Lords Sitting of 6 December 1972

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.

RHODESIA CHROME ORE SHIPMENTS TO AMERICA
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 whether an investigation is to be made into the allegation that certain British shipowners and insurers are operating the transport of chrome ore from Rhodesia to the United States of America.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, investigations are being made into allegations that breaches of United Kingdom sanctions controls may have occurred.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that welcome reply, may I ask her whether she has seen the evidence which has been prepared by the American Committee on African Affairs, which states that the shipments are made from Mozambique round the Cape to the Gulf ports in the United States; that 24,000 tons are involved; and that a leading insurance company in this country has given insurance cover for these illegal activities?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have not seen any specific allegation, although I have heard of one specific allegation, which does not seem to tally with that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, because the one of which I am apprised concerns 500 tons of Rhodesian ferro-chrome. The fact of this incident was circulated to member-States of the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory
246
Committee. Of course, as the noble Lord will understand, investigations have to be made both in this country and overseas.
LORD BROCKWAY: But, my Lords, is it not the case that the noble Baroness's colleague, Mr. Julian Amery, has agreed to this investigation into the charges made by the American Committee on African Affairs? Surely the noble Baroness's Department has the charges which have been made?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that I am concerned with the one specific allegation which has been made concerning the 500 tons. My right honourable friend in another place has said that of course any allegations will be investigated.

STARRED QUESTIONS BY PEERS
2.38 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: 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 the Leader of the House whether it would not be desirable to alter the limitation on the number of Starred Questions that any individual Lord may ask from two Questions per day to two Questions per week.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, if it is the general wish of the House, I should be quite willing to ask the Procedure Committee to consider the suggestion of my noble friend, but perhaps I should remind your Lordships that the Group on the Working of the House (the "Four Wise Men", as I think they were termed) recommended only last year—and here I quote the words of their Report:
"no further limitation on the present right of each Peer to ask up to two questions a day, although we would stress that the abuse of this right, even by a tiny minority, would quickly make a new system necessary".
In fact only a year ago they recommended that there should be no change: but I should like to repeat that if it is the general wish of your Lordships' House that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee I should be very willing to do so.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, as during the last year the House has had further experience of how the rule is working, perhaps my noble friend could refer this to the appropriate Committee—because since the "Wise Men" made up their minds I think it may be that circumstances have altered somewhat.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before the noble Earl answers the question asked by the noble Lord, may I ask whether he has noted that the Order Paper is not very full as regards Questions? There are only three down to-day; and if my noble friend, Lord Brockway, asks the majority of Questions, is not the noble Earl aware that this is a measure of my noble friend's assiduity, and possibly also a reflection of the sloth of other Members of the House? I must not get involved in a debate on this matter, but may I ask the noble Earl to consider it more fully before we take it to the Procedure Committee, because my present feeling is that they would also recommend no change.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, would the noble Earl consider having more Questions rather than fewer? Is he aware that Questions are the most interesting part of the procedure in your Lordships' House? Is he also aware that sometimes one can be terribly bored listening to meandering speeches? Is he further aware that Questions furnish an opportunity of ventilating grievances and, what is more important, are a means of testing the stamina, quality and character of Ministers on the Government Front Bench?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am well aware of the intense interest which the Questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, always arouse, and of course I know that the stamina of Ministers is fully able to resist even his most barbed supplementaries. I am also fully aware of the immense industry (which we all admire) of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. But, that said, it has been my impression—and we may have run a little counter to this to-day—that Question Time is tending to go rather quicker than it has in the past. However, I believe that this is something we should keep under close review, and indeed under tighter control than sometimes we have permitted ourselves, or that I have per-
248
mitted the House, during the last year or so. My own feeling is that it would perhaps be a mistake for me to make any formal recommendation to the Procedure Committee at this stage. This is something which I think the Procedure Committee should very much bear in mind.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the whole character of the House would be altered if some of the more familiar names were allowed to disappear from the Order Paper?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that my name has been mentioned on both sides of the House, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that I do not seek subjects in order to put down Questions? I put down Questions when subjects seem to me to be important. Is the noble Earl also aware that I try to conform with the courtesies of this House, and that if I thought my Questions were excluding other Questions I should be very ready to accept the suggestion which is now made? But is it not the case that there is no queue for Questions? For instance, to-day there are only three Questions. A look through the Order Paper on corning days will show that there are only three Questions per day. If I was convinced that my Questions were excluding others, I should be very ready to accept the suggestion which has been made.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. We all recognise the unique magnetic properties which he has for attracting subjects. But, that said, I should like to point out to my noble friend Lord Derwent that of course it is absolutely within his right at any time to suggest himself that the Procedure Committee should look at this matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he could have a study made? Is he aware that perhaps there are fewer Questions on the Order Paper as a result of the influenza epidemic? Possibly there have been some withdrawals. Such a study could produce, among other things, an interesting statistical analysis of my noble friend's subject-seeking role. Perhaps consideration could be given to

249
whether this might be brought to the notice of the Procedure Committee. The noble Earl said that this was a matter that we should keep under review, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent suggested. We might look at it again, but first let us get the figures.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I say in self-defence that I never mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, there is one question that I forgot to ask. Can the noble Earl arrange things so that the Answers to Questions are more satisfactory?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have been trying to sense the feeling of the House without unduly prolonging this particular part of Question Time. Statistics can sometimes be valuable, and I am very happy to fall in with the suggestion of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and keep this matter under review. I hope that my noble friend Lord Derwent will feel that that course is satisfactory.

COMMONWEALTH MEETINGS
2.45 p.m.
LORD HALE: 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 what facilities now exist for constant Commonwealth consultation and when the next meeting is planned.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, there are regular exchanges with Commonwealth Governments, including Ministerial visits in both directions, and meetings. For example, next month there will be a meeting of Commonwealth Law Ministers in London, and in Lusaka a meeting of Ministers concerned with Youth affairs.
LORD HALE: Yes, my Lords: but at a time when all our past does not appear clearly to proclaim our immediate future, and when two general elections have wiped away Commonwealth Governments in the Antipodes, when another has produced a diminution in the support from people of both sexes for Mr.
250
Trudeau, and when there is talk of a weakening of ties which are of great value, are the advisers to Her Majesty's Government wise in postponing the next Commonwealth Conference until August and using up their diminished expectation of political life in always commuting to Brussels? Could we not value these ties and try to preserve them?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the Commonwealth tics are of prime importance. As he will be aware, the Canadian Government have suggested a meeting between Heads of Government in Ottowa next year. The month of August, or any month, has not yet been decided.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it has been predicted in well-informed circles? While I am in entire agreement with my noble friends in seeking to see that there is no colour bar within the Commonwealth, is there anything ignoble in ties of kinship, too, or in a common heritage of language and of history? Might it not be well, when the bandmaster of the old Ship of State is giving the signal for "Abide with Me" and the captain's generous fireworks are incarnadining the sky, that we should recall some of the events of the past which are recalled still in distant parts of what was once the Empire?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure that all Members of this House would agree that, despite our differences, there is a very real sense of affinity between the various members of the Commonwealth. The timing of a meeting of the Heads of Government is a matter for mutual agreement, and it is the Commonwealth Secretary-General who is now taking soundings on this matter.

CHRYSLER UK LIMITED
2.58 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Industrial Development is making a Statement in another place on Chrysler UK Limited. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the Statement should not be repeated here, but, with the leave of the House, I will arrange

251
for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"In January. 1967, the then Government agreed that the Chrysler Corporation should acquire control of Rootes Motors Limited (now known as Chrysler UK Limited) and the American parent company today holds 88·4 per cent. of the equity capital and 93·8 per cent. of the voting shares. The Corporation recently asked for a release from one of eight undertakings which it gave in 1967. This would enable it to acquire the remaining minority shareholdings in Chrysler UK Limited. The Government has said that it would agree to this subject to the necessary exchange control consents being obtained. The Chrysler Corporation has confirmed that the remaining undertakings, where still applicable, will remain in force including the undertaking to maintain a majority of British Directors on the Board of Chrysler UK. It has also confirmed that it has every intention of continuing the operations of Chrysler UK Limited in manufacturing vehicles for the British market and for export and of utilising as fully as possible its extensive plants in the United Kingdom.
"The principal advantage to Chrysler UK Limited of this proposed adjustment is that, since other Chrysler subsidiaries in Europe are 100 per cent. owned, the UK company will no longer suffer even a marginal disadvantage in attracting new investment. The company therefore, take the view that transfer of the remaining 6·2 per cent. of voting shares and other stock to the Chrysler Corporation is beneficial."

OVERSEAS PENSIONS BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to pensions and other similar benefits payable to or in respect of persons in certain overseas and other employment; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

SUCCESSION (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to increase the amount of sums payable to a surviving spouse under Sections 8 and 9 of the Succession (Scotland) Act 1964, and
252
to empower the Secretary of State by order further to increase such amounts. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved. That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to-morrow for the purpose of taking the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Bill through its remaining stages on that day.—(Earl St Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

UGANDA ASIANS: RESETTLEMENT POLICY
2.51 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE rose to call attention to the work of the Uganda Resettlement Board, to the proposed dispersal policy for Asian immigrants, to the position of local authorities and voluntary bodies concerned and to co-operation with Commonwealth and other countries; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as will be seen from the Order Paper, we have two important debates before us to-day. They relate to cognate subjects but in our view they are distinct and merit separate discussion. Had we put them into one omnibus Motion on immigration, as some suggested, we should not have obtained a clear picture of the current position concerning Uganda Asians, nor answers to certain detailed questions which I have no doubt will be forthcoming. Conversely, we should have blurred the discussion on the Immigration Rules which is to follow: a subject on which many noble Lords have indicated that they take a keen interest. So we start with the first Motion on the Order Paper, which I beg to move.
I should like to start by reaffirming our approval in general terms of Government policy concerning British Asians, and to say at the outset how much we appreciate the work of the Uganda Resettlement Board both at headquarters and at the centres, which were established with remarkable speed and efficiency in different parts of the country. I would also pay a warm tribute to the tremendous response by voluntary organisations in the country and by many individuals, who responded quite magnificently at very short notice to the appeal for help. If I mention in particular the Women's Royal Voluntary Services I am sure that that will not be taken amiss by any other organisation. I know that all did their best. but from the inquiries I have made I think everyone will agree that that organisation have taken a particular responsibility. They have of course a unique position in their relationship both with central and with local government, and we can be very proud indeed how they and the other voluntary organisations have come through what was really quite a challenge.
I know one centre quite well, as the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, is aware, which is at Tonfanau on the coast of Merionethshire, near my own Welsh home. I have visited or had first hand reports of a number of others. One can fairly say that when one visits these camps—or, rather, centres, as one should call them, although most of them have in fact been Army or Air Force camps—one is much impressed by the general cheerfulness of the Uganda Asians who are here, and by their great keenness to become independent as soon as they possibly can. Standards in the camps vary, naturally, but on the whole one can say they have been very well run; there has been excellent co-operation, particularly from local education authorities; sometimes an almost overwhelming response to appeals for warm clothing, though that of course varies from one centre to. another; and a general eagerness by youth organisations and others to co-operate in social and sporting events. Of course, there have been problems of diet and the like, but I believe that these are by now almost entirely overcome.
One might ask, in view of this generally satisfactory picture: Why do we need a debate? As an emergency operation this
254
has all been very successful; but that of course was phase 1 and we now have to consider phase 2: resettlement in the community outside the centres. This includes the fate of those who went straight to friends or relatives and did not come to the centres at all. If I might put the matter in perspective, in spite of some alarmist suggestions at the time that we were to expect at least 60,000 refugees, the actual number who have come since the first week in August is around 27,000. Some of these I think would have come anyway under normal immigration procedure, so one can say that what one might call the true refugee figure is something upwards of 25,000. But the total arrivals which have had to be dealt with in the period number about 27,300. Of these, some 21,000 went to the centres, but over 6,000 went at once from the airport to independent addresses. Of those who went to the centres, over half have already left. In other words, of the 27,000 who came between early August and the deadline just four weeks ago, more than 17,000 have been resettled more or less satisfactorily, and fewer than 10,000 now remain in the centres, some of which have been closed or will shortly be closing.
If I might paint the picture in just a little more detail, I understand that roughly 30 per cent. of the intake at the centres are children between five and 16 years of age, and that only about 5 per cent. are people over 60; although one must remember that some people in the tropics may age more quickly, perhaps, than they would here. To fill in one other quite important detail, my information is that about 10 per cent. of those in the centres are reckoned to have assets in this country which make them ineligible for supplementary benefits. Despite some, I think, thoroughly irresponsible rumours in circulation, the rest receive supplementary benefit on the same terms as other citizens in this country. It seems to be true that a fair amount of money was got out of Uganda before the crisis; but I am told that this was successfully achieved by relatively few people, and that there is not much truth in the suggestion that any significant proportion of the Uganda Asians had in fact realisable assets in this country. Many of them fearing the freezing of

255
bank deposits put a good deal of their savings into jewellery which, in the violent conditions which prevailed when they tried to leave, just had to be left behind. All of them of course had to leave their houses, their furniture, their stock-in-trade.
What are the prospects and problems of phase 2? One obvious one is that the rate of exit from the centres, which has been very steady up to now, is likely to slow down. The first two-thirds are the easiest to move; the more difficult cases are those remaining in the centres and progress with them is bound to be somewhat slower. The problems are of course housing and jobs, and another very important One is split families. Everyone agrees, I think, that housing is really the crux of the matter. This I know is the view of the Uganda Resettlement Board itself. If I might be allowed to say so, it is not made any easier by the fact headlined in yesterday's Guardian that we shall have fewer new homes built this year than at any time since 1963, and we all know that house prices and rents are higher than ever before. This means in practical terms that to settle the remaining Uganda Asians will be a more difficult job, for example, than settling the Kenya Asians in 1968. Recent research shows that on the whole the latter have succeeded in obtaining homes, even if at a lower standard than they have been accustomed to. If the dispersal policy declared by the Government had really worked, the position would not be really so desperately serious as it is in certain parts of the country.
I know that housing has been provided or promised in at least 70 places outside the Greater London area, and a considerable debt of gratitude is due to various local authorities—the city of Edinburgh. for example, and places such as Darlington and the Lancashire towns and so on. There have been some very generous offers from local authorities in various parts of the country. I am told that it is natural enough that Asians who have been settled in camps in the South or West of England, should find it extremely difficult to adjust their minds to the prospect of going to what they regard as almost the Arctic circle. With no disrespect to the noble Baroness, Lady
256
Tweedsmuir, I can say that they think of Scotland as a very long way off. At one camp I visited the local authority in Darlington had sent a social worker to the camp to speak to prospective tenants. which I think was a good thing. The camp authorities were trying to get someone from Edinburgh to come and speak—I hope with not too broad a Scots accent—to persuade these people that that noble city was really well worth going to. I hope that that effort was successful.
More than half the arrivals are believed to be in Greater London, concentrated naturally in places where they have friends and relations. I think Brent and Harrow have taken the heaviest load, though many have gone to other boroughs. Outside London, Leicester seems to have been the principal focal point. I think we should remind ourselves that if there is local resentment in matters of housing, it falls on the local authority much more than it does on the central Government. This is a point I wish to return to in a moment. Local people who are on long waiting lists for housing cannot be expected to have their own homes deferred indefinitely, so most, though not all, of the housing on offer by local authorities is apt to be substandard: houses that are awaiting modernisation or redevelopment. That means that a great deal of it is likely to be for relatively short-term occupation. In other words, we are not necessarily finding a permanent solution to the problem. The same is true of a great many of the 2,000 or so offers of private accommodation, much of which is too small anyway for the larger families which make up a good many of the units still in the centres, and a good deal of which is too remote from possible employment as well as being accommodation of short duration. I am told that about 25 per cent. of the family units in the centres consist of 7 or more persons. That presents quite a formidable housing problem, as any noble Lords who have been concerned with local housing will appreciate.
There is no doubt at all that the local authorities which are under the greatest strain feel that they are not getting enough support from central Government. These are the areas which I have mentioned, and others of comparable density, and in the nature of things

257
because they have already had settlers in the past, they contain a large proportion of the Ugandan Asians who went straight from airports into accommodation found by their friends and relatives. This poses some extremely serious problems, and I hope that the Minister will be able to enlighten us as to what the policy is going to be, because the local authorities are very worried about the degree of overcrowding where people have gone to live with friends and relations. That is fine for a few weeks, but not to go on indefinitely—and this for two reasons: for the conditions of the families themselves (Leicester, for example, has produced some really horrific figures of overcrowding), and also for the local authorities, who with their own rules about overcrowding are placed in a very difficult position. For example, Brent Borough Council has publicly said that for a period of nine months it will waive its regulations so far as overcrowding is concerned in the case of Ugandan Asians. But nobody knows quite what will happen after that. There are a number of houses, both public and private, still on offer in various parts of the country, but from the figures I have given there are still some 10,000 people in the camps, and most of these houses would surely be required for those who are still in the centres.
What we want to know is what the very hard-pressed authorities are expected to do. I must say, in passing, that I have no particular sympathy for a handful of local authorities who allege that they have been misled into thinking that they would get 75 per cent. grant for new housing in respect of Ugandan Asians. This statement appeared in the Press a week or two ago, but I do not see how anybody studying the circulars could have believed it. We are faced, as I say, with a serious social problem. Not only is some of the accommodation sub-standard in the purely physical sense, but some families have been put into "bed-and-breakfast" houses by their relatives, who were looking for anything on the spur of the moment, and I am told that there are still people who are being turned out for the day. There are some very bad conditions.
Many of the Asians, if they could, would have preferred to buy a house. They were accustomed to owning their
258
own houses; but how can they do so at present prices in this country? Again perhaps I may quote Brent, and I am quoting Brent and Leicester because I think they are typical of the really hard-pressed boroughs, one in the Greater London area and one in the Midlands. They offered to waive residence qualifications for local authority mortgages provided that a local guarantor could be found. They had some 400 inquiries, but I am told that, with luck, they reckon they can offer facilities to seven of those who inquired. What happens to the other 393? I know this is a difficult problem. It is a difficult political problem, to some extent, but the Government really cannot rule the end of the settlement and then leave the local authorities to struggle with providing the means. Can we not find some way round which will not be unfair to our own people? Many Asians have bank accounts in Uganda. The records are available. At present, of course, it is impossible to realise those assets, but could not the Government use them as a basis for loans and in due course put pressure on the Uganda Government to release those sums? Individuals have very little hope of doing anything of that nature. We have cancelled aid to Uganda for the present but it is not inconceivable that later on we could use this as a bargaining lever. I hope that something along these lines will be seriously examined. The housing problem must be tackled from every possible angle if it is not to be a festering social problem in the areas of great pressure.
I know that the Minister will be aware that the 60 or so voluntary organisations banded together in the Co-ordinating Committee for the Welfare of Evacuees from Uganda are much worried about the whole housing scene. These organisations have made representations. They include the British Churches Housing Trust and the Catholic Housing Aid Society, as well a such organisations as Shelter. They are particularly concerned that arrangements for temporary accommodation are breaking down. People who have once left a Resettlement Board centre are not, according to the rules, allowed to return to it. One can understand that. But people who have never been to a centre are not allowed to go to it, even if their own

259
arrangements have proved to be grossly unsatisfactory. As I understand it, there is a degree of flexibility, but there is quite clearly a breakdown of confidence between the Ugandan Settlement Board and the voluntary organisations on this matter, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that it will be looked at urgently.
Housing, I repeat, is the really difficult problem. It arouses great emotions in the localities concerned and the Government must show that their policy is capable of working. On the whole, jobs are proving to be rather less of a problem than housing, at least so far. Many Asians have some skill and had the sense to bring with them some evidence of it which is acceptable to the trade unions. I am worried about one group—the post-school age group from the ages of 18 to 23, or thereabouts, many of whom I think stand in need of technical training, and if they are in remote camps like the Welsh Tonfanau camp that I mentioned we just have no facilities to offer them. Again something ought to be done to see whether they can take up some of the private accommodation which is not suitable for the larger families but which might be suitable for two or three men or girls to take training in areas where it could be available.
I am worried about men in their fifties who ran their own businesses in Uganda, some of a quite substantial size. It is difficult for anybody of that age in any country to start again and it seems that some of these people will be very difficult to re-train for employment. I am not pretending that all of them could succeed in comparable businesses in this country, but I am certain from the inquiries I have made and talks I have had that a number of them could succeed if they could lay their hands on some initial capital. After all, one cannot start a business without something. I know that there have been extensive discussions about the possibility of a loan fund of some short, but nothing concrete seems to have emerged so far and I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on this point.
I emphasise that in helping such people we should in the long run be helping ourselves. This is a case of enlightened
260
self-interest, because if they cannot make a go of things here they will be a continuing problem. I therefore do not regard this as charity but as something we could do from the point of view of our own long-term interest. I shall be very interested in what my noble friend Lord Sainsbury has to say about his commission from the Government to try to collect money to help, but I understand that his efforts are likely to be on a small scale so far as individual recipients are concerned and will not be able to deal with the limited but important problem of trying to find working capital for those who can prove that they have had some real business success in the past.
I must comment on the education and social services. In the stress areas there is great strain on the schools. Again, I take my two sample boroughs. It is reckoned in Leicester that there are more than 600 Uganda Asian children awaiting school places. In Brent they reckon that the number may be nearer 1,000—this in areas where there is already considerable pressure. They seem to be able to recruit particularly recently retired teachers. That does not seem to be a very great problem. On the other hand, premises seem to create a bottleneck and from the correspondence I have seen there is a consider; able amount of toing and froing about what is and what is not eligible for grant-aid; and in order to get grant some unwise decisions may be made. There is an offer of 75 per cent. grant for buildings or equipment which must last for three years but must not be permanent. This smells of the Treasury a mile away, and I am afraid that it could lead to some of those foolish so-called economies that are so dear to the bureaucratic heart. Again, I feel that central Government must take more responsibility than they appear willing to take. I have given your Lordships the proportion of young children. Many of the families will be remaining in lodgings, probably for years, or sharing houses and therefore not contributing a great deal to the local rates. In any event, this is largely a burden which I think should be shared by all of us through taxation rather than being put too much on the rates of a particular area which happens to have been the receiving area for large numbers of Asians.
Research into the Kenya Asians—I referred to this matter earlier—indicates

261
that they make rather less use of the health and social services than the average British family; not more, as is often alleged. But in the settling-in period there is a great strain on certain services, particularly those such as health visitors. I understand that the Uganda Resettlement Board has powers and intends to help with this, but some local authorities do not seem to know where they stand. One hopes that where possible red tape will be cut and matters speeded up if there is any genuine difficulty in this context.
A word about students. There are a number of young people in this country with places at universities and various establishments of higher and further education who do not conform with local authority entrance requirements—rather, not so much with the entrance requirements as with the local authority mandatory grants. In other words, they do not have our two "A" levels and so on. The Department of Education has sent a circular to local education authorities pointing out that they have discretionary powers. I checked this morning with the organisations particularly concerned with these students and they say that while some local authorities have been forthcoming and generous, others frankly have not, and they feel there is a considerable element of unfairness and therefore some feeling of injustice as between one and another according to the attitude of the local authority concerned. I do not know whether the Minister can comment on this, though I gave notice that I would raise the question of students.
There is another group of students about whom I am particularly worried as a purely human problem. They do not come within the terms of reference of the Uganda Resettlement Board because they were already in this country before the operative date in August. Many of them are this year in their final year. Their trouble is that their source of finance in Uganda has been cut off because of what has happened. I repeat that they do not come within the terms of reference of the Board. I am told by the organisations that are trying to do what they can for this group of people that there are about 300 of them. Christian Aid has offered £5,000 which, among 300 people, will not go far. Some of these young people have had to give up even in their last year
262
and waste all their earlier efforts. This is a great pity. I fully recognise that they do not come within the Board's scheme; but cannot we, simply as a question of humanity in a particularly difficult situation, try to give them something more in the way of help, and particularly those who have put in a great deal of time and find themselves cut off from their source of supply owing to the troubles in Uganda?
Nearly everything I have mentioned so far is basically a matter of administration within a generally acceptable policy. My final point goes beyond this. In all my recent inquiries in preparation for this debate—among staff at the centres and at the Board, among voluntary workers and especially among youth workers—there is deep and mounting distress over the problem of split families. There should be no dubiety about this because they are very worried indeed about these families. By "split families" I mean those where the mother and children are British subjects and are here by right but where the father or sometimes another bread-winner, an older son or brother, is now stateless and is either in detention in this country or in one of the European camps. Present policy is that the family should join the breadwinner whenever and wherever fie ultimately settles; for example, Bolivia and Ecuador are being mentioned.
I am not speaking of families where the entire family is stateless, because clearly they are the responsibility of the United Nations Commission for Refugees. I am speaking of those where the greater part of the family is British and is fully entitled to stay here but which, if it does not have a bread-winner to support it, will moulder on on supplementary benefit for the rest of its days. This policy to my mind, although I fully understand why it was adopted, is both inhumane and economically wrongheaded. If vast numbers were concerned it might be another matter, but my information—I checked this yesterday—is that there are about 200 stateless breadwinners abroad and about 70 in detention here. In other words, this is not a vast problem. We are under an obligation to support their families. For reasons of language alone many of the breadwinners will find it very hard indeed to make their way elsewhere and the utter

263
misery of these families is upsetting all those who are responsible for them. I am told that some of the mothers are becoming so distraught that they are not caring properly for their children. Those who know Asian families will appreciate that they are closely knit units. If the mother is left without support she may go to pieces. And provided that there are members of the immediate family who are here and entitled to stay, which gives one a specific classification so that one does not open the floodgates, what real purpose is served by keeping out of the country or in useless detention the men who could support these families? I hope very much indeed that this situation can be reconsidered. I do not expect the Minister necessarily to give assurances to-day but I ask him to take this very seriously, to take counsel, and to put what I believe is the truth of the matter to his colleagues. I believe that the original decision, so far as this particular group was concerned, was quite out of proportion to the facts. The human argument seems overwhelming, and the economic saving would, I hope, be equally convincing.
My Lords, I have tried to give a balanced and factual account of the Uganda operation as I see it. It seemed to me and to my noble friends that the time had come now, one month after the deadline, when we ought at least to take stock. I have not touched on the international aspect, except in this matter of split families, but the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will no doubt tell us what he can about that. I have said nothing of the causes or of the misery in Uganda, which I fear is extending now to Africans as well as Asians; and our own white British subjects are also, of course, now being threatened. A paranoic dictatorship has, I am afraid, the same characteristics the world over. But on the whole we can be proud of the response in Britain. I was deeply moved by a small experience that I had last week. I was at a camp not far from London and a few days previously some—I would call them "louts" tried to raise a hostile demo. outside the centre and tried to recruit support from a hutted camp for homeless families half-a-mile down the road. I was proud that not one single person from that camp for home-
264
less families joined them. One outspoken mother told them to get out and to leave the Asians alone. She said, "They are our friends". She and her companions recognised that there are no barriers in homelessness. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady White, for introducing this Motion this afternoon, especially as I understand that the task of opening the second debate will also fall upon her. It is appropriate at this particular point in time that we should review the progress of the resettlement of the Uganda Asians. but I should like to say at the outset that in my view the Government were absolutely right to say that this country had a legal and moral obligation to accept the Uganda Asians; and they are to be commended for having made their view clear on that without hesitation. If I have reservations, it is partly because of the lack of advance planning and, secondly, because I believe it is a mistake to give the impression that the moral and legal obligation arose only following that extraordinary statement by General Amin. It would seem to me that Parliament came face to face with this legal and moral obligation in 1968 when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill, which became the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, was before the House; and a number of noble Lords will remember the all-night Sitting in this House when that Bill was debated. The new factor was the desperate plight in which the Uganda Asians found themselves. It was clear that they were in the position of refugees, and that called for the sympathy which has been so well known in this country over many years and many centuries. But if that is so. we must not be too legalistic in considering some of these problems of borderline cases—because this is very largely a humanitarian matter.
When General Amin made that extraordinary statement to which I have referred, I not only said publicly that I thought we had a legal and moral obligation, but I also said that I thought we ought to welcome these refugees. especially in areas where there was not overcrowding. I said that with the very best of intentions. In fact, I was hoping to draw off some of the numbers from

265
the overcrowded areas in London and the Midlands. But a great deal of wrath was brought down upon my head and I had a great many letters and telephone calls of a very abusive nature. On the other hand, there were some very encouraging offers of help and expressions of good will. Some of those offers, for a variety of reasons, have not been taken up, but it should be made clear that the expression of good will and offers to help are appreciated. It may be that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will care to take the opportunity of joining me in making it known that this willingness to help is understood and appreciated.
The argument about whether we should accept the Uganda Asians, is, I know, still continuing, but it is becoming somewhat irrelevant. The practical questions are: how is this scheme of resettlement working, and what are the lessons to be learned? If one looks back over this whole period since immigration became a matter for discussion, one finds that those engaged in social work, in voluntary service of one kind or another, in community relations work, and in teaching, found it one long story of improvisation. There is no exception in the case of the Uganda Asians although in some respects the composition of those coming is different. There have been a great many more children in the families coming in than was the case with earlier inflows. I would agree—and I believe there is general agreement on the part of those who accept our responsibility—that dispersal is desirable; but it is not so easy to achieve. If we were living under an authoritarian Government it would be a different matter: there would be direction of labour and a great deal of other direction. If we had had the planned reception which was adopted in Holland in the case of those coming from former colonial territories, it would have been a different matter. But that is not so, and it is too late now to embark on the Dutch experiment. Therefore, it would seem to me that the Resettlement Board, although doing their best, have comparatively little power; and, having that in mind, if I have criticism to offer I hope that it will be as constructive as possible.
My Lords, I believe that the initial period of resettlement is over—and here, I think, I am expressing a somewhat
266
similar view to that expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady White. By the "initial period" I mean that period during which the most enterprising have found a means of livelihood and in which many of the local authority offers have been taken up. We are now faced with a two-year programme for those now in the camps; and this view was reinforced, so far as I was concerned, by a visit that I made to Hemswell Camp, in Lincolnshire, last Friday. At Hemswell I saw a graph showing that since the first week in November there has been a dramatic drop in departures from the camp, in the numbers both of those going after making their own arrangements and those going under provisions made by the Board. I should perhaps mention that last Friday when I went to Hemswell the weather was just about as bad as it could be: it was pouring with rain and blowing a gale, and I saw the camp therefore in far from favourable circumstances. But I should like to say that in my view those in charge were doing the very best they could in the circumstances in which they found themselves. I should be interested to know whether that particular camp is to be a long-term camp. I understand that some of the other camps will be closed and that some of the occupants of those camps may be moved to Hemswell. If that is so, we shall have to think seriously about the conditions in what I have referred to as "long-term" camps. With the best will in the world, I do not think it is enough to set up camps and to designate red and green areas. Something more than that is required.
If I may, I will give a few observations from my own personal experience. I only do so because I think it better to speak from one's personal experience. In Yorkshire the committee, of which I am chairman, is very concerned about this aspect, and therefore set up a sub-committee with the specific job of dealing with the green areas. The membership of this committee is quite small; there are only three, all with many contacts in Yorkshire, and one of them a member of the national co-ordinating committee. Perhaps I could give an illustration of what they have done. Very early on I had a telephone call from York, with an offer. The prospects did not seem very good in persuading Uganda Asians, for example, to

267
go to York, or to find jobs there. A group was gathered together. I was asked to go and speak to them but I was unable to, and a member of the subcommittee went. I will not go into the whole story. The ultimate outcome was that someone went from York to Hems-well, and eventually some families have been settled in York with jobs.
Again in Harrogate a somewhat similar experience occurred. A member of my sub-committee met the town clerk. I think I am right in saying that the town clerk of Harrogate himself went to Hems-well; a relationship was built up between the Uganda Asians and the town in the green area. and some families have settled with jobs in Harrogate. While I was at Hemswell I learned that a group of people had come back from Hawick in Scotland. The noble Baroness, Lady White, referred to Scotland. I understand that they took the trouble to go from Hawick to Hems-well to explain what a desirable place Hawick is, and as a result of that I think some Uganda Asians went there. I hope I have pronounced it correctly; I shall be told if I have not.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE:"Hoick".
LORD WADE: I apologise most deeply for not pronouncing it correctly. The conclusion I arrive at on this particular matter is that if we are going to make this movement into green areas realistic, then we shall require field officers on a regional basis maintaining this contact between the camps and the areas which are not overcrowded. After all, many of the Uganda Asians know so little about these parts of the country. I do not think it would involve duplication, because these are areas where there are no community relations officers and no community relations camps. Undoubtedly, as the noble Baroness pointed out, there are many problems: the problem of the elderly, the problem of large family units, families where the head of the household is over the age of 45 and does not have a particular skill, and of course families where the head of the household is a Ugandan citizen or a stateless person and was not admitted to the United Kingdom in company with, or to join, his wife and children, who travelled on British passports. This is the problem of the split
268
families. It has given rise to a number of tragic situations. Both on economic grounds and on humanitarian grounds, this plea for the split families should be met.
It would be a mistake to regard this as entirely one-way traffic. There is some potential traffic the other way. It is not only the problem of heads of families trying to gain admittance. Curiously enough, there are some families wishing to leave but for various technical reasons they appear to be having difficulty in doing so. I give one example, because it is known to me, concerning a Mr. J. C. Patel. It is not surprising his name should be Patel. He was born in India, studied in the United Kingdom and was called to the Bar, went via India to Uganda, where he set up and developed an intensive law practice. He was registered as an Ugandan citizen, but he had the experience that others had: when he sought to have his Ugandan citizenship confirmed, it was denied to him and his passport was torn up. That was in Uganda. He obtained a one-way travel document to this country, and came here with his wife and children. He came in company with his two brothers-in-law, one a doctor of medicine and the other a pharmacist, and their families. So you have three families. It is a very complicated situation, as the families have several different nationalities within them.
It so happens in this case that all three families want to go to India. Their one aim in life seems to be to obtain travel documents to enable them to leave the United Kingdom for India. From such information as I have, it is not a case of difficulty in getting permits to enter India, but the fact that they have not got the travel documents. Probably somewhere in the files of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, there will be a letter about this case, but I am quite willing to write about it, if necessary. I mention it to show that there are three families anxious to move from this country to India, but for technical reasons they appear to be unable to do so.
Then I should like to support the plea which the noble Baroness, Lady White, made about students. I think my illustration is slightly different from hers.

269
The information comes to me from some-one I know in Stratford-on-Avon. Here, a girl who was a second-year biochemistry student from Makerere University was admitted to Birmingham University and into a hall of residence. The Warwickshire County Council paid, after a few days, an interim grant to cover this term, but apparently no payment could be made for next term unless she could produce a certificate from the Ugandan Government, where her father was a civil servant, showing the family income for last year. I am bound to point out that it is in fact impossible to obtain such a certificate, and it would appear to be irrelevant since the family have lost everything. I hope there will be some way of breaking through officialdom, if that is necessary, in order to enable this girl to have a grant.
Another plea I should like to make——and this supports the remarks of the noble Baroness—is for some form of loans for those who could start Ito in useful productive work, but whose assets are in Uganda. I do not think this is being unfair to other people in this country. I think the procedure should be through a bank or other similar institution, but the security could be backed by the Government, and ultimately recovered from Uganda, or by repayment from those to whom the loans are made. I do not think that would be unfair to the members of the host community, because it really is not charity.
I come back to this question of resettlement. A number of these Uganda Asians are shy by nature; they are shy about moving to what are to them strange parts of the country. Most of them have heard of London, Birmingham and Leicester, but that is about all. A few may have heard of Bradford or Manchester if they have friends there. Apart from the questions of jobs and accommodation, there is this desire to have at least one or two others of their own community with whom they may talk. They would like to know that in the place to which they go they will have someone to tell them where to buy the food they like and to which they are accustomed. It is also helpful if there is an opportunity to worship according to their religion with others of the same faith. These are all factors which have to be kept in mind in trying to deal with
270
this problem of dispersal. It is not easy. It is for that reason that I think that field work is required in the regions to assist the Resettlement Board and to assist those in charge of the camps.
Some may say, "Why go to all this trouble for these people; why not think about our own folk?" It may be that the readiness to help that we have met, the goodwill we have come across, could be harnessed to help others in this country, including, say, the West Indians who came several years ago. I would not deny that at all. I hope that this will lead to more help for others who are out of work and require to be resettled. But we have here a specific job to do; we have accepted these refugees, they have their problems, and the sooner they are resolved the better for all of us.
3.41 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, may I add my thanks to my noble friend Lady White for tabling this Motion. As the Motion mentions voluntary bodies, may I crave the indulgence of your Lordships' House to say a few words about the Uganda Asian Relief Trust, of which I am the Chairman. The Trust was set up at the initiative of the Home Secretary, and has the full support of all religious leaders. My other Trustees include two distinguished former Colonial civil servants with special knowledge of East Africa; namley, Sir Gilbert Rennie, and Sir Walter Coutts. Bishop Patterson is the representative of the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York for community relations; and a Dr. Prem, of the Standing Conference of Asian Organisations in this country. The Government have made a contribution of £50,000, and our rather optimistic target is to raise another £200,000 from industry, commerce, charitable organisations and the general public. I should like to say at this juncture that established Asians who have been in this country for a number of years have already made very generous contributions to the fund.
The aim of the Trust is to enable Ugandan refugees to adapt themselves to Britain and to become full and self-supporting members of the community as soon as possible. We seek to fill the gaps, to provide the sort of help not available from the Uganda Resettlement Board,

271
local authorities, or from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. As many of your Lordships will know, the responsibility for the care of the Ugandan refugees, once they leave the camps, passes largely from the Resettlement Board. What the local authorities can do is, in some cases, rightly limited, and when the wage earner of the family is in employment then of course the Supplementary Benefits Commission's help ceases. The appeals for help that we are getting may seem to some rather trivial, but I think that they are basic if we are to ease these refugees into the community. The requests that we are receiving are for bedding, blankets, linen, cooking utensils, floor coverings, warm clothing and fuel for the winter. The majority of refugees were deprived of all their possessions, or virtually all their possessions, before they came here, and though they may have a job they still have no savings for these absolutely essential purposes.
We had what may appear a very peculiar request the other day for a secondhand bicycle. When it was looked into it was not such a strange request. The head of an Asian family had found himself living accommodation for himself and his family and he had found himself a job, but the living accommodation was on a highway or road where there was no public transport. He had no means to go the several miles from his living accommodation to his work, and that is why the secondhand bicycle, which he was prepared to ride to work, was needed. There are, for example, craftsmen who could get jobs immediately but who lack the necessary tools. We hope to provide those craftsmen with this basic need. I want to accentuate the fact that the grants will be strictly limited to individual families, and that they will seek to provide only strictly basic needs.
May I now say a word about education and the point raised by my noble friend Lady White? In collaboration with the World Universities Service, we are arranging to give grants to post-graduates who were committed to their courses before the Amin decree and who without this aid would not be able to complete their studies. I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that this is the
272
sort of aid that is so worth while providing. Although the Trust is a registered charity, may I suggest that its work is motivated not only by normal compassion and the desire to help these unfortunate people, but also by enlightened self-interest. It is in this country's interest to ensure that the newcomers are in a position to make a full contribution to the community without delay and without undue suffering. Most of the refugees, as many of your Lordships may know, are determined to succeed and determined to be self-supporting as soon as possible. But many need help on the way, and we hope to be able, if we get the funds, to provide some of that aid.
Another important and attractive feature of the Trust is that it has virtually no overheads, so that all the monies collected will be distributed to those who need them. The office and the secretariat are provided by the Uganda Resettlement Board. May I say in passing that although the secretariat is very small it is very enthusiastic and hardworking. The Trust does not contemplate for one moment having a network of field officers. It intends to work very largely through local authorities, with either housing departments or social service departments, and in certain cases through voluntary agencies.
In conclusion, may I express support for the Government in accepting their obligations vis-à-vis these unfortunate British passport holders, who were deprived of virtually everything that they possessed, and who were driven from a country where most of them had for many years made their homes and made no little contribution to its welfare. May I also applaud and express my humble pride in the resolute action of the Government in speeding the integration of the Uganda Asians into the community.
3.53 p.m.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I start from the decision to admit to this country the Uganda Asian holders of British passports. In common with previous speakers, I believe that this was a fine decision, a very creditable one and one which reflects much honour on Her Majesty's Government. As a result of this decision, some 27,000 people have come to this country. If all these people were gathered together and placed in a

273
large football stadium, they would not even half fill it. One might therefore think that the problem is small and manageable, so why are there such grave difficulties in handling it? I submit that the principal difficulty is the existence already in Britain, before any Uganda Asians arrived, of several million homeless or very inadequately housed people, on top of whom this new wave of immigration is descending.
I believe that we should look very carefully and rather critically at the policy of dispersal. If one takes the history of the successive waves of immigration which have reached this country from overseas since the Middle Ages, one sees quite clearly that almost never have they, of their own accord, dispersed themselves right the way across the country. People have settled in clearly defined places, whether it was the Flemings in the Middle Ages, the Huguenots in the 16th or 17th centuries, or the Poles or the West Indians in the present century, and the reasons are not very surprising. Such factors as religion, language, kinship and culture all draw immigrants naturally together to specific settlement points. They draw them together so that immigrants can give each other mutual help and support. If we try to fly in the face of this natural tendency, I very much fear that we shall be making the problems worse, and not better. If I may take here the example of Leicester, my information is that some 2,800 Uganda Asians have already settled rather quietly in that city. I know that they may be overcrowded and that there are many problems, but how much has this cost in terms of social service expenditure? I believe that it has cost the city of Leicester some £600, of which three-quarters is being borne by the central Government. It is in this context that I would suggest to the Government that they very seriously consider the channelling of funds through the Indian and Pakistani community organisations within Britain. These are the people in the most intimate and close contact with the new arrivals. I believe that if that is done it will be found that the money is extremely well spent.
I come now to the deeper problems of resettlement, and it is very difficult for me to follow on from what the noble Baroness, Lady White, has said, because she covered the field so very comprehen-
274
sively. Nevertheless, I must start with the question of housing and homes. Several thousand Uganda Asians have gone into temporary accommodation, and time is now running out for permanent solutions to be found. In particular, just one small factor like Christmas will produce difficulties. English families have generously offered accommodation which they had spare and surplus, but at Christmas-time they like to have their own relatives back home and they will very reluctantly be saying, "We provided this accommodation for two or three months, but now we really feel that we cannot do any more." The consequence is that Uganda Asians are turning to local authorities and to voluntary housing aid centres and are asking, "Where is the permanent solution to come from?" At the present time, both local authorities and voluntary bodies do not have the resources to provide a permanent solution. I should therefore like to ask the Government what extra new housing is being put in hand for this specific purpose; and I do not just mean the refurbishing of condemned properties at a cost of, say, £150 a house. Also, what is the Government's policy in regard to the larger Uganda Asian families who have already been mentioned—those with seven or eight persons in a family—who need a house with four or more bedrooms? We know that there is a national shortage of four-bedroom houses, so what steps are being taken to meet this added demand? Furthermore, is consideration being given to the purchase of vacant houses, to the buying of houses as they come on to the market, perhaps for subsequent letting to Uganda Asian families who cannot afford house-purchase? Is it contemplated that, when necessary and in appropriate circumstances, compulsory powers will be used?
If I may turn to the question of jobs, I think we should all be most interested to hear from my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross what progress is being made. What is the attitude of Government Departments and nationalised industries to the employment of Asians from Uganda? We have heard so often that the police, the social services and the health services are all seriously undermanned. Is there no scope, or is there some scope, for the recruitment of some Uganda Asians into these posts, which

275
so badly need to be filled? Then, closely linked with the question of jobs is that of retraining. This, I feel, will be extremely necessary if these Asian people are to get the jobs in this country that they are capable of doing. They are capable, but they must be brought up to date. They must be instructed in our systems and in our ways of doing business. Some of them will require language training. It has already been pointed out that the camps are dispersed around England, some of them in remote places, some of them distant from the present centres of training. Surely, my Lords, the training must be taken to the Asians where they are, in the camps if necessary.
Then, if I may touch briefly on the subject of loans, we have recently heard that the proposed loan of £10 million from this country to Uganda has been cancelled. Surely those funds could be used to provide collateral for the refugees who have come to this country and who will need that collateral if they are to obtain mortgages for their houses and loans with which to start their own businesses. When it comes to mortgages on houses, I urge the authorities, both local and central, to take into account the total family income of would-be purchasers. I know that that is not the existing practice of building societies or local authorities, but I feel that an exception should be made in this case. In addition, it may be necessary for central Government to guarantee lending authorities, and, with this £10 million loan available as collateral, surely those guarantees could be quite considerable and far-reaching.
I was delighted to hear of the creation of the Trust Fund, to be headed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. He has given it some publicity now: I hope it will get maximum publicity throughout the country, because when the initial announcement was made and was reported in the Press, unfortunately no address was stated to which contributions could be sent. I hope that this fund will be used for a little more than just immediate relief. Could consideration be given to using it for such purposes as deposits for mortgages and as equity for the starting of businesses, even where the bulk of the capital will come in by way of loan?
In conclusion, my Lords, I urge Her Majesty's Government not to hide them-
276
selves behind the Uganda Resettlement Board and the local authorities. I hope that both the Board and the local authorities will be made effective agents. If this cannot be done, then central Government must do the job themselves. I also hope that all the voluntary agencies, both those within the Asian community and the British ones, will be really used to the maximum so that we can now move on from the first phase of receiving people into the country to begin the long-term work of resettlement.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I make one short point which has not been made so far ill this mini-debate? These Uganda Asians are extremely capable people. After all, they ran Uganda; and, given half a chance, they will soon establish themselves in this country, and within a generation or two they may be running this country. But they cannot do it from these remote camps; and I was astonished when I saw that the Government were popping these people into the most remote areas of this country. I do not quite know why. If only they could find camps somewhere near where the jobs are, these people would soon find jobs. They will then earn money and buy themselves bicycles and cars, and they can stay in the camps until they save up enough money to get housing of their own. In my part of the world there is an acute shortage of any person who can do a decent job of work of any sort, kind or description. We used to have a Polish resettlement camp near us in which Poles lived for a great many years. From that camp they established themselves, and they are now prominent in local business, and so on. Why on earth cannot something like this be done for the Uganda Asians?
4.15 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester was to speak in this debate, but at the last moment he became a victim of influenza; so, after a brief consultation with the most reverend Primate, I ask leave of the House to say a few words from these Benches. This is a matter in which, of course, the Churches have been deeply involved from the beginning. The most reverend Primates have bolic help to some of these refugees. They taken their part in offering at least sym-

277
have been, naturally, the subject of criticism about this. It has been said that their charity was not as secret as it ought to have been, but anybody who knows the ways of the media to-day will recognise that it is extremely difficult to keep to the principles of the Gospel in that particular matter. The Churches have also been criticised from a well-known quarter because they are alleged not to have taken their share in support for the Stateless Asians. But the British Council of Churches has issued convincing evidence to answer that charge, and has shown by its various negotiations with the Government and others that the Churches have been fully conscious of that problem and anxious to do all that they could to help in its solution.
Of course, the Churches share in the general approval that has been given to Her Majesty's Government for the action that was taken so promptly to receive these refugees with British passports with the least possible formality and with a great deal of practical help. I think it is the duty of all of us who are in any way leaders in society to help our country to realise what has been done and to develop a legitimate pride in it. I was very moved when I heard an interview on the radio between the commanding officer of the first of the refugee camps, at Stradishall in Suffolk, and a B.B.C. interviewer. The interviewer framed his questions obviously in order to produce, if possible, the most provocative and exacerbating answers from that commanding officer, but to every question he was able to give a positive reply showing the British spirit of hospitality and toleration at its best. I took great pleasure in writing to him personally to say how he had increased my own pride in my country that day.
As Bishop of Leicester, I am only too well aware of the way in which this problem impinges upon local communities, and I have to be understanding about the feelings of many citizens of Leicester when this developed. It has to be remembered that we already had some 30,000 Asians in Leicester, and there was already overcrowding, difficulty about school places and problems of that kind. But when full allowance has been made for all of that, I am hound to say that I feel that our own City Fathers did not act in the wisest and in the most generous
278
way by taking such a very hostile line to the reception of these refugees. I must say that I looked with considerable embarrassment on the television screen to see an advertisement which our City Fathers had inserted in the papers of Kampala with the message, "Do not come to Leicester!". With the idea of dispersal and its obvious benefits I had complete sympathy; but I had to say publically that I regretted very much that action had been taken which ran the risk of giving, Leicester a name throughout the world as the most inhospitable of cities. I am sure that it is not so; but these are the sort of things that happen when fear and suspicion have reached a certain point.
I hope very much that the Government will be able to listen with understanding and sympathy to the requests for the most flexible possible treatment of split families. Many of us will remember the short but moving speech by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich during the debate on the Address. He put this point so strongly that it is hardly necessary to repeat it. But I should like to urge upon Her Majesty's Government that they take their main stand in this matter on the grounds of humanity. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady White, and others, quite naturally, have urged upon the Government the view that there is an enlightened self-interest which can be followed in this matter. But I would urge on Her Majesty's Government this point: I believe that if there is one thing which is characteristic of the younger generation in our country, it is a sense of our duty to human beings as such.
If the Government will take a bold view here and put on the most generous plan that they can, I do not think they will be disappointed in the response. They may as well face the fact that, whatever they do, they are bound to be criticised. I personally believe that they ought to be tremendously generous in the financial field; because when cities like Leicester have to carry the main burden of the social problem, it is of some help if those in charge of the matter locally can say that, at any rate financially, the central Government are carrying the burden and are treating this as something which the whole nation should stand as far as it

279
can. If the Government do everything, if they say, "We will give the money so that you can build houses and provide schools; we will pay for everything", there will still be criticism from those already in need (as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton) who will say, "Why should these people have it and not our people who have been waiting for so long?" There is no answer to that, except that we believe that we are faced with a desperate human emergency in which we have to be human beings before we are even British or English. If Her Majesty's Government can face that point, I think they will get a response from the nation which will surprise them. My Lords, I must end by doing what I should have done at the beginning; namely, thanking the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity of discussing this matter.
4.15 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I have been asked a very large number of questions and I will see whether I can spread out the answers and get them in the right order. I must say that it has been very heartening to hear the number of speakers this afternoon saying how much they have approved of the Government's policy in relation to this emergency and also to hear the good words that have been said about the Uganda Resettlement Board. I should tell the House that the Director of the Board is here in the Chamber. Therefore, the detailed points that have been made by noble Lords will not have passed him by, and even if I do not answer all the questions (and I am afraid that I may not be able to do so) they will be noted and noble Lords will not have spoken in vain.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, when he says that the people of Britain have risen to the occasion in the way that they so frequently do in an emergency—and I am very glad to hear that this includes some of our newer citizens, the Asians who have already established themselves, about whom the noble Lord. Lord Sainsbury, has spoken. It is only a mark of the response that comes from so many sources that we have the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, himself being prepared, with his co-trustees, to take
280
charge of this fund. We must all be grateful for this and for the funds that are being contributed. I hope that the Government's example has been of assistance in this matter, as it sometimes is in fund raising.
My Lords, I was going to set this matter against the international background, because not only have we had at home rather a remarkable story but similarly so abroad. But the Motion does not specifically refer to this and no noble Lord has touched on the matter, so I suspect that it might be to the advantage of the House if I got on with other things—although there is rather a splendid tale of international co-operation to tell, if this were the right moment to tell it.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with respect, the Motion does mention "cooperation with Commonwealth and other countries". But, of course, it is up to the noble Viscount to decide whether this is the occasion to speak of it.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that I ought to try to concentrate on the specific points raised. Where the international field impinges on speeches that were made is in relation to the Stateless; and I should like first to deal with them. Apart from about 60 Stateless former Uganda residents in this country, there are enormous numbers overseas. They are not (and I am afraid that I must say this) a British responsibility. We have taken into this country an enormous number of people in an emergency in a very short time. I think it has been recognised in all quarters of the House and in all parts of the country that we could not take also the responsibility for the Stateless. That does not mean that we have not been concerned about their fate; it is just that we have not been able to open our doors "wholesale" to them as well as to the others. We took the lead in bringing this problem to the attention of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and we have pledged a quarter of a million pounds to his fund for dealing with this problem.
There is, too, the assistance of the I.C.E.M., the inter-governmental organisation which arranges for emigration—in fact to South America. We had a team in Kampala; and they are already dealing with people who are in the camps

281
in Europe. Of course, a large number of Stateless people have already gone to Canada; quite a substantial number to the U.S.A., several hundreds to India, and there are still offers open for about 1,400 of them in Austria, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium, in addition to the South American contingent. It is against this background that one has to look at the position of those who are in this country.
When the words "humanity" and compassion "occur in this context, I think it has to be recognised that the Government did show some humanity and compassion in accepting them here in the first place. We had no responsibility to do so, but in fact we did accept a few who came with their families. These are heads of households, and very often they had United Kingdom passport-holder wives and dependants with them. We have had to make it clear that the obligation to grant refuge to those from Uganda does not extend to these 60 or so people, and they have been refused admission. But we have made no attempt to send them back. They are in camps—I believe in one camp largely—on their honour. Their arrival here has been reported to the High Commissioner for Refugees, and we hope that he will make arrangements for them to resettle with their families in third countries, just as as other Stateless people are being encouraged and helped to do by the Commissioner. When one thinks of the burden that this country has already undertaken in this emergency—I am afraid that one has to deal with this as a matter of principle even when dealing with the case of any family and any individual—I think the record of this Government is not an uncompassionate one. I do not think I can go beyond a statement of principle here.
There is, however, just one point which might be of interest. Supposing any of these families wanted to take advantage of the I.C.E.M. offer to go to South America—and I do not think one wants to be scornful of these offers from Equador, Bolivia and other places in South America to take people in this category—although I do not think we should be prepared to assist financially and directly in the payment of the fare for a Stateless head of family, we would
282
be able to contribute to the I.C.E.M. on payment of the fares of United Kingdom passport-holder families and dependants; so in this particular respect we should be able to do something about the matter.
I must now turn to the home front. It is worth remembering that it is less than four months ago since all this started, when the Board was set up on August 23. Phase 1, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has said, was to arrange for the arrival at the airports and camps for those who had been expelled. There were teams of civil servants and voluntary workers at the three main airports; and for seven weeks they were on duty during nights and weekends as well as during days, working seven days a week, to welcome refugees and advise them on their immediate needs. Some of the volunteers lived under pretty rough conditions during the whole of that emergency and others travelled long distances to get to the places where they were needed. I must say it is nice to see in the Gallery some of the uniforms of those bodies who were involved.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, Hear!
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: But, uniformed or not, I really think that no praise is high enough for the W.R.V.S., the British Red Cross and St. John Ambulance Association and some of the lesser-known bodies—not just the nationally-known ones—who have helped in one way or another. We can be truly proud of them and truly grateful for what they have done. Incidentally, the Uganda Resettlement Board is not aware, so far as I have been advised, of any lack of confidence on the part of the Co-ordinating Committee for Welfare of Evacuees from Uganda. I hope that the noble Baroness is not right on this point: it is not something that I have been advised exists at all.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Viscount, has he read the letter on the question of housing which was sent on behalf of the Co-ordinating Committee to his right honourable friend Mr. Carr? I have a copy which I could show to him.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should be glad to look at it. To be perfectly honest, I have read so

283
much paper in preparation for this debate to-day that I am not sure whether I have seen that particular letter or not, but I do not recall it.
The first thing that the Board had to do was to tackle the immediate personal problems, so we got in touch with local authorities throughout the country, asking them to make council houses available. In addition, upwards of 2,000 private people offered to take Asians into their homes. Arrangements were made for students to continue their courses of education in this country. On this particular point, I do not know that the facts are altogether as some noble Lords have said. The noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to particular cases. But United Kingdom passport-holder students are eligible for the special grant arrangements, even though they are attending courses which were started before President Amin's decree. The only requirement is that their permanent home was in Uganda at that date. We have heard about post-graduates. It is no news to me that the practices of local education authorities differ: that variation is not confined to the support of people who come from Uganda and who are going to university. But if there are particular difficulties about this matter I shall be grateful to receive information about them so that they can be followed up.
However, one must not underestimate what has been done in perhaps a less conspicuous but rather remarkable way. For instance, my noble friend Lord Mowbray tells me that he went to the camp at Donniford, near Watchet in North Somerset. The Somerset County Council are taking all the 300 or so children to local schools every weekday, with the exception of about 25 children of nursery age—and they provide a teacher for those children at the camp. So I do not think we can complain of the way in which local authorities have been handling this matter of education. One does not want to give a wrong impression.
Another important point concerned jobs. The Department of Employment put its machinery at the disposal of the Resettlement Board, and straight away, or very soon, local authorities were given assurances that the Board would meet the
284
full cost they incurred on temporary accommodation needed for the reception of Uganda Asians in their areas. More than 1,300 employers generously offered jobs for the refugees to the Resettlement Board. Whether the offers included nationalised industries specifically, as my noble friend Lord Hylton asked, I do not know, but I see no reason why not. Indeed, I cannot imagine that there would be any discrimination or hesitancy from the nationalised industries over making jobs available if the candidates were suitable for them. In the meantime, it was plain that the proportion of refugees with no satisfactory accommodation to go to in this country was a great deal higher than had been at first thought—perhaps partly due to the Boards efforts to discourage people from settling in areas of particular strain like that of the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, though I do not think we have been particularly successful in that respect.
So we had to ask for the assistance of the Department of the Environment (yet another Government Department) to cooperate in making available old military and R.A.F. camps, many of which had not been used for a long time. Again, one had an outstanding response and people worked round the clock to get them ready. By the deadline of November 8, 16 of these centres had been opened and were fully staffed by civil servants and voluntary workers, who received the refugees as they arrived from the airports, tired, shocked sometimes and very definitely needing rest and reassurance. Within a few days, schools, health and community centres had been set up in all these places; and laundries, libraries, rest-rooms, classes in English language and in the British way of life soon followed. In all, no fewer than 21,000 refugees came at one stage or another into the resettlement centres; so it is not a bad story of instant reaction to emergency. The noble Baroness gave various figures which I am sure are accurate—I think she got them from the same sources as I did.
Now we come to Phase 2, which is probably what this debate is mainly about and which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to in those terms, and the emphasis is now switched: it is now a question of the longer-term process of moving the families out of the camps. Teams of

285
resettlement officers were established to each of the 16 centres to interview families, match up the needs of the families with the accommodation—whether public or private—which has been offered to the Board, and take account of the jobs available and the skills of the people concerned. This interlocking of a job, a skill and a house, and the size of house, is no mean task, even for experienced people in this field. We have about 100 civil servants engaged full-time in this work, and their success is fairly apparent. I agree with the noble Lord who said that a great deal of value has been in towns like Darlington which have sent their officers to the camps to explain what life is like in places where the refugees might go. This has happened in quite a number of cases.
As the noble Baroness said, at December 1 we had about 10,000 people left in the camps. During the past few weeks about 1,000 people per week have left the centres. By the end of last week the resettlement teams themselves had placed more than 2,000 people in local authority accommodation, and many other families are at the moment considering offers made to them of houses in many parts of the country. It is not true that there is an absolute bar on readmission to the camps; in cases of exceptional hardship people can be taken back. About 30 have come back in the past few weeks. Obviously we do not wish to encourage this. I agree with the noble Baroness that one must expect the rate of resettlement to start to fall as we get to the more difficult cases. But I hope that we shall still be able to go ahead and resettle people during the next few weeks.
In the meantime, in addition to what I said about the public accommodation, 1,500 refugees are in private homes throughout the country. We could not take up all the offers from private homes. Some of them were for a short period, perhaps with Christmas in mind; in some cases the houses were very isolated, and some houses had only one room available which was not big enough for the whole family. Nevertheless, offers are being taken up by the Board, and last week about 50 families were placed in private accommodation. I hasten to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we should all wish to express our gratitude for the wonderful response from
286
the ordinary people all over the country to the problem presented by President Amin and his cruel decree.
This is not going to satisfy noble Lords who have asked about housing and loans. The situation about housing is fairly complex. We have the local authorities' side, and for the most part we have to rely on them. It is no use my noble friend Lord Hylton asking whether we are going to use compulsory powers; the Government have no compulsory powers to buy land for housing accommodation. This is a matter for the housing authorities. The Board is not empowered to make grants in respect of long-term facilities like housing. But we still have available another 1,400 houses offered by local authorities for renting. At the moment I do not think that it would be right to conclude that the need cannot be met under the present arrangements.
The matter of mortgages is very difficult; it goes with the problem of loans in general. No doubt in due course, when the Ugandans get settled, they will be able to raise their own loans and mortgages; but the arguments against providing this assistance from Governmental funds are fairly substantial, and they have already been touched on to-day. I think it was the right reverend Prelate who said that we have to be careful in the race relations field because we could do a great deal of damage if the belief gained ground that public money was being made available to Uganda Asians but not to the existing population—who would just as much like to have it, I assure your Lordships. We have to be cautious about this.
In the end the question of giving money or lending money is a commercial judgment for the lenders, the banks and other institutions; it is not prima facie a role that the Government ought to assume. It is something that we are of course considering, but it raises substantial difficulties. Certainly if it is a matter of pressing the Uganda Government to release funds in Uganda, my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir says that we have done nothing but press them. We are hoping that as they sell, as they say they are doing, the properties and assets of the Uganda Asians, they will do what they say and pay the money into the individual's bank account. There will be no let-up on the pressure to see that there

287
is no expropriation, and if possible we will get the money out. I do not think that this is an easy problem to solve, either on loans for setting up businesses, or on mortgages.
My noble friend Lord Hylton asked about jobs. The Department of Employment have been providing officials to serve on the resettlement teams. The Confederation of British Industry will be shortly notified of the job skills which we have collected. We now have a good idea of the job skills of the Asians, and we can circulate this information. We will certainly give the information to the nationalised industries and Government Departments that have vacancies. As for retraining, the arrangements are absolutely normal. They are just the same as they are for natives of this country who want or have to change their jobs. In that respect I hope that is a satisfactory answer to my noble friend.
My Lords, I am afraid that there is still a great deal to be done. We cannot rely on Lord Sainsbury's Trust to do more than it legitimately and properly says it will do—and he has set out the terms of reference of the Trust—and we have to continue our efforts as a joint exercise between Government and the local authorities. We have to continue to give the assistance which we are at the moment permitted to do. There is no room for complacency. In fact there are these 10,000 refugees still in resettlement centres. Some of them are old, some are handicapped and crippled, and some of the families are large by ordinary British standards. Some have no breadwinners to support them. There can be no short cut to the resettlement of these families. On the question of large families, I believe that some local authorities are alive to the situation and are preparing offers of houses which are larger than normal. In the case of all local authority houses we have sometimes to wait a little while, because the authorities are either waiting to get possession of them themselves, so that they can offer them to the Board, or the houses are being decorated prior to being relet to the new Asian tenants.
I can end on a cautiously optimistic note. I did not hear that a meeting between the Government and the leaders
288
of the city of Leicester went very badly, or anything of that sort. I hope that the right reverend Prelate is a little less depressed than he was at one stage about the city council. When I was at Leicester about ten days ago I found them far from being fierce. It seemed to me, when talking to some of those working in the area where Asians had gone to settle, that although there may be problems at least there did not seem to be a great deal of I was glad to find how friendly the whole of the environment and atmosphere in Leicester was.
The Board's original 16 centres are now already being reduced to 14. One was closed last month, and another is about to be closed. I do not think that Hemswell is to be closed at the moment. We do not classify any of our settlement centres as long-term, and I hope that they will not have to be long-term. But certainly the one the noble Lord, Lord Wade, visited will not be one of the first to close.
The stock of houses at present on offer by local authorities from all over the country should be able to accommodate up to, or possibly more than, 6,000 of the 10,000 people at present in the resettlement centres. There is in addition the private accommodation. Then, nearly 1,000 refugees have so far expressed interest in the possibility of re-emigrating to other countries which have generously offered to take them.
I will not give your Lordships hostages to fortune, but from the figures I have given I hope the House will agree that in the three and a half months of its existence the Uganda Resettlement Board—backed, and I think not ungenerously backed, by many different Departments of Government; supported by many generous local authorities and many extremely welcome offers of help from private individuals, whether in the way of housing or employment—has not only demonstrated its ability to handle this distressing problem with efficiency and humanity, but has shown that there is really no question of the Government's sheltering behind it, as my noble friend Lord Hylton put it. Why should we wish to shelter behind it, my Lords? We are working in co-ordination with the Board, and we are proud of it and of the work it is doing. We want to

289
assist it, not to shelter behind it. It has already reduced the size of the problem to manageable proportions, and I am fully confident that it will, in continuing its work, succeed finally in solving it altogether.
4.42 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am sure that I speak for us all when I say how grateful we are to the noble Viscount for his thoughtful reply to the points made in the debate. I must admit that there were moments when the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and I exchanged glances when we were not quite satisfied with some of the answers we received, but we shall certainly take advantage of the noble Viscount's suggestion and we may write to him on particular points. The only two matters on which it seemed to me that he did not really meet the gravamen of the arguments that have been put forward were, first, the long-term need of more housing assistance from central Government in the pressure areas. I just do not believe, even on his figures, taking into account the bad condition of some of the temporary housing, that we are going to deal with the situation in an equitable way between the entire community and the community in particular areas unless the Government, as time goes on, at any rate, keep a very close eye on this matter of the need for more housing.
Secondly, I am sure the noble Viscount will not be surprised when I say that I was not happy about his reply on split families. He appeared to me—though I may be incorrect in this—to be speaking of Stateless families and not split families when he was referring not only to the sixty to seventy bread-winners who are in detention in this country, but to the numbers in the camps overseas: because I do not think there is a vast number who have the remainder of their family in this country. I may be wrong; he may be able to correct me on this. The figure that I was given was of the order of 200 overseas, plus those in this country.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know how many families there are in this country who have a Stateless husband, say, in a camp overseas. I do not know about that. I was talking about the sixty Stateless heads of households who are in this country
290
with their United Kingdom passport-holding families.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, what I was very much concerned about was an extension of that to those overseas. I tried to explain in my speech that it was this particular group where the family has a right to be here if it wishes. I must not trespass on the next debate, but the noble Viscount is really suggesting that one member of the family is more important than the interests of the wife and children. But we can discuss that on the next debate. Apart from that, as I say, I was disappointed in what I took to be the noble Viscount's reply. But I am sure we are extremely grateful. I am also very grateful indeed to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been useful that we should have had this discussion, if only to express our gratitude to everyone who has tried to help, and indeed has helped, in this situation. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: E.E.C. AND COMMONWEALTH CITIZENS
4.45 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE rose to call attention to the need to review the law of citizenship in the United Kingdom and to amend the Immigration Rules for control on and after entry, so as to remove as far as possible disparities between citizens of the Commonwealth and those of the European Community and to preserve civil liberties, in particular in such areas as family deportation; and to move for Papers. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am sorry but I have to inflict another speech on your Lordships—I trust a shorter one this time. I have to explain that my noble friend Lord Shepherd is unfortunately languishing in hospital and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who also intended to speak from our Front Bench has unfortunately fallen victim to the influenza germ. So neither is able to be present to-day. I had been hoping to be relieved of this particular task, but it was only shortly before the debate started that I knew for certain that my noble friend Lord Shepherd was not going to be able to be with us.
I know that Lord Shepherd regrets his absence very much indeed because, as noble Lords who took part in the debate on the Immigration Bill in this House will recall, my noble friend was very active indeed at all stages of that Bill; and I know that he very much wished to take part in this debate, which is really on the Rules, the drafts of which are before us, for control of immigration on and after entry to this country. I should perhaps explain to noble Lords—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness at this early stage, but it might assist the House if we could get this point clear. It is not all about the Rules, as I read it; it goes a good deal wider than the Rules themselves. I hope that the noble Baroness will not discourage noble Lords from speaking about the wider aspects if they wish to. I certainly would not want to do that.
BARONESS WHITE: No, my Lords. I was about to try to explain to noble Lords the reason why we had changed the form of the Motion which was originally on the Order Paper. Originally we put this Motion down to consider the Rules formally. This was before a vote was taken in another place. When that vote was taken, on one set of Rules only—they did not vote at all on the other—various noble Lords seemed to suppose that because of that adverse vote in another place the Rules were thereby abrogated. But of course the Rules are not a Statutory Instrument. It should be made quite plain, because there has been some doubt or lack of information on this, that the Rules just continue. The fact that the other place voted against the Rules on entry although, as I say, they did not actually vote on the Rules after entry, does not mean that the Rules were thereby dissolved. As I understand it, they are still in effect. No doubt the noble Viscount will make this point absolutely clear.
If one looks at the present Act one sees it is quite clear that it is the duty of the Secretary of State to lay a statement of the Rules before Parliament, and
"If a statement laid before either House of Parliament under this subsection is disapproved by a resolution of that House passed within a period of forty days beginning with the date
292
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. What we are awaiting now is the further statement. That can be laid by the Secretary of State within 40 Sitting days. We do not yet formally know the precise dates of the Christmas Recess. I am not certain of the exact day, but perhaps the noble Viscount can tell us. My reckoning is that it must be early in February, if the Recess lasts as we understand, to about January 23, because it is of course the Sitting days of the House that count. I do not think that this is of vast consequence but it might he helpful if the noble Viscount makes it as clear as he can.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know the length and dates of the Christmas Recess, either. The situation as the noble Baroness stated it is right. New Rules must be laid by some time in January or February—that is the latest—under the provision which the noble Baroness read out.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, if the Secretary of State is able to complete his consultations and lay the Rules a little earlier it would be for the general convenience, for we have then another 40 days. We can go on with this procedure, as I understand it, and can go on considering the Rules and giving advice to the Government. This is not our fault; it was in the Act that was passed. But it appeared to my noble friends and myself that, regardless of what might be done or said in another place, there was the advantage, before the Government proceeded to lay their revised version of the current Rules, that they should have the benefit of the advice of Members of our House who have considerable interest, and some of them considerable knowledge and experience in this field; and the list of those who wish to take part in the debate to-day is evidence of it. So I hope a broadening of the debate will be acceptable to your Lordships. It is partly to avoid misunderstanding—because so many noble Lords are saying that the Rules are dead and gone—and because we could not explain this individually to

293
every one of your Lordships that it seemed simpler to change the terms of the Motion. I hope your Lordships will forgive that excursion into how the present Motion made its appearance on the Order Paper, but I thought it might be elightening.
The Motion starts with what I think many people who have studied this matter consider to be of considerable importance: that there really is a need to review not just the arrangements for immigration but the basis of our law of citizenship, because a good deal of the confusion and difficulty, and some of the heartburning that has been experienced during the past few years, really arises from the fact that in our usual British way we have muddled along in this matter of citizenship and at present there is no definition. I stand to be corrected by the noble Viscount, who is a lawyer, but I think I am right in saying that there is no definition of British citizenship as such. There are definitions of various categories of persons, but I make out that there are about five different types of what might loosely be termed "British citizens" plus patrials, and this in itself leads to confusion and possible irritation and frustration.
I do not propose to go into all the details, but I would remind your Lord-ships that a person claiming association with Britain may be either a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a Commonwealth citizen, a British subject—for the purposes of free movement of labour within the European Community he has to be a British national—and, as we all know, in certain circumstances he can be a patrial. But there is a very confused area and, therefore, although this does not plainly come within the ambit of the original Motion on the Rules I think it underlines the feeling of unease as to the application of these Rules, and it would be encouraging to know that Her Majesty's Government were giving some thought to the question of pursuing a little further a Bill, not on immigration but on citizenship. I think this will require consultation (and much deeper and longer consultation than is likely to be taken in what remains of the 40 days) with other members of the Commonwealth, and we should welcome any positive steps that the Government may be contemplating.
294
Having said that—and I dare say that other noble Lords may wish to take up the point—so far as the Rules themselves are concerned there is no doubt from the correspondence which has appeared in The Times and elsewhere that there is considerable concern about the natural and inevitable consequences of the decision to join the European Community and of the way in which our own immigration legislation has been framed over the past ten years, culminating in the Act of 1971. It will be observed that the terms of the Motion suggest that in their emendations to the Immigration Rules on and after entry, "the Government should remove as far as possible". I recognise that this is not an accurate phrase, but I realise that there are disparities between citizens of the Common-wealth and those of the European Community, and that these disparities are causing great concern to many people, and not only in this country. I know that there are one or two noble Lords who have connections with Australia and who have had very strong representations from their friends and family there. As I understand it, we cannot do anything about the favourable position, as it now is, of citizens of the European Community in regard to entry into Britain. If we go into the Common Market on January 1 this is part of the engagements we have entered into. What we should then ask ourselves is whether we can do anything to improve the position of citizens from Commonwealth countries. Then, of course, it is not only the people in the European Community who will have this favourable position. What many of us find harder to stomach is that not only can a national of one of the European Community countries come in by himself to take work, and to stay here as long as he likes, provided that he has a job and registers with the police, but he can bring in his family, up to the age of 21 (instead of 18); and he can bring in his parents and his grandparents—and those on his wife's side as well. When we look at the way in which we have examined the position of Commonwealth people who wish to come to this country and compare their conditions with the conditions which apply to people from the European Community I think it is quite natural that we should ask ourselves whether we can reasonably

295
do anything further to redress the balance by improving conditions for citizens of Commonwealth countries which would make their position at least appear a little less inequitable.
This matter was debated at some length on Amendments put forward by my noble friend Lord Shepherd during the Committee stage (and there were further discussions on Report stage) of the Immigration Bill. I have before me here, for example, the debate on July 19, 1971, when an Amendment put forward, very much in this sense, was voted down in your Lordships' House. I do not know what is to be the basis of the consultation by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and the Foreign Secretary which is to take place in the very near future. Perhaps we may be enlightened. One basis of consultation could be a principle of varying our immigration procedures according to reciprocal arrangements between different members of the Commonwealth. I am not saying that that would necessarily lead to satisfactory results, but it is at least a possible and rational way in which one could proceed.
If your Lordships will permit me, I should like now to draw attention to something that I myself said on July 19, 1971, when the noble Marquess. Lord Lothian, was speaking for the Government, and he stressed that the advantages to nationals of the European Community countries were based on reciprocity, whereupon I was bold enough to intervene and ask:
"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."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/7/71; col. 775.]
This was in July, 1971. Why did we have to wait, if the Government were going to proceed on the basis of reciprocity, until after one part of the Rules had been voted down in another place? And we should perhaps be told what consultations, if any, have taken place in the intervening 18 months or so since the Immigration Bill was debated in this House and the Government voted down the Amendments we moved in favour of the Commonwealth. The Government were fully aware that this was a matter causing considerable concern, and one would assume that, even if not in
296
quite so dramatic a way as it may now have to be, there were some consultations. After all, the reaction which the Rules, as they have now been published, have aroused could have been foreseen, and it would be valuable and interesting if we could be told what the preceding consultations were and how far the present consultations are expected to go. Nigeria, Canada, and I think Australia have been mentioned. I am not sure about New Zealand, but presumably if one is going to Australia one might as well travel the extra 1,000 miles or so. We should know what is intended and whether it will be achieved within the 40 days.
Another matter which is perhaps not as important to this House as to another place and which was raised in another place—after all, we are to some extent trying to work together on these issues—is the suggestion which was made there that the Government might well consult the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations of another place, because that Committee has spent a great deal of time on this and other matters. It would be interesting to know whether that is one of the matters which the Government are proposing.
Having put the subject into what seems to us to be its setting, I do not want to take up too much of your Lordships' time dealing with the actual details of the Rules, because presumably we shall have some occasion in the next period of 40 days to look at them. The object of the exercise to-day is at least partly to draw the Government's attention to matters which we may find difficult. As your Lordships know, we cannot amend these Rules. That is not within the power of Parliament. We can only express approbation or disapprobation—and ask the Secretary of State to take them away and look at them again.
Having worked closely on the original Act, and having mentioned many of these points in our earlier debates, I admit that I am disappointed that a great many matters which we discussed very fully, particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—who, with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, worked extremely hard on the measure when it was before us—seem not to have been met. Consider, for example, our comments about civil rights. Family deportation is something which many of

297
us found extremely distasteful. It has an element of guilt by association which we should not wish to have. It is particularly hard on a wife and her family if her husband is the one who has committed a crime or misdemeanour which leads to his being deported. I thought we should get an assurance that if a woman could show that she could support herself, and family if necessary, if allowed to stay in this country, that would he a strong prima facie case for allowing her to stay, but the words of the Rules are very weak indeed.
Coming to the question of children of one-parent families, one has to prove, unless the Secretary of State is willing personally to intervene, that the one parent settled in the United Kingdom has had the sole responsibility for the child's upbringing. In normal circumstances this is unreasonable, because often a grandmother or aunt has had that responsibility and not the particular parent. On the other hand, when the parent is in a position to take responsibility, he or she may say, "I now want to take over responsibility and look after my own child, because for some time I have not been able to do this." There are a number of matters of that kind. The right of appeal against refusal to admit while the applicant is still in this country is something which is grossly unfair as between the European Community and members of the Commonwealth. If their papers are not in order or if something has gone wrong, they may, in certain circumstances which noble Lords who are familiar with the Rules will understand, have to go all the way back before being able to institute an appeal. There are various matters of this kind about which we put the Government on warning that we are not happy. We feel that the Rules as so far amended do not take account of the strength of argument adduced in our debates on the Bill, and we hope that the Government will give the matter further consideration.
We are concerned not only with citizens of the countries of the European Community; we are very much concerned about what happens to others and to see that people who come in to work—the so called gästarbeiter,of whom there are nearly 2 million in West Germany—do not depress wages, social standards and
298
so on. We feel that it would be a great pity if we admitted not just the people to whom we are obligated, the members of the Community, but in practice Turks, Greeks, Moroccans and the rest, not because they would be any more favourably placed than Commonwealth citizens, because they would not, but for various social reasons which have appeared in the countries of the Community. I have discussed this matter with people responsible for trade union organisation, which is very difficult in, for example, catering, some of the clothing industries and employment of that kind. They say they feel that while Commonwealth citizens undertake many of the jobs in this country which some of our own workers do not favour, we are likely under the new provisions—with the restriction on Commonwealth immigrants, no work permits and lack of security; at present this is their one great advantage—to find that work of this kind will go to what I call Mediterranean workers rather than to Commonwealth people.
Further afield, I do not know how many of your Lordships saw reports the week before last about people being brought in from the Philippines. Prior to this debate we were discussing the Uganda Asians. Surely they could he trained to do the work which these people from the Philippines are apparently being brought in to do. I understand that a clothing factory in the West Country is bringing in 400 of them.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: It is in Lancashire.
BARONESS WHITE: With respect to the noble Viscount, I spoke to the managing director of this firm—I will give the noble Viscount the details later—and I gather that they are planning to bring in 400 to the South-West. People from the Philippines are also going to the North-West. This is not just a question of kith and kin. We have people in the Commonwealth who are trainable and who are just as much in need of work of this kind, and we feel that the Rules as proposed by the Government for immigration will not help in this situation. Indeed, we think that they will make it more difficult, not only for what is incorrectly called the old Commonwealth but also for the citizens of other

299
countries in the Commonwealth with whom we also have ties of very long standing. It is for these and many other reasons, which I am sure other noble Lords will wish to bring before the House, that we felt it right to table this Motion, which I have the pleasure of moving. I beg to move for Papers.
5.10p m.
LORD BALLANTRAE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not in the House, it falls to me to speak next, and I must ask your Lordships' indulgence on at least two if not three, counts. The first is because this is my maiden speech; and I am setting a precedent in a maiden speech, in that I must leave before the end of the debate to speak at a dinner to which I had accepted an invitation even before I was a Member of your Lordships' House. Then, I must declare an interest in that my father's father went to New Zealand as Governor in 1871; my mother's father went in 1892; my father went as Governor-General in 1924, and I myself in 1962. It would be incredible, therefore, if I were not to have strong feelings in this subject which your Lordships are now debating.
And before the charge is laid, I would plead "not guilty" to jumping on any recent bandwagon, because I have been hammering away at this subject ever since the 1962 Act was passed. I have been very worried about it. Two days after I got back from New Zealand in 1967, I went to call on the then Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations to express my concern and worry about the matter. I was given a very courteous and sympathetic hearing. During the time of the last Government, I had a courteous and sympathetic hearing from the Minister then at the Home Office; and during the present Government from his successor, who is now in Bermuda. I received every sympathy but no real encouragement. One of the people kind enough to give me a hearing said that we could not go in for "discrimination ". It had never occurred to me that discrimination was a dirty word (there are 14 letters in it for a start); others tried to fob me off with talks of the "patrials". That word was acceptable, I thought, if we could not get any better; but the "patrial" solution fell by the wayside.
300
There are things which New Zealanders cannot say for themselves, but which people like me and other Members of your Lordships' House with one foot in both camps, can perhaps say. When the former Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Right Honourable John Marshall, came to this country to ask for special consideration in the situation then developing, he did not remind us of our indebtedness to New Zealanders; he did not remind us of any blood obligation or any other obligation we might have; he merely stated his case with great dignity and very effectively, and never became a bore about it. Never did he push round a begging bowl or remind us in sentimental terms about our obligations. In 1939 when war broke out, the very day that Britain declared war, the then Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Right Honourable Michael Savage, head of the then Labour Government, contented himself with saying: "Where Britain goes, we go!" and throughout the war, New Zealand, that country so rich in foodstuffs, put herself on voluntary rationing in order to feed us. Those are things that New Zealanders will never remind us of, but I venture to remind your Lordships of them.
I have no time to waste on "hard cases" of immigration discourtesies or other difficulties which have arisen. We all have dossiers, a foot thick, about those, but I would remind your Lordships of some New Zealanders in this country who could not have come here under the present rules. I was going to refer to the late Chief of the Defence Staff, a Member of your Lordships' House; but I see that even under the present Rules they are privileged to go on serving us in the Armed Forces, in the police and in the Houses of Parliament. I could not detect many other privileges which still remain to them. But the present Governor of Northern Ireland, the present Dean of St. Paul's, two leading businessmen, the leading dancer at Sadler's Wells—all these are among the people who have made their careers in this country, have served this country, but who, under the Rules introduced in 1962, could not come into this country permanently. It seems to me absurd. In New Zealand there is no discrimination whatsoever about entry. It may be that they do not have the problems we have. But during my five years there scores,

301
hundreds, thousands of people came in freely, some to settle and others—for example, many young men between school and university—to earn a living for a short time and then come back to this country if they so wished or to stay there if they so wished. We discriminate against them, but they do not discriminate against us.
Canada, no doubt for good reasons, does have strict rules of entry—work permits, and so on; but not New Zealand. Let me give your Lordships one more instance. The great-grandfather of the new Prime Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Norman Kirk, went to New Zealand from my native county of Ayrshire in the 1850s, and his great grandmother went out in the same decade from the Kingdom of Fife. So he is a fourth generation New Zealander. But when he was my guest in Scotland four years ago—and he had never been there before—his first concern was to trace his relations. And he found them. These are links of which he was proud and which he wanted to maintain. I believe that everybody with any soul at all will sympathise with him in that desire.
I believe that this question has become confused. The question I am pursuing has nothing whatsoever to do with matters of colour. I am not suggesting that we choose who conies in and out of Britain freely because of the colour of his or her skin. What I am saying is that people who have gone out from this country or whose forebears went out from this country, and who have retained their allegiance to the Sovereign of their country and ours, have every moral right to come in and out from here at will, as so many have done up until 1962.
So far, my Lords, I have stated the case on largely sentimental grounds. but I want to be constructive as well. First of all, what is my objective and the one which I think should be ours? It is to ensure the freest possible entry for the people I have been describing in the conditions in which we now find ourselves, even if it should mean new legislation. I am talking about those—and why is this phrase becoming unfashionable?—who are of our own "kith and kin ". What possible solutions, then, are there?
I can think of quite a number, but I imagine that it is impossible, perhaps,
302
to go back to before the 1962 Act. But it may be possible to look at that Act again to see how it can apply to old Commonwealth countries only. I admit that that does not take care of those countries which have been part of the British Commonwealth for much longer—like Barbados, which has often been quoted. Perhaps some form of patrial solution can be found. It fell by the wayside without being properly considered, I thought. Or perhaps there could be some form of reciprocity with those countries who want it. Canada may not want it. I cannot speak for Canada, but I am sure that New Zealand wants it. I think that New Zealand ought to have it.
Your Lordships have been very patient with me and I will not detain you any longer, but I must say that I am sure that we ought to keep our eyes on the objective and not worry too much about the difficulties. In a famous minute during the war from Sir Winston Churchill to Lord Mountbatten referring either to Mulberry Harbours or to new landing ships—I forget which—Sir Winston Churchill said: "Do not talk to me about the difficulties; the difficulties will argue themselves". My Lords, thank you very much for your patience.
5.19 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am fortunate in having the privilege of extending congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, on his maiden speech. He brings to this House a brilliant record of military achievement supplemented by administrative experience. He was naturally welcome in New Zealand where the admiration for prowess, both military and in sport, is of the highest order. His popularity was great. He endeared himself to everybody there and, accompanied by his gracious lady, who is a descendant of that eminent Scottish family which, as those of us who have taken the trouble to look in the Queen's Room in the Library will know, is one of the signatories of the Act of Union between England and Scotland. It has been my good fortune, for business reasons, over the last forty years frequently to visit New Zealand, and I know well his popularity and the good his Governor-Generalship did to that country. May he frequently deploy his talents in this House.

303
I would also congratulate the noble Baroness who moved this Motion on the not inconsiderable and certainly infrequent success in twice in the same afternoon moving Motions germane to the same topic. As I begin the few remarks I want to record my thanks to my noble friend who is to reply, and to the Minister of State in another place, because in recent times I have addressed to them many inquiries seeking interpretation of many aspects of this matter, and they have been receptive and indulgent. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to give me some help in interpretation, or, if he cannot do that now, he will give me some written replies.
The first Motion dealt with compassion and assistance for a situation already arisen, and while some of us may be confused as to the necessity of it, there can be no question that it achieved an exercise in logistics of movement which will attract credit from the whole world. The noble Baroness brought out the difficulties of interpretation of many aspects. I refer again to the Uganda incident. Surely the speed with which apparently the necessary papers for entry into this country were issued was outstanding. We have all had experience of the difficulty of getting passports in different parts of the world. One suspects that to some degree there must have been haste which overrode care. The fact that there have been many references in the Press regarding people who entered improperly surely illustrates the point that I am making.
With regard to this Motion, when I read the wording I was moved to put down an Amendment which would say "control before entry", instead of "control on entry". Surely we have in the past had a great deal of evidence of the scale of illegal entry, which to some extent approaches a scandal. How do these individuals reach our shores unless they have been inadequately screened or their papers insufficiently investigated before they embarked on the vehicle, surface or air, which was to bring them here? I would support the noble Baroness by referring, if I may, to the speech in another place of Mrs. Shirley Williams, in moving the rejection of the Order, and the remarks of several subsequent speakers. Those of us who have
304
read those speeches carefully will have become sufficiently aware of the confusion, so often reiterated, which undoubtedly exists, and I would appeal to the Government for some manual of interpretation.
With the indulgence of the House, I will read from the official documents that have recently been put out listing the people who can enter the United Kingdom. They are: a national, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a Commonwealth citizen, a passport holder, a holder of a Home Office letter of consent (Section 12), a British-protected person, a passport holder subject to immigration control, and a resident or citizen of a British Crown Colony. Surely this suggests that we need some common factor of interpretation which will at least make it easier to understand the situation.
The noble Lord who has just made his maiden speech referred to the difficulties of interpretation. He brought out the particular point that he was interested in with regard to Australia, New Zealand and Canada. I know that my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who enlightened some of us in this House last week as to his feelings about this, will do justice to this particular subject, and I shall not spend time on it. Perhaps the noble Lord might suggest changing in some way the outside covers of passports for some different categories.
With regard to Uganda, some of us have been surprised from the beginning at the softness of the United Kingdom Government towards that ruthless, unprincipled dictator, despot, who surely long before this merited ejection from the Commonwealth, and should have attracted strictures of the most vehement kind from the United Nations, which has been conspicuously silent. That seems to be a clear example of double standards: criticism against whites, but complete silence about any discrimination or racialism, or whatever you like to call it, between blacks. The first Motion dealt with the unfortunates who have experienced rough treatment from Uganda. We should in this Motion be considering the subject of the total inflow in this year of non-whites of upwards of 60,000. There is no doubt that there are many who feel that excessive, and that it impinges on the formula of confining inflow to what

305
the country can absorb without damage to its national character and its institutions.
That is why I suggest to the noble Lord that the Government give careful consideration forthwith to curtailing—some even go so far as to say completely ceasing—temporarily the inflow of what was expected from other quarters. I am unhesitatingly one who puts consideration of our own people first. Of course there is the danger of this large inflow, and with regard to which, let us note, there has been singularly little assistance coming to us in action or sympathy from other African countries. Had South Africa taken action towards expelling some of her Asian citizens, what a howl there would have been from the United Nations, as against the sinister silence experienced!
It is proper in a debate like this to mention the question of repatriation. I am firmly convinced that there are a great number of the non-whites in this country who, if they were offered sufficiently attractive conditions for repatriation, would take advantage of it and return to their own countries. I know that my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh will deal with the subject of reciprocity, and the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, recommended it in his maiden speech; and even the noble Baroness who introduced the debate referred to it. Reciprocity should be a possible way of dealing with this difficult position.
Again, I emphasise the danger from too large a flow—60,000 or upwards—to housing, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness; employment; education; accommodation in schools, and the illnesses which occur here to people unaccustomed to a cold country even if they are not actual carriers of the illness. There is another point; surely there is a lot of hypocrisy in the habitual attitude associated with racialism that we should assist dispersal and integration with our national population. This must mean complete physical integration, so then we shall have an increased number of mulattoes. I am against that; I believe that the country as a whole is against it, and I think that too many non-whites can be an actual danger from the security angle. Wherever you go in the world, you will find that these Asiatics have the tendency gregariously to concentrate; they want to maintain their national
306
characteristics, culture, religion and education, and they do not want dispersal. If you are going to encourage too many of these non-white settlements, surely at some point that will introduce a security risk.
I have asked some questions which I hope the noble Viscount will be able to answer. Governments can always find reasons why this and that should not be done, but I believe there is a widespread feeling, for a revision of existing policy. One is confused by the 1962 Act, the 1968 Act, the 1971 Act, and all their mutations. I emphasise my belief that it would be wise for the Government to act drastically and swiftly. I will finish on a topical note. The night before last I attended outside London a political seminar, and I was interested to gather from several talks made that impatience with and uneasiness about immigration was the dominant topic. I hope that the noble Viscount may be able to deal with some of the suggestions advanced and which the noble Baroness also recommended.
5.37 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I have two apologies to make to begin with. First, I have just risen from a bed of sickness, and I apologise for my voice; and secondly, I regret to say that I will have to "do a Goodman" and will not be able to make the end of this debate. The first thing that I should like to do is to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, on his maiden speech. I hope, trust and pray, that we hear from him often. He and I have quite a lot in common, as I will explain in a minute, so far as New Zealand is concerned; but I take a step further, over to Australia. He is a Scotsman, and he knows full well that most of the main builders of New Zealand and Australia were Scotsmen. But so far as New Zealand is concerned we, from the West Country, had a certain part to play. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not here, because I was going to mention to him a long list of names from the West Country as he is a fellow West Country man.
May I also mention, as he cannot be here to-day, the noble Earl, Lord Buckinghamshire, who, for 30 years, toiled in Australia working, as I did, with

307
his hands, and in the war served in the ranks of the Royal Australian Air Force. He has authorised me to say that he agrees 100 per cent. with everything that I am saying to-day; that he would have said it to-day, and he would have said it last week had I moved my Motion. While mentioning the noble Earl, one ought to congratulate him on "committing" matrimony in the fairly advanced years of his life, and, what is more, to congratulate him on marrying an Australian widow. Another person I know who would love to be here to-day but cannot, and who would have been here last week had that been possible, is the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord de L'Isle, who, as you all know, is an ex-Governor General of Australia. Another ex-Governor writes to me saying that he is precluded because of his position from taking part in the debate to-day, but says:
"I feel like Charles Fry, a most loquacious man, to whom during the two minutes' silence Neville Cardus remarked quietly, ' This must be killing you. Charles!'".
What I mean to say is that there are many other people who feel as strongly as I and my noble friend Lord Ballantrae on this subject.
To get down to the facts, I should like to point out that for the last 8 years I have been hammering home this question in your Lordships' House. I have been trying to do something to improve relations between the country of my birth and the country of my forefathers. But, not being a great newspaper proprietor, most of what I have said has gone unheeded. As the person in the pulpit is allowed to choose a text, I wonder whether I may start my speech to-day by quoting something from a little village 14,000 miles away, which has a war memorial stating:
"Tell England, ye that mark this monument Faithful to her we died and rest content."
Have we by our actions in the past ten years done anything, or will we by our proposed actions in the near future do anything, to return that faith? I leave that to your Lordships.
I have an interest to declare. I have declared it earlier and I shall declare it again to-day in a little more detail, for which I apologise. But I want to emphasise this point of how you get a British passport, or how you are allowed in.
308
My interest is a matter of family history and I trust that I shall not be considered a "skite", which is Australian for a "show off" in what I say, because there are a thousand and one other families in like positions. By the same token, I must confess that I am not ashamed of my relations and fellow countrymen, or of their achievements.
Though I am not a "my country, right or wrong" individual, I am even less what is known as a "knocker", which I think is a word in common use here now but which I think also arose in Australia. Of course, Australia and New Zealand have their percentage of "knockers". Some even come over here and some end up on television. This country also has its "knockers". They are a small minority but they are very strident. I think the best definition I have found of a "knocker" is in one of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas, and it is:
"The idiot who praises with enthusiastic tone
All countries but this
All races but his own."
In 1842, a certain Charles Clifford went out to New Zealand and, with his partner and cousin William Vavasseur, opened up the first sheep run, which is now called a station. Vavasseur came back after a few years, married a daughter of the Lord Clifford of the time and his descendants are now throughout New Zealand. Charles Clifford then took on as his partner another West Country man and cousin called Frederick Weld and they flourished. Clifford became the first Speaker of the New Zealand House of Representatives; Frederick Weld became one of the first Prime Ministers and then went on to become Governor of Western Australia, Tasmania and the Malay States. There he got a young cousin called Hugh Clifford to enter the Colonial Service, and he added Pahang to the British Empire. I mention these facts only because I know that there are several other noble Lords here who started under that relation.
The next generation, my grandfather—another younger son—went out to the cousins in New Zealand, married in New Zealand, and my father and his elder brother were born there. He then moved on to Tasmania. The year I was born, his elder brother died and he came back here to take his seat in your Lordships' House. When I was

309
11, after my mother died, I was shipped over here—a latter-day "little Lord Fauntleroy". After I left university, I went into the Army. Towards the end of the war, I married the sister of another Member of your Lordships' House (I was still a serving soldier) and I produced a son—or rather my wife did. However—and this is where his mistake lies—he happened to be born in the British Military Hospital in Singapore and was entered in Part II Orders of the 1st Battalion, the Devonshire Regiment. I ask your Lordships to bear that in mind, if we are to look at how the system operates.
After I left the Regular Army, I went out to Australia for 8 years and my two younger children were born there. I then came back here, but when I tried to get my son a British passport I was told that he could not have one. This was after the 1962 Act. Not only was he not born in this country, but he made the awful mistake of having a father and a grandfather who were not born in this country. It was suggested that he was a Singaporean. I was quite convinced that the Singaporeans did not want to have anything to do with him. So after a great deal of trouble, I managed to go through the rigmarole of persuading somebody to let him have a passport. He had to have a passport, because he had just gone into the Army. So that even to this day, he has to have a little document in his passport stating that even though he was born in Singapore he is allowed to call himself British. This is not an isolated case, but it happens to be my son's case; and, to add insult to injury, I may say that it has not stopped the Government of this country sending him for three tours of duty in Northern Ireland. There are other examples of the position in which a lot of people find themselves, or have found themselves, and which emphasise the reason why something should be done urgently to correct these Rules which have done a great deal to make the relationship between our countries so much worse than it should be. Bear in mind, my Lords, that while all of this has been going on we have been issuing hundreds of thousands of British passports to other people. I am not complaining about that. All I am saying is that it is con-
310
sidered insulting by some of us that this sort of thing is going on.
About five years ago, I returned from a visit to Australia. We had an almost empty plane as far as Karachi, where we filled up with, I presume, a lot of Pakistanis. Some of them had been there on holiday—and why not'?—and had probably been over here for the requisite time to get a British passport. But when we arrived at Heathrow and were going through the "Commonwealth" gate a whole lot of these other chaps were going through the "U.K. passport" gate. A young New Zealander behind me, in a voice a good deal louder than it should have been, looked at those fellows and said, "I suppose if I was Tariq Ali I, too, would get the V.I.P. treatment". Can you blame him, my Lords? Does Tariq Ali have a British passport and, if so, why? It would be interesting to know. In September, 1970, I returned from leading a three-man Parliamentary mission to Brazil. From time to time, I had had a bit of trouble with the two blokes from the other place, but they certainly had the last laugh on me when we arrived at Heathrow, because they went through a channel called "British Passports and Republic of Ireland" and when they looked back they held their sides with laughter while I spent 20 minutes trying to persuade an Indian immigration officer that I had as much right to be here as he had.
Four years ago a young Australian journalist on a South Coast paper, together with his editor, got in touch with me to ask whether I could do anything in the way of getting his permit extended. I said there was not much hope but I would do what I could. Two days later I had an urgent telephone call saying, "Don't do anything". I said, "All right", and then I made some surreptitious inquiries to find out what had happened. What had happened was that he had heard the buzz about the Republic; he had discovered a long-lost Irish grandmother; he had popped over to the Republic of Ireland; he had swapped his Australian passport for a Republic of Ireland passport; and he could then come and go as easily as he liked.
The Agent-General for Tasmania was staying with me last year, and we were

311
discussing this particular subject and the ill-feeling it had caused between our countries. Suddenly his 14-year-old son said, "You know, you should not be here, Dad". His father said, "What?" The son said, "Your passport says you should have left". So we sent the boy upstairs for his father's passport. He brought it down, and there on the passport of the Agent-General for Tasmania, coming for at least a three-year appointment, was stamped, "Limited to six months only ". By all means insult your enemies, my Lords, but why your friends and relations? Why, also—and this is a matter to be borne in mind, I feel—your fellow subjects of the Queen? One of the most pathetic cases was the earliest, when a New Zealander wrote to me in November, 1967. He had fought for us, he said, in the last war; he had lost two brothers in that war; he was over here visiting a sister who was dying of cancer, and he found it most ignominious that, because his sister was lasting a little longer than was thought would be the case, he had to go to the Home Office to get his extension renewed. Of course he got it renewed: the point I am getting at is that it is damned insulting that he had to.
The other day I was reading an article by John Mossman in the Daily Telegraph of December 7, 1967, and it amused me. It was quoting the Press in Australia, especially the Sydney Bulletin.What amused me somewhat was that the scathing attacks on the Wilson Government at the time were, of course, practically word for word the attacks on the present Government which are going on both in the Australian Press and here. The earliest case I had was of the young Hobart boy. Hobart is where I was born and my noble friend Lord Rowallan was, of course, Governor of Tasmania. This boy, who had overstayed his welcome, broke his ankle and was taken to hospital. His friends missed him, and asked the police to find him. When the police found him in hospital they arrested him and put him inside for 30 days. I managed to raise that case in your Lordships' House, and that was the time when I stood up holding my Australian passport and said, "I have got one; I work here, and have no work permit. When am I going to be
312
arrested?" It did not get much mention in the Press here, but it received quite a bit out there. What amused me, or amazed me, about that matter was that I later got a letter from the mother of this boy. Instead of being full, as might have been expected, of complaints, she said she was full of gratitude for the way everybody over here, as far as she could see, had reacted to this case, and for all the nice offers that the boy had had—which, of course, we did not hear about in the Press. What impressed her most was that an Army major serving in Germany at the time had written to her and offered the boy a home for as long as he liked. I wrote back to her and said, "Madam, our politicians and bureaucrats may have no sense of shame or gratitude, but you may be certain that the British soldier would never forget his comrades in arms in time of trouble ". I am quite certain that that letter was read at the local R.S.L. Meeting—that is the British Legion to your Lordships—fairly soon afterwards.
Now, my Lords, we come to this Parliament, and your Lordships will remember that late one night, ably supported by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery, I moved an Amendment which would have allowed these countries, on a reciprocal basis, to get over this insulting treatment. After a couple of rather nasty speeches—at least, they were nasty so far as I was concerned—the Government, in the person of the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, who should have known better, refused to accept it. Can you wonder at my scepticism when I read now that this question of reciprocity is one of the re-reforms that is being considered?
The latest case—and the last of the cases I am going to mention—occurred only three weeks ago and concerned my friend Bill Spowers. He had joined up at 16, and was wounded in what in Australia is called "the Islands ". While recuperating he went as A.D.C. to his godfather the noble Lord, Lord Casey, who I think was then Governor of Bengal. From there he transferred to the Grenadier Guards here, and he served for many years. Eventually he retired, and he is now a director and the chief book-man at Christies. But he is an Australian. He came here and married, and he has property here, children and all the rest

313
of it. Late one night he flew in from Amsterdam. There was nobody opposite the Commonwealth passport entrance, but there was somebody opposite the British passport entrance. He went in. and there he was told by an Indian interrogator, "You get out of here! You bloody Australians want the lot"—and he was sent down to the aliens' entrance. Being a spirited ex-Grenadier, Bill Spowers then set about work, and I am quite certain that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, knows of the letter he wrote to Mr. Carr, as the Australian Press know of the telegram he sent to Her Majesty the Queen. But what I liked best, I think, was that bit of his letter to the Foreign Secretary referring to his godfather's visit here (that is, Lord Casey) next June. He quoted what Lord Casey had written, saying that it was "with dismay that he saw in this legislation the destruction of all he has worked for over the last 60 years," and he wondered if, when he arrived, he, as a Knight of the Garter, would be asked whether he has a work permit.
My Lords, I had intended to end here and let these cases speak for themselves, but two things happened. One was the Amendment to my Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, which altered things as they were last week, and the second was the appearance of an article in The Times of December 2, by a chap named Caminada—a nice Anglo-Saxon name—which was entitled,
"Kith and kin—A myth wearing thin"
He started by stating that 12 pet cent. of Australians are now ethnically not from this country. My Lords, so what? My last information is that it was 8 per cent., but even so that is a greater percentage than in England itself—probably greater now, with the recent influx. The next anti-Australian argument he makes is that Australia is now a bigger trading partner with Japan and the United States of America. Again, so what? When Australia saw the intentions of this country to join the Common Market, they naturally took the necessary steps. Surely it is the first duty of every Government to protect the standard of living of their citizens. But, even so, this article does not go on to mention the trade with this country. Last year Australia bought £365 million worth from us, and we bought £276 million worth from them. They are
314
1971 figures. But, of course, that information did not go in that article. If you want to lose that £100 million advantage which you have at present, then I suggest that you let the laissez faire business go on and do nothing about it.
Another complaint was that Australia was not buying British planes. How petty can you be? B.O.A.C. has bought more U.S. planes that has Quantas. If your Lordships or Caminada want another home truth, I can say that if you are referring to military planes, a friend of mine, Sir Valston Hancock, ex-chief of the Australian Air Staff, recommended the purchase of a certain British fighter on one condition. That one condition was that Britain herself would back it. They did not back it; so Australia went over to the second alternative. I think that these arguments are rather despicable.
The next thing Mr. Caminada tried to do was to denigrate the Australian and New Zealand war effort by comparing them with the Indian contribution. This ignores two factors: first, the comparison with the population of New Zealand (then one and a half million) with that of the Indian sub-continent with its three hundred million; and, secondly, that the pre-war forces from countries like India and West Africa were largely Colonial forces, mercenaries, officered entirely by people from these Islands—and very good they were! I have served with them and alongside them. But there is a difference between them and the forces of countries with freely-elected Governments, forces which are under their own officers.
On Monday last, I read something which it might have done the writer of this article some good to know. The Times has a little column called "25 years ago". On Monday, December 4, it read:
"From The Times of Wednesday, December 3, 1947.
"Food ships arrive.
"The ship' City of Ely' has arrived in the Thames with £25,000 worth of gift food from the Government of Victoria. She also has on board 3,864 parcels from the Returned Soldiers' League of Victoria for distribution by the British Legion.
"Seven other food ships from Australia are due to arrive in Britain within the next 10 days, and of a further 30 now on their way the majority should arrive by Christmas."

315
I do not know the age of the writer of that article; but he might have read his own paper a few days later.
The letter from the noble Lord, Lord Walston—and I wrote to him saying—
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Walston is at Strasbourg on Parliamentary business.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I am sorry that he is not here, but in that letter I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that he made some points which I feel I have a right to comment on. In that letter he said:
the value of the Commonwealth is in its multi-racial aspect".
The Commonwealth, Yes! But the Commonwealth, as we know it now, is a post-war invention of, to some, varying degrees of value. Before that we had the Colonial Empire and old Dominions. He has accused me, and presumably some of my friends, of meaning by "old Commonwealth" the white Commonwealth. What I mean is the old Dominions. The fact that those of British descent form, or formed, a large majority over the Maoris in New Zealand or the "Abos" in Australia or the French Canadians in Canada, is to my mind an irrelevance. The noble Lord, Lord Hale, aptly said that it is stupid to pretend that one does not get a warmer feeling when referring to the inhabitants of British Columbia as against those of Quebec. In other words, it is not colour but relationship. If I prefer my family to that of, say, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, does that make me a racialist? If I prefer to have—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord will recollect that I am Canadian.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I am glad to hear it. Another one of us! If I prefer to have members of my family in my spare room to having, say, members of—who shall I choose this time?—the family of the noble Viscount, Lord Masserene and Ferrard—if that makes me a racialist then I am one.
One of my Ghanaian friends, an Ashanti, now in their Ministry of Agriculture, when staying with me—and mark that, anyone who "points the bone"!
316
said: "You are a funny race. If one of your colour said in Accra what I heard those of my colour saying in Hyde Park last week"—and, my Lords, this was four years ago—"about you and your Government. he would be lynched, kicked out, expelled, with all his friends. I don't know how you put up with it" I thought that to recount that to those who try to "point the bone" might result in a slight balancing of feelings in this matter.
Lastly, the noble Lord in his letter said that those who believe, as I do, that I and my Australian and New Zealand cousins should get preference over the inhabitants of our ex-Colonies—some of whom are Republican and anti-British—are (and I quote) "taking the lead in killing the Commonwealth". Touché! The noble Lord is entitled to his opinions and I am entitled to mine. He can have his Amins and his Nkrumahs and his other preferences. If we were to be at war to-morrow, I bet that not many of his precious Commonwealth would lift a finger to help, no matter what the circumstances. The war would be branded a racialist, Colonist, Imperialist one. I bet that mine still would help.
My Lords, I end as I began. Please accept—late in the day as it is—the reciprocal Amendment that I put down to the last Immigration Bill. Remember, again, my Lords, my text from that New Zealand village war memorial:
"Tell England ye that mark this monument "Faithful to her we died and rest content."
Remember that rather than the blandishments of the inverted racialists!
6.7 p.m.
LORD REAY: My Lords, the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady White, combines a number of propositions not all of which the individual Peer who speaks this afternoon can be expected to pursue. With the first of them, the need for us to review our law of citizenship, I have no hesitation in expressing my agreement. The position at the moment is quite ludicrous and the sort of courtly system of distinction by small gestures and favours distributed here and there to different groups, a privilege of one sort to one group, a privilege of another sort to another group, is a system out of

317
another century and needs to be swept away in its entirety.
We listened to a most remarkable and engaging maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. This plainly carried the stamp of a speech by a distinguished and experienced public man. I agreed very much with what he said towards the end when he, like other noble Lords, indicated that we should look at the possibility of introducing some system of reciprocity, and also when he said that the method was less important than the acceptance of the principle. I think that if we decide to change some of the principles that apply in this field, we shall not have a problem in finding a method. But I wish basically to follow only one aspect of this problem; namely, the situation and background of the Ugandan crisis and our need to prevent its recurrence.
My Lords, the coloured immigration into this country within the last two decades is an experience without parallel in this country's history and perhaps without parallel in the history of any country. This is true, notwithstanding arguments used by, in particular, the official Opposition, that for us to continue to absorb large numbers of coloured immigrants is in accordance with our traditions. In the first place, there is a difference in scale. In the past, the largest number of foreign immigrants we took in were the Jews. In the 1930s, we added to our existing Jewish population by a factor of about 25 per cent.—a large increase. But even then, by 1939 our Jewish population was less than 1 per cent. of the total population. And we had absorbed that number over 300 years. There has been nothing to compare with the build up within fifteen years of 1½ million to 2 million immigrants from the new countries of the Commonwealth.
The second difference is that our previous immigrations were intra-European. No previous immigration has produced a gap in experience anything like so profound as that between the European and the races of Africa and of the Indian sub-continent. Of course, in our era, for the first time, those races in charge of their sovereign States have to come into contact with and to compete with the States of Europe and other States on the basis of equals, within the context
318
of the ever-shifting pattern of power in the world. Those relationships will develop. We hope that some will prove friendly and constructive. But there is no prospect of, nor is there any evidence to expect, the integration of those elements resident here into our population within this country. As I have said on another occasion in your Lordships' House, for the most part they are not exiles severed from contact with their countries of origin. On the contrary, they have a constant temptation to continue to belong to the culture of the countries they have left, or, if they are negro, they have a tendency to be drawn into a sort of international brotherhood that refrains from accepting any national identity. These groups are, and will remain, foreign bodies in the structure of British society, and however stable that society and however strong its identity, its tolerance of such foreign bodies must be crucially related to their size and number.
The third factor which distinguishes this immigration from all previous immigrations—and this is perhaps the most important factor for all for an understanding of the British reaction to the Uganda crisis—is the unique historic fact that this country is expected to be the host to all immigrants from this source. In the great immigrations of the past, we were never the sole—we were never even the primary—recipient of the immigrants. In all cases we simply played our part as one of a number of sympathetic nations who saw it as their duty (or in some cases as their advantage) to provide a home for the dispossessed. I am sure that within the limits of our strained capacity, we should always be anxious to play such a role. British sympathy is quite sufficient to respond warmly to the episodic calamities that befall foreign communities. But what I understand the British people to want is for us to sever finally that link with the past that obliges us to be the unwilling victim of policies that were fashioned when an earlier political generation took a different and, let it be added, an unrealistic view of our position in the world.
At the present time the Government are trapped between, on the one hand, the knowledge that they are most unlikely to be able to admit again a similar influx

319
and, on the other hand, the need to summon a certain amount of courage to introduce a policy which will prevent it. We are therefore floating, without a policy in which we believe, relying on good fortune to preserve us from another emergency—although good fortune is something which the older generation, who have lived through a period of unparalleled displacements, should be the last to count on.
We must be in no doubt that it is a great comfort to other nations of the world that we continue to be in the position of the country that has assumed responsibility in emergencies of this nature. It was no surprise that India—whose assimilation of the Uganda Asians would have presented no cultural problem—was initially silent on the matter of what she might be prepared to do if she had to. Her Foreign Minister was reported as saying in Parliament:
"It would not be good for us to adopt a position which would relieve Britain of her responsibilities."
The reason for this is that the world has changed. No longer do countries need numbers, as they did in the days when the United States lay open before the Jews expelled from Russia under the Czars. No longer can migrations be considered a transfer of strength from one country to another, as they were when the Protestant countries of Europe grasped eagerly the Huguenots driven from the menacing power of Catholic France. For this reason, until we change our policy, there is much less to be gained from international co-operation than might be inferred from Ministerial speeches. Despite the enormous Ministerial effort made, we have still taken—what?—some three-quarters or two-thirds of the Asians expelled from Uganda. Such a proportion is not an acceptable solution for future crises.
I should now like to turn to the question of our vulnerability. What are the possibilities which we are relying on fortune to preserve us from? As I understand it, the figures are these—although I find it impossible to reconcile Government figures issued at different times, and if these figures, in the opinion of the Minister, need correction I shall be most pleased to receive such correction. There are now about a quarter of a million
320
people in Commonwealth countries who hold only British passports. In addition, there are a million or so who have British citizenship but who are also citizens of the countries in which they reside. How many of them actually hold British passports, as opposed to having the right to hold them, it might be interesting to hear.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, my noble friend means United Kingdom passport holders, does he not?
LORD REAY: Yes, my Lords. For the group as a whole, their very retention of a British passport is of course a provocation to expulsion; and so is the knowledge that we consider ourselves committed to receive them. But in addition, it is far from clear that at present we should not be vulnerable to a similar situation arising in the Colonies. There are perhaps 1 million British passport-holders in Dependent Territories, excluding Hong Kong—perhaps 3 million with Hong Kong. Now we are told that they are citizens of the Colonies they inhabit; but the fact, as I understand it, remains that they are in possession of that emotionally-loaded document, a British passport. And that fact is far more important than any qualifications introduced by legislation, any discreet symbols used to distinguish the passports of some of these holders from those of some others, as has been proved by what happened this August.
We cannot be certain, in an age when our military means has declined absolutely and when its geographic deployment has been contracted, that we can ensure through all circumstances the enjoyment by the populations of those Colonies of the undisturbed possession of their homes. For example, we could not pretend to challenge a serious threat to Hong Kong. Elsewhere in the Colonies, who is to say that a similar crisis, engaging the sympathy of the world for a group who are the victims of a situation that neither they nor we can control, will not arise? But if it does, what will happen? British passports will be waived and all eyes will turn to Britain and will wonder whether she dares to avoid a duty which the whole world says is hers and which she has never taken steps to deny is hers.

321
It is therefore absolutely necessary for Britain to bring to an end this liability and to do so in advance of the next crisis. Of course, I should not rule out, if the occasion arises, financial assistance; and if any Commonwealth country is going to expel any one of these groups I see no reason why we should not use money from our aid funds for such a purpose. But, for political and social reasons, we have reached the limit of our capacity to absorb them ourselves, and that fact, whatever the pressures, is paramount.
The problem, although Ministers seem at times to have implied the contrary, is not a legal one. It is a moral problem. The 1968 Act introduced the necessary legal authority to control as we chose the inflow of British passport holders. What it could not do was to arm us with the moral authority to apply its provisions in a crisis. That can happen only if we ourselves believe that what we do is right. The remark made by Mr. Callaghan in Committee in another place that in the event of expulsion we should be obliged to take the Asians—a remark which was only recently discovered to have been important—was not, as I see it, a legal comment, but a moral one. And morality does not lie in the adherence to a policy which we know to be an anachronism, undesired by the people of this country, humiliating to this country, dangerous for its future, and one which contributes to a distortion of international relations. Morality lies in the recognition that we committed an error that must be corrected out of a sense of responsibility of the most important kind we bear—that for our country's future.
But there will be another consequence if we act in the manner I am suggesting. For the problem of being able to set our own limits to immigration into this country and to select frankly those countries to which we wish to give preference is only a part of the total relationship we perpetuate with the developing world. For the system which exists is one in which we are vulnerable to more or less any political demand originating in the developing world. It is our hypocrisy, the fact that we claim to act according to a superior moral pattern, the fact that we claim to be uninfluenced by considerations of race when each immigration Act proves the contrary—it is this hypocrisy that has
322
made it impossible for us to alter our policies long after the need to alter them has become plain. Yet this hypocrisy is itself, of course, extremely well understood by other countries, and itself continually provokes their aggression against us.
The consequence is a recurrent intrusion of impossible demands, protests, lectures and instructions, of no constructive value, from the developing countries towards ourselves, whether at Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences, or at the United Nations, or at any international conference, whatever the subject due to be discussed, provided the opportunity seems to them favourable. Of course this pattern of weakness before the demands of the de-colonised world is shared by the West as a whole, but it is Great Britain who has the widest range of post-imperial contacts in the world. So it is ourselves who have most of these experiences. Correspondingly, any changes in this pattern that we succeed in introducing will be of value to the Western world as a whole. And we will have taken a notable step towards bringing an end to this pattern and towards normalising relations between ourselves and countries in the developing world if we now make it plain that we will not take in any more coloured immigrants, except in so far as there are strong arguments for us to do so according to our own needs as we see them, and except in so far as existing arrivals need their spouses and their dependent children.
Of course if we act in this way there will be a row; consequences must be anticipated. If some countries—however many of them—wish to withdraw from the Commonwealth, or from the next Olympic Games, or any international conference of their choice, then, with due expressions of regret, we must permit them to do so. A Government that was willing to sustain the retaliation of Russia when she expelled a hundred diplomats, should be able to endure the reaction of the Commonwealth. The row will not last long. And when it subsides the Government will find that their recovery of a sense of reality in this field of foreign affairs will provide a sense of relief that will spread beyond this country; and we should find it possible to renew relationships with those countries to which our

323
culture under our Empire has contributed so much, who need us still, and whose co-operation we also shall increasingly need in the great world problems of the future, and to do so on a franker, more equal and ultimately more dignified basis.
6.24 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, with very great interest. His contributions to our debate are always stimulating. He has the type of mind which is alert, which is always inquiring and seeking facts. And because it is doing that, and because it has not a biased attitude in that search, it is always changing. While I have been in this House I have seen the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches urging the most tolerant liberal attitudes. I have been associated with him in some efforts. Then I have seen him go to the Cross-Benches, a little uncertain, but his mind still active. Then I saw him going from the Cross-Benches to the Tory Benches. When he first got to the Tory Benches he was very moderate, not quite sure whether he ought to be there. Then I heard him to-night expressing the attitude of the most right-Wing of the Tory Party—Powellite in the extreme. I do not quite know where he will go next. I am not saying that cynically, because that type of man has some advantage when we are discussing issues. I know many of them, and I always find them stimulating.
My Lords, we have not made much reference to-night to a subject which must be most in our minds: what is to happen in regard to immigration when, in the New Year, we go into the European Community? Because I had expected others to deal with that subject in some detail, I do not propose to discuss it at any length. But I do not think there is any doubt whatsoever that when we go into the European Community the citizens of European countries will have greater advantages than those who are citizens of Commonwealth countries. That applies first to those who were members of the white Dominions and, as I shall express later, I have great sympathy with the citizens of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It applies secondly to a minority in the Commonwealth countries who are
324
non-white patrials. It applies most deeply to the great majority of those from the non-white Commonwealth who are non-patrials. It would be entirely wrong for us to hide the fact that entry into the European Community will be to the disadvantage of citizens who belong to the white Dominions, as well as to the citizens of those who are in the non-white territories of the Commonwealth. If the Minister is able to reassure us on that point, it will be valuable, even though there has not been much reference to that subject during the debate.
I want to say at once in response to previous speakers, and particularly in response to the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae—and I join with others in welcoming his maiden speech, and the clarity and force with which he expressed it—that I am in favour of greater immigration facilities for the white citizens of the Dominions of Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I recognise that there is an appeal in the kith and kin affinity. I have many relatives in Canada; I have relatives in Australia. If you go to Brisbane you will find a Brockway swimming club because one of the closest child comrades in my youth was Dorothy Brockway, who won the world's one mile women's swimming championship. I have my associations with Australia. I have not any closer friends in the world than those who are in New Zealand.
When we are looking at the old Dominions one has to recognise this fact, which was put very impressively by Mr. Richard Crossman in The Times this morning. While the old sentimental association of the older generations who have grown up in the Dominions with this country is very strong, in the younger generation of Canada, Australia or New Zealand it is less. It is less partly because of our entry into the European Community but also because of our immigration laws. We must face the fact that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are now going to become more self-reliant and more independent. It was reflected in the victory of Mr. Trudeau in Canada. It has been reflected—and on these Benches we welcome it—by the victory of the Labour Party in New Zealand and Australia. They are going to become more self-reliant, more independent, overthrowing the foreign policies which our

325
Government, America and Western Europe are pursuing, standing for the new ideal of neutralisation between the two great Power blocs. Therefore, when we are thinking of immigration from the old Dominions, we must keep in mind those new tendencies which are taking place in their populations.
While I want to see open avenues of immigration from Canada, Australia and New Zealand, I do not want to see that on the basis of discrimination against the citizens of other parts of the Commonwealth which are non-white. Let us remember—the point was put by the noble Lord, Lord Walston, in his letter to The Times to which reference has been made—that, while we speak of the "old Commonwealth" (Canada, Australia and New Zealand) the origin of the Commonwealth began long before then. Columbus discovered the West Indies in 1492. Cook landed in Botany Bay only in 1770. The beginning of the Empire, of the Commonwealth, was not in the white Dominions; it was in the Caribbean territories.
If we look at these Immigration Rules, we shall see at once discrimination against the citizens of non-white territories of the Commonwealth. They are divided into patrials and non-patrials in the 1971 Act. The patrials are those who have fathers who were born in this country. If I were immigrating into this country at this moment, I should be a non-patrial because I was born in India and my father was born in Africa. If I were immigrating into this country now, I should have no right to be here unless I had contracted a job for one year with an employer. I am insignificant, but the same applies to the Duke of Edinburgh. Until next year when we go into the European Community, if the Duke of Edinburgh were to come into this country he would be a non-patrial because he was born in Greece and his father was born in Germany, and he would be under other disadvantages to which I will refer later in my speech. He would have no right to come into this country because he was going to marry. Under the immigration laws which we are now discussing, a woman has a right to come here to her husband; a man has no right to come into this country because his wife is here. If the husband of Her Majesty were entering this country now, he would be under all the disabilities
326
which these immigration laws apply. My criticism of the present immigration laws is that they perpetuate and strengthen the discrimination which was in the 1971 Act.
I want to look particularly—and here I am making some comment on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay—at the situation in Uganda. I am as distressed and angry as anyone in this House by the policy which General Amin has followed. It has left an Asian population there which is in a condition of confusion. Some of them at the time of independence said, "We will become British citizens". Some of them said, "We will become Ugandan citizens". They made their applications. But, as anyone familiar with that country knows, month after month has passed without that Ugandan citizenship being recognised ill such a legalised form that they can make an appeal to it. There is utter confusion regarding the status of the Stateless in Uganda.
From all the information which I have received, mostly from Mrs. Mary Dines, the Secretary of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Commonwealth Immigrants, there are at least 100 so-called Stateless Africans in Uganda who are undoubtedly British citizens, who applied for British citizenship, but because under Ugandan conditions they have not got the paper certificates, many stolen, they are denied the right to come here. I am asking that the Government in this situation shall allow representations to be made to the Nationality and Treaty Department of the Foreign Office to look into the claims by Stateless Africans who claim to be British citizens.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may I intervene? Would the noble Lord perhaps deal with the situation of the persons of indeterminate nationality who are at present held in Pentonville Prison and who are denied any kind of representation except from Members of Parliament or Members of your Lordships' House? They are incarcerated in conditions which apply to criminals while the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, refuses to reply to letters which are addressed to him or to his colleagues in the Home Office after—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD AVEBURY:—after more than a month.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord has his name down to speak. If he is going to make a speech later, I think it might be more in order with our rules if he were to make these points then.
LORD AVEBURY: I am not interested in your rules of debate.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, with great respect, the noble Lord is subject to the rules of the House. If he is going to make speeches in this House, it is this House which supports its own rules of order, and I am only attempting to remind the noble Lord of what they are.
LORD AVEBURY: The noble Viscount may make his own rules. I am just intervening in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and I am asking him a question. I am surely entitled to do that. I am asking him whether he has considered the case of these people who are in Pentonville Prison, locked up by Her Majesty's Government, kept in prison without the right of habeas corpus or anything else, incarcerated like ordinary criminals.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, would it not be in order for the noble Lord to make his submission later, when he is down on the list to speak, rather than to make his remarks now, while the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is speaking?
LORD AVEBURY: I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, a question, and if he deems it fit to answer my question he will do so. Is not that in accordance with the procedures of your Lordships' House? I am asking him——
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, will the noble Lord—
LORD AVEBURY: If the noble Viscount will excuse me—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord was asking—
LORD AVEBURY: I am not giving way.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, the noble Lord is not in the House of Commons now.
LORD AVEBURY: I am asking whether he will not deal with a situation which is a shame and a blot on our reputation in this country, that these people are kept and incarcerated—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD AVEBURY: In prisons—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD AVEBURY:—and whether he might not—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD AVEBURY: The noble Viscount can go on saying "Order!" whether it might not be for the convenience of the House—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD AVEBURY:—if the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, might refer to this subject during the course of his speech.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, is it in order to move that his Lordship may no longer be heard?
LORD AVEBURY: It might be, if I sat down.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, if the question is addressed to me, of course I feel indignant about the Uganda Asians who are now in Pentonville Prison. I had hoped indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would deal with that subject when he came to speak in this debate and it is only for that reason that I did not make reference to it. I want to assure him and the House that I feel as deeply about that as he feels.
A further point to which I wanted to address myself regarding these Immigration Rules is this obsolete idea that a man must necessarily be the head of the family, and that if a wife wishes to come to this country because her husband is here she is entitled to do so, but if a man wants to come to this country because his wife is here he is not allowed to do so. That is a 19th century attitude of judgment between a man and a wife and it is quite extraordinary that to-day it

329
should be determining who is allowed to enter this country. This is not just an academic issue. One of the emotionally disturbing facts of the last four months has been the break-up of families from Uganda. The wife, a British Asian, the husband, not, and he is not allowed to join his wife in this country, even though if the husband is a British Asian his wife is allowed to join him. It is not only between husband and wife but between children. An 18-year old not enrolled as a British citizen is not allowed to join his parents here. I have had the most tragic instances—a youth sent back to Uganda in a psychology which is utterly opposed to him and in which he cannot hope to get on; families broken up by these obsolete rules about the relationship of man to woman and parents to their children. I beg the Minister to look at that.
LORD AVEBURY: A waste of good time.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I want to put another point to the Minister. In his document regarding these rules he says that immigration officers must not discriminate on the grounds of age, sex or race when they have entrants before them. But that phrase also includes that they must fulfil their duties, and it is the duties which are discriminatory. Does the Minister know that at this moment there are 200 husbands in refugee camps in Europe who are not allowed to come to this country, even though their wives are here? My appeal to the Minister is that he should look again, not only on the deeper issues of immigration policy and discrimination on the ground of colour, but that he should look again on this human factor of family life; the breaking up of families and the destruction of boys and girls, growing up in a climate which is against them and in which they have no one near them to encourage them in their growing years. That is a thing for which no Government and no Minister should be responsible without some sense of shame, and I am appealing to the conscience of the Minister—which I know will respond—and to Her Majesty's Government to put these wrongs right.
6.49 p.m.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, it has been a special pleasure to be present
330
on the occasion of the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae. I suppose the appropriate adjective would be "masterly". The noble Lord spoke as though he had been with us already for a very long time, with great fluency and great authority; and as the author, Bernard Fergusson, is so versatile, I hope we shall see his successor, the noble Lord, often in this House and hear him on many subjects.
I seem fated on a number of occasions to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I regret very much that this debate did not take place about three months ago because I have just been to Brisbane and I would have enjoyed touching him for a free swim at the Brockway Swimming Club, which opportunity I have now missed. I will not follow the noble Lord in the account, in a voice of charming menace, with which he demolished the Common Market, the old Dominions and various other things, but simply say I feel that he raised a number of points of great importance to this debate but that it is wrong in this context to suggest that because there is this or that anomaly, one should have the impression that the whole apparatus of these Rules is out of joint.
My only justification for intervening in this debate is that when these Regulations were announced I happened to be in Australia, and it may he of some interest to your Lordships if I deal with the matter from the other end of the telescope. I wish also to deal with it on the basis, which I hope is correct—I think this emerges from the interchange between the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness, Lady White—that what we say in this House may he of value in the further consideration of statements on this subject which appear to be implied in the Prime Minister's concluding remarks in the debate in another place on November 22.
I begin my comments on a subject which has so far not been dealt with, and that is the public relations aspect of this extremely sensitive and difficult question. I am speaking now from the other end of my telescope. When the Regulations were published on October 23 and were reported direct, as best the correspondents could, the effect in Australia was consternation. Suddenly, overnight, Australians appeared to have

331
become foreigners. Twenty-four hours later, and therefore 24 hours too late, there came a stream of explanatory and reassuring comments which were reproduced with great honesty in the Australian Press and on the Australian radio, but whereas the first reports had been on page 1 the 24-hour-later reports were, fatally, only on page 2, and therefore the first impression could never quite be caught up with. It may be thought by some that the first reports were some characteristic piece of carelessness or conspiracy by the media. I am not uncritical of the media, but in this case it certainly cannot have been wholly attributable to them.
At the peril of labouring this point a little, I will give two instances where I feel these Regulations, which are not only an administrative and legislative document but a public relations exercise, might have been looked at from this very important point of view. Paragraph 11 of the document Statement of Immigration Rules for Control after Entry deals with the question of people coming here on working holidays. It says that such people are not allowed to stay here indefinitely. It then points out that young Commonwealth citizens may like to come for a period of 12 months. Speaking as a former public relations officer, I must ask why that could not have been put the other way round. It says, in effect, "You are not welcome, but still you may stay for a certain time." Why does it not say, "You are welcome, but you cannot stay indefinitely"?
On the other hand, consider the back cover of the document Statement of Immigration Rules for Control on Entry. The title of that back cover is
"Foreign countries whose nationals need visas for the United Kingdom."
It starts with the words "foreign countries." One reads down the table and against Australasia is written the word "None." I am neither particularly intelligent or particularly stupid, but my mind did a total double-take. Because it says "Foreign countries" at the top, I started looking for foreign countries in Australasia whose citizens do not need visas. I am sure many correspondents did the same. Again, if I may say so with some diffidence, there seemed to
332
be a certain carelessness in the drafting of these documents vis-à-vis this sort of audience. I mention this first because I happened to be there, and secondly because I hope the Minister will feel able to give an assurance that if there is a revised edition of such things, as surely there is bound to be, this sensitive aspect of the matter will be attended to promptly and expertly at the time of the next publication.
I come to some administrative points which also seem to be of importance in any future handling of this matter. It may be logical in theory to say that people in the Commonwealth ought to know what the signature by this country of the Treaty of Rome involves in the matter of limitations on the free entry into this country of people from the Commonwealth. In this context, people in Australia and New Zealand, which I also visited, have a very thoughtful understanding of what they consider to be the necessity for this country to join the E.E.C. Nevertheless, somebody who is concerned from day to day with whether the rain will fall or what the price of wool will be will not read a great deal of the small print and will need help in understanding what it is that we are trying to do. I assure your Lordships that they, and particularly the older ones among them, feel that there is an alteration in the "feel" of coming to what they used to call "home" and that they are unhappy about it. However, they recognise that this is inevitable, but they have a certain right to demand that, in so far as it is possible, the limitations be handled courteously, understandingly and as simply as possible. I therefore welcome very much the institution at our airports of the special category of entry "Commonwealth citizens". This will cost more and be more complicated, but I am sure that it will be a valuable part of the public relations and administrative exercise of our new immigration policy; and I am encouraged to press this point by the instance quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.
Another point which arose in Australia was the complaint by a number of people that in coming to this country they had gone through all the formalities necessary at a British High Commission but that when they arrived in Britain they were subjected to what might be called double

333
processing—what seemed to them to be another interrogation similar to the one they had already undergone. I hope the Minister will give some reassurance that this is just part of the growing pains of the new Regulations and that it will be the aim of the Government to ensure that people go through these processes only once, and that if they have gone through them at the other end the examination of their documents at this end will be as far as possible a formality and not a second interrogation.
It may also help matters—and again the Minister may have some comment on this—to say that there should be as far as possible an obligation on travel firms, air lines and so on, to ensure that people coming to this country from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and elsewhere do not proceed without at least a certain check by those firms on whether they have fulfilled the necessary documentary procedure or not. I realise that this is not watertight, because the problem is probably much more difficult in the matter of a Commonwealth citizen coming to Milan, Frankfurt, Paris, or somewhere else, and then deciding to come to Britain. None the less, some later difficulties could be forestalled by the earlier application of some such precautions.
Now on the substance of the matter, I would certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White, that it would be appropriate to have a look at our citizenship laws; but, of course, that is not going to rectify difficulties immediately. This will obviously be a long, complicated and expert process and should certainly be contemplated. But what we are talking about mainly, I should imagine, is the immediate effect of our immigration policy, and on that I join the noble Baroness in welcoming the idea that reciprocity should be considered also as applicable to this difficult question. I do not think it matters whether one considers reciprocity as a principle or as an expedient: I believe it is an application of a principle in the aid of expediency, but the definition does not matter very much. If it helps in this particular problem then I am sure that it should be seriously considered. Of course, there are a number of absurdities arising out of the present drafting of the regulation, and for these one has only to look at the speech
334
of Mrs. Shirley Williams in another place. At the same time, as I have already suggested, that does not mean that the whole apparatus is an absurdity or a self-contradiction.
Then there is the question in the Motion put forward on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, by the noble Baroness, that there should be as far as possible an elimination of the disparities between the position of Commonwealth citizens and those of the European Economic Community. I would go along with the spirit of that, but in literal terms it could defeat its own object. One of the characteristics of the present regulations is that in certain respects—for instance, in not having to report to the police or in respect of voting—Commonwealth citizens still do better than the citizens of the European Community. I expect that these advantages will not naturally be removed for, certainly, a number of years; therefore, I doubt whether it is expedient to go all the way with that proposition, because it would not be to the advantage of Commonwealth citizens if we were to do so.
Then there is the emotional question which I hesitate to go into because it is not perhaps my field—the question of civil rights, such as, for instance, the deportation of a wife and family if a man is deported. It would seem to me that the Government must have the right to do this; but if one reads Regulations Nos. 55 and 56 carefully one is worried by the suggestion almost of prejudice. It may be legally accurate, but none the less it gives one a slight chill; there is a feeling in the reading of those articles that on the whole there is something of an obligation on the immigration officer when in doubt to expel them. That is the criticism which one could have of the whole drafting of these regulations. There is a little too much about them of the spirit, "When in doubt, take the hard line". I am not saying that Government in this convulsive age can deprive themselves of certain powers which in a tranquil period they do not need. Government have to do this. None the less, after reading the regulations several times I feel some anxiety at what I should call the "negative emphasis".

335
Finally, my Lords, may I try to sum up the problem in its larger framework? It is right to remember that this is not a superficial dilemma or a temporary dilemma; it is a real in-built dilemma for any British Government, of whatever complexion. We have the convergence at this time of various very important principles: we have the free entry of Commonwealth citizens which used to prevail before it became something which was no longer socially possible in this country; we have the obligation of indefinite duration to afford to East Africans an option to come here, an obligation which we now, with hindsight, can tell was taken somewhat unwisely; there is the successful negotiation for entry into the E.E.C.; and there is a strong and proper adherence by the people of this country to the principle of racial nondiscrimination. But when all these principles come together, it is no good being indignant if this convergence leads to anomalies and compromises which one would sooner be without. One has to admit that in this process somebody is going to get hurt, and the duty of your Lordships' House and another place and of all of us is to try to reduce this hurt as much as we possibly can.
If I were to conclude with a purely political observation it would be this. We have, as I mentioned, successfully concluded negotiations which give us a new status in Europe. Without doing anything inconsistent, it is important to lock back at people with whom we had and still have very close family, emotional, political connections and to make sure that the damage done to their welfare and to their sensitivities is as small as possible. I hope that that will be the spirit in which the Government reexamines these regulations: not to change anything unchangeable or to do anything inconsistent with our E.E.C. obligation, but, none the less, to make sure that any asperities which may be justifiably resented by our old friends, particularly our friends of the Commonwealth, are removed or softened, and that their legitimate feelings may be sincerely and effectively catered for.
7.9 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, the reason why I feel that I should intervene
336
for a very few minutes in your Lordships' House this evening is because my family has connections with the Commonwealth. I have a nephew at the present moment who is serving with a scientific team in Uganda. I have an uncle who died and was buried in New Zealand and I have been overseas for a number of years in Malaya. So I have a very warm affection for the Commonwealth and for its people in particular. We have had a very good, constructive debate this evening. It has been particularly interesting to listen to speeches from Members who have put forward the interests of the old Commonwealth, and I should hope that Her Majesty's Ministers will take notice of what has been said in this debate and of the feelings that have been expressed.
With regard to the new Commonwealth—and it is in the new Commonwealth where I spent all my service—I feel that there are a certain number of points which may be made with some justice. We have certain obligations to them. If we have reference to what has been achieved by the old Commonwealth and the services they have rendered to us, we also have an equal obligation to take into account the services which have been rendered by the new Commonwealth, and I particularly stress that in connection with the two world wars. We had a number of people from India who served with us and died for us, and certainly men of the Malay Regiment in Malaysia fought with great bravery and died out there when I was there. The end of all that was that many of us were overrun. I do not want to dwell on that. Just to keep the matter on an even tenor, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, got worked up a moment ago about conditions he alleged in British prisons which contain some Uganda Asians. I did not want to accept what he said, and I suggested that he should bring the matter up later in his speech. But in passing I would make reference to this. I was in a gaol for four years and came out weighing four stone. I was kept alive by Asians, who helped me and a number of other people, so I have every good reason to feel strongly, as Lord Avebury does, in connection with Asians who may be incarcerated in this country. That is the point I wanted to make.
I expected the noble Baroness, Lady White, to develop in her speech a rather

337
broader picture of the points that she wanted to stress, and I felt that she confined it to the simple issue of the Rules and how they might be improved, without considering what has been happening and the reason why we are considering this subject tonight in your Lordships' House. I cannot help feeling that if we had not had this appalling business of one member of the Commonwealth behaving as he did, expelling a minority of people and forcing about 27,000 Asians on to our shores, we probably would not be debating this subject in the way we have done.
This brings me to another thought which has passed through my mind, and it is because I value the Commonwealth that I think it is something we must strive with all our efforts to maintain. I would like to see the Government taking notice of a most sensible Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hale, this afternoon as to what consultations Her Majesty's Government were carrying on with the Commonwealth at the present moment, with all the problems we are facing. I felt disappointed by the Answer that the Government gave, that certain heads of departments were visiting Britain and so on. There are these terrible complications with regard to citizenship and immigration. What is wrong with getting the Commonwealth together, getting its leaders together and threshing out some policy in an atmosphere of calm? I am quite sure that they want to see the Commonwealth go on. I am quite sure that they are not frightened of being spoken to in a normal way as friends round the table. Do not let us hide the issues and problems in this country. I am sure that the time has come for this. I wish Her Majesty's Government would feel that these problems would be better sorted out by meeting our friends at a conference round the table.
That is really all I have to say. I have enjoyed this debate, and I hope that the Minister who replies will have found it useful. I rather regret that the Minister of State for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not here, because I feel that this is as much in her province as in the province of the Department of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross. There is only one point that I would make in conclusion. I think we really have very nearly reached saturation point
338
in this country with regard to immigration from the new Commonwealth at the present time. The noble Baroness, Lady White, who made a most touching opening in her first Motion this afternoon dealing with Uganda resettlement, drew attention to the shortage of housing at the present time and how that presented a problem. Of course this problem would be greatly accentuated if anybody else in the Commonwealth adopted the tactics we have had to face in recent months in connection with Uganda. If the Commonwealth and all the nations associated with the Commonwealth would come together and agree that each one of them would not do any act which would be of disadvantage to, or would interfere with, another's affairs, this might be useful. I quite see that there are difficulties about this, but surely we could start discussions on those lines and perhaps some good might come out of it.
7.18 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, who has made such sense in the remarks he has made to your Lordships. In particular, may I comment on the remark he made that we must have some policy; irrespective of whether we agree with the present tendencies of Her Majesty's Government, at least they should come out with some ideas which are going to be accepted by the people of this country and by those who wish to come here, something clearly explicable to all concerned, so that we shall not have this area of doubt which afflicts us at the moment. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we should aim at such a policy, so that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will not be in the position he is in this evening of trying to reply to the second debate in two days without knowing in the slightest degree what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government. He is not able to tell us that this evening, and he is not able to give us answers to the sort of questions which have been posed by the noble Lord, Lord Gridley.
Certainly I would agree with the noble Lord that we should consider whether or not we have reached saturation point with regard to the new Commonwealth. That was his own opinion. Let us look at the figures for a moment. We had, according to the Registrar General, a net outflow

339
of 30,000 people per annum up until the last estimate he made of the future population of this country; that was for the years from 1970 to 2010. He has revised that to a net outflow of 50,000 for the years 1971 to 2011. So we are not talking about an enormous influx of people coming into this country from the new Commonwealth, or from the old Commonwealth for that matter, who are going to overburden the services provided by this country. Everybody is worried about over-population, and I quite agree with them that we should consider very seriously whether we are producing more people than this country can support, not whether we are importing from abroad more people than we can sustain in relation to the services that we provide for them.
When we look at this important question, we have to consider not only the fertility of the people in this country, the migration from overseas, the mortality, and so on; we have to consider all those questions together, and we have to consider what their net effect is. We find that, according to the Registrar General—and, after all, he is the most unbiased of all the authorities that have considered this subject—migration is of insignificant effect. What matters is the number of people that are born to women of childbearing age in this country. I would recommend to the noble Lord that he should consider how, in this country, we can convince people that they should have fewer children, how they could cut down to perhaps two or 1·5 children per family, so that—the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, laughs he thinks this is a very funny subject; it is not funny at all. I will tell him that in twenty years his children, if he has any, will be regretting the failure of the present Government to consider this as an important subject to-day.
It is not the number of people coming into this country or leaving this country that matter—and the noble Viscount goes on grinning—it is the number of people who are going to live in this country in the year 2000 and who are going to place pressure on the resources of this country that is going to determine the quality of life which our children and our grandchildren will enjoy in the year 2000. That is by way of an aside. I
340
mention it only because I think that the noble Lord who spoke last ought to place the question of migration in perspective and consider it in relation to the number of people who are coming in and going out of this country, and to realise that, according to a completely unbiased authority, the Registrar General, we may anticipate that for the remainder of this century 50,000 more people will be leaving this country than entering it in every year between the years 1972 and 2000.
What I want to talk about, and I know that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, attaches little importance to this, is the position of persons from Uganda who have entered this country—or, may I say, not entered this country but have arrived at the airports and ports of entry to this country and have not been admitted. They are treated as persons of indeterminate nationality, or persons who are stateless. We have flung them into our prisons. We have put them into Pentonville and Harmondsworth. We have treated them as persons who are, to use a phrase that was coined some time ago, "lower than vermin". I must ask the noble Viscount, when he comes to reply, whether he considers that this is conduct worthy of a civilised State; whether he thinks that it is proper for us, as a country which has always prided itself on giving asylum to persons who are refugees from dictatorships, whether it be Nazi Germany, Fascist Spain, or any other country that you care to mention. They have come here and we have given them asylum in the past, and we have prided ourselves on it. We have taken them in, and we have benefited from it.
Look at the people who came from Nazi Germany before the war and what they have contributed to this country. Perhaps I should be wrong to mention names. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, will realise whom I mean, and I do not need to mention the names. There are important civil servants who came in the 1930s from Nazi Germany because they were refugees from Hitler. They happened to be of Jewish origin and they have contributed an enormous amount to our civilisation in this country. He knows whom I mean. He knows people who are in important situations in the Departments of his own Government. Now he is denying entry to people

341
who have come from Uganda because they do not happen to possess the necessary papers. He has flung them into Pentonville or Harmondsworth because they do not have a nice, square, blue bit of paper which gives them the right to enter this country. And these people have wives and children who possess British passports, who are living in Golders Green, or Leicester, or many other places that I may mention to the noble Viscount. He knows. He knows that the wives and children are here and the husbands are in Pentonville, treated as ordinary criminals, forced to write letters on the sort of paper which is given to somebody convicted of a criminal offence.
I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he has ever spent a couple of days in Pentonville, or in any other prison in the United Kingdom for that matter; whether he realises what this means, and whether he thinks this is an agreeable experience for somebody who has come from Uganda, having lost every penny he possesses, having been thrown out of his own country and flung on an aircraft in the shirt and trousers he stands up in. He finishes up in Saffron Walden police station, and because of our rules he can stay there for only five days. In the end, he ends up in Pentonville Prison. When he is there, what happens? Does the noble Viscount know? May I tell him? Is he familiar with the rules which apply to refugees from Uganda?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, is the noble Lord asking a rhetorical question?
LORD AVEBURY: No, my Lords, I am asking, do you know?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, of course I know. If the noble Lord wishes to skip this bit of his speech, he is entitled to.
LORD AVEBURY: Then I wonder whether other noble Lords are aware of these circumstances.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that is a rhetorical question.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Viscount does know, because if he did I should have thought that long ago he would have taken steps to remedy this situation. I
342
have written him letters, and I have a great bundle of them here going back to October 23. It always takes the Home Office at least a month to answer letters. I have written letters to him asking about the situation of these people who are in Pentonville Prison, and he has failed to answer them. Why, when they have relatives and friends who are in this country who are prepared to look after them and to give them shelter, and to give the Home Office bonds which would take care of them for three months if they were admitted on a temporary permit, are these relatives and friends refused the right to look after them? There are responsible persons who are doctors, chemists, and so on, who have guaranteed to the Home Office that they would ensure that their relatives were taken care of and that they would be surrendered up if they had to be deported.
Why has the Home Office always refused to give any answer in these circumstances? Why has the taxpayer had to bear the expense of maintaining these people in prison, and why have you and I had to pay the cost of supporting people like Mr. Jethwa? The noble Viscount knows who I am talking about, because I have had a good deal of correspondence with his Department and many, many telephone calls with Mr. David Lane on this particular individual. Why has he had to be kept in Pentonville following his incarceration in Saffron Walden police station, in spite of the fact that he suffers from high blood pressure and serious nervous depression. Why, in spite of the United Nations' rules regarding the detention of persons who are not convicted, is it impossible to get proper medical treatment for him, apart from treatment by the prison doctors who have come to see him? Why can he not be released from Pentonville Prison, in spite of the fact that he is obviously suffering as a result of his incarceration? The Home Office of Her Majesty's Government go on treating him in this fantastic manner.
I feel so indignant about the way in which we have treated these refugees that it is very difficult for me to remain calm and to speak to your Lordships in a way which will appeal to you. But I hope that I have succeeded in conveying to your Lordships the fact that, although I have been talking about a simple human

343
matter, I am not concerned merely about one or two individual cases. I am talking about refugees who have been deprived of every single penny they possess—and I ask your Lordships to put yourselves in their position—who have been thrown out of their country, who have arrived in Great Britain and who, because their nationality is indeterminate, finish up in Pentonville Prison or Harmondsworth detention centre, where they are treated as ordinary criminals and are subject to the same rules, having to write letters on prison writing paper, having to receive their visitors during a period of 15 minutes in the course of 24 hours, and where their visitors have to wait for two and a half hours to get to see them and are subject to all the ordinary rules under which the relatives of convicted prisoners may suffer. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, looks ashamed and may he well do so—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord is just inaccurate. They are not treated as convicted prisoners. I am allowing the noble Lord to go on, but in fact he is just not telling the truth.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I am saying that they are treated as such, and if the noble Viscount, Lord Colville looked at some of the letters which I have written to his colleague, Mr. David Lane, he would see that that is a fact. The noble Viscount objected strenuously when I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. But every single word that I have spoken is true, and I will prove it up to the hilt. I will produce to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, every single letter which I have sent and I have a bundle of them here. He will see that it is true. He should be ashamed of it. He should hang his head in shame and should say, "This is a blot on the escutcheon of the British Government and the most appalling slur overseas on the reputation of Great Britain". That is all I want to say.
7.34 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I trust that I am intervening in this debate on a rather quieter note. I am doing so only because, during the Committee stage of the Immigration Act 1971, I ventured to compare the position of Common-
344
wealth immigrants with that of citizens of the E.E.C. We were told that the Immigration Act would simplify the then existing procedures and, so far as I can remember, we were then told that the object of the exercise was to have two forms of person entering this country—the United Kingdom citizen and the alien. I suggested that there might be a third category, that of citizens of the E.E.C., and was told that that was correct. Of course we now have more categories. We have citizens of the common travel area, the E.E.C. area—and I am afraid that I am not at the moment looking very kindly towards that category; we have Commonwealth citizens and we have other nationals. We must appreciate that there is a tremendous feeling in this country that citizens of the Commonwealth, particularly those of the old Dominions, should not have lesser rights of entry to this country than members of the E.E.C.
One accepts the fact that we have joined Europe and that citizens of the E.E.C. will have these rights. But I suggest that there is great feeling in this country that members of the Commonwealth, particularly those who owe direct allegiance to the Crown, as we do, should have no less favourable treatment for entry into this country than citizens of the E.E.C. It is most difficult to understand how, after all these years and with all our connections, particularly with the old Dominions, we can treat as aliens people of any race or colour who, like ourselves, acknowledge the Queen as Head of State. We acknowledge that there must be control before entry, just as there must be control after entry; but my own personal view—and I appeal to the Government to consider it—is that all the Queen's subjects not domiciled in this country should by right have the same status as members of the E.E.C.
7.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, it has been a difficult debate for one like myself to follow. I have missed very much the usual speech which we have early in these debates from somebody on the Government Front Bench, and the debate has rambled in such a way that I have been somewhat confused. However, the line which I should like to take is in pursuance of that followed by the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in dealing with

345
general principles. I suppose that when the new set of Rules are presented for debate the Government will announce what are the principles on which they are founded. I take it that the principles regarding immigration are founded upon consideration of our vital national interests, and that that is what decided the Government in 1962 to terminate the right of 700 million people to come here when they pleased for as long as they pleased, without any particular conditions. That Act was opposed by the Opposition of that day who threatened to repeal it, but it has since been generally accepted as prudent.
There is a proviso with regard to this decision about who comes in, which I hold to be our business to decide ourselves; that is, that if we have made certain pledges we must honour them. As I understand, the pledges that we have made were first made in the very same year in which we barred the rights of the 700 million and accorded the right to Indians in East Africa to opt for local citizenship or for British citizenship. We did it knowing—and they knew—that something like what has happened since might happen. If, when that contingency occurs, we close the door, I would hold that we dishonoured the pledges we made to these people. I must say that I congratulate the present Government on the actions they have taken, I think with the concurrence of the Opposition and everybody else, to accommodate people who had a right accorded to them after we had acknowledged that we could not accept everybody and knowing that this might happen. It is, I believe, a fact that the people we accept are British passport holders, and they are not citizens of Uganda; that in so far as we refused to receive them but acknowledged their rights to come we were forming a queue many years long—it may be twenty or fifty years—and that de facto they would he Stateless. Therefore that category, it seems, we had an obligation to take; and we have met the obligation.
There is, I believe, another category. I do not know whether the obligations have yet been met, but in the time of under-employment after the last world war we accepted West Indians into employments which were unpopular in this country, and gave them undertakings that,
346
bit by bit, as accommodation and services were available, we would receive their wives and their dependants under a certain age. That is an obligation, surely, which we cannot forgo. But subject to these obligations, these pledges, surely we have the right to decide who comes in to stay—how many and of what sort. I think we ought to be careful, in the light of having to fulfil these obligations, which we had hoped not to do, to see that we do not put ourselves in the position of incurring other obligations of a similar nature. I think that if, due to our actions, we were to place the white Rhodesians in such a position that they were rendered homeless refugees, we would have an obligation to take them; and we do not want another 250,000 people coming in, regardless of their colour. The numbers are too great.
So, my Lords, we join the E.E.C., and there, I understand, there are reciprocal priorities, although the word "reciprocal" is not used in the same sense as it is being used with regard to members of the Commonwealth. It means, as I understand it, that all the citizens of member states can travel in and out with certain priorities over everybody else. Surely that is also subject to a consideration of our vital interests. We have entered a Community of 200 millions. If anything like that number, or a fraction of that number, moved this way, into this country, our vital interests would be affected, as they would be if it happened to any other member of the European Community. Steps would have to be taken to stop it; otherwise, the Community would disintegrate. It seems to me that we go into the Community, each member of it, with our vital interests safeguarded; and surely the prevention of the overflowing of an unwanted population is one of our vital interests. We must secure it; and it seems to me that our position is secure. It is secure for us, for France, for Germany, for Italy—for the lot.
Now outside that there is the Commonwealth, and it is regrettable—this matter has a long history, of course—that the Commonwealth is not also in the E.E.C. as a member of the Community. They do not wish it. It would not be to their advantage. They could not cope with it. Therefore, there are

347
certain handicaps which all, I think, accept and acknowledge as inevitable. If we decide to go in, they accept the position. Subject to that, it is surely still our option—and ours alone—who comes in, and how many. I see no objection whatever to choosing those whose cause has been so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, and others—the "kith and kin" claim. The kith and kin claim is conditioned by two other factors. One is that more go out than come in; and, surely, what we are trying to safeguard is over-population of this country. Here, in parenthesis, I want to say from my study of what is happening and of our planning intentions, that we are capable and desirous of coping with the natural increase of our own people—for example, in the South-East region, of something near one million in ten years—and that if it did not arise Foulness would be off and other things would be off. Without more people you cannot do these things except to leave vacant spaces all over the place. But it is mainly for our natural increase that we want these things; and in so far as we choose to keep net immigration to a certain level, surely we have the right.
But, then, if we choose to give to kith and kin a special relationship, I cannot see why on earth we should not do that even without the argument of what they have done in the past, and even without the more cogent argument of what they are doing now, in the most vital sphere of our interests. Are they not all aligned? Are they not all committed to defend us in the only major conflict that we can foresee, and against which we are all preparing? And is it not a fact that all the rest of the Commonwealth is nonaligned? I read their speeches. There are denunciations of the warmongers, and so forth. They want to remain separate; they want to be out of it; they do not want to be committed. Is there not something, quite apart from the argument of kith and kin, quite apart from honourable obligations for past services rendered? There is the future: the decision now to be aligned with us and with the West in the direction which we regard as necessary for the salvation and survival of the West. Therefore, if anybody wishes to give a preference to these, it is not an impediment to the one thing we
348
are safeguarding in this country on immigration—surplus numbers entering this country. That is not a risk; and, therefore, the board surely is cleared in future for giving a priority of consideration to Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians.
In this connection, I cannot help remembering the maiden speech of Lord Constantine, with regard to West Indians. He said: "We are not Africans. You have uprooted us from Africa, and from everything that Africa meant—our language, our nationality, our religion, our customs, even our cooking pots—and you have taught us your ways and given them to us. I speak English: I sneak no Nigerian, or any of the languages of the country my forebears came from. We are black Britons. With regard to these, what "(he asked)" will you do when you go into the Common Market, where Africans of French origin can walk in and black Britons from the West Indies cannot do so?" These are difficult problems; but surely the way to handle them is not to inundate our own country with people, white or black, but, if we have a debt to the former slaves—and I am one who thinks that we have—we should make sure that they are well established in the country and in the climate which suits them best.
7.51 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the House for a very few moments to tell a story which may be relevant to this special occasion. When I was in Tasmania, the Common Market news burst on to the political scene and I anticipated that there might be difficulties which I attempted to face. Quite the contrary! My Premier, my deputy Premier, the Leader of my Opposition and the leaders of the two main chambers of commerce came in deputation to me and asked me to write to Her Majesty to assure her that, although it might lead to a change in the pattern of trade, nothing would ever diminish their love for her person and her Throne and their respect and admiration for the British people who had helped them so much in the development of their primary and secondary production in the early days. They said, too, that they hoped that the British people would believe that it was not a cause for recrimination but a cause for sympathy for those people who had

349
helped them in the early days and who now, through no fault of their own, were forced into a situation which caused them great consternation. That feeling is, I think, common to many Australians at the present time. They still have that love for the Throne and respect and admiration for the British people. They still wish to be with us and to help us in our problems in every possible way that they can.
7.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I was very sad to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is in hospital. I am sure that I am speaking for all Members of the House in sending him the message, "Get well soon!". The noble Baroness has gallantly taken his place and with respect I think that the broadening of the form of the Motion which she explained to us has had a very great advantage; because there is no doubt that the Government's approach to this whole subject has been substantially changed by what took place in the other place a couple of weeks ago and, as the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, said (and I agree) the whole Uganda question has focused our attention and concentrated our minds on another aspect of this very difficult problem. So it has been very useful to the House, and I promise it will be useful to the Government, that we have had a wide-ranging debate to-day in which we have collected some very useful views and had a good deal of early warning of things to come about which the noble Baroness was telling us.
While the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is perfectly right—I do not know whether he is going to return to his place or not—in thinking that I have not many announcements to make to-night, this will not surprise anybody here. I can nevertheless assure the House—as I did in the debate earlier about the Uganda Resettlement Board—that it is not, as Lord Avebury suggested in a loud aside, a waste of time for views to be expressed. On the contrary, the Government are grateful for the speeches made. We will study them and pay attention to them because this is precisely the sort of thing on which your Lordships' views are valuable and welcome.
350
My Lords, I take the four aspects of the Motion. The first is on this exceedingly profound matter of citizenship. The noble Baroness mentioned this. One aspect of it was the theme of an almost classic exposition by my noble friend Lord Reay; and the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, also welcomed the suggestion that we should look at this again. It was also raised in another place and both my right honourable friends, the Home Secretary and the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, made it clear that the reasons underlying the suggestion were well known to the Government but that the problem raises profound difficulties, needs long and deep consideration and is not one on which an answer can be produced instantly. The noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, reflected that in what he said. It is really a continuation of the adjustment from Empire to Commonwealth which originated with an Act of, I think, 1914, now crystallised in the British Nationality Act 1948, which altered the whole basis of our nationality law in accordance with general agreement reached among what were then the relatively few independent members of the Commonwealth.
It is a very different situation to-day from that which prevailed when the 1948 Act was passed; so that it is not altogether surprising that some problems have cropped up in the last 25 years. I am sure that it is right now, as it was then, to proceed cautiously in this by looking at the legitimate interests of the other members of the Commonwealth and as far as possible consulting fully with them; because the problems that exist in this field are not necessarily amenable of solution simply by altering the law of this country. We may have to think of the international community as well. That is why I think my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was justified in saying that this was a very big problem indeed. That does not preclude the favourable reaction given in another place to the idea that we should look at this again without promising to be able to produce a new Act of Parliament to-morrow.
There is however a subsidiary point on the question of citizenship which, not surprisingly, has attracted a good deal of

351
attention this afternoon. This is the question of a possible repetition of a Uganda. My noble friend Lord Barnby talked about this; it was the whole speech of my noble friend Lord Reay (and if I may say so I think he stated it quite clearly); the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, referred to it just now and I think that it has been probably in the minds of other noble Lords.
It is no use my pretending that I can go further at this stage than I went at Question Time last Thursday. This is a matter upon which the people of this country, or some of them, have real fears. Whether or not you agree with my noble friend Lord Reay, I think he put into words as well as anybody could what are the fears of some of the population of this country. It was a good speech, as my noble friend Lord Gowrie said. The Government, as I have said, are fully aware that these views are held and that these fears are entertained. And we do not idly stand by and allow ourselves to be gulled into thinking that there is nothing to worry about here. I assure the House that that is not so. I think my noble friend Lord Reay was perhaps a little inaccurate, if I may say so, about some of the Dependent Territories, because when you get to people who hold Governors' passports (for instance, in Hong Kong) you are not in quite the same category as when you are dealing with United Kingdom passport holders who are living in independent Commonwealth countries. All the same, it is a large problem and I am glad to have heard the exposition that he gave.
The other point about this subject is that whether or not we deal with it in this country, in the end we are almost certainly bound to need international cooperation. That was the other point that I made last week and it is one which emerges very clearly from the whole of the Uganda Asian situation itself. It is perhaps a little unfair of my noble friend Lord Barnby to say that there was no assistance from Africa, because apart from the efforts of President Mobutu of Zaire, for which we must be grateful even though they were not immensely successful, we should not forget what I feel was a very responsible initiative by President Banda of Malawi in offering to take some of the people expelled from Uganda. I
352
urge that we should not forget these things, or suggest that there are not African Governments or African leaders who would come to our aid, as have others in the world.
We then get on to the part of the Motion which relates to disparities between citizens of the Commonwealth and those of the European Community. One of the points that has arisen as a result of the debate in another place—I do not think it should be said solely as a result of it, because consultations with Commonwealth countries go on the whole time—and that has become explicit, is that we shall concentrate on consultations with Commonwealth Governments on points arising as to disparity. So far as Canada is concerned, Mr. Trudeau has not expressed dissatisfaction with the treatment of Canadians in the United Kingdom. As regards Australia and New Zealand, my noble friend Lord Carrington is going there quite soon. He is going primarily in his role as Secretary of State for Defence, but he will be able to discuss other matters. I should tell the House that we have not received representations from either the Australian or the New Zealand Governments over changes in our immigration laws. This goes back over quite a long period and does not cover just the last few days or weeks. I cannot go into details off-hand because what consultations have taken place is really a matter for my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir, but they go on all the time and there is a good deal of opportunity to make representations. All I can tell the House is that there have not been any from those three countries.
As for the alleged disparities—and I really take this debate to-day as being in part an extension of what was said in another place, because I suspect that we have been spared by the noble Baroness a repetition of the points made by the honourable Member for Hitchin—we have to realise that there are restraints on the manœuvrability of the Government in this issue. We have the 1971 Act which, whether one likes it or not and whether one likes its contents or not, is in fact the governing legislation; and we have also to conform with E.E.C. directives and decisions in this matter. For instance, one of the questions where we have not much room for manœuvre

353
is that of patriality through grandparents, because this was taken out during the passage of the 1971 Act. But within these limits we do take account of what the House has been saying to-day and will continue to do so. This includes points like that made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, over the method of drafting and the necessity to avoid asperity or the infringement of people's feelings merely by using clumsy wording. I am grateful to him for having drawn that particular point to my attention, and I will pursue it.
But, my Lords, we must face facts. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, asked what principle underlay this whole matter. He suggested it was a vital national interest which caused us to legislate first in 1962. He is perfectly right: it is. It was then and it is still. We are bound to implement a policy which maintains a tight control over immigration, and the 1971 Act gives us more effective control than has ever existed before. Incidentally, I am very glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has come back, because I have to suggest to him that when one is talking about control, "control" includes the ability to deal with those who come illegally into this count try. If the Liberals formed the Government of this country, I do not know what the noble Lord would do about it, but I suspect that they would find that they had to have a Harmondsworth of some sort in order to deal with these cases. And if their Harmondsworth got full, they might have to make other arrangements.
I can tell the noble Lord—I am afraid it is a matter of dispute between us, but I think I am more likely to be right—that the people in Pentonville are not treated as convicted prisoners but as un-convicted prisoners. As I am in charge of the Prison Department, I think I am likely to know. But although the point is now wholly academic, I want to go on to say something further. We are conscious that the Uganda citizens who have attempted to come to this country without entry certificates are being entertained in difficult and crowded conditions. After careful consideration, my right honourable friend has decided, on humanitarian grounds, to transfer from places of detention to resettlement centres those citizens from Uganda who have arrived here with-
354
out entry certificates and have been refused admission. The refusal to admission to the United Kingdom will still stand, however, and we shall continue our international consultations with a view to their resettlement in third countries. I must make it clear also that the Uganda citizens are in these centres under restriction and are not in them for the purposes of arranging their resettlement in this country. That is being made clear to each Ugandan transferred to a centre. But, as your Lordships will see, the noble Lord does not write in vain, and I am glad to have this opportunity, since he has made this passionate speech which I entirely appreciate, of showing him that I do not sit hanging my head in shame: I am merely awaiting my turn.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it is very kind of the noble Viscount to say that what I have said in numerous letters has had some effect. May I ask him this question? Is it possible that all the people who are at present detained in Pentonville Prison could be given three months' visitors' permits, so that they could at least go and stay with their relatives in Golders Green, or wherever it may be, and, pending a decision by the Resettlement Board or the High Commissioner for Refugees, would not have to suffer the tortures to which they are subjected in Pentonville Prison.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think there is anybody else in this category in Pentonville Prison, so I am afraid I do not know whom the noble Lord is talking about.
LORD AVEBURY: Mr. Jethwa.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know about Mr. Jethwa or which particular category he is in, but if he is a Uganda citizen he falls in the category I have just been talking about; and if he is not, then I do not think he is in Pentonville.
LORD AVEBURY: He is there now, my Lords.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Then, my Lords, he probably falls into the category which I have been dealing with.
That has been a diversion, and a very welcome one from my point of view, but I was talking earlier about the necessity

355
for control. I think we should be failing in our duty to the people of this country—and whether it is overcrowded or not it is plainly a matter that even the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is prepared to think about, but many people believe that it is—if we did not pay attention to the very considerable stress which exists in some areas already. When my noble friend Lord Gridley talks about "saturation", I cast my mind back a few hours to what the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, was saying on the earlier debate.
That said, what we have to do is to try the difficult balance between firmness and humanity. As I have just pointed out, it is not a waste of time raising these matters because it is capable of solution on some occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, when he said these things under his breath, perhaps now regrets the attitude he took. I have shown him that we are capable of taking a humane approach when we are able to do so. It tends to apply on a personal basis. These are all liable to be, and ought to be, individual cases. Our first line of defence, or reception, is the Immigration Service. I was very sorry to hear my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh reading out his series of calamaties that have taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, whose maiden speech I enjoyed and appreciated as much as other noble Lords, mentioned this, too. It is no use denying that there are bound to be mistakes and unfortunate incidents.
But on the credit side one ought to recognise the tact and good sense which in the vast majority of cases distinguishes the work of the Immigration Service, and results in the adverse criticism being so rare that it attracts what possibly is inordinate attention. Millions of people pass through our ports in the course of every year with never a word of complaint uttered at all. All the same, my right honourable friend has said that he has every intention of looking at, largely, the physical arrangements, apart from the drafting of the Rules, to see that we give a courteous welcome to our visitors at places like Heathrow. I personally have always got through quicker in the Commonwealth lane than my friends in the United Kingdom lane, so I have a counter story to tell over and above my noble
356
friend. I will also draw to the attention of my noble friend the question of the double interrogation that the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, raised. This seems to come into the same category, of a courteous and civil welcome without undue formalities and trouble being caused to those who come here.
The situation about disparities is not quite so simple as some people think. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, is in no way misled about this. But when we look at it—as I am going to in a moment—the situation will be seen to be not quite so bad as some may have thought. Before I do that, let me say something about reciprocity. This was a point raised by the noble Baroness; it is something my noble friend Lord Barnby is very keen on, and it seemed to come into the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I am not sure whether he would approve of it or not; but the subject matter seemed to be very much on the list of matters in his speech. It is certainly true that there are aspects of this subject which it is right and proper to consider. This my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was saying the other day. If my noble friend Lord Clifford is sceptical because we would not go full scale for this in the course of the Committee stage and the Report stage of the 1971 Bill, I am very sorry. But that we are going to look at it again I should have thought would have pleased him, because this is something on which he has been very consistent.
I must warn those who take this view—and this has clearly come out of the debate—that by contrast the situation which those noble Lords who have been talking about reciprocity have in mind could possibly result in the descriminations which would make the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, very cross indeed. Therefore we have not necessarily here a course which would be agreed on all sides of the House, and we may have to come to some decision about it which will not suit everybody. It is worth while saying this, and it has been underlined by the speeches that have been made to-day.
Let us look at the situation concerning Commonwealth citizens. I was very interested in what my noble friend Lord Clifford was saying about this. One has

357
to go back a little. It started in 1962, because Commonwealth citizens since then have only been allowed to settle here if they first obtained employment vouchers. There was no other way by which Commonwealth immigration could be brought under control and reduced at that time, and this was of vital national interest. It was a true and inescapable part of our Manifesto before the Election that we had promised to ensure that there was no further large scale permanent immigration from the Commonwealth. So, under the 1971 Immigration Act, the employment vouchers are issued to Commonwealth citizens. In the first place they are limited to twelve months and will no longer carry the right of permanent settlement, either for the immigrant or his family. That was a policy in our Election Manifesto, and it has been endorsed by Parliament.
But it is also said—and I think my noble friend Lord de Clifford and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway mentioned this—that we have to look at disparities with privileges for members of the E.E.C. countries. Certainly there is here inherently a free travel area where there will be free movement of labour. This will apply for the benefit of the British, including registered British. This will interest the noble Earl, Lord Lytton. People who come from Commonwealth countries, and have been here long enough to become registered, will be eligible to go to Europe. This will more than counteract the numbers of French people from the French overseas departments to whom the noble Earl referred. This freedom of movement will apply to the British. There is not any evidence that large numbers of people from other European members of the Community will want to settle permanently in Britain. If the situation arises, and there has been so much talk about it, we have the safeguards in the Treaty of Rome whereby we can protect ourselves from an undue influx.
But none of this, whether it is the E.E.C., the effect of the Immigration Act and the rules regarding employment vouchers, really affects the many important privileges which Commonwealth citizens enjoy, and are going to go on enjoying, and which E.E.C. nationals and aliens will not. In the first place we have the patrial arrangement under this
358
Act. This is going to benefit five million people who will be able to come and go with no control at all. Lord Clifford's son is the absolutely perfect case in point. Whereas his father was born in Australia, and he himself was born in Singapore, I think I am right in saying his mother was born in Britain. For the first time patriality attaches to somebody with a British mother as well as a British father. Therefore if the noble Lord's son has not already overcome various complications, he will become patrial under the 1971 Act.
For people who are not partial, there are other things as well. They will continue to enjoy the civic liberties that have always been enjoyed by members of the Commonwealth, such as voting, filling posts not open to aliens, such as membership of the Armed Forces, Civil Service and police, and, I suppose, sitting in both Houses of Parliament. I suppose a minor point—one which could be counted in the language of the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, as being a tiresome restriction—is that Commonwealth citizens will not have to fill in embarkation and landing cards. They will not have to report to the police while they are here. They will still be able to come to the United Kingdom as working holiday-makers for periods of up to three years. A tremendous number of Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians have taken advantage of that scheme. If there is redrafting on that which the noble Lord mentioned I should like to look at it. These are really quite substantial privileges. They are a mark of the value and the affinity that we continue to place on Commonwealth relationships and they are in no way limited by going into the E.E.C.
There is just one other point. I think it was announced in another place what an extraordinarily small number of people had actually been refused entry from the three old Dominion Commonwealth countries. Out of something in the region of 400,000 people coming into this country in 1971, I think 115 were refused entry. On a quick look round the major ports, there is an answer to another point which was certainly made in another place. There is said to be a problem about people being admitted for less than six months in the first instance. The researches we have made show that this

359
is extremely rare, and happens in numbers of about the same order as I have been talking about for refusals. This is probably the case for 1971. So, again, if one looks at the numbers and the facts I do not think in practice that the people from the three old Dominion countries are being as hard done by, perhaps, as some of those who have written in the Press, at any rate—certainly not those who have spoken this afternoon—may have suggested.
My Lords, I have one or two other questions to answer but I will try to deal with them very quickly. My noble friend Lord Barnby asked about separate coloured passports. I do not think that this is a good idea, but from January 1 we are going to make it perfectly plain by a stamp in the passport whether or not a person is entitled to permanent residence in this country. My noble friend also asked for a manual or some method of elucidating the difficulties about citizenship. Probably there is material available which answers most people's practical questions. I have a couple of leaflets here and if my noble friend would like to look at them, I should be glad to show them to him. It is very complicated when one looks at the whole field, but fortunately only one situation ever applies to one person, so that at least if people can ask the right questions and find the answers in a fairly simple document it may not turn out to be so difficult for them.
We have not had examples of individual civil liberties that are said to be infringed by the draft Rules, but so many were raised in another place that I think we have plenty as a Government to look at. As for the question of family deportation, which was the last point on the list, I know that the noble Baroness, Lady White, will recognise that this is a matter which of course is covered in the Act already, so that there is a limit to the amount of room for manœuvre. I have always found it a little difficult to understand how those who say that when a man comes to this country his wife and children must be allowed to come as dependants here as well, say at the same time that when a man is deported in no circumstances ought his wife and children to go away
360
with him. This may be a fault in my appreciation of the argument, but it seems to me that there is a certain illogicality about it.
The fact of the matter is, without wearying the House on this topic, that the noble Baroness will see that we have moved a little from the situation in the original draft White Paper to what is in paragraphs 54 to 59. We think it necessary to let the Appeal Tribunal deal with and consider in individual cases the question of the wife's earning capacity and whether she is really self-supporting and all that kind of thing. But, like so many of the other contents of both these sets of Rules, this will be looked at again in conjunction with all the other points that have been raised in both Houses in the debates.
My Lords, I am afraid that even in much too long a speech I have not been able to say a very great deal, but I have at any rate been able to answer some of the questions that have been put forward. I know the House will appreciate that some of the questions that have been asked raise profound difficulties which cannot be instantly dealt with. What we shall have to do is to come back (as the noble Baroness said, and I confirm this) with some more rules of some sort because the deadline, as we said at the beginning, is somewhere about January or February, according to the length of the Christmas Recess. We shall certainly be able to discuss their contents again on that occasion. I hope that we shall not have to go on doing it ad infinitum; because I hope we shall get it right next time. But, meanwhile, the suggestions that have been made by your Lordships this afternoon will be studied and will be treated with proper respect. I am grateful to those who have put them forward, and to the noble Baroness for persevering with the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I thank him for the replies he has given. But in view of the expressions of opinion that have been given in this House and in another place on anxiety about the total inflow, can he give any indication of intention of some retardation this year, in view of the Ugandan surprise, of the formerly contemplated large total?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think I can go beyond what I have said on this subject this afternoon. I note my noble friend's fear on this, but I dealt with this subject in some detail in my speech.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, before the Minister sits down a second time may I ask him this question? While I appreciate the incidental references which he made to my questions, may I ask whether he could give some answer to one very specific point that I made, which is the confusion regarding Stateless Ugandan Asians; and whether those who are challenging decisions made in regard to them will be given an opportunity to appeal to the appropriate Government Department?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sorry; I beg the noble Lord's pardon. I was not purposefully disregarding his speech but it really was on a slightly different aspect of the matter; it was on current problems about immigration which are now before us rather than the theory of it. I do not truthfully know the answer to that. I will find out and tell the noble Lord. if I may; and if he wants to broadcast it further, a Written Question is a very good way of doing it.
8.28 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I am not going to inflict on your Lordships a fourth speech as I have already made three this afternoon, but I should very much like first of all to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for giving us an extremely careful and thoughtful reply to a debate in which I am sure we all appreciate there have been very strong feelings, possibly with one exception moderately expressed. I am very sorry that I was not able to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Reay, because I should have been very interested in what I understood his line of argument was. But I would suppose from the comments made on it that it would probably read extremely well, and I shall certainly make it my business to read it. I should like (although he is not able to be with us) from this Box to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ballantrae, on his maiden speech. We
362
were all impressed by his fluency and the confidence with which he delivered a very interesting speech based on his own and his family's experience. And we very much welcome him, of course, to this House.
We have benefited from the widening of the Motion, but I would hope that, valuable as I trust that has been to the Government in obtaining some expressions of view of your Lordships' House, it does not mean that the Government are not going to take the details of the Rules seriously. I did not go through all the points I might have gone through, but I have no doubt the noble Lord will not mind if I write to him about some matters of small detail with which one did not want to weary the House. After all, those of us who did a great deal of work on that Immigration Act naturally looked with attention at the rules when they came out, and particularly where there were points, some of them minor points but, as the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, said, matters of drafting, which seemed to indicate an approach, an attitude of mind, and we could perhaps by agreement just draw attention to them in correspondence.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I shall be grateful to the noble Baroness if she will write—and indeed if anybody else will—with that sort of detail, and I will gladly look into it.
BARONESS WHITE: Because, my Lords, owing to the accidents in another place it means that we have a further opportunity with these small, individual but very important points, of suggesting to the Government ways of improvement. The trouble is that when one gets Rules like this, as one does with Statutory Instruments, one cannot amend; therefore I think suggestions in advance have a peculiar value. It was partly for that reason, as well as our feeling that the House would like to express its views on this important problem, that my noble friend Lord Shepherd retained the Motion, even although the original situation had changed. I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this second debate and I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.