel should be included within those rules it will be very difficult to do so effectively on any Parliamentary occasion. This is because, as we all know, under the Negative Resolution procedure one cannot amend rules but only approve or, as on this occasion, disapprove of them as put before Parliament by the Secretary of State.
This Amendment asks that in the framing and administering of the rules a Commonwealth citizen who is here with a work permit as one of his conditions of entry shall not be deemed to be in breach of that condition through illness or unemployment. This is of very great importance to those who may be admitted in future, because under subsection (5)(a) of Clause 3 of the Bill anyone who is not a patrial who is in breach of a condition attached to his leave to enter or to remain in this country makes himself thereby liable to deportation. We are very much concerned that Commonwealth citizens shall not, for example, be put at a disadvantage compared with workers who might come to this country if we should
708
enter the European Community. As we proceed through this Bill, although no decision has yet been taken about our entry to the European Community, it would be of great assistance if the noble Lord could enlighten us about the relative positions of workers who could come in under the provisions of the European Community and those who are Commonwealth citizens and will be affected by the legislation we are now being asked to pass.
Perhaps I might say in parenthesis that many of us have felt it would have been desirable to have held up this Bill until we knew whether or not we were going into the Community, and we could then pass legislation, if it were needed, with full knowledge of the true comparability of the position of European workers entering this country and Commonwealth citizens. But the Government in their wisdom have decided to proceed with the legislation forthwith without that knowledge, although it is of some significance that if European workers are to be permitted to enter this country under the provisions of the Community, as I understand it, their position here would be safeguarded in the circumstances described in this Amendment—in other words if they came in legally and were then taken ill or were to lose their jobs.
So far as health conditions are concerned, your Lordships will be aware that, under the rules regulating entry into this country, provisions are made to ensure that those who come and intend to remain in the United Kingdom for six months or longer should normally be referred to a medical inspector for examination at the point of entry; and Rules 56, 57 and 58 give instructions to immigration officers about what they should do to safeguard the position if they have any reason to suspect that someone wishing to enter may be suffering from some disease or condition. The immigration officer is specifically enjoined to consider whether a passenger is suffering from a specified disease or condition which might interfere with his ability to support himself or his dependants, and to take all this into account in conjunction with other factors in deciding whether or not to admit the passenger. Precautions are taken at the point of

709
entry, and we are concerned with what might happen thereafter.
I think we should surely all agree that if a person falls ill he should not be concerned lest he should be in breach of a condition laid down in his work permit and therefore make himself liable to possible deportation. This could add immeasurably to his or her anxieties, and I do not think any of us would wish that. Only those who work among some of the immigrant communities will appreciate the kind of apprehension which can prevail if they are uncertain of their position; if they fear that they may be in breach of some condition and may therefore be sent home. And, of course, under the provisions of the Bill if one person is deported because he is in breach of conditions of entry his entire family is in danger of being sent home; so we can imagine the state of someone who falls ill and is concerned as to whether he might be in breach. I do not believe for a moment that it is the intention of the Government that such a person should be regarded as being in breach of conditions, but we want to make it quite clear. Therefore we thought that by putting down this Amendment we should present the Government with an opportunity of making it clear. We should like to have it spelt out that if a person should fall sick he does not thereby lose his rights.
As we know, a work permit is subject to review at the end of the first year. Then normally there would be a three-year period, and it would be only after the end of four years that one could feel secure. So far as unemployment is concerned, here again if a person is unemployed—there may be every kind of reason why he has not been able to hold the job to which he originally came—we say that unless he has wilfully refused employment on conditions at least equal to the employment specified in his work permit, the job for which he was origin-all admitted to this country, he should not be regarded as being in breach. Again I hope that this is the Government's intention. They have control when the work permit comes up for renewal, if application for renewal is made, so this is not a permanent condition. Obviously the period comes when the work permit has to come up for renewal and that residual control remains. On the grounds of humanity, and in order to provide
710
some kind of stability for the lives of people who have come here to work, we feel it is important that these two conditions should be spelt out. I hope, therefore, that the Government will make it clear that in these two sets of circumstances they will not normally regard it as being in breach of conditions and will be prepared to agree that this shall be spelt out.
As I understand the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, this is something which we should be most happy to accept as an Amendment to our Amendment. I merely say this in advance so as not to take up your Lordships' time in discussing it later. My noble friends say that they will be quite happy to accept his Amendment if he wishes to move it.
5.44 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH LORD GORE-BOOTH moved, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5:
Line 4, after (" certificate ") insert (" or other such evidence as the determining authority may accept as sufficient ").
The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for what she has just said and I hope I may have the privilege of giving your Lordships the relief of moving an Amendment which is non-controversial. The basis of my Amendment is, in fact, already in existing legislation, and for that reason I hope it may be considered to be non-controversial. Its object is simply to preserve the position of those people who honestly and sincerely, as good citizens, use means other than those which would produce a medical certificate to claim medical privilege under the National Insurance Act. This right and this privilege are already in existing legislation. I think it is incumbent upon me to produce my own evidence that this is the case and I will try to do so extremely briefly.
When the National Insurance Act was passed in 1946 arrangements were made for people such as I have described—and I should declare my interest: I am particularly concerned with members of the Christian Science Movement—to go through an alternative procedure. Under this procedure the following wording was used. It is in Statutory Instrument No. 1175 of 1946, by which the rules were laid down. The Statement first says that

711
every person making a claim needs to obtain a medical certificate from a medical practitioner. It defines a medical practitioner and then gives an alternative.
" or such other means as the determining authority shall accept as sufficient in the circumstances of any particular claim or class of claims ".
When the legislation was brought up to date in 1967 (and the document there is Statutory Instrument 520, 1967) the same wording for an alternative was used and the legislation went further and prescribed a certain form of certificate which people in this class should produce. Indeed I have a sample with me.
I would add just one point—that the position of the health authorities is completely preserved by this legislation because the kind of certificate produced must be such that the determining authority will accept it. The determining authority is defined in the Statutory Instrument as a principal insurance officer, or a tribunal, or a number of alternative public authorities. In thanking the noble Baroness, Lady White, for her acceptance of my Amendment, I hope that the Government and your Lordships' House will receive it kindly. If this is done, I think this addition to what is a humane and sensible proposal will be received with considerable gratitude by the many good citizens who may come under this provision in the future.
LORD O'HAGAN: May I ask one question? There has been some disquiet about the nature of the proceedings that will happen at the end of the year, the provisional year, and subsequent years when people are admitted for work on this temporary basis. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, could say briefly whom the employers will have to report to, what form that report will take and whether it is largely material to the present system.
BARONESS WHITE: If I may suggest it to the noble Lord, perhaps a more appropriate place to discuss that would be with Amendment No. 6.
5.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): May I deal first with Amendment No. 5?
712
I should be happy to accept this Amendment to Amendment No. 4, but I am afraid that I cannot accept Amendment No. 4. It is an improvement on the wording of Amendment No. 4, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, acknowledges. When I say that I cannot accept it, I hope to be able to convince the noble Baroness that I can satisfy what she is trying to get at without the need for this Amendment.
There is some slight misconception in the way that it is worded. The holder of a work permit will not be made subject to a condition requiring him to perform the employment specified in the permit. The only condition that the holder of a work permit has imposed on him is one precluding him from taking any employment without the approval of the Department of Employment. The permit will constitute approval of his taking the job for which it was issued, and for any change of employment the new employer will have to apply to the Department of Employment for its approval of the change.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked me a question. All that is required of an employer is confirmation that he wishes to retain the worker in his employment. No report on the worker's efficiency or conduct is called for. We can go into this in more detail if the noble Lord wishes. So far as the work permit holder is concerned there will be no question of his being regarded as in breach of any condition governing his stay merely because he is unable, through illness, to do the job specified in the permit. Nor will he be in breach of the condition if he loses that job, or gives it up for whatever reason. If he loses his job, or gives it up, the Department of Employment will do all that it can to help him find another within the framework of the work permit scheme. His conditions are only infringed if he takes some other job without the necessary approval of the Department of Employment. I hope this meets the point of the noble Baroness.
Under the draft rules the question of extending a permit holder's stay at the end of the first 12 months, and of removing the time limit after four years, is one for consideration by the Home Office in the light of all the relevant circumstances. It would be going too far to

713
lay down a general rule that a work permit holder from the Commonwealth who at any time after entry loses his job through illness or involuntary unemployment is to be allowed to stay here indefinitely, but each case of illness or involuntary unemployment will be considered sympathetically on its merits, as indeed it is at the moment in the case of aliens. The Department of Employment will give the worker help in finding other employment that it can approve within the scope of the work permit scheme.
As a final stop gap, if any extension of stay is refused, the worker will be able to appeal under the provisions of Clause 14. The appellate authorities will be able to form their own view of the compassionate circumstances of his case and decide whether he has a claim to stay here. It follows that a worker who falls ill, or becomes unemployed through no fault of his own, will not thereby be in breach of the law and will not automatically be sent out of the country. His case will be sympathetically dealt with; he will be given every opportunity to find other appropriate employment, and in the last resort he will have a right to appeal if he cannot find suitable employment and the Home Office decide to terminate his stay. In view of the assurances I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her Amendment.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF ABERLEY): Is the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, going to press his Amendment?
LORD GORE-BOOTH: I am entirely dependent on the noble Baroness in this matter. If this Amendment to the Bill is not pressed, but if subsequently any kind of rule is established, whether as part of these or any other rules, I hope that the Amendment I have moved will be taken into account and adopted in any drafting that may be carried out at that time. As to the principle of whether Amendment No. 4 should be pressed, I am entirely in the hands of the noble Baroness, Lady White.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, has not moved Amendment No. 5.
LORD CHAMPION: This is an Amendment to Amendment No. 4. Everybody seems to be agreed that it will improve the Amendment, therefore we ought to accept the Amendment and then return to the main question whether Amendment No. 4 be agreed to. I think that is the best way.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Now we return to Amendment No. 4, as amended.
BARONESS WHITE: It is a pity, having had such a good Amendment, that possibly Amendment No. 4 may go by the wayside. I appreciate the explanation give by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. It is important that we should have this explanation. This is one of the fields in which the rules are not as explicit and as specific as they should be. We have said that the purpose of the Amendment is for the framing of the rules and their administration. I hope that if I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment we may have some assurance from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that he and his colleagues will look again at the rules as drafted with these points in mind, so that what the noble Lord has explained to us can be spelt out clearly. We have had the privilege of hearing his very lucid explanation. I appreciate that the purpose of the Amendment is covered by what he has said. But anybody reading the rules—and people will be reading the rules and not, I am afraid, our debates—will not want to be in doubt as to the true position. I think the Government should give us some assurance that they will look again at the drafting of the rules to make certain that anybody who reads them will be in no doubt about the true position as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, which in itself seems reasonable and I would not wish to quarrel with it.
LORD ROYLE: I wonder if the noble Lord could clarify something for me. He referred to the unemployment situation and said that the Department of Employment will do their best to find alternative employment. But we are

715
living in days of quite a lot of unemployment; what would happen if the Department of Employment failed to find a man employment? Does this mean that there is only the appeal that can help him after that?
LORD ABERDARE: If I may first answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Royle, each case will have to be considered on its merits. The other point to remember is that work permits will be issued by special categories, and it is unlikely that a work permit will be issued in a case where there is, or is likely to be, considerable unemployment in this country. So far as the point of the noble Baroness, Lady White, is concerned, I will readily bring to the attention of my right honourable friend that we should look at the rules and the drafting of them very carefullly in the light of what she has said.
BARONESS WHITE: In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.0 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" Provided that in framing the rules and in the administration thereof no Commonwealth citizen after completing at least twelve months employment specified in his work permit issued prior to entry shall be restricted from entering new employment and at any place or that the wife of a Commonwealth citizen lawfully resident in the United Kingdom shall not be restricted from taking employment.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself. It raises two other points which seem to us to be of considerable importance. I must say that on the first there is very great misunderstanding within the immigrant community at the present time, although it, should not affect those who are here. They are concerned about the situation of those of their friends and relations who may seek to come here later on the basis of the possession of a work permit. When one looks at the rules concerning a work permit, it is apparent that in the first place, when one enters the country, one has to have a permit issued by the Department of Employment
716
in respect of a specific post with a specific employer: in other words, one's place of work and the nature of one's work are designated before one enters. The permit is issued initially for 12 months. Then one looks at the other set of rules, the rules after entry, and one sees Rule 19:
" A person coming here to work…will normally have been admitted for the period specified…up to a maximum of 12 months. Any application for an extension of stay should be accompanied by a letter from the employer confirming that he wishes to continue to employ the applicant; and an extension of stay may be granted where this is appropriate in the light of all the relevant circumstances."
Lord Aberdare, in his reply to the previous Amendment, has stated that this letter from the employer will be a simple confirmation of the fact that the employer wishes to keep the man or woman in his employ, and there will not be a report upon the conduct, capacity or other characteristics of the worker concerned. But this is far from clear in the rule.
Anybody reading the rules, and being told that at the end of his first 12 months his employer will be writing a letter to the Department of Employment, will obviously suspect that that letter may contain all kinds of description of his character or work, or progress of work, or lack of it. This has aroused all sorts of apprehensions among those now working in the immigrant community. I understand that some of them waited upon the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and that he told them a form would be prepared which would be discussed with the T.U.C., and that it would be a simple form with ticks on it but no description of the worker, or his character, or capacity, or any other personal matter of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is looking a little puzzled. All I can assure him is that this was told to some of your Lordships in the last week.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to have details of it. It is a little hard to identify the meeting to which the noble Baroness has referred, and what she is saying does not strike a chord in my memory. If she could give me a little more information it would be helpful.
BARONESS WHITE: I shall be delighted to let the noble Lord have such information as I have, because it refers,

717
as I understood it, to a deputation which waited upon him. The understanding of at least one person concerned in that deputation was that there were to be some discussions with the T.U.C. about the form in which this communication from the employer at the end of the 12-month period would take. It would be very much better if it were a simple form which everybody could see, so that they would know what is in it. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that if one reads in the rules that the employer has to write a letter, then the worker coming for the first time to this country might well be apprehensive. That is one of the points that we may be able to clear up during our discussion.
What we wish to emphasise in the first part of this Amendment is that in any case, provided that the worker has completed his first 12 months' stint with his particular job for which his work permit was issued, he should then be free from conditions as to where he works and in what jobs he works. This may be going a little further than the Government intend, but I think we ought to look very carefully at this. We can understand that if one is having a system of work permits, plainly a work permit can refer to a category of work; it can refer to an area of work; or, as is proposed, it can refer to a particular job with a particular firm. We are not at the moment contending that at the outset the work permit should be for a particular job or a particular employer, although one could argue that point. What we are saying is that after the first 12 months, if a man has completed his employment, then he should not feel that he is bound to that particular employer.
If for various reasons—and there can be so many reasons—someone found that the job for which he came was not what he thought it was going to be, or he did not get on with the foreman, or whatever it might be, he might wish to change. As I understood Lord Aberdare, in those circumstances it would be open to the man to go to the Department of Employment and say that he really cannot get on with his job, that he is not using his skills, that he can see no prospect of any sort of promotion, and that he would like to go to Messrs. So-and-So and take a job which is available there. But
718
let us get it quite clear, if he can go to the Department of Employment and say that he wants to take another job, that he would be free to do so provided that he has notified them that he was doing so.
I would quote in aid here comments which some of your Lordships may have seen from the Community Relations Commission on this whole subject of work permits:
"We repeat our disquiet at the plans for work permits to be issued for specific posts with specific employers. If migrant workers are to participate fully in the life of the community at large they must have the knowledge that they can change their jobs with ease if pressures are put on them by employers or management. They should not feel that their continued residence in this country is in the hands of their employer."
This is really very important, because while I am sure that the majority of employers would not seek to exploit workers coming in in this way, there can be exploitation, and we should not delude ourselves about that. Some of the stories that one sees, for example, about the migrant workers in Europe are quite horrifying. Some of your Lordships, who have read the reports in the German Press of the way in which migrant workers can be exploited if they do not have proper security, will know that this is causing concern not only in the immigrant community but also among our own trade union organisations in this country. I do not believe it is the intention of the Government to put a worker in the position where his employer could exploit him. I am sure they intend that he should have the protection of the Department of Employment, and that he should he reasonably free to change his job once he has entered the country and taken up the specific job for which he was allowed entry. We want to get this spelt out, and we want to have it absolutely clear and plain for all. I hope we shall have a really convincing explanation of the Government's intention on this point.
I now turn to the second part of the Amendment. There is a misplaced"or ". It should be an "and" in line 5. The second part of this Amendment concerns the wife of a Commonwealth citizen, the Commonwealth citizen himself being lawfully resident in the United Kingdom. We are asking that wives should not be restricted in the way which seems to us is

719
intended in the rules. In the rules for entry an immigration officer is told that he should permit a wife to enter the country if her husband is lawfully entering, subject to the same conditions as he is subject to, which is not unreasonable; but that she should be subject to restrictions on employment which would not apply to her husband. We find that entirely unsatisfactory—and I speak partly as a woman. Why should she be restricted? After all, if she is able and can find a job and is capable of working, why should she be confined to home or kitchen if she does not wish to be, any more than a normal resident of this country should be? Quite frankly, I move this Amendment partly on that ground; that a woman should not be, simply because of her sex, discriminated against in this matter of employment. If she is willing and able to take work she should he free to do so, and it should he for her and her husband to decide whether their family situation is such that it would be desirable for her to do so or not.
However, I have been particularly asked to mention this point in the context of students. Very often a male student comes here to take a professional qualification, possibly in law, medicine or one of the other learned professions, which involves a long course, as your Lordships know. Often he simply could not take that qualification if his wife did not work to support him. The student organisations in this country are very much concerned at this suggestion. Students are perfectly properly admitted for approved courses in this country and they might find themselves in a position where they could not look to their wives for some financial support while they were following the often long-drawn-out course of study to obtain a qualification. For those reasons, I hope that we shall hear from the Government that they support the intentions of both parts of this Amendment.
LORD O'HAGAN: It might save time if I did not move Amendment No. 8. I understand that those noble Lords who are associated with me would be quite happy to make their points on Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. As we are discussing work permits it might be more convenient to carry straight on.
6.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: May I ask one question concerning this Amendment? The Amendment refers to a person's"entering new employment and at any place ". Those words"at any place"are the words I want to emphasise. I feel, in the interests of our own security, that it might be a pity if the person had permission to go to one of the islands, or if, because of the wording in this particular provision, he could obtain an appointment near an armaments base or an ordnance factory where he could be doing something against our national interest I feel that the words"and at any place"could be left out. It would not change the Amendment to any serious extent. I am very interested in our own security.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: This is widening the problem in a way I find distasteful. These are our own British subjects about whom we are speaking. We are denying them the right they have always had. We are making a number of rules to avoid being flooded with them. But they are not spies; they are not members of foreign Powers. I do not think we can look at the matter from that point of view and I hope that no further attempts will be made in that particular regard. It is important that one should allow women the same rights to work as men. I wonder whether in this particular case any arrangement is made for a woman to apply for a work permit at the same time as her husband. I do not know; I should like clarification on that point. But, in general, any easing of restrictions on women, when the restrictions are already so severe on men, is entirely desirable, and I, should like to support the Amendment.
LORD BROWN: In support of my noble friend on the Front Bench, I wonder whether I might crystallise the first point she made by saying this. I know this is a difficult matter, but assuming I am an immigrant—and I am in one sense, I suppose, having come down the High Road from Scotland—in the sense of this Bill, I might go to an official, or even to the noble Lord himself, and say,"If I were to exercise my rights as an industrial worker and go to my boss and protest or claim the right to appeal, or in some other way assert

721
that I am not being properly treated, he might say to me, ' You watch out. You are here for a year and if you don't behave yourself the letter I send about you at the end of the year will be such as to cause you to be sent back home. So you'd better behave yourself '." That situation, as I read the Bill, could put enormous power for oppression of the individual in the hands of an irresponsible, bad employer. I wonder what reply will be given to that question. This is merely crystallising the point my noble friend has already made, but if the noble Lord could answer that specific question it might help to reassure us.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: I am glad this question has been raised. As one who has been an industrial chaplain for some years, I would underline what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said about this entirely wrong conception that an immigrant should be limited to only one employer. It raises the possibilities of an unscrupulous employer's putting undue pressure on that immigrant to the situation where he dare not opt out from that factory because then he would be unemployed and would almost certainly have to go back to the country from which he came. It would be wiser if he received a work permit, not relating to an employer but relating to a job of work. In other words, it should be a"work"permit rather than relating to a particular man or a particular factory.
The other point which worries me about this question of work permits is what I would call the social implications involved in the insecurity of tenure. I should have thought that they were really quite numerous. Again, I should like to underline them because permanent residence can be granted, so far as I can see in this Bill, only after four years, and the immigrant is therefore bound to suffer serious social consequences. He will be unable, or will find it very difficult, to obtain a mortgage or a loan or to enter into hire purchase agreements. That is an extremely difficult situation to have to face. Secondly, without very substantial deposits he will be unable to buy a car or furniture or other essentials, and this will make his life in this country extremely difficult. Thirdly, uncertainty about the reissue of work permits may
722
go a long way towards preventing him from bringing his family into this country. Fourthly, if he is redundant he will have little right to remain. All these factors seem to me to undermine the immigrant's sense of security and to make him what I am sure the Government do not wish to make him: a second-class citizen. Therefore I hope very much that this Amendment will be carried.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: While I do not share the feelings of persecution expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, I feel that, however much this Bill may be improved, it will contain many features of discrimination against immigrants. So I support this Amendment, and particularly when my noble friend speaks about the women. We should not add sex discrimination to a discrimination against immigrants.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: I wish to support this Amendment and to emphasise what has been manifest; namely, that we are talking about what I would refer to as the"bondsman"element in the Bill, by which one comes in as a debentured slave—a paid slave, but nevertheless a slave—entirely dependent upon the opinion of one's employer. I also wish to emphasise the point about sex discrimination, and about students. I do not think we should carry discrimination so far as to prevent the wives who are coming in from exercising their great privilege which is known as"P.H.D."—putting husband through degree.
LORD GARNER: I wish to say a few words in support of this Amendment, but they will be brief because the right reverend Prelate has said, and in more felicitous language, everything that I intended to say. I feel concerned about many of the provisions in this Bill. I can see the reasons for administrative tidiness, but I cannot help feeling, as the right reverend Prelate has said, that they will have a harsh effect on individuals and can be very tough, both psychologically and in practice. For example, an unsuspected"fall-out"of some of the provisions would be that building societies will not be able to give loans because of the lack of permanence. There is no problem about numbers in this Bill. We all accept what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack referred to in his

723
Second Reading speech as the"fence"that we wanted to erect. A restriction on numbers is accepted, but I feel strongly that those Commonwealth immigrants whom we continue to encourage to settle here should be freed from some of these vexations. I, too, am concerned with students and scholars and I know how worrying it will be for them if there is any doubt about the ability of their wives to help to earn money.
6.23 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I should like to go back to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, in moving this Amendment, and to deal first with the point made on the question of the rules, and reverting to the question of the letter from the employer which is required in order that a man's work permit may be renewed after an initial period of 12 months. These rules are not yet agreed, as I have already said, but I will certainly have another look at them. My noble friend Lord Windlesham will also look into the question of any assurance given at a meeting at which the T.U.C. were represented, and perhaps we can sort that out between us afterwards.
The effect of making this Amendment would be that Commonwealth immigrants coming with a work permit would be free from conditions after 12 months. The effect of a later Amendment standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord O'Hagan and Lord Garner, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, would be that they would not be bound by any conditions from the moment of arrival. Under the existing law a Commonwealth citizen who enters with an employment voucher can have no condition whatever attached to his stay in this country, under Section 3(2) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. Once he is admitted, he can stay here for ever, provided that he does not render himself liable for deportation, and he is not required to obtain approval for the employment he takes. The effect of this Amendment would be that all Commonwealth citizens entering with work permits would be bound by those work permits for 12 months only, and the effect of Amendment No. 8 would be that they would be entirely free of conditions as at present.
724
It is fundamental to the Government's policy, and has been made very clear during our Second Reading debate and in another place, that our intention is to bring Commonwealth workers into line with foreign nationals by providing that they should be admitted for employment only with a permit to take a particular job in a particular place and for an initial period not exceeding 12 months. Thereafter, like foreign nationals, at the, end of the first year, if there is no adverse indication, a Commonwealth citizen will be given an extension of stay for three years; and at the end of four years, if there is still no adverse indication his conditions will be cancelled. That will mean that he will then be able to stay here indefinitely, subject to his liability for deportation, and that he may take any job without the need for approval.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but will he explain what he means by an"adverse indication "?
LORD ABERDARE: Each case has to be considered by the Home Office, and after 12 months a letter from the employer has to indicate that the employer wishes to continue to employ the work permit holder. We consider that the existing system of entry for Commonwealth citizens to take employment is wrong. They enter either with a category A voucher, which is issued for work of a particular type with a particular employer, or with a category B voucher, which is issued in virtue of the qualifications that they hold—for example, as a teacher or a scientist. But, whatever the category of voucher, at present the Commonwealth citizen is not subject to any supervision over his employment after entry. If he has a category A voucher he need never go near the employer to whom it was issued; if he has a category B voucher he need never take employment appropriate to his qualifications. The fact that the Commonwealth citizen is not subject to supervision after entry means that he can straight away take a job for which better pay is available, notwithstanding that this may result in a resident worker becoming unemployed.
Various of your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of

725
Coventry, have suggested that the system that we are proposing to introduce will put considerable pressure on Commonwealth workers and put them at the mercy of their employers. I can only say that this is a system which has applied to foreign nationals for many years, and it has never been suggested that they have been subject to this sort of pressure. It might tend to be so if the worker were bound to a single employer, under penalty of being deported if he left him, but this is far from the case. As I have said previously, the Department of Employment will help Commonwealth citizens to find new jobs within the scope of the work permit scheme and subject to resident labour not being available for the job in question, just as it does at present in the case of foreign nationals.
Moreover, the workers will be able to bring their dependants with them, or to be joined by their wives and their children under 18. I should like to say a word about the employment of wives, because I think it has not been made clear that the rules do not mean that the wives will not be allowed to take employment at all. On the contrary, the rules are rather wider for the wife than they are for the man, because she will be able to take employment, provided that she gets the approval of the Department of Employment, and this work will not be restricted to the scope of the work permit scheme. The only reason for providing that the approval of the Department of Employment must be obtained is that this will not be given where a job could be filled by resident labour. We feel that this is a reasonable protection for the resident labour force, including foreign nationals and Commonwealth citizens already admitted to the country for the purposes of employment. I hope that the noble Baroness will see that this is a fundamental part of our policy, and that we could not accept her Amendment without changing the whole basis on which this Bill is drafted. I very much hope that she will not press the Amendment.
6.31 p.m.
LORD ROYLE: The noble Lord referred at the end of his speech to bringing things into line with the aliens situation. I feel very strongly that people who come from the Commonwealth, who are our people, should be treated differently from those whom we
726
call aliens; and this is why I support my noble friend in her Amendment very strongly indeed.
During the course of this short debate so far, the language has been very restrained; everybody who has taken part has been very careful in the choice of words and in trying to put over a case as moderately as possible. But it has not called for restrained language in this great subject that many of us are so concerned about. Let us face it: in the circumstances of the Bill as we read it at this moment, this is a form of slavery. In the old days the slave was attached to a master, in certain parts of America, for example; and if he tried to break away from his work, or he misbehaved himself, he was persecuted, and sometimes flogged. We in this country are a bit more humane. What we are saying is that he shall be bound to his employer for at least 12 months—that is what the Bill as written at the present time really means. His employer can use all manner of threats on purpose to keep the man where he wants him during the course of that 12 months. In another debate on another subject last week, the nasty word"blackmail"was used by my noble friend who was speaking from the Front Bench, and it seems to me that on this issue it will be possible for blackmail to come into play, and that the people who are employing immigrants on work permits in present circumstances are in a position really to blackmail those employees. My noble friend's Amendment goes some way towards putting this matter right, and I sincerely hope that we shall go further with this. The honeyed words of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—and some of us have a very deep regard for him and his fairness—do not meet the case at all. I, for one, hope that my noble friend will carry this Amendment to a Division.
LORD WADE: Did I understand the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to say that he was going to reconsider this point? I hope he is. I still do not think the Government appreciate the practical implications of their proposals. There have been references to bringing the law with regard to Commonwealth immigrants into line with aliens legislation. I mentioned on Second Reading that the aliens legislation was introduced at a time when there was a very illiberal atmosphere,

727
and I believe that we should be very careful about copying the aliens legislation. There is also this practical difference: that most of those who come from the Commonwealth come from a very great distance, and I think one needs to take that into account. I can see many practical difficulties in tying a Commonwealth immigrant to a particular employer.
There is one other point in connection with employment which I think has not so far been mentioned. I fully agree with what has been said by the right reverend Prelate about the other aspects of this matter, but so far as employment is concerned there are some advantages in mobility. There are disadvantages, because it is more difficult to create a settled community when there is this mobility; but from the point of view of keeping in employment the mobility is a definite advantage for the first generation. It is remarkable how rapidly they will move from one place, or one part of a town, to another in order to keep employed. My experience is that there is less unemployment among the immigrant communities than among others. But that does not mean that the members of the host community are thereby losing jobs. The immigrants are doing mainly jobs that other people do not want to do, such as night shift work in the textile industry. But it is this mobility that maintains the comparatively high rate of employment, and it is very desirable for the first-generation—and, of course, for later generations, but particularly for the first generation—immigrant communities to be employed and maintain their families. None of us wishes to see them unemployed, and it is mobility that helps to make employment possible.
LORD ROBBINS: May I ask the noble Baroness who moved this Amendment why the first part of the Amendment relating to mobility is coupled with the second part relating to wives? This puts, I imagine, some Members—at least one Member—of your Lordships' House in great difficult. I personally have great sympathy with the point of view of the Government in seeking to assimilate the position of immigrants from the Commonwealth with the position of immigrants from anywhere else in the human
728
race, but I feel absolute indignation at the idea that once a person has been admitted with his wife the wife should be precluded from doing what she likes, including taking work or supporting her husband, if she has to.
LORD O'HAGAN: I began to realise that my Amendment No. 8 was going a bit far, as did those who agreed with me, but I should like strongly to support the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness. I think the part which deals with wives speaks for itself. It could not be put better than it was just now by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. On the other part of it, there were two reasons which led me to put down the Amendment and to cajole my noble colleagues into joining me. The first was concern about the social effect of the work permit system. I accept that it is probably a fundamental part of this Bill now, but I would underline everything that the right reverend Prelate had to say about the practical consequences of this provision: that somebody attempting to settle in here should play his full part in our life. Secondly, while it may be administratively more tidy, more convenient, and look rather neater to assimilate everything to do with the rules on Commonwealth people who come here with everything that controls an alien coming here, I should have thought, and I should have expected many of your Lordships to agree, that there was still some validity in the Commonwealth concept, and that if you do away with that it will increase the possible social consequences of the introduction of the work permit system. I very much hope that your Lordships will support the noble Baroness in the Lobby.
6.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said in the course of his speech that it is a fundamental principle to bring foreign nationals into line with the Commonwealth nationals, or the Commonwealth nationals into line with foreign nationals. That may be true so far as the Bill and the present moment are concerned, but the noble Lord knows that, as a consequence of our entry into the Common Market, at least nine other countries' nationals will have a superior position in this country, not only in terms of entry but for the whole conditions

729
under which they live, to these loyal allies of ours in two world wars—the people of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Caribbean, India, Pakistan, Fiji and Mauritius. To that extent the noble Lord's comment was slightly misleading.
It seemed to me that the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Windlesam, do not fully appreciate, as I believe the Home Secretary appreciated, what is involved in Commonwealth immigration, as opposed to alien immigration. Aliens, by and large, come from Europe: from Spain, France, Germany. They come here in the main to seek short-term employment. They work very hard, but basically it is short-term employment. Commonwealth immigration is of an entirely different character. The immigrants are men and women who come mainly because the economic circumstances of the territories, for which we were once responsible, are insufficient to maintain them or to meet their own particular expectations. They come to this country not for temporary employment; by and large—there may be exceptions—they come here with one clear determination, that they will make Britain their home. I do not think there is any doubt about this.
They come with that expectation, and they see the words in the rules. They come, first of all, for one year, to a specified employer and a specified job. Our Amendment does not question that. If control is necessary, then clearly there must be some stipulation so far as the first year is concerned. But I regard it—and I hope the Committee will regard it—as utterly intolerable that the future of these friends of ours from the Commonwealth coming into this country, having completed one year in which they have conformed to all the standards we require of them, should depend upon a letter being addressed, signed and sent to the Department of Employment to say that the employer is willing to continue that employment.
I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, says that if a man has not got the job that will be taken into account. But that in itself is insufficient; that immigrant will, throughout that year, in his own mind feel a deep sense of insecurity. He will never be able
730
to settle. As the right reverend Prelate himself said, how, during that first year, when the man wants to get his roots firmly entrenched into this country, can he establish himself even in a rented room? How does he find the money for the hire-purchase agreements to buy the bed, the cooker, the pans that are so essential? All these things are themselves dependent upon there being a sense of security, not just for the immigrant but for all those who are involved in his life, including the firms from whom he will wish to purchase. A sense of security is of fundamental importance. The rules, as they are now drafted, do not give that sense of security. What we seek in this Amendment is that when a man has completed his first year under his permit, he should be free to take employment with any other employer and at any place. Those words were put in specifically because it appeared from the rules that a man was tied to a place of employment, which we think is wrong.
In regard to the wife, I fully agree with the case made for the students, but I do not know how many noble Lords in this Chamber this evening feel it necessary to send their wives out to work. I do not suppose there are many. But there are a very large number of our own community who depend upon their wives' going out and working. There is nothing dishonourable in that—in fact, the nation very much depends upon their doing so. But it is an essential for many of our people that two members of a family go out and earn a living. What is the position of an immigrant? He comes here, having spent probably about £150 on his air fare to come to this country. He will come in with very little capital or cash to sustain him. This is surely the very moment when husband and wife need to be working in separate jobs as an essential contribution to the setting up of a home. I should have thought it wrong that there should be any question of limitation upon the wife of an immigrant, who has been permitted to come here quite lawfully, to take up employment. I hope that the Government, even at this late hour, will feel that they can meet us in some way on this matter. If not, I hope that my noble friend will press this Amendment to a Division.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: May I ask the Minister a question, for clarification? I think he said that the Department of Employment would enable the immigrant to find another job. From whom then would the immigrant get the certificate at the end of the year, if he had left one employment and had been found another?
LORD ABERDARE: He would get the certificate from the employer who was employing him at the end of the year. May I make one brief comment on the debate? It has resolved itself into the question of differences of treatment between those who are members of the Commonwealth and those who are not. May I say at once that all of us appreciate the help that we have been given by our Commonwealth friends; indeed, we have made various concessions in the Bill to Commonwealth citizens on various matters—patrial status, students, and other similar matters. But in the terms of the Bill, where it is concerned with those coming for permanent settlement in this country, we make no distinction between those who come from Commonwealth countries and foreign nationals. I am afraid that this is a fundamental principle of the Bill, and I cannot undertake to reconsider that.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke about mobility. In the case which he gave there would be no restriction on mobility. He spoke of a worker wishing to go to a job which was unpopular, and which nobody else seemingly wanted. Naturally an immigrant would be given a work permit if he changed his job to one of those where labour was short.
LORD SHEPHERD: If the man clearly had an opportunity to improve his job and his position, would he get a work permit?
LORD ABERDARE: He would have to get permission from the Department of Employment, but the Department of Employment would normally issue him with a work permit if he was in a post where there was a shortage of labour and if there was not resident labour unemployed.
May I make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? He seemed to imply that there were many more Commonwealth citizens coming here for settlement than there were aliens; but the
732
figures do not show that. For the last three years, 1968, 1969 and 1970 the number of aliens accepted for permanent residence, as compared with voucher holders, is just about double. It is when you come to take dependants into account that, as Commonwealth citizens bring in rather more dependants, 'the figure goes up higher. But I will certainly show the noble Lord these figures. It is, I think, wrong to underestimate the number of aliens who actually complete four years and then are accepted for permanent residence. But I think there is a division of opinion between us here and I am afraid that we cannot give way on this fundamental principle of the Bill.
LORD ROYLE: May I ask the noble Lord to answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Shepherd with regard to E.E.C. and the new system which would apply to aliens?
LORD ABERDARE: I hope I did not mislead the Committee. I meant to speak of present arrangements for aliens. May I leave the question of E.E.C. to the next Amendment which deals entirely with that point?
BARONESS WHITE: I have listened with great care to everything that has been said, and I am afraid that I have not been convinced on this occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. We are discussing the rules. If you look at the rules you will see that the ordinary person will take what is said in the rules to be what is applicable. We are in effect asking the Government to alter the way in which the rules are framed. If you read Rule No. 35, it is clear that the immigration officer is instructed to impose conditions regarding housewives taking up employment. It may not be an absolute prohibition, but there are conditions. Let us take Rule 19 which applies after entry and is about renewal of work permits. Any ordinary person reading that rule would suppose that the employer had a very considerable part to play in the decision as to whether or not the permit should be renewed. It is to these things that we are basically taking exception in this Amendment.
The Amendment is defective in that in line 7"or"should read"and ". I will move it in its amended form. I would ask

733
noble Lords to support us in this Amendment in the Division Lobby. I think that the assurances that we have had from the Government do not go far enough. To my mind, the rules as they now stand are completely misleading.
6.54 p.m.
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 78; Not-Contents, 102.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Foot, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Balogh, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gardiner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bernstein, L.

Garner, L.

Portsmouth, L.Bp.

Birk, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blackburn, L.Bp.

Gore-Booth, L.

Royle, L.

Blyton, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Brown, L.

Hamnett, L.

Serota, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hanworth, V.

Shackleton, L.

Burgh, L.

Heycock, L.

Shepherd, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Byers, L.

Hoy, L.

Slater, L.

Canterbury, L.Abp.

Hylton, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Carnock, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Stonham, L.

Chalfont, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Strang, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lindgren, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Collison, L.

Listowel, E.

Wade, L.

Coventry, L.Bp.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Wise, L.

Diamond, L.

Maelor, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Exeter, L.Bp.

Peddie, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Dudley, E.

Monck, V.

Allerton, L.

Eccles, V.

Mountevans, L.

Amory, V.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Auckland, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Balfour, E.

Falmouth, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrers, E.

Oakshott, L.

Barnby, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Perth, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Poltimore, L.

Belstead, L.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gray, L.

Rothermere, V.

Bessborough, E.

Greenway, L.

Rothes, E.

Boothby, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brentford, V.

Hailes, L.

St. Just, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sandys, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hatherton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Burton, L.

Hives, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Ilford, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Jellieoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Stonehaven, V.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Kilmany, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Courtown, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sudeley, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Teviot, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Latymer, L.

Teynham, L.

Crathorne, L.

Lothian, M.

Thorneycroft, L.

Cromartie, E.

MacAndrew, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

McFadzean, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Vivian, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Margadale, L.

Windlesham, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Wolverton, L.

Digby, L.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6), as amended, shall be agreed to.

LORD WINDLESHAM: I beg to move that the House be resumed and be again in Committee after the Third Reading of the Isle of Wight County Council Bill.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
7.1 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. The Bill has been through all its stages in another place. The Bill has been amended in your Lordships' House, and I think there is only Clause 5 on which there may be some criticism. May I say that the promoters have agreed to the Amendments which are on the Marshalled List. I am given to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will not be here to move his Amendments, but the promoters accept all the Amendments on the Marshalled List.
Clause 5 arises through the experience of the Isle of Wight of three"Pop"festivals. The Bill is supported not only by the County Council but also by the district councils, the National Farmers' Union, nearly every association in the island, and by the County Councils' Association itself. The first of these"Pop "festivals was in 1968 and about 7,000 people were there. It lasted two days and there was very little trouble. The second in 1969 was promoted by the same people. It lasted three days, in close proximity to a small community of people at Wootton. There were some 80,000 to 100,000 people at this festival. There was a complete lack of control over the whole affair. There were totally inadequate toilets on the site, and this resulted in other land and private gardens and even a churchyard being used. Shops ran out of food, and fire and ambulance services had inadequate access to the site. There was a potential risk to public health, and it became clear that if some control is not exercised there is a risk of an epidemic in future.
There was a third festival in 1970, in August Bank Holiday week. From 150,000 to 200,000 people were attracted to it. The fans stayed for four nights and days during the period of the festival, but
736
many were there for 10 days. The County Council, from their previous experience, sought to avoid the chaos by trying to persuade the organisers to enter into a voluntary agreement to meet the Council's requirements. The requirements were to cover lavatories, water supplies, access, drainage, noise, refuse collection and site clearance. The promoters signed this agreement because they were aware that not signing the agreement would have resulted in the Council seeking an injunction in the High Court under the Public Health Acts to restrain them. So the agreement was signed.
The terms of the agreement were not met, and a local authority has no means of enforcing such an agreement, especially if the promoters go broke. For people who choose to run these enormous events in slip-shod ways, and cause chaos in the community and infringe public health requirements, the penalties are ridiculous. When promoters expect to make an income running into thousands of pounds they will not be deterred by having to pay a £10 fine because they have not provided enough lavatories. In the light of experience, there cannot be any doubt that local authorities must have powers to lay down conditions under which these large gatherings are organised, for present penalties are ridiculous and they do not deter, especially when promoters are seeking to make the maximum possible profits out of what they do.
The Isle of Wight is making ready for an enormous festival this August, and it is hoped that the conditions of the last one will not arise again. It is not the intention of this clause to ban"Pop"festivals—if it did, I would not have supported it—but I believe that it is necessary to exercise some control over a festival of this size, not only in the interests of the local residents, but also of all the fans who come to these festivals, so that they may have the right to decent facilities, and to prevent health hazards. Why should local authorities have to go to the High Court or enter into agreements with people who run these festivals? Local authorities should have the right to enforce public health regulations, and that is all that this authority is asking to do. I hope that no one doubts the wisdom of giving local authorities this power. If they do I

737
would ask them: how would they react, if 200,000 people descended on lands adjacent to their homes, without adequate facilities, not for a short time but for four days and four nights?
The Bill proposes that anyone wishing to have any sort of vast gathering of the nature I have described, whether"Pop"or not, shall give formal notice to the local authority of his intention, of the date and the site. This is not only in the interests of the council and of the inhabitants of the area, but also of the promoters themselves, who for this kind of festival need the amount of time which is prescribed to do their advance publicity and prepare for the festival. On the last occasion, the promoters of this festival gave the Council only seven weeks' notice; when the agreement was signed the promoters wanted to change the site 28 days before the event, and naturally the Council refused.
Under the Bill, the Council has 28 days in which to say"Yes"or"No"to a particular site. It will view the site and examine its suitability and, if agreed upon, will have to set its conditions within those 28 days. There is a clause which gives the promoters a right of appeal to quarter sessions if they are not satisfied about the rejection of the site or with the proposed conditions. There are heavy penalties on the directors or the landowners for each day on which there is an infringement. There is also a provision requiring the deposit of cash or a bond to defray the Council's extraordinary expenditure, and the cost of having to carry out various works which the promoters do not carry out themselves. It applies only to gatherings in excess of 5,000 people, and also fixes the application from 11 p.m. until 6 a.m. This makes it clear that this provision will exclude agricultural shows, rallies, demonstrations and any large meetings in the open air which may take place during the day.
I also say to the Government that I think that at some time there will have to be legislation to control such events; it is urgently needed on a national basis. This Bill is not a question of being against the high art of"pop"fans and their music, if people enjoy this kind of music then their enjoyment in reasonable circumstances must be protected. On
738
the other hand, there are other people to be protected who also have rights, and it is most important that public health shall not be placed in jeopardy. Until we get Government legislation to deal with this kind of festival the Isle of Wight authorities have promoted this Bill, because the problem is immediate and arises from their experience of past festivals; and the Isle of Wight cannot wait too long. It is for all these reasons that I ask your Lordships' House to give this Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Blyton.)
7.13 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise after my noble friend Lord Blyton. He has had considerable experience of large public gatherings. He has had experience of the Durham Miners' Gala, which I think in his day certainly attracted 250,000 people. He has had experience of the Northumberland Miners' Gala when he occasionally crossed the Tyne and moved up into the other county. There, again, large numbers of people were involved. There are many occasions on which large numbers can be involved. One might notice, incidentally, that the figure mentioned in the Bill, 5,000, is not a very large one. Nevertheless, the Bill is concerned, as my noble friend has rightly said, with"Pop"festivals.
But apart from"Pop"festivals, there are other occasions, such as, in my own country, the eisteddfod: and these in fact step outside Wales. For example, on Tees-side they now regularly hold an eisteddfod, having seen the light and learned that good things can come from Wales. And it would not be inconceivable that an international eisteddfod might he held on the Isle of Wight. So the Bill does not apply just to a"Pop"festival. We also have large religious festivals. I can remember early in this century—I was a boy at the time, but I heard about it from my parents—there started the famous Keswick Convention. There one had thousands of people who came together in a small town for religious purposes. There are all types of gatherings: political gatherings; associations, such as the miners' association, where a large group of people working in the same way

739
come together; cultural festivals; musical festivals and these"Pop"festivals.
I am not really an addict of"Pop"festivals. I suppose that I should be clearly and firmly labelled as a"square ". It should be quite clear that I am not the sort of person who would get a great deal of enjoyment out of a"Pop"festival. Nevertheless, there are—and my noble friend Lord Blyton has said this quite clearly—plenty of young people who get benefit from these"Pop"festivals, and one must realise that it is a real benefit that they get. I happen to have access to a letter written by a lady concerning her son who attended the Isle of Wight. If your Lordships will allow me, I will quote a little from that letter.
She says:
" They will wear what they like and do what they like and to do the right thing, be at the right place, know the right people—well, if anyone wants to do it, O.K. They are tolerant to the point of fault. One of the joys of the festivals is that they are surrounded for some time by a mass of people all with the same general attitudes of tolerance, though containing a wide variety of ideas. Our son came back from the Island last year after five days in a state of ecstasy. He came down off the mountain."
And she adds:
" I suppose some fornication goes on, but considerably less than in the bed-sits, and flats."
The stimulus which young people get in that environment is undoubtedly a good and healthy thing, and I doubt if any of us would wish to deprive them of it. I agree entirely with my noble friend that regulation is extremely important. One cannot have tens and hundreds of thousands of people in a small place without making proper provision for sanitation, water, food and transport: all these things have to be provided. But do not let us forget that there is also a precious liberty involved. If we surrender this liberty, we are surely surrendering the thing which we in this country have always regarded as our greatest asset, and one for which we would all fight. So I do not criticise the promoters of this Bill for wishing to ask the Houses of Parliament to pass a Bill which will enable them to control things. It is a reasonable and rational thing for them to want to do. If they have not the powers, then they are entitled to ask
740
that they should be given to them. But I could wish that these powers were not being asked for by a single authority; that these powers, as my noble friend Lord Blyton has said, were powers which came under the control of the country as a whole. These are powers which I cannot help feeling we should expect our Home Office, in the first place, to take some interest in, and are not powers just to be asked for by a single authority.
However, when one looks at the details of Clause 5 one begins to ask whether it is not too widely written. My noble friend Lord Blyton has said that he and the promoters accept the Amendments. I am grateful to him for that statement, because it means that I do not have to go into detail and argue a great deal about it. But I think it important that we should pay some attention to the matter in this House, because I believe that what we do now will help to set a pattern for what will be done in other legislation which will be required over the country. It would be a mistake for us to ignore this opportunity to get the right ideas across.
The first subsection of Clause 5 demands that anyone arranging an assembly shall give to the council,
" not less than four months' notice of his intention to do so."
I believe that four months is an unusually long period. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when replying to the debate, will be able to say something about this point, but my understanding is that four months is much longer than is normally required in a case of this sort. It is a very long period when one thinks of it, because the person wishing to arrange any festival has first to go to the landowners to negotiate with them to find if sites are available. That can take some time. He then approaches the local authority, for it is no good his doing so until he has the site, because the local authority will ask for full details of the site. So he has to wait until he has done the preliminary negotiations and ask the local authority to give its permission.
The local authority, according to the Bill, is allowed a month to consider the matter and to reach its decision. If the decision is unfavourable, the person concerned is allowed to appeal. I am not

741
in the least expert on legal or administrative matters of this type, but I am rather surprised that it should be the quarter sessions to which an appeal is made. I find this odd because I should have thought that the Minister is much more appropriate for dealing with matters of this sort. However, I leave that aside and other noble Lords may discuss it.
I do not know how long the appeal might take, but, speaking subject to correction, I should be surprised if the person asking to have the decision reversed received an answer within another month. Perhaps he would do so, but I should be rather surprised. That would mean two months. But we have to allow for the time taken in doing the preliminary negotiations. It might easily take three months or more from the time he started. If he is turned down again he has to look for another site and, if he has to give four months' notice, he may have to wait eight months or more before the festival can be held. I suggest that this is a very onerous condition and that the period is unreasonably long.
We then find in subsection (2), round about line 35, that the authority can require him
" to comply with such reasonable terms or conditions as they think fit with respect to water supply and securing sanitary conditions, public order and public safety and for the prevention of actionable nuisance."
It was precisely because some of us felt that this was a very troublesome clause, as it does not tell the individual applicant in advance what conditions he has to satisfy, that the Amendment which has been accepted after Clause 5 was drafted. I explain these matters because they fit into the pattern of this Bill.
After that, we come to the penalties to be imposed, and it seems to me, at any rate, that they are rather drastic. The penalties are in subsection (9)(d) which says:
" A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 and on indictment to a fine not exceeding £1,000 for each day on which the offence is committed…"
In other words if it lasts for five days, on indictment a penalty of £5,000 is involved. I have already mentioned that the minimum number of people involved is 5,000, which is not a very large number. Although this is to cover the evening,
742
quite rightly, if one looks at subsection (11) one sees:
" An assembly to which this section applies is an assembly in the county in the open air at which during any period exceeding three hours during the six hours following midnight there are not less than 5,000 people present."
In other words, if a meeting were to start at eight o'clock and run until three o'clock in the morning it would be just on three hours after midnight and would not necessarily therefore involve a complete night. I mention all these different points to make clear that, while I am in sympathy with the ideas of the promoters of the Bill and I think my noble friend Lord Blyton has put the case very clearly and fairly, the clause as it stands is still not one which I should be happy to have regarded as a model for any further legislation.
7.27 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I have to make a personal statement before I say anything else, because in about a fortnight's time there will be the fiftieth anniversary of the first time I was taken to the Isle of Wight. Apart from the war years, I have been there for my holidays every year since and I propose to go there for the rest of my life. I have a house there so I am slightly biased in favour of the Isle of Wight. While the possibility of more general legislation on the question of festivals must be in your Lordships' minds, nevertheless this is the Isle of Wight County Council Bill so I shall speak for a few moments on the Isle of Wight Bill. Basically it is promoted by the Isle of Wight County Council which is responsible for the well-being of its inhabitants. What is a little menacing about this situation of a"pop"festival, or any other festival, in the Isle of Wight is that the basic population is about 105,000. At the height of the holiday season about another 150,000 people come to the Isle of Wight. That makes roughly a quarter of a million. If, on top of that, there is suddenly imposed another quarter of a million (if the promoters of the festival are lucky) we can have potential chaos.
It so happens that the first festival, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, referred, was only a small one, but the second and third festivals were fairly large. It also so happens that the

743
weather was extremely good on both occasions—no rain and not too hot. I admit that the Isle of Wight has rather better weather than most places; nevertheless, one has to acknowledge that every now and then it is not all that good. One asks oneself what would have happened last year and the year before had there been (a) torrential rain, or (b) a heat wave. The difficulty with rain is easily understood, and the trouble with heat waves is that they cause bad tempers. I am talking about the Isle of Wight generally and not"pop"festivals in general, and I would say that another point concerning storms, either from strong East winds or strong West winds, is that you cannot hitch-hike home. You have to cross the Solent, and if there is a very strong wind the hovercraft services probably have to stop. The ordinary ferry can probably carry on, although it will take longer, and the admirable services of British Railways, which are practically 24-hour service, obviously take longer, so it will be more difficult for people to get across. In fact, the British Railway packets are limited to 1,250 people and everything is all right if they can all be on deck; but if they needed to go below it could cause a problem. The transporting of people is a very serious matter for the Isle of Wight.
How does the Isle of Wight get by financially? It has a certain amount of industry, including fortunately the building of the Islander aircraft; it has a considerable agricultural area and it attracts, because of the better-than-average weather, quite a number of retired people; but it must depend very largely on holidaymakers. If you have a festival, for instance like the one last year, which lands on a summer bank holiday, it means that people taking their holiday within two weeks either side will have trouble in getting to and from the Isle of Wight. It is difficult enough to get there anyhow, even if one goes year after year; but the imposition of a quarter of a million people, probably taking 10 days in all to get there and back again, really makes the journey extremely difficult.
My experience, I having started as a holidaymaker in the Isle of Wight and now going there as often as I can, is that the average holidaymaker goes there year after year, and what he likes is a
744
peaceful holiday by the sea. Unless the Council have the right to control these festivals not only will they spoil the potential holiday trade in the future but people will decide not to retire there. Although I am not against festivals of any kind, I should like to say, on a purely parochial basis, that I think the Isle of Wight is a most unsuitable place for a festival; and I very much hope that your Lordships will approve this Bill, including Clause 5.
7.33 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTS-MOUTH: My Lords, may I, in following the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, congratulate him on his maiden speech. Like him, I warmly support this Bill, and particularly Clause 5. I have to admit that I have not personally been at one of the"Pop"festivals yet—they have always coincided with the time when I have been on my own holiday and far away. However, I have had a fairly close link with the last two festival;, in that my own son was a participant, and he brought back glowing accounts of his experiences there. For him, like so many who attended the festival, it was a real experience: I would almost say a spiritual experience—the sense of"togetherness"and of being at one with a vast crowd of people of his own age was a very real experience indeed. But he went on to criticise very severely the unorganised chaos which has reigned in both the previous festivals. I think there can be no shadow of doubt that organisation broke down completely, and I share with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, the thought that so far the festivals have been extremely lucky in getting away with fine weather, because if there had been bad weather it would really have been quite disastrous. The fact that the organisation went through in any way was a great tribute to the control and the common sense of the vast majority of the young people concerned; and whilst I would be the last one to restrict in any way this kind of enjoyment, I am quite convinced that the time has come when the kind of controls which are being asked for in this Bill should be applied.
I have also had a link with the festivals because last year the churches together provided a group of over 100 counsellors who moved freely around the festival and indeed talked freely with the young

745
people there. A large number of them came for advice and help, and I think it would be true to say that for a considerable number of youngsters, had it not been for the availability of this kind of assistance and advice, the experience would have been far less enjoyable than perhaps it was. I think it is worth mentioning, when sometimes the picture of the ill-behaviour of young people can be so over-painted, that on the Sunday morning there was a Communion Service in the open at which something like 400 young people made their Communion. So far the churches have had great co-operation from those who have been organising festivals. The co-operation last year was extremely close, and I certainly hope it will be so at this year's festival too.
I cannot see this Bill, including the items in Clause 5, as in any way representing a threat to freedom or liberty. It is surely worth saying that freedom always demands some kind of control or discipline and that perhaps one of the troubles in our society at the moment is that we have not recognised the fact that"freedom"which is really licence is in fact producing chaos. I hold that the experiences of the festivals in the last two years have really underlined this. I very much hope that this Bill will be passed, and I would share the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that it is desirable that this should be something which is nationwide rather than an isolated Bill. Perhaps the Isle of Wight County Council are pacemakers in this respect, and in nearly all moves towards better arrangements in society such a pacemaker is needed.
I do not think the Bill at any point really imposes unreasonable limits upon organisers or upon those who are taking part. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has already mentioned the fact that the amount of the fines which may be imposed is quite a small sum in comparison with the amount which those who are organising such a festival would expect to make from it. I do not personally think that the time factor for the application, about which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was speaking, is really a thing to be feared. The noble Lord implied that it was only after the application to hold the festival had been made that the arrangements for the siting of
746
the festival, et cetera, could be gone ahead with, but as I understand Clause I the application is to be made in the first place four months in advance, with the detail of where the site is to be, so that presumably preliminary negotiations have gone on already. Probably the promoters of the Bill would be the first to admit that there may well be ways in which it could be improved. If, as I believe, this is going to be the forerunner of legislation covering the country as a whole, there will be a chance to make those improvements, perhaps out of the experience which this Bill has brought; but for the moment I warmly hope that your Lordships will approve this Bill to-day.
7.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. He spoke with first-hand knowledge of the Isle of Wight. He told us that he has known the Isle of Wight for many years now and it is clear that he has a great affection for it. If I may say so, I thought he spoke very persuasively as well. We have here a clash between two interests. There are not only the rights of the residents and ratepayers of the Isle of Wight to their privacy and to the safe keeping of their property, but we must also accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, explained so vividly in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, that when very large numbers of people, up to perhaps 200,000, descend on what is, after all, largely a rural area, living out of doors for three to four days, altogether exceptional problems arise in consequence—problems of water supply, sanitation, disposal of refuse, of food hygiene. The risk of an epidemic arises and there is also the risk of nuisance both by noise and congestion. These things are inevitable. The local people have their rights in the wellbeing of their locality and they are entitled to protection; and I think we could accept also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that the holidaymakers who go to the Isle of Wight year in, year out, go for a quiet and peaceful holiday and are entitled to consideration in the same way.
The local interests are entitled to protection both under the general law and, where they believe that the general law

747
is not adequate, under any private legislation limited in its effect to their own locality which they may promote and seek the approval of Parliament for; but at the same time there is a traditional right of free assembly in this country. This is particularly important to those who are idealistic or young, or both, and since these are often the dissenters who are critical of the present arrangements of society they sometimes find themselves with no very widespread public sympathy or public support. In Parliament we must recognise that they have rights as well and that these rights are just as important as those of the local residents which I have already mentioned. So what is called for here is some accommodation and tolerance between what are, we may as well accept, conflicting interests.
My Department did raise some matters which seemed to us of importance in a report to the Committee, and the promoters have come some considerable way towards meeting the points made in the Home Secretary's report. This is especially true of the important point that the courts of appeal should be in a position to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the council's actions. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, asked whether or not it was appropriate to have this appeal to quarter sessions. He suggested that perhaps the Minister would be a more appropriate person. This leaves open the question of which Minister. There are three Secretaries of State concerned—the Home Secretary so far as questions of public order arise; the Secretary of State for the Environment as regards the site itself and some public health matters; and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security as regards matters of public health generally. But the question here is one of deciding what is reasonable in the light of all the circumstances, and we incline towards the view that this is a matter which is more appropriate for the courts in the light of local knowledge. I could not help reflecting, as the noble Lord made his suggestion, what the response of noble Lords would have been if this suggestion had been made in the context of the Immigration Bill which we have just been discussing. There is not a great deal probably between the two interests,
748
but perhaps quarter sessions are the most appropriate body.
Reference has also been made to the level of penalties and the payment of costs of policing. So far as the costs of policing are concerned, the purpose of the Home Secretary's comments was to draw attention to the extent that the Bill's proposals are a departure from normal practice, and to point to the procedure whereby the Isle of Wight County Council would collect money on behalf of the Hampshire Police Authority. But this is ultimately a matter on which only Parliament can decide and the Government would not wish to oppose the clause on this count. It might be added that the cost of policing events attracting very large groups should be regarded as a matter for general rather than public legislation. This point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and by other speakers, and there is a great deal of validity in it. On the other hand, there is concern about this matter. We had quite a prolonged discussion last week, as noble Lords who were present may remember, about the Reading"Pop"Festival in which the same issues arose and there may be something to be said for a pilot scheme, especially as there will be time to work out arrangements properly with the police. The results could be evaluated and taken into account when deciding whether or not general legislation is needed.
The Home Office comments about the penalty provisions related to the normal limits on the powers of magistrates' courts, not to the penalties themselves which, in their revised form, we consider not unreasonable. The Government are keeping under review the question whether general legislation in respect of"pop"festivals would be justified. Recovery of police costs would be only one of the points to be considered in this context. It is not usual for the Government to seek to influence Parliament in its consideration of Private Bills. However, there are issues of public policy involved here, and accordingly the Home Office reported to the Committee drawing the attention of Parliament to certain points about which we had some doubts. Our conclusion is that our main points of objection have been met by the promoters. In the circumstances we should not wish to urge the House to reject

749
either the Bill as a whole, or Clause 5, on account of such reservations as remain. The decision is one for Parliament and not for the Government.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? Have British Rail been approached to supply extra ferries from other ports, so that in the case of bad weather the congestion will be lessened?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to answer that question. It is one which should be put to the promoters, or to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who is representing them here. This is the type of question which, now that the Amendment is to be accepted, as I understand it is, and that Clause 5 is not to come into effect until later in the year, shows that the situation is a great deal more clear cut than it would otherwise have been. If nobody was quite sure whether the festival was likely to be on or off, questions of the type that the noble Lord has put would be harder to answer than they are already.
7.52 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I first add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, on his maiden speech and say how much I appreciated his tour round the Isle of Wight, which I also visit constantly and enjoy very much. May I gently suggest that he should not forget that some of the"pop"fans of today will be some of the retired gentry of the future. I speak first, as every speaker in the debate so far has done, from the viewpoint of the Isle of Wight residents. It is quite clear that people should not have to put up with conditions which can be prevented.
When my noble friend Lord Blyton moved the Third Reading of the Bill in an extremely moderate and succinct way he mentioned the point about hygiene and the lack of lavatories. There may be a case for tightening up the health regulations everywhere. But this is not what Part II of the Bill is about. Part II is entitled:
" Public Order and Public Safety ".
This is what we are talking about, not about the installation of more lavatories;
750
not about by-laws, and not even about penalties, because this is not the principle which is being discussed. I must say that I believe that legislation of this type must be public and should never be introduced by means of a Private Bill. I know that it is the custom—and one to which I normally subscribe—that legislation which has been passed by the other place should not be turned down here and should not be argued against quite so strongly.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I am not sure that the suggestion with regard to public legislation in the matter of overriding the other place applies to Private Bills. Maybe this is a matter for the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I am very grateful that I need not go on with the apology, but may state what I believe. I think the other place should not have passed the Bill. I do not think it should have arrived here at all; it should have been voted down in the other place. This really is a matter of the erosion of civil liberty. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, put his finger on it when he said that this is a clash between two interests. He referred to the traditional right of free assembly. The interest of the right of assembly is the one that must be uppermost, and the facilities and amenities for the residents must be taken care of—I accept that—but in a different way.
In this country we do not have a written Constitution. If we had one, it would be very unlikely that this Bill could pass, because if we had a written Constitution the Bill would no doubt contravene certain of the statutes that would be involved. This means that we must be even more vigilant about our civil liberties and, indeed, must take a very hard look at a Bill of this type. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out that a number of the comments that have been made in the report of the Secretary of State to the Committee in another place have been dealt with. This was so on the minor points. But the Secretary of State ended by saying that he doubted whether the problems of law and order, to which such a festival might give rise, were suitably dealt with by a Private Bill. I do not think that this has been

751
altered by the Amendment which has been put into the Bill before us to-day. He also recommended the deletion of the words,"Public order ". These words are still in the Bill and to them has been added the necessity to get the consent of the chief constable.
On that point, the chief constables who were consulted by the Secretary of State were of the opinion that the criminal law as it stands is adequate to deal with the problems that arise and that further legislation is unnecessary. In the statement which has been put out by the Isle of Wight County Council regarding the 1970 festival, they say that the organisers were persuaded to enter into a voluntary agreement for the control of certain aspects of the festival. With respect to the right reverend Prelate, they do not say that there was a complete breakdown of organisation, but that a measure of control was achieved which would have been impossible under existing law and without such agreement.
I should have thought that it would have been better for the time being to try to get a voluntary agreement, and to bring injunctions, if necessary. There is no reason why the county council should not do that, it has the right to go to the High Court. This type of legislation should have been considered not only unnecessary, but quite wrong in the framework of free assembly and civil liberties. I am pleased that the Amendments to which I have joined my name, with that of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, are being accepted. We also have to be realistic and accept that if there is an element which wishes to dispose of"pop"festivals, or to ban them, under this clause they will be able to do so even with these Amendments. We hope that now that this whole matter has been aired in the House, note will be taken of the views of quite a wide range of people who have quite legitimate cause for anxiety and concern. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones that one hopes that this will not lead to a rash of similar Private Bills, because these repressive measures—and I must use the word"repressive "—can become very infectious. The value of this debate is that people contemplating these measures may be warned that
752
there are many in both Houses who would strongly resist such inroads on individual freedom.
7.59 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the other noble Lords who have already congratulated my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara on his maiden speech. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that he will be able to take part on many other occasions in our debates, not only on Isle of Wight matters. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, upon the manner in which he introduced the Third Reading, and also my noble friend Lord Windlesham on what was a very balanced and fair speech on behalf of the Government. Having said that, I should like to declare an interest, in that I have a small home in the Isle of Wight. I wish to confine my few remarks to Clause 5, although there are other subjects that I would mention. For example, hovercraft are dealt with in one of the clauses.
I would personally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I believe that this is a planning matter, and I believe strongly too that it is not a matter only for the Isle of Wight. We have had"pop"festivals at Reading; we have them in Hyde Park in London. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that general legislation is under consideration. Every speaker so far has said that the"pop"festival is here to stay. I believe that some form of planning control, not only for the county councils, not only for the residents of the area, but also for the participants in the festivals themselves, is now essential. As the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has said, one has only to look at the increasing figures; the festivals in the Isle of Wight have increased in numbers from 7,000 in 1968 to over 150,000 in 1970. That is a staggering increase.
The problems of providing facilities and services, and the danger to health, as other noble Lords have mentioned, are obvious. They are essential factors for any county council to consider. Yet the county councils have to rely on the Public Health Act 1933 for their control powers. Otherwise they have to rely on injunctions by courts. One sees how unsatisfactory and how out of date the

753
planning legislation has become. When one examines Clause 5, the first point that must strike everyone is the timing of the notices. As the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has said, he thought it was wrong that four months should be allowed. He anticipated that it could extend to eight months. On first sight I would agree with him; but I think I am correct in saying that if one looks at this clause carefully it is clear that four months is the time required from the application date to when the festival is to be held. The County Council has one week in which to serve a notice for information, and four weeks in which to serve notice either to refuse the application or to give conditional approval to it. Then, if the application is refused, or only conditional approval is given and the applicant does not accept it, he has only two weeks to appeal to Quarter Sessions. If one is to criticise the timing, it is the two weeks for the appeal to Quarter Sessions to which I would add my voice.
The second thing which strikes one about Clause 5 is the appeal system. Although my noble friend has explained the reason why the Home Office feel that the Quarter Sessions are the appropriate body, I find it a little astonishing, when it is basically a planning matter, that the Minister for the Department of the Environment should not be involved. There are, after all, such considerations as the size of the site, the situation of the site, the services and its facilities. I would not have thought that Quarter Sessions were equipped to decide these planning issues. Indeed, I would go further, and say there is no other precedent which could be adduced under planning legislation where appeal is to Quarter Sessions.
Reference has been made to the question of finances, to deposit of securities, and to fines. Although the fines sound fairly large, I think that when one looks at the problem they are reasonable. I support this Bill because I believe that good will spring from it. I hope that general legislation will follow. Having spoken to people concerned on the island, having seen the problem, and having seen that the law is now archaic and needs revision, I will strongly support this Bill.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: I would like to congratulate Lord Brabazon on his
754
maiden speech. He put the case of the residents very plainly, and he really gained our sympathy for them. But, my Lords, I think this Bill has to be looked at in a much wider context. It has to be looked at both from the point of view of the retired residents who live in the Isle of Wight, and the others who are not retired, and also from the point of view of the young people who want to have"pop"festivals. I would also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Blyton for the very tolerant way in which he introduced this Bill. I have a feeling that he felt more strongly against our Amendment than appeared from his very good speech. I started to the right of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and I veered to the left. Now I support his Amendment on all counts.
The truth is, my Lords, that this Bill touches on what we call the generation gap, what I call not so much the generation gap as the memory and imagination gap. It certainly is true that old men forget, and maybe old women too. Never has there been a time when it has been more necessary to remember our own youth. There were days, many years ago, or whenever it was, that a son followed his father in ploughing a lonely furrow. To-day, what with technological progress, population expansion, and pollution, there is a different world from what has gone before and all our problems have become astronomical. The question is what you put first, at this moment. Do you put the problems we have with young people, or do you put the problems of organisation and regulation of"pop"festivals? With good will these problems could be solved quite easily.
This is where the understanding for our young people comes in, and I personally think their need comes first. They do not accept the same injustices, the same inequalities, the same attitudes to war and poverty as we have learned to live and die with. They often feel not only detached but alienated from their parents. They have a strong urge to get together with their own young age groups. They really feel insecure in the world that their fathers have made. We have to understand and indulge this desire and this need, particularly when its expression, as in"pop"festivals, is fundamentally so harmless for us, and pleasurable for them. It is not a question of whether we like

755
" pop ". Some of us like"pop ", some of us like jazz; some of us do not like either. Subject to helping local authorities to arrange decent conditions, to regulate these festivals, I do not believe that the difficulties about which we have heard cannot be overcome. We should not try to prevent these young people from getting together. We really should show sympathy for what I consider to be one of the least harmful aspects of expression, or even protest, from them, because I believe that these are safety valves against violence in this troubled world.
The greatest worry among the older people seems to be about sanitary conditions, although so far I believe no risks to health have occurred after any of the"pop"festivals. There may have been chaos, but I have not heard of risks to health. As I say, of course we must see to these health conditions, but I do not believe that good plumbing is the only criterion of a civilised society. As a matter of fact, both in America and in Canada where there is such wonderful plumbing, I have found that friends of mine and other people there do everything they can to get as far away as they can from their cities to the primitive plumbing that goes on in"pop"festivals. With that, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Blyton has accepted our Amendments, and I should like to thank him very much for this.
8.11 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords and Ladies to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I was very interested in all he said about the Isle of Wight because I have spent many a holiday there, my own father having retired there and lived there, in Bembridge, for quite a long time. I am sure we shall hear from Lord Brabazon in future.
I should like to say how glad I am to hear—and I hope this is true—that the County Council have agreed not to bring in Clause 5 this year. It is too soon and there is a lot to be decided about it. Like many other speakers, I am doubtful whether powers of this kind should be dealt with by local authorities; I think they should be dealt with by central Government. I have great sympathy
756
with the people who live in the Isle of Wight. I personally, being an"old square ", would loathe to be near a"pop"festival; but I also have grandchildren, so I know how much they enjoy such things. We must consider the young because it is their amusement, but we must consider also the people who live in the island. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, brought out is very well known to me: the difficulties of getting to the island and getting away again.
I hope very much that the Government will consider the whole problem and will draw up some suitable legislation which may be applied in other places. This is not at all a Party matter. We are all concerned, and we are all—I am personally—anxious that something should be done to make suitable arrangements both for the Isle of Wight and for other places in the country wishing to have the same sort of functions.
8.13 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. It is a misfortune for any hereditary Peer who makes his maiden speech that noble Lords are almost bound to refer to his father, but the noble Lord's father was such a great and attractive man that the noble Lord will forgive me for referring to him; and I say at the same time that we are very pleased to have Lord Brabazon here and to hear a speech of the kind he made to-day. It is unusual for a noble Lord to make a maiden speech on a Private Bill, but this is rather an important one and so we are glad to have heard him.
Because I so respect my old and noble friend Lord Blyton, I find some difficulty in saying that I simply hate Clause 5 of this Bill; I still do hate Clause 5. But I am bound to say that my dislike of it was considerably tempered by the moderation, and indeed the humanity of his speech. But while recommending the House to let this Bill go through, for reasons which I will explain, I am still very bothered about it. This arises partly out of our difficulties in dealing with legislation of this kind. It is the custom in this House that, generally speaking, we do not try to recommit a Bill which has been through

757
Private Bill procedure, for the very valid reason that it could be unfair to the promoters, who may have given their evidence to a Committee, and because we trust our Committees. But we get into particular difficulties where a special kind of public interest arises.
I should like to take this opportunity to do something which has not often been done because so few of us are aware of the position, and that is to say what an enormous amount of work the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and Mr. Talbot and others do in this area. I do not think anybody realises just how much valuable work is done by them. At the risk of offending my colleagues who have recently been in another place I will say that the work we do here is—well, I had better say that it is not surpassed by that done in the Private Bill procedure in another place.
None the less we are presented with difficulties. We are all agreed that the Isle of Wight has a tremendous problem. We all have sympathy with it. We all, in honesty, would say that if we lived close to a"pop"festival we would be demanding that our county council should take the necessary action. One is well aware that local authorities are not well equipped to undertake this task. In this matter the Isle of Wight County Council have been pioneers, and not the least of the public services they have rendered is that they will, I hope, force the Government (all Governments run away from issues of this kind) to take action. Nevertheless, I have not liked the way that this matter has been forwarded. I have not liked the fact that, until very recently, there was an intention to apply the clause even in a situation which would produce great ambiguity as to legality, and indeed where people would have been found guilty of an offence although the safeguards had not been applied.
The fact that the council has repeatedly said that it has been proceeding as if the Bill were already law does not necessarily add to my confidence, even though I realise that it meant well and was trying to provide a kind of appeal procedure. But it would have been intolerable if this clause had passed into law this year and left the situation in a state of confusion. We knew that the festival was going to take place. It was not a question of
758
stopping the festival; it was a question of having clear law with regard to the situation. Very wisely—I do not doubt that the Home Office and the police have had something to do with this, and I must pay my tribute to the officials of the County Council—those concerned have taken the sensible step and we are very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has found he is able to accept the Amendment making a later appointed day.
However—and this is another reason why I would hope for new legislation—I am still unhappy. We cannot discuss this in Committee, but there is, for instance, in Clause 5(9)(c) this phrase:
" Any person concerned in the management of an assembly…who knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that such a term, condition or requirement was being contravened by some other person shall be guilty of an offence ".
Does this mean that a farm worker who thinks that the farmer is about to let land in contravention of this Bill is himself guilty of an offence if he has not informed the police? Furthermore, I found an ambiguity here. There is a provision that one should use"all due diligence to ensure compliance with the term"et cetera. The subsection goes on to say that:
" A person who commits an offence "—
that is, among other things, having had reasonable cause to suspect that a condition or requirement has been contravened—
" shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 and on indictment to a fine not exceeding £1,000 for each day "—
and here we come to an Amendment—
" on which the offence is committed ".
I do not know on which days he will have committed the offence of withholding information. This points to the difficulties in regard to Private Bill legislation and the desirability of having Public Bill legislation at an early date. It may be that my noble friend Lord Blyton can put a better gloss on these particular sentences, but they suggest a need for alertness in these matters because, as my noble friends have said, we are not just discussing the protection of the citizens of the Isle of Wight but questions of fundamental liberties. At the same time the clause is very much restricted to certain hours. As my noble friend has pointed out, it is

759
unlikely to affect agricultural shows because it is limited in its effect to certain hours after midnight.
My noble friends are going to move certain Amendments. Of course it is possible to prevent these events from taking place by producing impossible conditions. I am told that one condition which was implied was that certain insurances should be taken out for certain risks which were not insurable. I do not know whether that is correct, but I was informed on good authority that it was so. That, again, is why it is desirable that the two Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, even if they do not add materially to the legal strength, should be passed. Again I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and with other noble Lords; I am not really happy about the quarter sessions arguments. I should have thought that if it were to be dealt with by an inspector from a Department he should be from the Ministry for the Environment, because it seems to me to fall most naturally into that area. All Departments fight; I know the Home Office will do their best not to have the responsibility because they are always liable to get it in the end. The Home Office is the dumping ground for anything, from seals to (no doubt)"Pop"festivals. This is something that the Government will need to face, and I am not sure that a simpler form of inquiry would not be better. Such is our confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham (except when he is dealing with immigration), that we should be very happy for it to come under him; but I think it should be under the Ministry of the Environment.
There remains the question whether the existing powers are adequate. It is to be remembered that this year's festival will be conducted not under this Bill but under the existing powers, and it will be interesting to see whether the doubts expressed by the Home Office, and I believe by the police, as to whether this clause was necessary and whether one could not have got by without it, will prove to be well-founded. At the same time, I think it is right that we should pass the clause. The Council and, I think, your Lordships can claim some credit for determination—and particularly the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and those who work with him, and other
760
noble Lords—as a watchdog in these matters.
I was so glad that the right reverend Prelate and several noble Lords have put the case for the young. A striking thing has come out from these festivals, and the message is there—except when the Press pay people to create a fuss or to take their clothes off, and we know that there were something like 700 Press men at the last festival—the great message that conies over is the kindness, the gentleness and the truthfulness of the young. They are extremely honest and they are very generous to one another. The alienation between generations means that they are not even interested to-day in the Pentagon Papers, simply because it is the kind of thing they expect from Parliaments, the public and politicians. Therefore we have this responsibility for something that is obviously a tremendous experience for them. It is not just the"Pop"music or even the Jazz (which is more intellectual, I believe) or the music generally. The atmosphere produces a situation which is a great experience and where the behaviour is no worse, as was said in the letter quoted by my noble friend, than in the smart circles of London society or the suburbs of Guildford. So we do not wish to be too holy about this.
I congratulate my noble friend on succeeding in getting such a friendly reception to a clause which I still find awkward and difficult. I appeal to the Government—pointing out that we shall watch how this matter goes—that other local authorities should not be convinced that this House will automatically allow clauses of this kind to be put into Bills. It is argued that it should have been petitioned against, but the young are not going to petition. The promoters are essentially ephemeral creatures; they may be interested only in one festival. Therefore we have put on record our concern, and at the same time we repeat our sympathy for the Isle of Wight. We hope the weather is fine and that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, will do something about the matter in regard to British Railways.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I do not intend to take up much time after a debate lasting an hour and a half, but I hope my noble friends on this side of

761
the House do not regard me as a person who is prepared to take away civil liberties. For over fifty years I have been in the forefront of the battle for civil liberties and I would never support any aggressive measures. But to compare Clause 5 with the miners' gala—and particularly the Northumberland Miners' Gala—is stretching it a bit too far. After all, the demonstration starts at nine o'clock in the morning and if a man has been out all day he gets home by 11 o'clock at night. The same thing occurs in Durham. If I had thought this Bill would jeopardise free assembly I would have opposed it, but in the experience of the Isle of Wight—and it is a new experience—the local authority must have some powers in such a situation, as I have already explained. This Bill does not take away civil liberties; it does not try to stop"Pop"festivals. It tries to ensure that they are held under decent conditions and that they are run properly. With that I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading.
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Clause 5 [Control of large over-night assemblies in the open]:
8.29 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 34, at end insert (" setting out in the case of unsuitability the grounds on which it is in the opinion of the Council unsuitable ").—(Lord Wynne-Jones.)
LORD SHACKLETON: Here again it will be important to people who are appealing to quarter sessions that unsuitability shall be shown. I am quite sure from my knowledge of the Clerk to the County Council that he would have every intention of doing so, but we may as well have it in the Bill and on the Record.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 9, line 12, after (" (6) ") insert (" (8) ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3. This is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this Bill, and I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for his generous tribute to the work of the
762
Unopposed Bills Committee. I was particularly glad to hear what he said about my Counsel, Mr. Talbot, because I am quite sure that the House does not realise the extremely distinctive and useful contribution that his great knowledge of local government law and Private Bill procedure makes to private legislation. So I am particularly grateful to him for what he said on that subject. Amendment No. 3 is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 26, leave out (" owned or ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment, which is also agreed by the promoters, is that the definition of a person holding an assembly under Clause 5 of the Bill will apply only to the occupier of the land and not, as the Bill is drafted, to the owner as well. The Bill as it came before the House of Commons contained a reference to owners which that House decided to leave out. When the Bill reached this House a reference was made to owners, in an Amendment made in Committee, which, in view of the decision in another place, ought not to have been made. There is an understanding that in Private Bills we respect their Amendments and they respect ours. I am afraid that this matter was overlooked in Committee. The Amendment I am proposing rectifies the situation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 9, line 37, at end insert (" This section shall come into operation on 1st December 1971.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to postpone until December 1 the coming into effect of Clause 5 of the Bill, which, as your Lordships are well aware, after our long debate, seeks power to control large overnight assemblies in the open. The passage of the Bill through Parliament has taken a great deal longer than expected, and the promoters have expressed themselves as unwilling to operate the clause so far as the requirements of not less than four months' notice is concerned. Furthermore, time is now far

763
too short for the remainder of the clause to be used to control the assembly that is expected to take place at about the time of the August Bank Holiday. This Amendment reflects the reality of the present situation, and the holding of the assembly will not place the organisers in a position in which it would be virtually impossible for them to comply with the law. I beg to move.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, clearly this is the most important Amendment that is being made. I must say that I do not know how anyone could have expected a Bill which I think had its Second Reading only in March to come into law in time for it to be fully effective for the four months' notice period. But I am all for letting the County Council off easily on this, now that they have seen wisdom. I take it that this means that these further Amendments—and, indeed, the many Amendments introduced by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—will now have to go back to another place and will have to be considered there, and it will be open to them, if they wish, to make Amendments to these Amendments—though I am not necessarily recommending this course. But thanks to this particular Amendment there is not quite the same urgency because it could be taken, if necessary, in the"spillover ".
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely right about the procedure. The Bill will go back to another place, with the Amendments, and further Amendments can be made. The effect of this particular Amendment, of course, is to postpone the operation of the clause, as amended, until the beginning of December.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD WYNNE-JONES LORD WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
" (1) The County Council shall formulate a model set of terms and conditions that may be imposed under section 5 of this Act upon a person seeking to hold an assembly in the county; but the fact that a term or condition compliance with which is acutally required is not in the model set or differs from any corresponding term or condition in that set shall not invalidate the term or condition, compliance with which is actually required.
764
(2) The County Council shall make available for inspection and for sale at a reasonable price any model set of terms and conditions formulated under the preceding subsection."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment has been framed to try to meet what to many of us is one of the most serious matters raised in this clause. No promoter of a festival or assembly knows in advance what conditions the county council will lay down, and this new clause proposes that the County Council shall formulate a model set of terms and conditions. This will enable anyone to know what conditions he will have to meet: otherwise he will be working completely in the dark. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Ripon.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

IMMIGRATION BILL
8.36 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 1.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" Provided that in the framing of the rules and in the administration thereof no Commonwealth citizen shall, after entry into the United Kingdom have conditions imposed that are more restrictive than conditions applicable to other persons living and working in the United Kingdom who are citizens of countries within the E.E.C. and which are in compliance to the terms of The Treaty of Rome.")
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, earlier in the evening said that it was a fundamental principle so far as Her Majesty's Government were concerned that we should in future treat Commonwealth immigrants in the same way in which aliens are treated. As I said at a later stage, of course that may be true as of now, but quite clearly if this country were to enter the E.E.C. then a very different situation arises. I have read very carefully the reports of debates in another place, and on no occasion did we receive from Her Majesty's Government a clear statement

765
as to what will be involved in terms of immigration or settlement by nationals of Commonwealth countries if we were to enter the E.E.C.
As I understand it, the situation is largely governed by Regulation 1612/68 on the freedom of movement of workers within the Community, and I think I should draw the attention of the noble Marquess in particular to Articles 1, 3, 10 and 11. The preamble to this Regulation provides as follows:
"…equality of treatment shall be ensured in respect of everything relating to the actual carrying out of a wage-paid occupation and of access to housing, and also that obstacles to the mobility of the workers shall be eliminated, in particular as regards the worker's right to be joined by his family and the conditions for the integration of that family…".
Article 1 reads as follows:
" Any national of a Member State, irrespective of his place of permanent residence, shall be entitled to take up and carry on a wage-paid occupation in the territory of another Member State in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State imposed by law, regulation or administrative action."
It goes on further in Article 3(1):
"…provisions imposed by law…of a Member State shall not apply if they restrict the right of non-nationals to apply for, offer, engage in or carry on employment or make it subject to conditions not prescribed in respect of nationals "—
It goes on,
" or if, while applicable irrespective of nationality, their exclusive or principal aim to keep nationals of other Member States away from the employment offered."
Article 10, which I believe is quite fundamentally opposed to the principles of this Bill, says:
" The following shall have the right to take up residence with a worker who is a national of one Member State employed in the territory of another Member State, whatever their nationality:—

(a) his spouse and their children under age of 21 years, or dependent on him,

(b) dependent relatives in the ascending line of the worker and his spouse."

Article 11, perhaps even more, goes against the whole principles underlying this Bill.
" The spouse and children under the age of 21 years or dependant of a national of a Member State engaged in a wage-paid occupation or self-employed in the territory of another Member State shall have the right to engage in any wage-paid employment throughout the territory of that Member State…"
766
There is yet another regulation of which no doubt the noble Marquess is aware, 1251/70 in respect of when the man ceases to be employed there.
"…it is important…to guarantee the worker residing in the territory of a Member State the right to remain in that territory when he ceases to be employed there by reason of the fact that he has reached retirement age or by reason of permanent incapacity to work…"
Further, when the worker
" has arrived at the end of his working life he should have a sufficient period to decide where he wishes to establish his definitive residence;…the exercise by the worker of the right to remain implies that this right shall be extended to members of his family;…in the case of the decease of the worker during his working life, the right of the members of his family to remain must also be recognised and be the subject of special conditions."
These are very specific rules and regulations which the E.E.C. have adopted, and if I take the noble Marquess's Statement last week, Her Majesty's Government have accepted them. These place workers of the E.E.C. countries in a very much superior position to any present alien. It could be argued that this is right, in the sense that we are joining the Community and naturally, therefore, there should be some differentiation between one alien and another. However, I seriously put it to the Committee whether it is right, as a matter of principle, that those who are within the Commonwealth—and I think most of us pay our respects to the Commonwealth, and recognise that the Commonwealth still has a lot to offer the world in general—should be treated differently, and that they should be treated in a way less favourable than those members of the E.E.C. I have a feeling that, if one were to have a general poll throughout the country now, there would be a clear view that, while it may not be right to treat Commonwealth citizens as being in a superior position to those within the Community, it would be wrong to treat them in a less favourable way.
Therefore the purpose of this Amendment is to say that when we frame the new rules—because there will have to be new rules when we enter the E.E.C., and the Home Secretary was quite right when he said that when we enter the E.E.C. the Bill is not affected; what matters is the rules: they should be so framed,

767
and so administered, that no Commonwealth citizen, once he has entered this country, once he has received his work permit, once he has been accepted within our community, should be treated in any way worse than a national of an E.E.C. country. I hope the Committee will feel that this is entirely justified, and that Her Majesty's Government will accept not only the spirit of the Amendment but the wording of it.
8.46 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: If I may do so briefly, I should like to underline nearly all of what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said. At the beginning of my remarks I should like to put a question to the noble Marquess. I am not sure that I entirely follow on exactly with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on this particular question. The regulations flowing from Article 189 of the Treaty of Rome will be binding in their entirety on this country when we are a member of the E.E.C., if we are. These regulations must be accepted as part of our law. I should like to ask the Minister whether he will explain how they will become part of our law. Is he really satisfied that amending the rules would be enough? Perhaps he can answer that point.
As for the rest of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, he is absolutely right in saying that we are not allowed to impose any conditions on nationals of the European Economic Community that we do not impose on our own nationals, whoever they may be. In plain language, that means that once a person has got his original residence permit, which is valid for five years, a person from a country in the European Economic Community is on exactly the some footing as you and I are. If I, or any other of your Lordships, should apply for a particular job it would be totally against the Treaty of Rome for any national of another member of the E.E.C. to be discriminated against in our favour, in favour of a person from Britain. We have to be treated exactly the same, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, pointed out; and I would underline it. Three months is allowed for looking for a job, and these nationals would be allowed to stay here for 12
768
months after leaving an employment, and allowed to retire here and draw pensions here if they had worked here for a period which I believe is about three years.
When all these people suddenly stop being aliens overnight—that is assuming we succeed in our application—and suddenly become nationals of fellow-members of the European Economic Community, we shall find that there are very large numbers of people suddenly taken off controls. While I do not wish to enter into any sort of"numbers game ", surely this finally, and without question, underlines the point that this Bill does not provide any more scope for any Government to control numbers, because merely as a result of our entry into the European Common Market (which we are told this Bill does not affect) there will be, on to-day's figures, 13,000 Frenchmen, 11,048 Germans and 14,000 Italians who will suddenly be on the same footing as you and I. I hope that we can finally lay the ghost of this being a Bill to control movements and put it in its grave.
The final question is this. I understand that there are provisions for the application of immigration controls to E.E.C. nationals in certain narrow specified emergencies. One of these concerns public health; the other concerns public order. Under public health there are diseases listed; under public order there are narrowly defined conditions of unrest. I wonder if the Minister can tell us whether in a Dutschke-type case we shall be allowed to deport somebody for political reasons if it is accepted by the Commission as being likely to lead to public disorder here. Am I right in thinking that it will be up to the Commission to decide whether we are justified in deporting a national of the E.E.C. on the ground that it will be likely to lead to public disorder here?
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I have a certain sympathy with the noble Marquess. This is probably the most awkward question likely to be raised during the period of the Committee stage. I should like to put to the noble Marquess the case of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who is a potential patrial. He comes here and, under the specific rules (which may be modified as a result of the Committee

769
stage), he may become a patrial. If, during this time, he says,"This is fearfully sticky; I am going to go to France ", can he go there? That is my question.
8.53 p.m.
DIE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the way in which he introduced his Amendment. It is a difficult position, and I think the whole Committee recognise it. Whatever our opinions, we all realise that on this particular item they are most sincerely held. I should like briefly to repeat to some extent some of the remarks the noble Lord made. He quoted fully and accurately the situation concerning the mobility of labour within the Common Market. I think it might be useful first of all to say one or two brief words about that. The situation is this. If we join, any national from the Economic Community who wishes to work in the United Kingdom must be admitted without a work permit, and if he finds work within three months of coming here he must be granted an initial stay of five years; and, as the noble Lord pointed out, he must be allowed to bring in his dependants if there is sufficient accommodation available. He will remain, subject to immigration control and, in particular, to deportation on broadly the same grounds as are provided under the Bill for people subject to immigration control; and of course there are Amendments later in the Bill dealing with deportation.
As I understand it, and the noble Lord made this clear, the Amendment does not seek to provide that a Commonwealth citizen should be admitted here to work without a work permit. It refers only to the conditions pertaining after entry into the United Kingdom, and it does not extend to foreign nationals from non-E.E.C. countries. In other words, he and his colleagues are endeavouring to ensure that Commonwealth citizens admitted with work permits receive as favourable treatment after entry as nationals from the Community who are working here. This, in practice, would boil down to the fact that Commonwealth citizens would have to be given initial leave to remain for five years, as opposed to the 12 months which is contemplated under the policy of the Government; and they
770
should be able to bring in, or be joined by, a wider range of dependants, as provided by the regulations which the noble Lord quoted; that is, wife and children up to 21, parents, and even grandparents.
As the noble Lord pointed out, there are also various provisions relating to retirement. I recognise the difficulties about this, but our view is that there is no real and inherent reason why our joining the Economic Community, if we do join, should result in better treatment than is proposed in the Bill for Commonwealth citizens who come here to work. The arrangements under E.E.C. are reciprocal ones, so far as mobility of labour is concerned. People from the Six or the Nine will be able to come here to work just as ours will be able to go and work in Europe. But the arrangements we have with the Commonwealth concerning immigration are not reciprocal, and these are, of course, a matter for Parliament itself to determine. Certainly I cannot see that the Government have reason to extend to Commonwealth citizens provisions which would be parallel to those provided for under the E.E.C. free movement of labour provisions.
Regarding the admission of dependants, I think that it has been accepted by all Parties in recent years—at any rate by the two major Parties in this country—that Commonwealth citizens should be joined only by wives and children under 18 and by other certain specified dependants. I wonder whether the noble Lord and his colleagues wish to change this. It seems to me that, apart from any consideration of principle, we have to look at the practical considerations in this and try to see what the present situation seems to be in the Community. So far as it is possible to judge, during the past few years the movement of labour within the Community itself seems to have been influenced more by purely economic and social considerations than by any question of the absence or presence of restrictions upon it. A comparison of economic conditions in this country and in the Six does not indicate that there is likely to be any increase in the rate of entry of workers from other E.E.C. countries. Certainly it is the Government's view that the risk of a permanent and large immigration from that source

771
can be entirely ruled out. In fact I think that, generally speaking, the movement will be the other way. On the other hand, if we are to relax the control which both the Opposition and ourselves have always maintained over Commonwealth immigration, this might carry such a risk, and therefore, for practical reasons, I feel that I must ask the House not to accept this Amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked me several questions. So far as deportation is concerned, as I have told him, this will be considered later on in the Bill but there is no great change proposed from the existing situation. The noble Lord asked me what the position would be legally and how this would be established. Speaking as it were without the guidance of others, I imagine that these legal matters will all be framed within the legislation proposed for joining the European Community if we do. I recognise that this is a difficult position. I have tried to put it to the House as the Government see it, and I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I never thought to live to see the day when a Conservative Government would take the line that members of the Commonwealth would be disadvantaged in comparison with our European neighbours. Some of your Lordships will remember the moving speech which was made by a much-beloved late colleague, Lord Constantine, when he said that having been brought up in Jamaica and deprived of the culture of his forebears, he was for all practical purposes a black Englishman. Under this Bill, black Frenchmen, who are given better privileges by the French than we give to our black Englishmen, would be able to come here without the restrictions that would be imposed upon his co-nationals as members of the Commonwealth. I think that this is the most disgraceful feature of this entirely disgraceful Bill.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: Not tremendously to my surprise, the noble Marquess did not answer my question. I wonder whether I may put it in another way. Should I be right in thinking that a patrial who had acquired patrial rights and who
772
wanted to work for a French firm, could go and do so under Common Market rules? What would the position be of someone who came here and was halfway through his qualifying period and wanted to go off and work for Simca? Thirdly—my original question—what is the position of a potential patrial who finds the conditions in order to qualify in England so difficult that he would rather go straight to one of the Common Market countries? I think that these questions are important.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: They are indeed important questions, and I should like to give the noble Lord proper and serious answers. To the first of his questions, the answer is, Yes. I am not certain at this stage what the position of a potential patrial would be and, if I may, I will write to the noble Lord and let him know.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: I am disturbed at the situation which has arisen as a result of this Bill. We are told by noble Lords on the Front Bench that we are putting Commonwealth citizens on the same level as aliens. If we go into the Common Market, in one easy movement we produce another collection of people who can come in, so we are straight back on to three categories again. We shall treat the new people from the Common Market with preference. There cannot be any doubt about that, because they can come in and at the moment Commonwealth people cannot. I am not particularly worried about that situation, because I think the circumstances of this country probably justify it; but it worries me that once they are in they are not to be treated in the same way as Europeans who come in. It is worrying not only me; it is worrying many people in this country who have said to me,"Why should we treat people from Europe in a different manner from those who come from Australia, New Zealand and Canada?"I am just forgetting any form of colour prejudice that there may be. I have not yet heard from noble Lords on the Front Bench any remarks which have allayed my fears or can allay anybody else's fears on this matter.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: Through my own fault, I did not have a chance of speaking on Second Reading. May I at this stage make a few general comments

773
before I deal with the present discussion? I should like to make clear that in the criticisms I shall make of the Bill, and in voting against individual clauses, I do not regard the Bill as monstrous. I regard it as necessary, but with one or two parts which are highly regrettable. I think that this discussion has shown one of the major difficulties which the Government have created for themselves.
I am a strong supporter of British entry into the E.E.C., and if we enter the E.E.C. we shall then have to conform with the liberal provisions about the movements of labour. That is all absolutely right. But what it does, as one listens to the present debate, is to cause one to go back again (I do not know whether this is in order) to the Amendment which has just been rejected, because what that Amendment was trying to say was that there are certain special problems about the Commonwealth of which notice should be taken, and notably the one not really dealt with by Ministers; namely, the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, about the distance that very poor people from the Commonwealth have to come if they are going to settle here. The moral of that surely is that, because we are liable to accept this freedom of the Europeans, we should think again about the Commonwealth aspect of this. I think one is allowed to say that in the Commonwealth we are dealing with people to whom we have a particular obligation: some of them kith and kin; some of a different race, and therefore the problem with them is most sensitive; and practically all of them coming from a long way off. Surely what that means is that the Government should be more than ordinarily sensitive about the peripheral questions of the treatment of Commonwealth people coming here, such as were raised by the previous Amendment.
I hope that the noble Marquess, who manifestly has a humane attitude towards this, will impress on his colleagues that there are at the sensitive edges of this question things like, for instance, the rights of wives Ito come with Commonwealth citizens, and that there should be another look at these regulations to see whether a little more cannot be done at the sensitive edges to make Commonwealth citizens a little more confident in their welcome, not just
774
personally, but economically and socially, than is the case under the present regulations, given the fact of the privileges that we are voluntarily going to give to Europeans. I do hope that the noble Marquess will make that point to his colleagues.
LORD R ITCHIE-CALDER: I may say that the one creditable thing that we have had this evening is the noble Marquess's very proper embarrassment. I am glad that he at least realises precisely what most of us feel—that we have walked into a quagmire. We not only have a situation which many of us deplore in the terms of the Bill, but we are faced with a ridiculous paradox. We are going into the Common Market, and, as our late friend Learie Constantine pointed out, we have the ridiculous situation of discriminating against the members of the Commonwealth, but we are going to admit those from Europe, even predictably some black faces from Europe, who will come in with a wider welcome than the people from the Caribbean. I think that this Amendment properly discloses the completely intolerable contradictions of this Bill.
LORD O'HAGAN: As an ardent European I should like to make one more point. One of the things that worries me about Europe—I very much support the Government's application to get into Europe, and I hope that they succeed—is the criticism sometimes levelled that the European Economic Community is nothing but a rich man's club; a self-satisfied, self-centred, economic unity, with tariff barriers surrounding it, cast iron against the rest of the world. I do not myself believe this, but I think one of the things that this country can contribute if we become a member is to enable the European Community to fulfil its potential as a pant of the world Community. Surely one of the ways in which we should be doing that is by discharging our obligations to the third world and to our former empire, rather than hanging on.
LORD BYERS: I should like to make an appeal to the noble Marquess. This raises the whole question of our relationship with the E.E.C. over human beings

775
and our relationship with the Commonwealth over human beings. When we come to United Kingdom legislation for going into the Common Market we shall have to raise this. Would it not be better to think this thing out in depth between now and the Report Stage; to get some of us together with those who have objections to this course and see if we cannot kill this problem? It is a very human problem, and it has not been thought out in depth.
9.14 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This debate, I am quite certain, has disclosed the deep feeling there is on this subject and I think it is something which we all share. I was particularly struck by what the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, said. But here is a point which, as I said before, we have to look at in a practical manner as well as one of principle. I will certainly take the invitation made by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, to heart and will draw my colleagues' attention to the points he raised, but I think we must remember one thing about the E.E.C. provisions: that is, as I said in my earlier speech, that they are reciprocal and that the advantages we are giving to the nationals of E.E.C. countries are similar to advantages which they are giving to our nationals. That is not quite the same as the point made with regard to our Commonwealth colleagues.
BARONESS WHITE: Will the noble Marquess allow me to interrupt? I am sorry, but this is very important. Have Her Majesty's Government had any consultation with Commonwealth countries as to possible reciprocity? They have spent a long time discussing it with European neighbours.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should like to have notice of that question because I should not want to mislead the noble Baroness, Lady White, on this point, which is an important point.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked that we should think again about this matter. I can assure him that the Government will continue to think about it. Our present feeling, as I explained in my original speech, is that we cannot accept this Amendment. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his colleagues will feel able not to press it to a Division
776
because I think the House in all parts feels very sensitive about this matter.
I was, of course, very much struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, said about the late Lord Constantine and I would echo the remarks made in this debate about that very fine man. From a purely practical point of view, I think the fears about French coloured immigrant labour coming to this country are really very small indeed. I understand that the numbers that go to work in France are not large and I think it unlikely that this would cause any real problem here. That is rather by the way. I do not feel that I can add very much to what I have said, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will not press the Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: A great deal of anxiety has been expressed in almost every part of the House about this proposal. I hope that my noble friend will be able to assure us that the Government will look again at it and find a way of dealing with it. I thought the appeal made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was a very simple and straight one. It would be a great pity if this Amendment were carried to a Division to-night. I wonder whether my noble friend could be as positive as possible in saying that the Government will look at the matter again in such a way that if the Government are not able to do anything about it, those who put forward the Amendment may have some other opportunity of doing so. It seems to be leading to a very sad situation indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth said, if this perfectly reasonable and proper way of making an arrangement with Europe had the particular effect to which so many members of your Lordships' House have called attention. I cannot help feeling that if my noble friend could be as positive as possible that the Government would look at this matter again, the mover of the Amendment might not feel that he should press it to a Division to-night.
LORD OAKSHOTT: If I may intervene, perhaps I should declare an interest, because I am in fact half Canadian. I also am an ardent supporter of our acceding to the Treaty of Rome, so I find myself in some conflict. I do not know, and I do not know whether my noble

777
friend could tell me, to what extent this Amendment would conflict with what we in this country call the"statutory instruments"of the Treaty of Rome. I would strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in asking that my noble friend should take this proposal away and think about it again, and ask his noble friend to think about it again, to see whether there is a way out of this dilemma. I hope he will do this and I appeal to him to do it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps it is appropriate for me to intervene for a moment or two on this Amendment. I can certainly say, in response to the intervention of my noble friends, Lord Amory and Lord Oakshott, and the arguments which we have heard from the Benches opposite, that I will discuss this. My noble friend Lord Lothian will discuss it with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. This is not a straightforward issue. There are negotiations of historic significance taking place with the E.E.C., and one of the questions under discussion is who will be regarded as a United Kingdom national for the purpose of the free movement of labour provisions. We have published a fact sheet which gives a certain amount of information on this. I do not think that it would be right, and I hope that noble Lords would agree, to press an Amendment of this kind at the moment. I will discuss it with the Secretary of State, and I should also like to suggest to him that we might take advantage of the proposal by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and that perhaps a small group from the Bench opposite, together with the Liberal Peers, might come for a talk with us at the Home Office during the Summer Recess. In this way, if there are practical difficulties we shall be aware of them, and if, after talks, noble Lords do not feel that the difficulties had been met there will be an opportunity to put down a further Amendment later.
LORD SHEPHERD: There are occasions when your Lordships' House rises to considerable heights, and I think that this evening is one of them. I deliberately did not raise the question of what would be the position of Commonwealth immigrants if they were in this country and desired to move into Europe. I recognise that this is a very considerable
778
difficulty for Her Majesty's Government and also for the Governments of the E.E.C. All I sought was to establish in my Amendment that if a Commonwealth immigrant came to this country, had his work permit, established himself and behaved as an ordinary British subject, while he was here and until he became registered as a patrial he would not in any way have restrictions placed upon him which would be worse than those placed upon a national from the E.E.C. That is all I sought to secure. The numbers are not great. We have already established that not all the immigrants to this country will be affected. From the figures, I would say that perhaps 2,000 or 3,000 a year will receive work permits from the Commonwealth—with their dependants, some 15,000 in all per year. That is not a very large number.
Taking those numbers into account, and the tremendous effect that would be caused within the immigrant population in this country and the Commonwealth as a whole, if the Government were able to accept the spirit (I am not asking for the wording) of this Amendment, the effect would be of tremendous consequence. In the light of the appeal that was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, which I think represented the general view of your Lordships' House, and the response of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I intend to withdraw this Amendment, and I would respond, with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and others, to the suggestion of consultations to see whether we can find an equitable and honourable settlement to this problem. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN LORD O'HAGAN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" Provided that in framing the rules and in the administration thereof the rights of entry of dependents of Commonwealth citizens remain the same as those specified in section 2 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968.")
The noble Lord said: I have rather a difficult job to do, and I hope you will forgive me if in moving this Amendment I get into a muddle or bore you, especially after the deeply moving debate we have just had. I would explain that this Amendment is designed to continue the

779
present situation with regard to dependants of Commonwealth citizens. If I may I will read out the relevant parts of the Act that I have cited in my Amendment—
" The power to refuse admission shall not, except as provided by subsection (5) of this section, be exercised on any occasion in respect of a person who—

(a) satisfies an immigration officer that he is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or was so resident at any time within the past two years, or

(b) being a woman, satisfies an immigration officer that she is the wife of a Commonwealth citizen who is resident in the United Kingdom or of a Commonwealth citizen who enters or seeks to enter the United Kingdom with her."

It goes on to outline provisions for the children. Broadly the situation is—
LORD BROWN: Would it not be fair to give the reference?
LORD O'HAGAN: This is from Section 2(2)(a) and (b). if your Lordships would like me to read it in detail I will willingly do so, but I was trying to give an indication of what I am putting forward and I was going to give a summary of the implications of it. I understand that the implications of what I have referred to are that wives can come in, children up to the age of 16 have the absolute right, children of 16 to 18 come in if both parents are residents, and children over 18 very rarely, and old people over the age 65 are allowed to come in. That is the present situation and this Amendment is aimed at continuing it.
In its present form this Bill and the rules would alter that situation so that children under 18 could come in only if both parents are resident here, and I feel that the rights enshrined in the Act should be continued in this new legislation, especially in the light of the rights that dependants of nationals of other member countries of the Common Market would have if we joined. I will not dwell in detail on those rights; they have been mentioned by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, already, but broadly speaking any children up to the age of 21, if dependent, would be allowed in for nationals, and, as he said, dependent relations in the ascending line, parents and grandparents. I am merely asking that the present conditions for Commonwealth citizens should be continued, and that
780
the relevant section of the 1968 Act be specifically included in this Bill.
9.30 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Amendment is similar in some ways to the Amendment to Clause 3, Amendment No. 56, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, except that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, does not propose that rights of entry should be conferred directly by the Bill itself. It leaves such rights to be conferred by the Immigration Rules, but limits the scope of the rule-making power by prohibiting the Home Secretary from impairing the existing statutory rights of entry of Commonwealth dependants, in respect of both heads of households already here and those who come in the future. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, evidently accepts that the rules will confer rights which, being enforceable against the Home Office in appeal proceedings, will for all practical purposes afford their holders the same protection as the statutory rights provided by the existing law.
The Government have concluded, as we have already debated and will debate again, that it is not necessary or appropriate to entrench in the Bill any special provision concerning the entry of dependants. The draft Immigration Rules which have been laid before Parliament are a clear indication of the Government's intentions here. Commonwealth citizens already settled in this country will be able to bring in exactly the same range of dependants and on exactly the same terms as at present. The Home Secretary has undertaken that the requirement of ability to maintain and accommodate dependants will not be applied to the wives and children of Commonwealth citizens already settled here. Therefore, with the protection that is conferred by the immigration rules, there will be no change in the position of the dependants of somebody already established here. A Commonwealth citizen with a work permit, coming to this country to work in the future, when the Bill is in force, will in the first instance be able to bring in only his wife and children under the age of 18, provided that he has accommodation for them and can support them. When the time limit on his stay is removed (normally after four years in approved employment) he will be able to bring in the same range of dependants as

781
a Commonwealth voucher-holder can at present, subject to the requirement about maintenance and accommodation which, under the existing rules, applies to relatives other than wives and children.
If the Government were to seek to be less generous in making the rules in their final form, their action would be open to debate under the Negative Resolution procedure, and it would be open to either House to reject the proposed rules. Any future change in the rules would similarly be open to Parliamentary scrutiny and disapproval and, it must not be forgotten, the rules would be binding on the Home Office through the immigration appeals system.
It is for these reasons that we do not feel that this Amendment would be a desirable one. I am not really sure whether or not what I have said meets the noble Lord's point if he is concerned about the entry of dependants of Commonwealth citizens already established in this country. They will have the right to bring in exactly the same dependants as they can now and on exactly the same terms. For Commonwealth citizens coming in the future, the range of dependants will be narrower; it will not include the elderly parents, for example, until after the Commonwealth citizens have been here for four years in approved employment.
9.35 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I always feel in some difficulty when one is told, "This Amendment is quite unnecessary because that is the position under the Bill ". Then the answer to that is,"If it is the position under the Bill you obviously do not object to it and there is no reason why the matter should not be made plain ". I respectfully support what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has said, because it is not the same. The right—if one is to call it a right at the moment under the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968—is a statutory, legal right. Under the Bill it will not be a statutory legal right at all; it will be a right—if you like to call it a right—arising from whatever rules for the time being the Home Secretary may make. That, obviously, is an entirely different position. I have never quite understood this since I read what the Home Secretary said in the other place on March 8, 1971, at col. 47. He said:
782
" Those Commonwealth citizens already here free of condition, broadly speaking all working immigrants here, will not be affected…There will be no new papers to be carried, they will be allowed to bring in dependants…As I have said, I do not intend that the position of those already in this country, the rights "—
and your Lordships will appreciate that at the moment they have statutory rights—
" of those already in this country to bring in their dependants, shall be changed."
In the next column he said that those already here
" should have the same right in future as they now have to bring in their wives and dependants."
That simply is not so unless this Amendment is carried. The Act giving them the statutory right is being repealed, and all that is being offered in its place is rules, which the Home Secretary can make whenever he likes without consulting anyone at all, and which come into force as soon as he makes them. Parliament then has 40 days to say that it disapproves, but even if it disapproves that does not quash the rules. They remain as they are, and all that happens is that the Home Secretary then makes a statement proposing changes to the rules. While all that is going on, the rules are still there.
I want to make clear that I accept fully anything that the present Home Secretary says, and certainly anything that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham says, as to what their intentions are so long as they occupy their present position. But one cannot conceal the tone in which certain Members in the other place rejoiced that the legal rights were gone and that now the whole thing depended entirely on discretion. These gentlemen are entitled to hold their opinion. They think there should be no more coloured immigrants, and certainly no more dependants. They are certainly entitled to hold that view. There may in the future be a Home Secretary who is less enlightened than the present Home Secretary. I am surprised that the Home Secretary—I do not know whether he has not had reason to think it out very much—went on to say that the right of those already in this country to bring in their dependants would be unchanged. The Bill in its present form does not leave the situation unchanged. It takes

783
away what are at present statutory rights, and all we are left with is an assurance as to how rules will be operated, which we certainly accept from the present Home Secretary but which can be changed by another Home Secretary at another time. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, moved.
9.40 p.m.
LORD GARNER: I have listened to the whole of this debate so far, and I have done so with an increasing sense of sadness. I am being driven almost to the conclusion—except for the admirable discussion we had on the last Amendment—that one of the aims, hidden though it may be, of this Bill is really to place obstacles in the way of people coming here for permanent settlement, particularly those from Commonwealth countries.
There are two practical questions which bother me. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has assured me that the rights of dependants of Commonwealth citizens already here will not in any way be affected. If it is proper to retain those rights for Commonwealth citizens who are already here, why is it not proper to retain them for Commonwealth citizens who will come after this Bill becomes an Act?
The other problem that worries me is really a more practical one. However well-intentioned or kindly the immigration officials may be, if they are required to inquire into the ability of a man, on arrival, to maintain a wife and family, and to provide accommodation for them, it is not difficult to understand that in a good many cases a man arriving in a strange country, although he may have work to which to go, with very little knowledge of what the circumstances will be, may find it extremely difficult to give satisfactory evidence to the immigration officials. But the fundamental point, to my mind, is that if a man is being allowed here for permanent settlement it is only right that his immediate family should be allowed in with him. The social reasons for this are obvious; and I should like to add my support to the Amendment.
9.41 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The practice, I think, will cover what the noble Lord, Lord Garner, has in mind."In the future ", he says,"a man admitted "—he then says"for permanent settlement ", and I should like to come back to those words because they are crucial in this debate—" should have the right to bring his immediate family ". A man admitted under the work permit scheme is not admitted for permanent residence. This is the essence of the change which is being made by this Bill. He is admitted with a work permit for a period of one year in the first instance, renewable for a further period of three years; and we accept, of course, that at the end of that period, as with aliens, a certain number will wish to remain in this country and will at that point become permanent residents. It is at that point, after they have been here for four years in approved employment, that they will have the right to bring in elderly dependent parents, for example—that is, the grandparents of their children—and maybe certain other relatives, uncles and aunts, who are in particularly distressed circumstances. The conditions are set out in the White Paper at the moment; and it seems to me that they constitute a perfectly coherent and sensible approach towards this particular question.
The noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, came back to a line of argument which I think he has advanced already. He does not feel that what is contained in the Immigration Rules can be as adequate a safeguard as a provision contained in a clause of the Bill—I think that is what the argument boils down to. I have explained that it was for reasons of this sort that in another place the Secretary of State agreed that these rules should he made subject to Parliamentary control. They are not at the moment so subject. The White Paper containing the rules on entry which we have had for a decade now, have not been subject to Parliamentary control of any sort. They are now to be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. The noble and learned Lord went on to develop this same point; he said he did not like the fact that if Parliament did not approve a rule, it nevertheless remained in force, and the Secretary of State had to go away, consider

785
the matter further, and bring some more rules before Parliament. But let us take the example of dependants. What would happen if, when Parliament did not approve a rule, it was extinguished at that point and the Secretary of State had to go away to draw up some new proposals as soon as he could? What would the immigration service do? People are not going to stop arriving at the ports. On what principles should the immigration officers work? They must surely work on the basis of the authorised, published Immigration Rules until something else is substituted. So I really do not feel that this particular point has very much force in it.
There is this point of principle between us on the question of whether or not we are willing to accept that the safeguards contained in the Immigration Rules are likely to be adequate. As I said, they are now subject to Parliamentary control. If it is said,"Yes, but there may be another Government, there may be another Parliament," that is so. But if Parliament agreed with the Home Secretary on the alteration of the immigration rules, if it was willing to accept whatever change it was that he was proposing to make, it could also alter the legislation. So that Parliament will have control.
We cannot really predict what Parliaments may do in the future, but I do not think that is a sufficient argument for persevering with an Amendment of this sort. In the light of what I have said, and bearing in mind that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is in not quite such an extreme position on this point as the noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite in that he is proposing that the safeguards should go in the immigration rules, not that there should be statutory safeguards for dependants, I hope he may feel that what I have said has met his point of view.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I am sorry that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. There seems to be a great gulf between what happens now and what he proposes. At the moment a man has a right to have his family with him, which is a very human thing. It is true of all humans throughout the
786
world that people like to have their families with them. What the noble Lord is offering in exchange is that he thinks the system will work in practice in much the way that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has in mind. That does not seem nearly good enough. The noble Lord talked about the regulations. They are not what I would call fail-safe regulations; they are fail-dangerous regulations. If the regulations which the Minister makes are turned down by Parliament, a fail-safe arrangement would mean that the regulations fell back into the previous position which had presumably been authorised by Parliament. But that is not the case with these regulations. If they are not passed by Parliament, these regulations stay in a position of which Parliament has disapproved until the Secretary of State sees fit to do something different. I call them fail-dangerous regulations, and I do not like them.
LORD O'HAGAN: Perhaps the time has come for us to make up our minds about this Amendment. I was in such confusion after the previous debate that I did not make one or two points which I should have made, but I shall not keep your Lordships very long. The principal point is that I accept absolutely the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and of his right honourable friends, when they say that in practice they do not want to do anything different from what I am aiming for in principle. They say that in practice they wish to carry out what I am endeavouring to make permanent. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is very well versed in these matters and is more able at explaining. He told me that I had accepted various things of which I was not aware, but I am quite sure that he was right. But one thing of which I am aware is that I cannot be persuaded by him, with all his knowledge and sincerity, that the difference between the practice and the principle is sufficiently narrow for us not to adhere to the principle. I think we ought to keep the principle.
9.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Birk, Bs.

Gardiner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blackburn, L.Bp.

Garner, L. [Teller.]

Roberthall, L.

Brockway, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brown, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Seear, Bs.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Byers, L.

Janner, L.

Serota, Bs.

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Kilbracken, L.

Shackleton, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Crowther, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Diamond, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

O'Hagan, L. [Teller.]

Wade, L.

Foot, L.

Phillips, Bs.

White, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ailwyn, L.

de Clifford, L.

Latymer, L.

Allerton L.

Denham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Amory, V.

Derwent, L.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Digby, I.

Margadale, L.

Balfour, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monson, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Eccles, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Barnby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Oakshott, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, T.

Essex, E.

Pender, L.

Belstead, L.

Falmouth, V.

Perth, E.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Redmayne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Gowrie, E. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Gray, L.

St. Just, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L

Sandys, L.

Burton, L.

Hailes, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Carlisle, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Carnock, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Chelmer, L.

Hatherton, L.

Teviot, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hives, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Coleraine, L.

Hood, V.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Conesford, L.

Ilford, L.

Vivian, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Craigavon, V.

Killearn, L.

Windlesham, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Kilmany, L.

Wolverton, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
9.56 p.m.
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
(" Provided that in the framing of the rules and in the administration of the rules there shall be no discrimination on the grounds of race colour religion or sex.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I indicated earlier that I was proposing to move this Amendment with a view to asking one or two questions. The subject of"no discrimination"and whether it should be incorporated in the Bill or in the rules has already been discussed and I do not propose to go over that ground again. Also, unless noble Lords wish otherwise, I do not propose to press this
788
Amendment to a Division. I think it is sufficient to defeat the Government once a day!
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Shame!
LORD WADE: My Lords, the material reference in this Amendment is to sex, and there is one general question which I would ask: has not the time arrived when we might have equality of treatment so far as sex is concerned?
LORD SHEPHERD: Hear, hear!
LORD WADE: My Lords, it may be said that there is not equality at the present time in the existing rules, but I should like to inquire whether we could not insert, in the new rules, a provision that there should be no discrimination on grounds of sex; and if that is not the

789
wish and intention of the Government I should like to ask why.
I would also ask one more specific question, and it is closely related to the custom of arranged marriages. As your Lordships know, where there is an arranged marriage it is not arranged simply between the parents of the bridegroom and the parents of the bride: the whole of what is known as the"enlarged family"are usually concerned, and there are lengthy discussions between the two families before the marriage is arranged. Take as an example the case where the bride-to-be is the daughter of an Asian family settled in this country and the boy is, say, living in India. A marriage is arranged; the boy and girl wish to live in this country—in other words the bridge-groom wishes to come and join the bride and live here—and the family of the bride are quite prepared to see that the bridegroom is able to support himself; so that there is no question of his being either unemployed or being a cost to this country. Is there anything in these rules which would prevent the bridegroom from joining the bride here?
Alternatively, if the girl is in, say, a Commonwealth country, and the bridegroom here, how would the rules apply? As I understand it, there is a discrimination between the case of the boy living in the Commonwealth country and the girl living in the Commonwealth country where the one or the other wish to come and reside here. That is the point I would wish to put to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. Is it correct that there is discrimination in the case where the husband or husband to be lives abroad; and, if so, is there any good reason, where the enlarged family is quite prepared to guarantee the support of the newly married couple?
10.1 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the new point raised by this Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade has explained, is the proposal that there should be no discrimination in the immigration rules on the grounds of sex. As I explained earlier, the Government accept, and have provided in Cmnd. 4606, that there should he no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or religion, but this does not extend, as the noble Lord has correctly pointed out, to sex. On
790
certain points the immigration rules do indeed distinguish on grounds of sex. Some are relatively trivial, though essential in the nature of things, such as that only females are admissible as au pair girls—there is a distinction on the ground of sex.
But the substantial point which the noble Lord is putting to me is that, while wives are freely admitted to join their husbands, the reverse is not the case, since men are not entitled to entry in right of their wives. This is a fundamental principle of immigration control, that the wife is expected to make her home in the country where her husband is established and not the other way round. In the United States and Canada, for example, a male fiancé is not admitted for the reason alone that he is engaged to a United States citizen and is due to be married; he may get some priority, but it does not exempt him. This is a general immigration practice. It is one, moreover, that has been applied by both Parties in the 1962 and 1968 Acts and in the immigration rules that have been based on them. The practical reason why this is not really possible—we do receive many representations on this subject from people concerned, particularly in the Asian communities in this country—is that, although in the 1962 Act men were not given a statutory right of entry for the purpose of marriage with somebody who was already established here, a concession was made—noble Lords opposite may recall this—so that male Commonwealth citizens could be admitted for the purpose of marriage. This concession was withdrawn in 1969, and I think it may be helpful if I explain the reasons why. I am advised that the decision—it was the decision of the previous Administration—to withdraw this concession was only taken after very careful consideration of all the implications. An examination of the statistics had shown a sharp increase in the number of Commonwealth men and women entering this country for marriage. The figure of 500 in 1965 had risen to 3,591 in 1968, and of the 1968 total 1,676 were men, of whom 1,496 were admitted from India alone. These figures had to be set against the figure of 3,828 adult males admitted for settlement as employment voucher holders in 1968, of whom 1,623 were from India.

791
In the light of these figures, the previous Government concluded that the marriage concession was being exploited to the extent that the numbers arriving were disproportionately high in relation to the numbers admitted under the voucher scheme, with the effect that the voucher scheme was being undermined as the main instrument of control over numbers. It was apparent that increasing advantage was being taken of the marriage concession as a means of securing entry for settlement without a voucher. In the light of these facts, the then Home Secretary decided it was no longer possible to maintain the concession. Mr. Callaghan's words on January 30, 1969, were:
" The numbers have risen steeply over the last year or so, and are now on such a scale that it seems that marriage is being used by many young men of working age as a means of entering, working, and settling in this country."
Before concluding, I should add that since that date there has been no absolute ban on male fiancés' being admitted for marriage and settlement. They may still be admitted, although they now need to obtain entry certificates before coming to this country, and are expected to show that there are special circumstances affecting them, or the women to whom they have become engaged here, which would make their exclusion undesirable. That answers the specific second question put to me by the noble Lord.
The young man in the situation of the arranged marriage would not generally be admitted under Immigration Rules as they stand now, but if there were sufficiently exceptional circumstances these would be taken into account when he applied for an entry certificate, and that application, as he may know, is made and considered in our High Commission posts in Commonwealth countries overseas. These provisions of the existing Immigration Rules are applied as compassionately and flexibly as possible, and each case is given careful consideration. The underlying principle, however, is that a woman who marries a resident of another country should normally expect to live in her husband's country.
I think that explanation gives the noble Lord the information he has asked for, both in terms of the underlying principles
792
of immigration control and the practical implications of the experience between 1962 and 1968, and the circumstances which led the previous Administration to withdraw the concession.
10.9 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: Would the noble Lord not agree that there is all the difference in the world between fiancés, or alleged fiancés, coming here for some real or pretended marriage, and those who are already husband and wife? I think what most of us have in mind is the inadvisability of separating husbands and wives. Can the noble Lord tell me, in 1971, what really is the justification for saying on the one hand,"Yes, of course, if a man comes here to work by agreement with us he should be able to bring his wife with him ", and saying that a Jamaican nurse who, for our benefit, comes here should not be able to have her husband with her? I daresay that in practice it is allowed, but why should the rules be different in those two cases?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I think that I answered the first point about husbands. If there was a degree of hardship it would be a ground for the entry officer to take into account. The reason why the husband is not admitted is because the wife is normally expected to make her home in the country of the husband—and this is not only our practice; it is international practice—except where particular circumstances point the other way. The second point concerned somebody who is admitted for the purposes of work. I think that in such a case the situation is very different from that of those seeking admission either because they intend to get married in the future or because they are already married. The difficulty is compounded, as is shown by the experience of the late 1960s, by the practice with which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will be familiar from his experience of community relations in Yorkshire of arranged marriage, in which the parties are in two continents and separated by many thousands of miles. By their own customs they are married, although by ours they are still regarded as affianced.
BARONESS SEEAR: Surely we cannot accept the idea that, simply because, as

793
Lord Windlesham said, it is the established principle that the wife must always go to live where her husband is, the principle should continue unchallenged. It seems to me to be one of those"establishments"which ought to be disestablished as soon as possible—particularly in the case of developing countries. I should have thought it highly desirable that we should do everything possible to raise the status of women in these countries where it is already in many instances, far behind that of men, if in this Bill, with all its limitations we could do something to recognise the rising status of women by challenging this established principle it would be a gain.
LORD WADE: I indicated earlier that I was not contemplating pressing this Amendment, but I think that we shall have to look further into the subject of hardship and the interpretation of special conditions. We shall have an opportunity of thinking about that between now and the Report stage. We might have had an excellent debate on the equality of treatment of the sexes. We seemed to be warming up for that. But perhaps we can defer it for another occasion. In the circumstances and in view of the time, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10.14 p.m.
LORD JANNER: I do not understand the procedure of this House. On the Marshalled List there is an Amendment to leave out Clause 1. If, as I understand, that is not moved, am I still in order in addressing the Committee for a few minutes on the question of whether this clause stand part of the Bill? If I am, I should like to say that I am sorry that this debate is taking place at such a late hour. After having considered the various Amendments that have been discussed this afternoon, it has become more and more clear to me that this Bill itself is a bad Bill, one that really did not re-require to be put on the Statute Book. Obviously, from what we have heard, the fears that we have and others have with regard to the nature of the Bill itself appear to be justified.
794
We are anxious that, if this Bill goes through, everything should be done to appease or to relieve the anxieties of Commonwealth immigrants in particular. Then one looks at what has been happening. In the first Amendment it was apparently admitted by the Government that the position of the Commonwealth citizen would be changed. Yet the Amendment was resisted. Say what you will, the arguments used in respect of the Amendment were quite contradictory, the Government insisting that there was no need for the Amendment, because this was in fact the position, and then arguing that there might have to be some regulations or amendment to alter the situation from the point of view of the Commonwealth citizen.
Then I am deeply disturbed, as are other noble Lords, by the ridiculous argument used in respect of the rules. I do not think that anyone in this Government, or in a future Government, would want to exercise the right to alter the rules in such a way as to make a serious position for Commonwealth and other immigrants, but the fact remains that the Government or the Home Secretary can alter the regulations overnight and there would not be an opportunity of having the alteration remedied by means of a negative vote. It is an absurd position. Some of the principles involved are of such a nature that they ought not to be left in that state. We have argued about these on several of the Amendments. One of them is Rule 15, on the right of political asylum. What is to prevent a Home Secretary altering the rule so that this political right is not accorded? I know that we may be told that there is an international law with regard to this. Then why not emphasise it in such a way that Parliament can make the decision and not the Home Secretary, whoever he may be?
I beg the Government to reconsider their position on these matters. There is apprehension and doubt, doubt that cannot be set aside by the kind of argument we have heard to-day. We shall come fairly soon to Clause 2, but in the first place in my opinion, Clause 1 ought not to be accepted. If the Government do not agree to withdrawn this clause, I hope at least that they will give an assurance that they will look into the

795
matters which have been raised in the course of the discussion on the clause.
10.20 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My noble friend was quite justified in reproving me and the Front Bench for not raising an objection to the passing of Clause 1. On Second Reading I made it quite clear that I did not like the Bill, and therefore I did not like Clause 1. But we carried one major Amendment to the Bill earlier this afternoon, and it seemed to me that there was considerable sympathy in the Committee for another Amendment which, if it was accepted in principle by the Government, would have a significant effect not only on Clause 1, but on the Bill as a whole. I therefore, after consultation with my colleagues, thought perhaps that we might be best advised not to press our strong views on Clause 1, but to preserve our position for Report stage.
My noble friend has raised serious matters. Some of them, of course, can be dealt with on Amendments Nos. 44 and 45, which deal with perhaps one of the most important aspects of the Bill; namely, the extent of Parliamentary approval and examination of rules that the Home Secretary may have in mind. I will not refer to this"late hour ", because it is still an early hour compared to some of the nights that we have been sitting, but since this is the first night on this Bill. I am anxious not to keep the Committee too long and therefore
796
I will confine my remarks on this clause to what I have already said. I do not know the feeling of the Committee, but if noble Lords feel that we should move on, then I will support that.
LORD BROWN: Perhaps I may seize this opportunity to say something that I might have said before we divided on Amendment No. 9. It is simply this. I forgot to rise to suggest a compromise which I should like to put to the Government now for consideration. The Amendment on Clause 9 sought to provide for those entering with work permits the same conditions as they have now. There is, I think, some reason in the Government's stand in putting some restrictions on dependants' entering in the first year. If a man has to return home at the end of the first year, it may be extremely harassing for his dependants if they have arrived here. Would it not have been possible, while maintaining the Government's standpoint as set out in the Bill with regard to the first year, to relax in the way indicated in Amendment No. 9 for the remaining three years of his (if I may put it this way) probationary period?
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said. I think he has the Committee with him in his proposal. As regards the suggested compromise advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, perhaps I could look at that and write to him.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Statement of right of abode, and related amendments as to citizenship by registration]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call the first Amendment to Clause 2, I would point out to your Lordships that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and a manuscript Amendment that I have.
10.24 p.m.
LORD FOOT LORD FOOT moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 13, leave out from (" Colonies ") to end of line 35.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I do so with a certain amount of hesitation, because clearly this Amendment in the names of my noble friends and myself strikes at the very heart of the Bill, and if it were carried it would mean that the Bill would be torn into small pieces. Therefore I cannot expect that I shall receive any kind of assistance from the Government, or that they will be prepared to give way on it. The object of the Amendment is to strike out everything after the word"Colonies"in line 13, with the result that for the future the right of abode would coincide with United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship. That would mean various serious injuries because, first, it would virtually repeal Section 1 of the Act of 1968, and it would restore the right of preferment to anyone who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies regardless of whether he has any affinity with this country of the kind described in paragraphs (a) and (b), and regardless of whether he had ever been settled or lived in this country.
The second effect of the Amendment would be to strike out paragraph (d), and thereby to close the door which the Government want to open to an unlimited number of Commonwealth citizens who have this affinity or this sense of belonging to this country. That is what the Amendment seeks to do. It would of course be all too easy to be tempted into making what would amount to a Second Reading speech on an Amendment of this sort. I shall resist that temptation, but I wish to use the opportunity to make a particular reference to the situation we
798
have discussed so often in this House, that of the East African nations.
We have discussed this matter many times. The situation in East Africa, particularly in Kenya and Uganda, remains as it has been since we passed the Act of 1968. That is to say, there are many United Kingdom passport holders in those countries who were deprived of the right of immediate entry to this country by the 1968 Act. Many of them have been deprived of their source of livelihood and their occupation under the laws of Uganda and Kenya and, as a result, have been living upon their savings and have sometimes seen their savings entirely eaten up There are many young people who, because they are denied the opportunity of taking work in those countries, have not been able to find employment there for themselves since they left school. This situation has existed, as everyone knows, since the Act of 1968 was passed.
It is true that until very recently the Government have given considerable easement here in that they have doubled the number of vouchers for heads of families coming into this country, and they have additionally made the once-for-all grant of 1,500 vouchers to take effect within this year. I do not want to be churlish about this, but my regret is that, excellent as that provision was, the Government did not go the whole way and repeal the Act altogether. I think they could have done that without any serious risk of any substantial influx to this country.
The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the number of people who want to come into this country from Kenya and Uganda are something of this order. There are about 9,000 heads of families who are in the queue and have made application for vouchers. If we take that number together with their dependants it may be that the overall figure of United Kingdom passport holders who want to avail themselves of the opportunity of coming to this country is not much more than 30,000. The noble Lord will correct me if I have the figures wrong, but I believe they were recently given in another place by a representative of the Government.
If that is the extent of the problem, and if it is true that there are only about

799
9,000 heads of families who want to come into this country as the holders of United Kingdom passports, the problem is not a big one. The figure may be lower, because once we have acknowledged that these people have the right to come here without restriction some of them would not want to come, but would be prepared to go to India, and India would be prepared to receive them as long as there was this"long stop"of our undertaking to take them. The Government, by their recent relaxation and the increased number of vouchers, have given an easement, but without settling the problem once and for all; and over the next three years it is undeniable that there will be people still in Uganda and Kenya using up their savings and sometimes living on charity who, when they eventually come, will come to this country as beggars and without resources of any kind.
The point I wanted to put to the Government on this Amendment was this: is it not a great pity that in this Bill they have missed the opportunity of repealing the whole of Section 1 of the 1968 Act, so as to restore to these people the right to come in because they are United Kingdom citizens and holders of United Kingdom passports? It is an ugly juxtaposition to find that in this clause, at the same time as the Government are maintaining the restrictions upon these people who are holders of United Kingdom passports and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, they are opening the door, under subsection (d) of the very same clause, to an unknown and unlimited number of people who are not United Kingdom citizens but Commonwealth citizens with the affinity with this country as described in the subsection. I think it is a great mistake not to have seized this opportunity to put right what went wrong in 1968. In saying that, I know that I shall have the sympathy if not the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, because he was one who voted against the principle of that Bill at that time. Obviously, unless somebody brings pressure to bear on me, I am not going to press this Amendment to a division, but I wanted to use this opportunity to raise the question of the repeal of the 1968 Act, and also to enable the noble Lord to give us his observations upon it. I beg to move.
10.35 p.m.
LORD JANNER: I rise briefly to express my regret that this clause is in the Bill at all. There are many people who do not like the idea of the new division which has been introduced. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said, it is really a matter for a Second Reading debate. Unfortunately, I was not able to be present on that occasion. I think that this new conception is being resented by Commonwealth coloured people because as a result of this particular division the coloured element which has no parents born in this country but which had a parent who was a Comonwealth citizen, nevertheless is placed at a very serious disadvantage, for the obvious reason that other Commonwealth citizens in many thousands would be sons born in the Commonwealth of parents who may be, or would have been, born in this country.
This extremely important matter has been brought to my notice by those who are engaged in developing relationships between immigrants and people who were previously living in this country. As I say, it is quite obvious that, no matter what arguments may be put forward at this stage, the Government are not likely to allow this particular Amendment to be carried. I cannot help feeling that this is a peculiar time to introduce this kind of legislation—the timing is bad. What difference would it have made in numbers in so far as immigration is concerned? Perhaps the Government will tell us. I just cannot feel that it is a real proposition. It is quite unnecessary. I think it might, in fact it does, embitter the relations between Commonwealth immigrants and others, and I believe that the societies which are engaged in doing what they can in order to bring about understanding and goodwill between the two communities are very deeply concerned about this particular way, at this precise time, of introducing this kind of system.
LORD KILBRACKEN: This Amendment, with which I am afraid I do not agree, gives me an opportunity of drawing attention to a matter which was already causing me surprise and apprehension in the Bill as it is at present drafted, and would produce even more if this Amendment were carried. It may

801
be that I am making a mistake about this, and if so I am sure the noble Lord will interrupt me quickly. I am concerned with the position of citizens of the Dominions. As I understand it, citizens of the Dominions are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies unless they have resided in this country for five years or more, when they may become so by registration under the British Nationality Act 1948, as it is now proposed to amend it. Therefore citizens of the Dominions may not qualify for patriality—to use that rather horrible word—under paragraphs (a), (b) or (c) of Clause 2(1) but only under paragraph (d).
It seems to me most remarkable that whereas citizens of Hong Kong or Fiji—and I have nothing whatsoever against the citizens of any colony—are entitled to patriality if one of their grandparents happened to be born in the United Kingdom, a citizen of the Dominions is not so entitled. Somebody who is an Canadian, Australian or New Zealander would not qualify under Clause 2(1)(b) because he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. My excuse for drawing attention to this matter at this juncture is that if this Amendment were agreed to it would delete (d) altogether, and would mean that a citizen of one of the Dominions would not have any right to patriality whatsoever, whereas a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, however he acquired that citizenship, would.
I feel that the position of a Dominion citizen needs clarification, and the disadvantage at which he stands in comparison with a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has to be explained. For this reason, if for no other, I oppose the Amendment.
10.41 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has used this Amendment, quite properly and appropriately, to discuss the position of the East African Asians. No doubt the noble Lord, in his reply for the Government, will wish to say something about that. I was one of those who was extremely unhappy at the time of the 1968 Act. On the other hand, one must recognise that the Home Secretary has recently made some concessions. I do not feel that they are
802
adequate, when one thinks of the time factor, for those who are still in East Africa. No doubt we shall hear something from the noble Lord on this subject. I should like to ask just how far this particular notion of the Government, the right of abode and patriality, has any great validity once the grandparent has been removed. I am aware that the noble Viscount, Lord Monck, wishes to restore the grandparent, but in another place the grandparent was removed. There is a concession to sex equality. I was rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, did not mention this, because the one merit of patriality, so far as I can see, in spite of the nomenclature employed, is that it is a matrial clause. For the first time the descent through the mother is going to be recognised as giving a right of abode, whereas previously it has been only descent through the father. I have always thought that mothers are much more certain in this matter in any case.
I have been reading the remarks made by the Home Secretary in Committee in another place when this was discussed. He pointed out that under gall British Governments the children of a father born in this country have been free from immigration control. As they derive their United Kingdom citizenship directly from the birth of their father in the United Kingdom, they are eligible for, and have always been eligible for, United Kingdom passports. This is now extended to descent through a mother who was born in the United Kingdom. What is left of this concept of patriality is of so little difference that I find it very hard to understand the reason for keeping this provision in the Bill. It would be very helpful to the Committee if the noble Lord could explain matters to us. Then Clause 2(1)(c) worries us: we have an Amendment later on that. That is something rather different; that is where one obtains the right of abode from having been settled in this country, not through descent. But so far as descent is concerned, I should like the noble Lord to explain to us why we should have to have this rather awkward and I think somewhat inaccurate word, and why we cannot really drop this, to my mind, rather mistaken notion of the Government from this Bill altogether.
10.45 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Perhaps I could reply first to the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady White, because they touch on the principles contained in Clause 2. She has, if I may say so, grasped the signficance of the Amendments that have been made, and she is quite right in saying that the only change of substance between Clause 2 as it stands and the present law is that there is a small extension, in that the mother of any Commonwealth citizen who is horn, adopted or registered in this country becomes exempt from our immigration control. Other than that, the position is in substance the same. But it represents a shift from passports to citizenship. This is something which must be a step in the right direction. On Second Reading many speakers referred to the desirability of basing our immigration controls entirely on a citizenship of the United Kingdom. We have not been able to go as far as that, and I will mention some of the reasons later; but what we have managed to do is to get away from the idea of holding of a passport and return to the concept of citizenship: that is, citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, which is the only citizenship we have had in this country since 1948.
The noble Baroness asks,"Why have the clause at all?"The answer is—and I discussed this point on Second Reading—that all this clause is doing is making explicit and giving a name to what we were doing before. The basis of the 1962 Act, which for the first time in our history imposed control on the admission of Commonwealth citizens, was that those Commonwealth citizens who had a close connection with the United Kingdom by birth were, in certain categories, entitled to exemption. In 1968, for the first time in our history, we subjected on citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies to immigration control. Previously, they had been free to come in and go out as they wished, but because of the circumstances at the time the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, introduced the Bill into this House. He will remember it very well. The Government felt it was necessary at that time to impose this particular control. What the Bill does now is merely to embody the control in the concept of the right of
804
abode, and to give a name to it. The name is"patrial ", and, as I have said, this is a word which has caused a great deal of uneasiness. It goes against the grain. It makes explicit something about which many people are uneasy.
This Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, told us, is very far-reaching indeed. It would exempt from immigration control all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, but nobody else. It would therefore be both restrictive, in that it would remove the Commonwealth citizens in paragraph (d), referred to by Lord Kilbracken and it would extend the exemption granted to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Let me deal first with the extension. This would be a major extension. It would cover not only the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa (about whom I shall say a little more in a moment or two), but everyone possessing citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and living in a dependent territory, covering some 3 million people, about 2 million of them in Hong Kong and about 1 million elsewhere. It would also cover an estimated 1 million Chinese living in Malaysia who possess Malaysian citizenship as well as citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It would cover, as I have said, United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa—perhaps 150,000 people; and it would cover certain other communities living in various parts of the world, such as the British communities in Latin America, and people on the shores of the Mediterranean, of Maltese and Cypriot ancestry, who did not acquire Maltese or Cypriot citizenship on independence. There would therefore be quite large numbers of people, who at present do not have an automatic right of entry to this country but who would be granted that; and in the Government's view it would not be realistic to exempt all these people from immigration control. To do so would not be in the best interests of the immigrant groups already settled in this country.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken used the word"Dominions ", a word that is not perhaps in vogue at the moment, when he asked about paragraph (d) of Clause 2(1). Subject to studying what he said in Hansard tomorrow, I think he is

805
quite right. The provision in paragraph (d) is the only one that would affect somebody from an independent Commonwealth country, and there is no distinction between one such country and another; whether it is one of the old Commonwealth countries, or one of the new Commonwealth countries.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I was not thinking of old or new Commonwealth countries—and I am sorry that I used the word"Dominions ". So long as it is an independent Commonwealth country, it appears that people living there cannot qualify under the"grandfather"clause, whereas citizens of Hong Kong are entitled to do so, and I cannot understand why that should be the case.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord must study the Report of the proceedings in Standing Committee in another place, because it is that provision that was deleted from the Bill as published. The"grandfather"clause did extend to the citizens of the independent Commonwealth countries, but Members of another place took the view, for varying reasons, that this was not desirable and the Bill was amended accordingly. So the noble Lord is quite right, and there is only one generation, so far as the citizen of the independent Commonwealth country is concerned, in his eligibility for patriality, whereas in the case of the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies eligibility goes through two generations to the grandparent, but only if there is a close connection by birth with this country. I must not speak at too great length; it is getting rather late. But let me say a word or two about the situation of the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, referred to the anouncement made by the Secretary of State in another place, and by myself in this House on May 26, doubling the rate of entry for United Kingdom passport holders from June 1. The new annual allocation of special vouchers is 3,000, providing for the admission of some 12,000 people, including dependants, as against the present 6,000. In addition, there is the special once and for all allocation, to meet cases of particular
806
need, immediate hardship, of a further 1,500, which amounts to about 6,000 people. These are to be used only for the period of six months from June 1 this year. These increases followed long negotiations with the Governments of the East African countries and were based on the policy of the Government, that the most practical way of improving the hardship—which we accept—of a number of people holding United Kingdom passports in East Africa, is to try to coordinate the rate of outflow from East Africa with the rate at which they can be admitted without causing undue tension in this country. That was the basis of our negotiations.
Noble Lords who have followed this subject will be encouraged to hear that since the increase in allocation the numbers of people seeking to travel from East Africa to this country without documents—these are the people who arrive at London Airport, or elsewhere, and have to be sent back, a procedure which has caused a great deal of distress to the individuals concerned, and also to both Governments—has fallen right away. We must regard that as an encouraging indication that the facility that is now being offered, and the need for that facility, are closer together than they were before. I appreciate that this does not meet the noble Lord's objection in principle, but if we are not able to do so I think that these measures are at any rate an improvement on the present situation. I am afraid I have spoken rather at length, but this debate has gone wide. I hope I have given some information which is helpful to the Committee.
LORD FOOT: I am grateful to the noble Lord, particularly for that last piece of information about the fall-off in the people who are trying to enter this country illegally. That is a big gain. As I said before, I do not want to appear at all churlish towards the Government in the light of the concession they have recently made. We are very grateful for it, and I have no doubt there is a big amelioration of the situation. My only regret is that they were not able to go so far as to repeal Section 1 of the 1968 Act altogether, but that of course was beyond my expectations. I do not intend

807
to carry this Amendment to a Division, and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 14, leave out (" adoption ").
The noble Earl said: This is an Amendment, by comparison with the previous one, of some modesty. It proposes to remove only one word. It is purely a probing Amendment, and I have no intention whatever of wasting your Lordships' time by making a lengthy speech over it. I want only to ask the Government one or two questions, because it appears to me that this provision for adoption in the matter of patriality opens a loophole in the law. The adoption operates in two ways; namely, adoption by parents who are already in this country as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or by such citizens who are overseas. In the first case, the adoption occurs of course under British law; in the second case, it operates under the laws of the country of the people concerned.
There cannot be much doubt that there certainly is an opening here for a racket of some kind. I should like to know whether or not this happens. I understand that there is in a Commonwealth country, which perhaps I will not name, a standing joke concerned with immigration into the United Kingdom. It concerns a little bit of dialogue in which a prospective but young immigrant has said to him, "So he is your father, is he?"And the reply is,"Oh, no, he is not my father but I have a ' chitty ' to show he is my father." It is not difficult to imagine that somebody can quite easily obtain a ' chitty ' for cash—not to show that he has been adopted, but when in fact he actually has been adopted. If illegal immigrants are prepared to pay large sums of money to be smuggled across the Channel into England, it is not unreasonable to suppose that some would be prepared to pay sums of money to get themselves adopted and brought into England perfectly legally. Is this all right? Does it matter? I do not know. It depends very largely on the scale on which it goes on.
There are of course restrictions on adoption. In order to be adopted, under British law, at any rate, it is necessary to be a qualified infant. It is rather an interesting description when you consider that an infant has to be somebody below the age of 18. A 17-year-old infant might well pay, or have the money paid for him, to be adopted by somebody in this country; or somebody who is coming to this country as a legal immigrant find himself, soon after he got here, of age, qualified to stay here, and a full blown citizen. The questions I want to ask are perfectly simple. First of all, do the Government have any evidence that such a racket exists, or are they satisfied that such a racket does not exist? If it does, does it matter? If they consider that it does matter, are they satisfied that this Bill contains any adequate provision whatever to prevent it? I beg to move.
LORD GRAY: I was closely connected with an adoption association for many years, and no more than my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery would I seek to deny the rights of an adopted person. But, like him, I should like to know from Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that there is not a potential loophole in Clause 2 which could bring adoption into disrepute, and in particular whether they are satisfied that adoption practice outside the United Kingdom does not lend itself to exploitation in this regard.
One notes that wherever the word"adopted"is used in the Bill it carries the qualification"legally ". This qualification does not attach to adoption as the word is used in relation to the United Kingdom. Does this have a bearing on the question, and can my noble friend say that when we are dealing with laws of countries outside the United Kingdom this will be an adequate safeguard?
11.0 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I think I can assure my noble friends that there is no loophole here, although my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has taken the Amendment rather wider than it is actually printed on the Marshalled List. There it applies only to Clause 2(1)(a), that is to adoption in the United Kingdom. But he has rather widened the matter as I understand it; and certainly my noble friend Lord Gray has widened it to a

809
consideration of adoption outside the United Kingdom. But so far as the Amendment itself is concerned, Clause 2(1)(a) provides that a person is to have the right of abode in the United Kingdom (and exemption from immigration control) if he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has that citizenship by his birth, adoption, naturalisation or registration in the United Kingdom. My noble friend's Amendment seeks to delete adoption.
The provision providing for patriality to be obtained by virtue of adoption in the United Kingdom applies only where adoption under Section 19 of the Adoption Act 1958 has made the child a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—that is where, not himself having been born in the United Kingdom, he is adopted either by a single adopter who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or, in the case of a joint adoption, where the male adopter is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The child acquires citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virture of the adoption, and it seems right that he ought also to acquire patriality. The existing law here is that such a child would be free from immigration control, and we think it right that this should continue.
May I stress that adoption in the United Kingdom by someone who is not himself a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies will not confer that citizenship on the child, and so the child will not acquire patriality. In this case we are not making any change. We are convinced that this is right; we do not see any loophole. The immigration service would not admit a child for adoption unless they were satisfied that bona fide arrangements had been made and the courts in this country would not lend their sanction to any improper arrangements.
So much I can say positively, but I must ask my noble friend whether he can give me a little longer to consider the matter of adoption overseas, which is not covered in the Amendment he has tabled; but I am quite sure that I shall be able to assure him——
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to ask the noble Lord a question. I may
810
have misheard him, but did he say that it was an adoption by a male parent only in subsection (1)(a), whereas in the others it is"a parent ", with no reference to sex either way?
LORD ABERDARE: This is a case where a person is adopted either by a single adopter who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or, if it is a joint adoption, only where the male adopter is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
BARONESS WHITE: Why should that be?
LORD ABERDARE: Because citizenship at this present moment descends only through the father.
BARONESS WHITE: Yes, but we are speaking in terms of patriality, are we not? That goes through the mother, so why can we not alter that?
LORD ABERDARE: Clause 2(1)(c) relates to people who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of birth, adoption, naturalisation or registration in the United Kingdom, as the situation is at the moment.
LORD CROWTHER: Would the noble Lord make explicit what I think he has clearly implied, and that is that the words"in the United Kingdom"qualify all four of the words that come before it.
LORD ABERDARE: That is so.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I am most grateful to my noble friend for his answer. I realise he is satisfied that there is no loophole, and if he is satisfied the clue to that satisfaction must lie in what he says about the form of insurance, that an investigation is carried out by the immigration authorities to satisfy themselves that bona fide arrangements have been made in other countries, that is to say, country of origin, of the adoptee who is to be adopted in the United Kingdom. Can he enlarge on that? How does one know, when a person in this country wishes to adopt somebody from another country, that the arrangements made in that other country are bona fide?
LORD ABERDARE: If a person in this country wants to adopt somebody, presumably he has to satisfy the court

811
in this country that it is a bona fide adoption.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I think it would be idle and tiresome of me to press the matter any further. I am grateful to my noble friend. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WADE LORD WADE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 28, after (" time ") insert (" before or after the passing of the Act ").
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment to obtain some clarification of subsection (1)(c) which reads:
" he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who has at any time been settled in the United Kingdom and Islands for a continuous period of five years or more ".
Does that mean five years at any time before or after the passing of the Act, and if so should the words,"before or after the passing of the Act"be inserted? I beg to move.
LORD DENHNM: I think I can give the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the reassurance he wants on this. The words do not mean as from the date of the passing of the Act. This means as from the date when the issue comes into question. So what the noble Lord wishes to achieve by this Amendment is already achieved by the words of the Bill.
LORD FOOT: Would it not be useful, however, if this were made quite explicit by the inclusion of these words? Nothing would be lost, if indeed the clause means what the noble Lord says it means, by the inclusion of the words we propose.
LORD DENHAM: The Government draftsman is always very reluctant, and I think rightly so, to add to a Bill words which are not really necessary.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Is not that what is known as belt-and-braces drafting?
LORD DENHAM: The difficulty here is that if you qualify the word"time"in this particular part of the Act and you miss out the qualification where a similar word appears in other parts of the Act, it may be casting doubt on exactly what is meant in those other parts of the Act. This is the difficulty.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: If the Amendment were accepted would it not have a surprising result, different from what is intended by the noble Lord, Lord Wade? It seems to me it might read that this period of five years had to exist in toto, the whole five years, either before the passing of the Act or after the passing of the Act. In other words a person who had been here continuously five years before the Act was passed would be all right, but if the five years had not expired he would have to start again another five years after the passing of the Act. It would be hard luck if he had been here four years and had to start again for a total of nine.
LORD WADE: I think this might require further thought. In order that I may have time for further thought, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 28, leave out from (" been ") to second (" or ") in line 30 and insert (" ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands for a continuous period of five years or more and is settled therein.")
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment that was moved on Report stage by my right honourable and honourable friends in another place. The Minister of State undertook to look at this matter. One would have assumed from Clause 2(1)(c) that if a man was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and entered the United Kingdom, where he resided for a continuous period of five years he would automatically be able after that period to apply for registration, and all the other rights that would arise from this subsection. But when one looks at the rules, it appears that the five year period does not, or may not, start immediately on his entry. In fact, it would appear for some that it would only start after the immigrant had been in the country for four years, in which case it would not be five years before he had his rights but nine years. I think this would be grossly unfair.
I have received an intimation from the Government that they now accept the principle of my Amendment but, as is usual, one finds that the Parliamentary draftsman, for whom the noble Lord

813
who previously spoke has so much attachment, did not find even my most carefully worded words sufficiently correct, and has accordingly proposed (and I will read out his words) an Amendment in the following terms:
" Page 2, line 29, leave out (' for a continuous period ') and insert (' and had at that time (and while such a citizen) been ordinarily resident there for the last ') "
five years. I understand that the Government are prepared to accept their draftsman's contribution. If the noble Lords will give me their assent, I shall be quite happy to withdraw my Amendment and formally to move a manuscript Amendment in the form I have just read out. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This merely enables me to speak, the Question having been put. As the noble Lord has correctly said, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable somebody who has been accepted for settlement to count the whole period of his residence towards the five-year qualifying period for the right of abode under Clause 2(1)(c). This matter was discussed, as the noble Lord told us, in another place, and the principle behind the present Amendment No. 14 was accepted. There were, however, two drafting objections (I do not think I need trouble the noble Lord with them) to the wording he had proposed. I therefore suggested to him a slightly altered form of words, which he has just read out as his manuscript Amendment, and I can confirm that that is quite acceptable to us.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 14.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: With permission, I beg formally to move the manuscript Amendment, which I dealt with in my earlier speech.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, leave out (" for a continuous period of ") and insert (" and had at that time (and while such a citizen) been ordinarily resident there for the last ")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
(" ( ) he is a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country which is designated a reciprocal country under subsection (3A) of this section; or ")
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss Amendment No. 15 together with Amendment No. 31, because without their being accepted together they are useless. The Immigration Acts have been brought in and produced by both Government with the object, one thought, of preventing this country becoming dangerously overcrowded. These two Amendments have the effect of killing two birds with the one stone. First, they would encourage those countries who take in more citizens from us than we do from them to go on doing so. This is important, because if we do not do so there is a danger of the unfilled areas of the world becoming a preserve, or reserve, and the overfilled areas becoming more overfilled. This Bill refers to Commonwealth citizens, and these Amendments (Nos. 15 and 31) do all but specify those countries. They are Australia, Canada and New Zealand. They have done, I think all will agree, valiant work in this field. They should be encouraged. I do not know if your Lordships have noticed that in September, so I am informed, my friend Jim Forbes, Australian Minister for Immigration, is paying a visit to this country. Let us hope we do nothing in July which could discourage their heretofore good work in this field.
Secondly, I hope your Lordships will note that there is no mention in the Amendments of race, colour, religion, sex or any of the other phrases, some emotive, bandied about nowadays. By the same account, the acceptance by the Government of these Amendments would enable the Home Secretary to designate Commonwealth countries which take more of our citizenry from us than vice versa as reciprocal countries, and make the Immigration Acts non-applicable to the visitors from those countries. This would avoid the circumstances in which, as a well-known New Zealander put it to me:"They don't treat us like this in Rome or Paris. Why do it in London which is the Mecca of all New Zealanders?"Another example comes to mind. On Friday, the 16th of this

815
month, at five past ten o'clock, a Mrs. Gerrard, the Australian-born wife of a British naval officer, returned from Spain to Manchester Airport. On her telling the immigration officer:"I am married to one of you, so I am entitled to stay here"she was greeted with the reply,"No you b—well don't ". These continual pricks do not make for particularly good relations.
In my Second Reading speech I explained that I am an Australian and, since the Amendment passed in another place, not even a patrial. Of course, I have to disclose my interest. I suppose I could now, or could have been, refused a permit to reside here."Good riddance!"some of my friends here might have said. But what if on returning here I produced the Summons we all get from Her Majesty to attend this House. Are the immigration officers briefed on how to deal with situations of that sort?
My noble friend Lord Arwyn, whose name is on this Amendment, is unfortunately not here. He telephoned me last night from Falmouth, where he said he was"doing a Ted Heath"in what he terms his"coracle ". He said,"It makes me hopping mad. In the first World War I fought alongside Australians before joining the R.F.C., where out of four of a crew, three were New Zealanders and I was the odd man out." In excusing himself for not attending this evening, my noble friend asked me to warn the Government that if they did not accept our Amendment we would"do a Brockway"on them in the next Session. May I quote my noble friend's supplementary to a Question of mine to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, earlier on, when he said,"Would not the noble Lord agree, if this country was once more in danger, as it was in the past, we would far sooner look to the Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians and not so much to the other members of the Commonwealth?".
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, in his Second Reading speech, quoted a most apposite remark from an Admiral in the last war who, after the fall of France, said,"Now we can't lose: we have no more allies." The Australian Squadron under his command were not allies, but"one of us." Australians and New Zealanders have been particularly
816
irked by these restrictions imposed by what heretofore they considered the Mother Country, and the purpose of these Amendments is to enable the Home Secretary to get over this difficulty by allowing a reciprocal country to enjoy immunity from these acts, be they Eskimo, Maori or Aborigine, or even your Lordships' relations or mine—or me. Finally, the last word is my noble friend Lord Arwyn's."Has it occurred to your Lordships that these Amendments would only give these Commonwealth countries the right already extended to a non-Commonwealth republic, and the number who would settle here is miniscule compared with the number they take from us." I beg to move.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: This is a particularly nasty Amendment, because it is designed to help the white members of the Commonwealth by means of an Amendment which is so framed, as the noble Lord rightly says, that it actually does not use terms like"race ","colour"or"creed ", which are emotive, but nevertheless has exactly the same effect. Since, in moving this Amendment, the noble Lord's hope is that there should be some movement of population from the over-developed part of the world to the underdeveloped part, perhaps he would answer the question whether he regards this Amendment of his as an incentive to India, for instance, or one of the really over-populated parts of the world, to move an exactly similar Amendment to one of their immigration Bills, in return for them being allowed to send us lots and lots of people? Because they are relatively overpopulated to-day, we would be allowed to send visitors to them?
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAM-SHIRE: I support Amendment No. 15 and Amendment No. 31, put down by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who in his speech on Second Reading, at which I was not able to be present, referred to me as having spent many years in Australia and New Zealand. The right of a citizen to go and come freely to this country from Australia, New Zealand and Canada, designated reciprocal countries, regardless of whether they are white or coloured, is where the Bill fails to provide an admission policy free from racial, religious or political bias. The right of abode is retained

817
for those who are children or grandchildren of British citizens, while those who are not have no right of settlement or entry. Black and white are therefore carefully distinguished in law. The noble Lord on the Cross Benches has dealt fully with this Amendment which I am pleased to support.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: I should like to clarify this matter a little. I said on Second Reading, in response to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, that he was speaking as though noble Lords on this side were hostile to the old Dominions. I greatly resent this suggestion. For what it is worth, my grandfather was the first Prime Minister of New South Wales. Many of us on this side who believe in the old Empire and the old countries of the Empire, including those with coloured skins, are just as friendly and attached to the white parts of the Empire as to the other. I think this suggestion is quite unjustified. I do not go as far as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I certainly do not regard this as an objectionable Amendment, but I think it is one that needs to be looked at carefully, because it will clearly immediately be misunderstood by everybody with a coloured skin who fought with us in the war. I know very well that this is not what the noble Lord wants, but it seems to me that at the moment there are restrictions on the members of the old Dominion getting in and out of this country which to some extent this Bill will remove. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Windelsham, whether I am right about that. Is it not the case that under the patriality clauses it will be easier for the members of the old Dominions to get in and out of this country than it is at the moment? I thought this was the case, but perhaps I have misunderstood the position. But if that is so, I think these Amendments are unnecessary.
LORD BROCKWAY: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. It applies to the independent Commonwealth countries which are designated reciprocal countries. This excludes India; it excludes Nigeria; and it excludes all the Commonwealth countries that have non-white populations. Quite clearly, the object of the Amendment is
818
to give a privileged position to members of the Commonwealth who are dominantly Anglo-Saxon. If we look at these territories we see that there is Australia, which has a white immigration policy; then there are Canada and New Zealand, with whom I have more sympathy. But this is not the Commonwealth to-day. The Commonwealth to-day is India, Nigeria and all the territories of Africa. This Amendment would mean that we were going to give a privileged position to those territories in the Commonwealth which are mainly Anglo-Saxon or white against the territories in the Commonwealth which have large non-white populations. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government would accept an Amendment of this character which is so obviously discriminatory in its relationship to the population of those territories.
11.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF BALFOUR: The important thing about this Amendment is that it makes reciprocal terms agreed between two countries which are within the Commonwealth. I think there is a great deal to be said for this Amendment and I should like the Government to consider it. Whether the drafting is quite correct or not is entirely another matter, but if one country offers facilities to another it is only right, particularly as concerns Great Britain, that we should return that offer.
I think there could be many cases where people from the Dominions or the old colonies might want to come to this country, and equally where people might want to go to those places. I am quoting now from memory, but I have relatives in Kenya and the Kenya Administration was rather keen for them to remain in that country because they were farming land which was very high above sea level and it was not altogether suitable for the African population. It did not seem to be healthy at that tremendous height for them. That has gone on to this day. I admit that I am quoting from something which was told me 10 years ago. They are keen, and some others of my relatives have gone back and have been welcomed by the Kenya Administration. To some extent this is a case where a reciprocal arrangement of this nature might be considered.
LORD O'HAGAN: May I say to my noble relative, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that I am delighted that he is here, but I hope that he will withdraw this Amendment and not tempt the Liberals to continue their acts of demolition on this Bill. He has already lost his patriality and he might be evicted altogether.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has described this as, I think he said, a most unpleasant Bill—
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: I said"Amendment ", but it is an unpleasant Bill as well.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I suspect that the noble Lord will feel that he was speaking a little intemperately when he used that word. I gather that the noble Lord thinks it is designed to help white Members of the Commonwealth.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley nods in approval of what my noble friend the Earl of Cork and Orrery has said.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: It is designed to help the white Members of the Commonwealth as opposed to the black Members of the Commonwealth. That is why I totally disapprove of it. That is absolutely right.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: It is indeed designed in part to help white Members of the Commonwealth. It was clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, without any prevarication or attempt at dissimulation that it was designed partly to help the old Dominions which are inhabited to the greater part by people of our own race and descent. These people are relations of ours. It is not unnatural nor surprising if one looks round this House and sees the faces of noble Lords on these Benches, that those people should be white. If any noble Lord found that he had large numbers of relatives in Australia or New Zealand and they were all black, he must be an unusual person and his relations should be allowed to come in.
To say that this is discrimination (as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley implied, if he did not actually say
820
so) and is designed to give facilities to people who are white at the expense of people who are black, is nonsense. This is a reciprocal arrangement between our-selves and the old Dominions which are inhabited very largely by British people, and I see nothing wrong in that. 'The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, referred to a matter which I had it in mind to mention. He asked why on earth I was making such a fuss about New Zealanders and Australians. We are all on their side. We all know what they did, and everybody is devoted to the cause of these old and now independent countries: that is absolutely true. The reason I made a fuss about them was that everybody says this and nobody does anything. There is no matching of actions to words to bring into reality our affection and esteem for these people.
I will not go into what successive Governments have done at their expense, but I think it is perfectly clear how glad we were to have them with us during the war and how glad we are to have the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, sitting here, although he is practically a foreigner. We have done nothing, but here is an Amendment which is intended to give particular preference to them, as against the rest of the world, simply because they are our own people—at least in my opinion—and I see nothing unreasonable in that. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, does. He says that it is giving a privileged position to members of the Commonwealth who are predominantly Anglo-Saxon. I do not wish to put words into the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, but that is precisely what I intend. We are Anglo-Saxons. Why should we not say that our fellow Anglo-Saxons who live within the Commonwealth are more welcome here than other people, including other white people?
This has nothing whatever to do with colour, except in so far as it just happens that most of these people are white. My own Amendment, No. 16, and which we shall come to later, entirely disposes of the idea that it is a matter of colour. We want the people here because they are relations, and they happen to be white. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says that this is obviously discriminatory. Indeed it is; and discrimination by general consent, perhaps excluding the

821
noble Lord himself, is perfectly right when we are deciding who should be allowed to come into our own country. I do not suppose there is any nation anywhere in the world at any time in history that has not discriminated between foreigners whom it wishes to come into its own country and become its own citizens. It may be objectionable to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but as I pointed out during the debate on Second Reading, it is universal at all times and in all countries; and it is necessary.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: Surely it is objectionable to everybody everywhere. Countries do it under necessity, and I understand this. This is the basis of immigration Bills everywhere. But do not let us lose sight of the fact that to be discriminatory in any way against travel for human beings all over the globe is objectionable and should be overcome, and I am sure that the noble Earl did not mean to say that it was totally accepted as normal and good that this should happen.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I do not think I have made myself quite clear to the noble Lord. What he said was to the point, but that is not the kind of discrimination that I had in mind. Of course there is no discrimination between people who wish to travel, or between people who happen to be rich or poor or whatever it may be, or whether they should be more or less desirable because they happen to be poverty-stricken or ill—I remember the words which are on the Statue of Liberty, but I will not quote them. But discrimination of the kind I am referring to is discrimination between our own people, our own relations, and other people, in precisely the same way as a parent will discriminate between his own children who have married, left the home and gone away, and the children or the parents of Australians.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord keeps on using the words"our people ". A citizen of Australia might be of Greek, Polish or Rumanian origin; he might be of many different European origins. Is the noble Lord saying that a Greek who has settled in Australia and become a citizen there is one of our people and should have a reception different from that given to someone from the West Indies or other parts?
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: No; but this will occur if we extend this reciprocal arrangement. It is true that these other immigrants into Australia will be included, but they will probably not come in very large numbers. If any Italian or Greek wishes to emigrate from Australia to Europe he will probably go to Italy or Greece.
But to get away for a moment from this discriminatory point of view, the reciprocal idea would be of benefit to both sides. We derive great benefit from being able to send large numbers of immigrants to Australia; we in return derive great benefit from them, and I suggest that it is reasonable and right to maintain the strongest possible ties with these people for the benefit of the future of their countries and ours. This is clearly a highly controversial Amendment; it is probably not correctly drafted, but it contains, I believe, an excellent idea and I personally support it.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: May I ask the noble Lord, speaking now as a non-Anglo-Saxon, whether his permissiveness is to include the Abos, the Eskimos, the Dogrib Indians, the Maoris and so on. That is what it means. You really cannot discriminate if you are not prepared to accept that"we"and"they"are not quite the"we"and"they"you are talking about. The only verse I ever quote from Kipling is:
" Father and mother and me,
Sister and auntie say,
All the people like us are We,
And every one else is They.
And They live over the sea,
While We live over the way
But would you believe it,
They look upon me
As another kind of They."
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: It is, of course, a discussion about"we"and"they ", and I would not wish to infringe Standing Orders and the traditions of this House by involving myself in a taxing speech, though I was much taxed by the racialism—and I use the term deliberately and advisedly and within the hearing of all—of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who said that this was a"nasty"Amendment because it gave, I think he said"a privileged position to white people ". If he had said that it gave a privileged position to some people that might have

823
been acceptable, but he said, and I understood him to confirm this from his subsequent noddings—I will give way whenever he likes—that he felt this was something that was pro-white and anti-black. He is nodding again. I want to say that this is pro-people. Discrimination against foreigners is common to all States, and that is not really what I am talking about.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said that these people do not matter—and again I will give way if I am misrepresenting what the noble Lord said. I do not want to misrepresent someone for whom I have the greatest respect and, if I may say so now, affection, though we do not know each other personally very well. We have been interested in Commonwealth affairs for many years, and as I understood the noble Lord, he said that the whites are not the Commonwealth today; they are, in effect, the Indians, Pakistanis, Nigerians and so on and, therefore, the whites should not have a privileged position over the others. If I have misunderstood him I will give way.
LORD BROCKWAY: I did not suggest that whites were not of the Commonwealth—the whites in Australia, New Zealand and Canada obviously are. I suggested that they were not the whole Commonwealth, and that the non-whites of Africa and Asia and the West Indies who were in the Commonwealth should have equal rights with the whites.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: I am much obliged. I felt sure that the noble Lord and I would find a common point because, surprising as it may seem, this has gone on for a long time. He agrees that there should be some equality of treatment.
We have heard a stirring statement on behalf of the whites from the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire. What worries me about debates on this Bill in general has been the tendency to say that we must protect blacks and browns, but not whites. Yet we have a great concern for our own kind. I now take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who is not unfortunately in the Chamber. What about the Greeks, Yugoslays and so on in Australia? If they have gone to that country and accepted the traditions, standards, and way of life of that
824
country, and have been accepted as Australians, one should regard them as Commonwealth citizens, and treat them in the same way as Commonwealth citizens of other colours.
What bothers me is that we have tended in this debate to concern ourselves with one kind of person against another; namely, the brown, the yellow or the black. I want to see them all properly respected. I believe that what is still left of the old round table concept of Commonwealth may still be sustained by this Amendment. The concept of a reciprocal country is a new one to this Bill. I believe it to be valuable, and for that reason alone I support this Amendment and not because my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh and I have certain common political ancestry in the Cabal.
The countries we are thinking of are not third countries in the terms that are commonly used. One airman in ten who flew and fought in the Battle of Britain came from New Zealand. The New Zealanders, Australians, Canadians and, for that matter, the Rhodesians—although I do not want to spoil the purpose of this Amendment at this point of time—are in a special position and we must recognise that they deserve to be protected from the kind of discrimination which is pro-black, yellow or brown, that is implicit in some of the speeches which have been made. There is in this Amendment a concept which the Government would do well to consider. No one will go to the stake for the wording of this and the related Amendment, but the principle is a serious one it has been put forward seriously, and I should like to appeal to the Government to give this serious consideration between now and the Report stage.
LORD SEGAL: I ask the Government to consider long and seriously before they agree to this Amendment. There is a danger that this Amendment, if incorporated in the Bill, would lead to a series of retaliatory measures on the part of the large number of countries in the Commonwealth which are not included in the Amendment.
The Bill, as it stands now, is liable to give rise to a good deal of damaging reaction in the field of race relations without the Government adding to it still further by the acceptance of an Amendment such as this. I take it—and I ask

825
the Minister to reply—that this Amendment is quite uncalled for; that the Government, in their wisdom or otherwise, were fully alive to the possibilities of including such an Amendment when this Bill was drafted; that they needed no prompting from any side of the House in order to include such an Amendment, and I hope, as I am sure many Members on all sides of the Committee hope, that the Government will resist this Amendment when they come to reply.
LORD GOODMAN: May I make one observation? It is that I earnestly hope the Government will accept this Amendment, because I think a deplorable Bill like this deserves an Amendment as absurd as this. If one reads the Amendment one gets the most astonishing results. Apparently the Secretary of State, starting from a point where we are exercising immigration control in respect of a particular territory, observes that territory benevolently admitting our citizens. He thereupon proceeds to lift the immigration control, whereupon, in reverse, a stream of their citizens comes to this country, in excess of the number of our citizens going to their country, and he immediately reimposes immigration control. It is very difficult to regard this as a serious proposal. It is impossible to see how it would work without absurdity; and my own view is that what this Amendment does is to demonstrate very clearly the whole deplorable nature of this legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: We have had a very interesting and I think a most honest and sincere expression and divergence of views on these Amendments, and I will endeavour not to take too long in replying to them. As the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, pointed out, these Amendments, if accepted, would grant patriality to the citizens of any independent Commonwealth country which was designated by order of the Secretary of State as a reciprocal country; that is, one which, in any year, confers a right of abode there on a number of emigrants from the United Kingdom greater than the number of immigrants from that country on whom this country confers a right of abode. I do not want to make the point particularly that"the right of abode"is a concept
826
introduced into the law of the United Kingdom by this Bill, and, in relation to other countries it presumably has no specific meaning. But I think that it is perfectly clear what the noble Lord and his noble friends mean by their Amendments.
Since 1962 successive British Governments have adhered to the principle that immigration control should be administered without distinction or discrimination between one Commonwealth country and another and that exemption from control should be based on a personal connection with the United Kingdom, such as descent by birth. The present Bill goes wider than the present law in recognising a connection with this country, as has already been said this evening, by descent in the female line as a basis for exemption. But it still makes no distinction as between one country and another in the independent Commonwealth. I am not, I confess, too happy about these Amendments, because it seems that in practice they would exempt from control all citizens of certain Commonwealth countries, irrespective of the extent of their personal connection, if any, with the United Kingdom. I myself believe that any preferential treatment for citizens of one country or another would he resented by the less favoured countries of the Commonwealth. I feel it must be right to avoid any distinction on lines which would be contrary to the multiracial spirit of the Commonwealth.
Taken at their face value, these Amendments are based on the principle that if more people from the United Kingdom are settling in another country than are coming from that country to settle here, there is no need to control the immigration of citizens from that country. But one must not forget that immigration control serves the purpose not only of limiting the total volume of immigration, but also of preventing the entry of individuals whose admission would be contrary to the public interest for one reason or another; for example, a threat to public health or to national security. It is certainly no reflection or slur on any country, however close its ties with our own, to say that there are always some people among its citizens whom it would be undesirable to admit to this country. I think I am right in saying that all Commonwealth countries, without exception,

827
have power to exclude from the country people whom they consider undesirable. But if the Amendment were carried, the citizens of reciprocal countries would all be completely free of control and the United Kingdom Government would lack the power of control over the entry of their citizens which their Governments have over people from this country.
Another difficulty arises from the fact that the balance of migration between the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth countries is likely to shift from time to time, and I do not think that it would be reasonable to expect us to keep adjusting our immigration control from year to year to take account of these fluctuations. These are just a few of the reasons why the Government feel that they cannot accept these Amendments, although we recognise the sincere spirit which has prompted them. Having regard to what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the noble Marquess sits down, may I ask him whether I should be right in supposing that under Amendment No. 31 we might have reciprocity with India? India allows virtually free entry to citizens from this country, whereas we stringently limit the number of citizens from India who are allowed to become immigrants into the United Kingdom. I can conceive that under Amendment No. 31 there might be reciprocity with India, which I gather is not really the intention of the Amendment.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: Are we to understand that my noble friend is not at all prepared to consider the principle behind this Amendment between now and Report stage?
TIIE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I have given my reasons why we do not think that this Amendment is a good one. I said that I respected the sincerity of the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of it, but I do not feel that I can go any further than that.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported me and my origins. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for his opinions of me and
828
my country. I reciprocate one half of that. On Second Reading., I said that I, and one or two people who felt like me, would at this stage put forward two alternative suggestions. This is the first. I was hoping that the noble Marquess would at least agree to the request of the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. All the minor points in criticism of the wording of the Amendments could easily be corrected or adjusted or explained. But in view of what the noble Marquess has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.59 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY LORD BROCKWAY moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
(" ( ) he has himself been, or is the child or grandchild of a person who was at any time dispossessed of his land or property in a British Colonial territory by virtue of any law imposed by the Government of the territory, or by a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies, without payment or for purely nominal payment; or if he has himself been, or is the child or grandchild of a person who was, at any time subject to restrictions or to discriminatory laws, not applicable to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, imposed in a British Colonial territory; or ")
The noble Lord said: I did not expect this Amendment to arise to-night, and noble Lords will be a little relieved that my speech is therefore likely to be less long than it would otherwise have been. Under this Bill, privileges or rights are to be given to persons in the Commonwealth whose parents or grandparents were born in this country. Perhaps I ought to express my own appreciation of that fact, because, except that I have been resident in this country five years, I would have been a non-patrial under this Bill. I was born in India, my father was born in Africa, and my grandfather only was born in this country 150 years ago. This Bill should be regarded not only from the point of view of those who are living in this country; it deals fundamentally with the peoples in all the Commonwealth territories. When we are looking at this Bill we should be thinking not only in terms of any rights or wrongs which apply to people who should he coming to this country, but in terms of rights and wrongs of those who are prohibited from coming to this country, if we begin to look at this issue in that wider way we must appreciate that many

829
members of Commonwealth countries have suffered, not only through their parentage but through their grandparent-age, in a way of which we should be conscious if we are going to recognise their rights.
What this Amendment suggests is that when we are looking at this problem we should have in our minds the rights which have been denied, the injustices which have been imposed upon peoples in Commonwealth territories. It asks us to bear in mind, first, those who have been dispossessed of their land, either by virtue of a law or by virtue of absence of payment, or by the making of a nominal payment. No one who has knowledge of our colonial territories will doubt that there are many thousands in those territories whose parents or grandparents have suffered in this way. I think of the words of Sir Roy Welensky, who was the Head of the great Central African Federation and who stated quite clearly that thousands of Africans had been denied their ownership of land or occupation of land by having been cheated out of their possession. And what was true of the Rhodesias is true of other vast areas. I am asking this Committee to be generous enough to take the view that residents of those territories should be treated in relation to their parentage, and in relation to their grandparents, in a way which we are accepting in the case of other provisions of this Bill.
I am suggesting, secondly, that when we are looking at this Bill we should bear in mind the many members of the Commonwealth who have been treated in a discriminatory way, even in the territories in which they were born and to which they belong, because of their race or of their colour. No one can begin to think of colonial history without recognising that that has applied to millions of those who are in the Commonwealth. If we are thinking in terms of the right of persons to come to this country under this Bill because they had a British parent or a British grandparent, should we not also think in terms of the many peoples in Commonwealth territories whose parents and grandparents have suffered the kind of injustices which are reflected in this Amendment? I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: It is a feature of the debate on this Bill that we can have two Amendments, one after the other, which have such very different starting points as Amendment No. 15 and Amendment No. 15A. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will be surprised to hear me say that this Amendment is not acceptable to the Government, for a number of reasons which I will try to summarise as briefly as he moved his Amendment. The first is that the Amendment is not consistent with the concept of patriality as it is under the Bill and as we discussed it on an earlier Amendment this evening, and it would not be appropriate to extend it to people without any personal or ancestral connection with the United Kingdom. Secondly, we are not convinced that the Amendment would in any event meet the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, under Clause 2. In subsection (2) (c) references to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies are, in relation to any time before 1949, to be construed as a reference to British nationality; but before 1949 all people born in a British Colony, whatever their colour, were British subjects. It follows that where one native inhabitant of a British Colony had been dispossessed by another, he, his children and his grandchildren would have the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
But I take it that this is not the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. His Amendment, as he explained it, was to have a provision of this sort almost as reparation, I think he would say, for wrongs which have been committed by white men on coloured people in colonial territories. Another reason is that the Amendment would open the door to potentially very large numbers of people whose apprehended entry would be harmful to the interests of immigrants already settled here. Finally, and I put this last because he moved his Amendment in the idealistic terms one would expect from the noble Lord, it is totally impracticable to envisage the application and registration of a provision of this sort. It would call for adjudication on questions of dispossession, of restrictions and discrimination which might have been alleged to have taken place in remote parts of the world up to one hundred years ago. For these reasons,

831
although I have listened to the noble Lord with interest, I am unable to accept the Amendment.
LORD BROCKWAY: I did not expect any other answer than the answer I have received. I did not expect support from a majority in this House. While I stand by the principles of this Amendment, I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
12.10 a.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 31, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
(" (d) he is a citizen of a country that recognises the Sovereign as its own sovereign and head of state and who is the child of a Commonwealth citizen who either—

(a) has at any time resided in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands for a continuous period of 5 years or more; or

(b) is the child of a parent being a Commonwealth citizen who has resided in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands for a continuous period of 5 years or more.")

The noble Earl said: In view of the earliness of the hour, I will attempt not to be too lengthy in my remarks. This is the alternative to Amendment No. 15 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It has two main purposes, and the first of these, though it appears in fact second as the Amendment is drafted, is to secure priority in right of abode for persons of British descent. In that it has something in common with the previous Amendment. Ideally, it seems to me, one should be able to draft a Bill which would provide for the right of abode for the children, possibly even grandchildren, of British citizens. Unfortunately, as we know, there is no such thing in law as a British citizen. Instead of that we get, for definitive purposes, place of birth. It occurs all through this part of the Bill. We are against the extraordinary principle to which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, referred—the idea that a dog born in a stable is a horse. He is quite right about that; it is quite wrong. A Hottentot born in Hounslow is no more an Englishman than a Great Dane born in Leeds is a Yorkshire terrier.
In speaking on Second Reading, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor referred to this matter of place of birth, without very great sympathy, I thought, to the attitude I was taking against it, and reminded us that he himself was privileged to have an American mother. He asked a question in these words:"Are Americans uncivilised because they allow the son of an American mother greater rights than those who do not have that privilege?"No, they are not; but I think that having an American mother does make my noble and learned friend more American than he would have been if his mother had been say. English or French, and merely happened to be in America on a visit at the time when she was delivered of the noble and learned baby. The nationality of one's parent in deciding what one's own nationality is is surely more important than where the mother happened to be at the time.
The place of birth is unsatisfactory in that it confers citizenship on aliens who happen to be passing through by air, and, secondly, it withholds citizenship from our own people whose parents had the misfortune to be born somewhere else. What else is there? How would it be if we were to consider the possibility of the right of abode being extended to the child of someone who lived here rather than someone born here? How long?, is the next question. The answer comes in Clause 2(1)(c) and the answer there is five years—the answer not to this particular question, but to the time that is acceptable as probably a reasonable time. What happens if we forget the place of birth and concentrate on a period of five years' residence for a parent? I should like to put this matter in the form of two lists which I would compare. Under the present idea of having place of birth, we get a list of people who would be affected through themselves or their parents. If we change from place of birth to place of residence, we then get a different list. I do not know whether it would be a longer or a shorter list, but it would be undoubtedly different. My belief is that the second list, that based on place of residence, would be far nearer what we should like to achieve than the other one based on place of birth. It is the place of residence that counts.
The transient aliens—I know the Bill does not use the word"aliens"but they are aliens—would be taken out of the list, not retrospectively, but for the future; and others now, in my submission, wrongly excluded would be brought in. Whereas under Clause 2(1)(d) a person has to show that one of his parents was born in the United Kingdom, even though they may have been enemy aliens in an internment camp at the time, under my Amendment he must show that one of them lived here for five continuous years. These are more convincing criteria, in my submission. This, therefore, provides the subsection (2) of my Amendment.
I recognise that there is a difficulty. It is much easier to prove that your father or grandfather was born here than it is to prove that he lived here. It is almost easier in every case to look up his birth certificate. It might not be so easy to find out that he lived here. He might not have had a passport, travelled abroad, or paid income tax. For that reason, may I speak to Amendments No. 24 and 25, which are alternative to each other, and which confer a discretionary power upon the Secretary of State to decide whether a case has been made out in proof of the fact that the relevant parent did live here?
If I turn again to the Bill, under Clause 2(1)(c), a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has the right of abode here for five years if he has lived here for five years. But a Commonwealth citizen who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom or Colonies and who is catered for only by Clause 2(1)(b), does not. This touches on the point made by my noble friend Lord Lothian when he said that no discrimination is to be made between the citizen of the one Commonwealth country and another. But if, in fact, my noble friend will refer to subsection (2), he will find that a Commonwealth citizen is catered for in one subsection, while a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies is catered for in five different ways under the other four. There is a very great deal of discrimination between the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies on the one hand, and the citizen of the other Commonwealth countries on the other, to which I make no objection; but I make the point that there is a difference.
This Commonwealth citizen may have been born, say, in Australia of parents of English descent, but they may have been born elsewhere simply because their own fathers were serving their country overseas. That man, with those parents, living in Australia, is an alien. Indeed his name may be Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, but to that extent he is on the same footing as an East German or Eskimo, and must work out his five years for settlement under immigration control. That, to me, seems wrong, to put it mildly, so I include in my Amendment subsection (1) to bring this would-be immigrant into line with the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
The second, and basic, object of this Amendment is to single out certain countries of origin in a way that has not yet been attempted. The method I propose is that which is stated in the Amendment, namely, that the would-be patrial should be a citizen of an independent Commonwealth country,
"…a citizen of a country that recognises the Sovereign as…. head of state and who is the child of a Commonwealth citizen…"
and so on. This loyalty to Royalty idea is not new. I know that. But it has not been discussed in the debates on this Bill. It was touched on in the Committee stage in another place by the Home Secretary who dismissed it as, first, unworkable and, secondly, probably out of touch with the spirit of the Commonwealth as it is to-day. I touched on this on the Second Reading debate. I should like to know why this idea is thought to be unworkable. On the second point, that of being out of touch with the spirit of the Commonwealth, I ask again: What spirit is this supposed to be? If it is the spirit of the Commonwealth as evinced at the Prime Ministers' Conference in Singapore, I am not greatly impressed by that argument. If it is the spirit of the old Commonwealth to which we subscribed traditionally; namely, that of a family of nations bound together not necessarily by blood but by various ties which we all understood, then this Amendment is perfectly in tune with that spirit. On that basis I recommend it to your Lordships.
It may be of interest to know what these countries are. They are as follows, in addition to the United Kingdom: Canada. Australia, New Zealand, Ceylon.

835
Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Malta, Barbados, Mauritius and Fiji. Those are the countries to which I suggest we should extend this principle of patriality provided that those citizens have the particular qualifications that are set out in any Amendment. This is a new principle, at any rate for the purposes of this debate. I hope very much that the Government will be prepared to give it serious consideration either in the form in which it is set down or, if not that, as a matter of principle itself. I beg to move
LORD GOODMAN: Obviously, anyone who has visited, as I have, Australia and New Zealand, would be wholly sympathetic to the idea that the citizens of those countries should come here without immigration control. One can only say of this Amendment that if the noble Earl is calling up the spirit of the old Commonwealth, that spirit is wholly inconsistent with this piece of legislation. What he needs in order to make the spirit of this Amendment possible is the annulment of the whole of this Bill. There is absolutely no other way in which to procure the entirely benevolent objective he seeks within the framework of this most deplorable piece of legislation. It is the said fact that this Government have decided to embark on a petty-minded, bigoted, narrow conception of nationality wholly at variance with the conception of nationality that made the Commonwealth great.
If the noble Earl wants to call up the spirit of Palmerston, if Don Pacifico is to be invoked once again, let us remember the basis on which that conception existed. It was that, however exiguous the claim to nationality, if you were a British national you were entitled to come here and you were respected throughout the world. I think that the departure from that principle makes it impossible to create the sort of exception that the noble Earl has in mind. I venture to think he can go on putting Amendments until we are all blue in the face without the remotest prospect of escaping the unhappy net woven as a result of a conception that animated this Bill. The whole of it a tragedy and it is most vividly demonstrated by the worthy and honourable effort of the noble Earl and Lord Clifford to find some method of procuring an innovation for those people
836
who ought to be the subject of exemption. It is impossible because of the nature and structure of the whole of this legislation.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: At this time of day I think the Committee will expect me to confine my remarks to the actual Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, if I may say so, with great skill and in a most interesting speech. To take the loyalty to Royalty idea, as he put it, he himself has told us that the nine countries who recognise the Queen as Sovereign are very diverse. I entirely recognise the sincerity with which my noble friend has moved his Amendment, but I think that the objections to it are both principled and practical, and in some ways I have the same reservations about them as I had about the previous set of Amendments.
This Amendment would introduce an element of discrimination into our control of Commonwealth immigration, certainly not on ground of colour, but on the ground of belonging either to a country which recgnises the Sovereign or to one which does not. I do not feel that that would be a very desirable thing. The Amendment also seems contrary to the view which prevailed in another place; namely, that, except for citizens of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth, patriality should not be based on a connection with the United Kingdom more remote than that obtained through a single generation. My noble friend has mentioned the fact that grandparents were dropped from the Bill in another place. Apart from that, it seems to me not to be right that the patriality of large numbers of people should depend on a decision of the country of which they are citizens to accept or not to accept the Sovereign of the United Kingdom as their own Sovereign.
I can see the difficulty if a country has ceased to recognise the Queen, because this would put in some doubt the position of citizens of that country who were at that time in the United Kingdom and in possession of patrial status. It is not clear from the Amendment what the effect of this would be, but it seems that they would probably cease to be patrial and become subject to immigration control. Apart from this, it is not really possible to estimate the number of citizens

837
of the countries in question who would become patrial under this Amendment. Here again it is not possible for the Government to say that this Amendment could safely be accepted, without exempting from control a possibly unacceptable number of people.
In addition, the basis of a claim to patriality provided in the Amendment seems unsatisfactory—that is, the period of five years' residence in this country on the part of parent or grandparent. My noble friend has himself put a finger on the difficulty here. It would be extraordinarily hard to prove such residence. I simply cannot see how it could be done. Even if the Secretary of State were the final arbiter and judge of whether there had been five years' continuous residence or not, I still do not see how the question of proving it is any more satisfactory. I am sorry to have to tell my noble friend that I cannot accept his Amendment. I realise that he and his colleagues have been very worried about this point and have tried hard to solve it. I hope he will feel that they have at any rate given a good airing to this matter in Committee and therefore will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I listened with great interest to what my noble friend has said. I take his points. I referred to the earliness of the hour and now, referring to the lateness of the hour, I think the best thing I can do is to waste no more time and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This might be a convenient time to suggest that the House do now resume and I move accordingly.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.