§ 2.48 p.m.
§ LORD O'HAGANMy 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 are aware that a patrial Commonwealth citizen would have inferior status to a national of a member country of the E.E.C.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are not aware that this would be the case.
§ LORD O'HAGANMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Can he say whether there have been full consultations with other member countries of the Commonwealth about the impact of our entry into the European Community on Commonwealth immigrat on and citizenship?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, it was very difficult to understand what the noble Lord was getting at in this Question; whether he was thinking of the status of a Commonwealth citizen in this country or in one of the member countries of the E.E.C. The negotiations with the E.E.C. include questions arising from the free movement of labour, but they are not yet completed. The Immigration Bill with its patrial provisions is, of course, still before Parliament, and so we have a double conditional here.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Loids, is it not true that, in the event of Britain entering the E.E.C., citizens of the Six countries will be entitled to enter the United Kingdom without any restriction whatsoever, whereas on the other hand Commonwealth citizens coming to this country will be subject to various restrictions? Is not that the situation?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, we have to distinguish between those who have the right of abode; namely, Commonwealth citizens who are described as " patrials " in the Immigration Bill and are not subject to immigration control, and those who are subject to immigration control. As regards nationals of 447 E.E.C. member States, the question of the effect of entry into the E.E.C. on the work permit scheme is a hypothetical one which does not arise until a decision on entry has been taken. Successive Governments have accepted the provisions of the Treaty of Rome relating to the free movement of labour, and it has been understood that these would involve some measure of preference for nationals of member States over those of other countries.
§ LORD O'HAGANMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he stands by the Written Answer given to me on March 30 by his noble friend when I was told that:
Her Majesty's Government accept the Treaty of Rome and Community legislation flowing from it, including the provisions which govern freedom of movement of labour and rights of establishment within the Community." —[Col. 1314.]If I have it wrong up to now, I hope that the noble Lord will tell me if at least I have got this right: that for the purposes of the Treaty of Rome we have to define who are and who are not our nationals. According to this definition, those who are our nationals have these freedoms and rights and those who are not, according to this definition, do not have these freedoms and rights.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMYes, my Lords. The question of who are nationals of this country is an extremely complicated one because of our imperial past, as the noble Lord knows because he takes an interest in this matter. This is a matter which is under discussion with the E.E.C. at the moment. But we must distinguish between Commonwealth citizens who are patrials, to whom the noble Lord's Question referred, and those who are not patrials.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, although this may not be a suitable occasion for a legal or any other interpretation of the provisions of the Treaty of Rome which provide for the free movement of labour, would the noble Lord be good enough to read the provisions to which I have referred so that he may, on behalf of the Government, enlighten your Lordships' House on what is the actual situation in the event of Britain joining the E.E.C.?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I am fully aware of the rights and obligations of E.E.C. nationals as regards the free movement of labour, and so are Her Majesty's Government. The position, as I have tried to explain, is that Commonwealth citizens who have a right of abode will be in a better position as regards entry into this country than E.E.C. nationals. Those who are not patrials will be in a less favourable position.
§ LORD ALPORTMy Lords, may I ask whether, in the event of our joining the E.E.C., those citizens of the Commonwealth who have patrial rights in this country under the new proposed immigration law will have direct entry into other countries of the E.E.C. as well as into the United Kingdom?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, the extent to which Commonwealth citizens who have settled here will be eligible to enter other E.E.C. countries as nationals of the United Kingdom is a matter under discussion with the Community countries.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSMy Lords, can the noble Earl make this point clear to me? Is it right that the result of entering into the E.E.C. and of the proposed new immigration law—provided that we accede to the normal terms of the Treaty of Rome—will be that citizens of those countries will be able to come in free; for example, a citizen of French Martinique will be able to enter here free, whereas a non-patrial citizen of British Antigua will not?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, here we come on to the matter, which I dealt with in answer to an earlier supplementary question, of what is or is not meant by a national of a country. These are questions that will be discussed with the Community. The French and the Dutch have special provisions as regards who are and who are not regarded as nationals of their countries.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, the noble Viscount has cited the case of nationals of French Martinique and of British Antigua. Can the Minister say whether it is correct that the former would be able to get into the E.E.C. free and the latter would not?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords when I saw this general question on the Order Paper, I thought that there was some danger of there being a general debate either on the E.E.C. application or on the general question of immigration.:I am afraid the noble Baroness has raised a different point and I would ask her to put down a separate question.
§ LORD O'HAGANMay I ask another question based on my original one? Am I to understand that a patrial non-citizen of this country would not be of inferior status to the citizen of another member country of the E.E.C. if we went in? Am I to understand that the loose term, " national ", could cover a person who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, a patrial Commonwealth citizen will be able to come to this country for employment or any other purpose completely free of control, but an E.E.C. citizen may be refused entry or subsequently asked to leave on the ground of personal undesirability.