Sitting of 5 December 1961

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Edinburgh Corporation, presented by Mr. John Maclay (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 40.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCIENCE

    Nuclear Energy
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what advances have been made in this country during the last three months towards developing the uses of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
    The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): It is not useful, or, indeed possible to isolate progress in scientific fields into three-monthly periods. The steady progress which has been made is described in the Annual Reports of the Atomic Energy Authority. If the hon. and learned Member wishes to put down a Question on any specific aspect of the work I shall be glad to answer it.
    Mr. Hughes: I thank the Minister for inviting me to put down a further Question, but does he realise that the appeal of science is as widespread as the desire of mankind for a settled peace? Will he state what steps he is taking to internationalise and co-ordinate Britain's scientific efforts with those of other
    1110
    nations in order to achieve the maximum benefit for mankind out of these efforts?
    Mr. Freeth: The United Kingdom has agreements with a number of countries, both East and West, for the exchange of scientific information on the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In addition, our representatives play a very full part in the work of the relevant international organisations, notably the International Atomic Energy Agency.
    Mr. Peart: We agree that we can assess developments in this field only upon the basis of twelve-monthly reports, but can the Minister assure us that research into small power reactors is going on and is being speeded up?
    Mr. Freeth: Research into every kind of reactor is going on in this country, and the Atomic Energy Agency is principally concerned with the main reactor types, to which reference was made in the last Report.

    Red Deer Stags, Island of Rhum
    Mr. Kimballasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many red deer stags were shot on the Island of Rhum in September and October of this year; what was their average weight, weighed without heart and liver; and how many hinds it is intended to shoot this winter.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The answer to the first part of the Question is forty-eight stags. All those shot during the season and brought to the larder were weighed less gralloch, but including heart, liver and lights. The average weight was 11 st. 11 lb. The answer to the last part of the question is 136.
    Mr. Kimball: Does my hon. Friend realise that such a low average weight as this must indicate that the island is grossly overstocked with red deer? When the Red Deer Commission, under the auspices and with the advice of the Nature Conservancy, has an absolute obsession about the over-stocking of other people's grounds, should not an effort be made by the Commission to put its own house in order first?
    Mr. Freeth: I do not think that my hon. Friend has yet fully appreciated that sporting estates are managed on entirely different principles, and that their figures are not comparable. In fact, fully-grown Rhum stags are as heavy as 21 st., but the heaviest shot this year was 19 st. 6 lb. It is necessary to undertake culling upon a scientific basis, and this naturally means that stags are shot which would not be shot on a sporting estate.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: On a point of order. In future, do we put Questions about deer in Scotland to the Parliamentary Secretary for Science?
    Mr. Speaker: I shall have to investigate that matter further.
    Mr. H. Hynd: Will the Minister impose some limitation upon the shooting of hind?

    Engineering Designers
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what progress has been made by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research in the recruitment of engineering designers for the purpose of facilitating industrial design, the lack of whom is causing concern among industrialists.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: My noble Friend is concerned that industry should make the fullest use of first-class engineering designers, who should, in his opinion, be recruited directly into industry, rather than through D.S.I.R. Despite the great expansion which is being made in the provision for the teaching of engineering, he is not satisfied that the supply and training of engineering designers is yet adequate for national needs. Following a constructive discussion of the matter at the Engineering Advisory Council of the Board of Trade last month, he proposes to pursue it further with the bodies which are concerned with the training of engineers.
    Mr. Dempsey: Will the Minister take into consideration the fact that this is causing serious concern to industrialists in my part of the country? Is he aware that one factory in my constituency has had to import every machine from Germany, because of our lack of industrial designers? Does not he realise that it is our duty and responsibility to
    1112
    compete, even with Germany, and that we should do our utmost to do so successfully and to see that engineering designers in Britain are able to stand firm in the face of modern competition?
    Mr. Freeth: I appreciate the interest of the hon. Member in this vital need. I said in my Answer that my noble Friend was not satisfied with the present position. He and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade are in close touch and are trying to find ways to ameliorate the situation.

    Strontium 90
    Commander Keransasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what investigations his Department have undertaken in the matter of eradication of strontium 90 from dried and natural milk, which can now be made to the extent of over 90 per cent.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The removal of strontium 90 from milk has been investigated by the Atomic Energy Research Establishment at Harwell, and the National Institute for Research in Dairying near Reading. Contact is also being maintained with developments in other countries, particularly the United States of America.
    Commander Kerans: Will not my hon. Friend agree that scientists in the U.S.A. have now produced a method whereby over 90 per cent. of strontium 90 can be eradicated? If this country can adopt it as an economic process, and I am told that it is an economic process, would not it go a long way to allay the anxiety of young mothers?
    Mr. Freeth: I understand that the eradication of stronium 90 from milk by the ion exchange process has been demonstrated on a laboratory scale with extremely high initial levels of contamination. We shall need other and further investigations in order to determine whether similar success would be obtained in practical large-scale processes with the lower levels of contamination which might result from nuclear weapon tests.
    Mr. Snow: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say what are the other radioactive elements against which protection has to be sought?
    Mr. Freeth: The Question referred to strontium 90. I should not like to give answers off the cuff to questions about eradicating other radioactive isotopes.
    Mrs. Castleasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science what steps he is taking to ensure that any increased contamination of United Kingdom food supplies by strontium 90 is immediately detected.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The monitoring survey maintained since 1958 by the Agricultural Research Council in consultation with the Medical Research Council is designed to achieve this.
    Mrs. Castle: is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that scientists of the Blackburn Technical College are collaborating with the Fylde water board in monitoring the level of radioactivity in local water supplies and in the atmosphere? Does not he think that it would help to give reassurance to the public about this very serious danger if every local water authority and local technical college were encouraged to undertake a similar monitoring service?
    Mr. Freeth: Monitoring services with regard to radioactivity in the air, rainfall and drinking water are the responsibility of the Atomic Energy Authority and the results are published as often as the Authority deems it necessary in the public interest.
    Mrs. Slater: is the hon. Gentleman aware that some local authorities are doing this with their water supplies and that in north Staffordshire there have been alarming results regarding the difference between reservoirs and underwater springs? Does not he think it important that local water boards should be encouraged to do this?
    Mr. Freeth: I will look into the matter further, but I must take the advice of my experts on the subject.

    Radioactivity
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will arrange for the publication of daily bulletins on the degree of radioactive contamination of air, water, foodstuffs and milk in the appropriate regions of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: No, Sir. I am advised that short-term fluctuations in radioactivity have little significance.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present publication of results on a weekly basis is quite inadequate if there is a sudden increase in the radioactive contamination of food, as there may well be by strontium 90 in the spring? Cannot we have daily bulletins on similar lines to the Meteorological Office announcements, so that the public and those responsible for foodstuffs may be made immediately aware of any significant increase, and take the necessary action?
    Mr. Freeth: With regard to iodine 131 where at the moment weekly reports are being issued, I am informed that the day-to-day fluctuations give little guidance as to the trend of radioactivity. In particular, as the hon. Lady will remember, it is not only a question of taking samples but of analysing those samples and doing the necessary calculations. I am informed that the most useful guide is the average of weekly or longer periods. It is most unlikely that the rise in strontium 90 in our diet will be at anything like the speed which we had in the case of iodine 131, and I am assured that it is most unlikely that the rise could be greater than can be dealt with by the present method of sampling.

    Medical Research (Animals)
    Mrs. Braddockasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he is aware that a fund to be known as the Lawson Tait Memorial Fund has been established and registered as a trust to find alternatives to the use of living animals in medical investigations; and, in view of the importance of research in this matter, if he will consider making a grant to this fund to assist its work.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The reply to the first part of the Question is yes sir. As to the second part, the Medical Research Council would consider on its scientific merits any detailed research programme which might be submitted to them.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is so much resentment about the rise to 3,750,000 in experiments on living animals that

    1115
    any opportunity or attempt to find alternatives ought to have the fullest financial support of the Government? Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to meet a deputation in order to discuss ways and means to deal with this situation from a financial point of view?
    Mr. Freeth: I should certainly be most happy to receive any deputation which the hon. Lady cared to bring to me. But I think that she must remember that the Medical Research Council exists to give grants for specific research and not to give grants to bodies which themselves make grants to other people.

    Scientists (Emigration)
    Mr. Peartasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will state the number of scientists who are known to have left the United Kingdom during the past five years to take up scientific positions abroad.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Sydney Irving) on 18th July last.
    Mr. Peart: The Ministry and the Government are always dodging this issue. When will they give real figures? As every hon. Member knows, there is a serious drain of scientific manpower from this country. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that unless something is done, it will be serious not only for British industry but also for our way of life?
    Mr. Freeth: From Questions which we have had in this House previously the hon. Member will realise the difficulty of getting any really accurate figures. I am told that it is estimated that immigration in recent years is more than half the rate of emigration. In addition, it is not only a matter of financial rewards on the other side of the Atlantic or elsewhere. Certainly, one of the main causes which has come to my notice is the existence of centres of research of international standing, conducted under inspiring leadership, where the best work may be done in particular spheres. It would be very wrong if we attempted to dissuade scientists from going to such centres and coming back enriched to give us the benefit.
    Mr. Peart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that every responsible scientist and leader would give him information about the drain from our laboratories of laboratory personnel and research personnel? This is going on and it is no use being apathetic about it. The Government must do something and get the information. They have it available.
    Mr. Freeth: The hon. Member must realise that the information given in the Press from time to time relates to particular research laboratories or institutions. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for national figures he knows as well as I the difficulty about getting them.
    Sir Richard Pilkington: Does the Minister consider that the emigration of scientists at the top is more than balanced by the immigration of people who, however worthy in themselves, are certainly not scientists?
    Mr. Albu: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that a great deal of the difficulty in this problem is caused by the inadequacy of research funds in universities? May I ask how it is that when the Minister is himself responsible for grants to universities from the Research Council he should transfer my Question on this matter to the Treasury? Does not this make complete nonsense of the functions of the Minister for Science for the co-ordination of research?
    Mr. Freeth: As the hon. Member says, my noble Friend is responsible for grants given by the Research Councils for research work either at the universities or in association with them. By far the greater amount of university research work is done on funds provided by the University Grants Committee for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible.

    Scientific and Industrial Research, Scotland
    Mr. Benceasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many scientists are employed, in Scotland, on all forms of research, in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research; and what steps he is taking to increase the Department in Scotland.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The number of scientists employed in Scotland by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research is 170. The present intention is to increase the staff in Scotland; the rate of expansion will depend on assessments of changing priorities, as well as on the resources available.
    Mr. Bence: While thanking the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—for that reply, may I ask if he is satisfied, on the Report on Scientific Manpower, that the expansion of scientific research in Scotland is being raised to the standard necessary to increase in Scotland that tremendous diversity of industry so desired by everyone? Will he speed up the expansion of scientific and technological research for Scotland to increase that diversity of industry?
    Mr. Freeth: I assure the hon. Member that the D.S.I.R. is at present considering the recommendations of the Tooth ill Committee's Report which bear on this problem.
    Mr. Woodburn: Will the hon. Gentleman ask his noble Friend to consider the Government's policy on diversification and reallocation of industry by the siting of research stations in Scotland as one of the essential features of stimulating growing areas, and taking industry from the crowded areas of the Midlands and London?
    Mr. Freeth: I hope that the right hon. Member will acknowledge that D.S.I.R., in addition to its two main research laboratories in Scotland, also has the office of the Geological Survey and substations of other research stations—the Building Research Station, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the Radio Research Station, the Road Research Laboratory, the Warren Spring Laboratory and the Water Pollution Research Laboratory. It has certainly done a lot to increase laboratory representation in Scotland.

    Scientific Manpower (Report)
    Mr. C. Johnsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether he has now considered the Report of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy on The Long-term Demand for Scientific Manpower, Command Paper No. 1490; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Skeffingtonasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science whether the Government accept the conclusion contained in the Report on The Longterm Demand for Scientific Manpower, presented by the Scientific Manpower Committee of the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy; what steps he proposes to take in this connection; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: My noble Friend commented fully on the Report in another place on 15th November, and I would refer hon. Members to the OFFICIAL REPORT of that debate.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this Report has been received with a certain amount of misgiving and that, in particular, doubts have been expressed about assumptions upon which estimates of future demand for and the likely supply of technologists and scientists have been based? Does he not agree that the Report gives no justification for any easing of the drive for scientific education in this country, and that future career prospects in science are likely to be better in future than some readings of this Report might suggest?
    Mr. Freeth: I fully accept the hon. Member's suggestion that some of the estimates and some of the assumptions may well in the next ten years not turn out to be such as the Committee has suggested. On the other hand, I do not think that detracts from the value of the Report as an exercise in long-term forecasting. I agree fully with the hon. Member that, as my noble Friend said in another place, the prospects of any able young man or woman now about to set out on a scientific or technological career can never have been brighter.

    Research Associations
    Mr. Benceasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science how many companies contribute to the work of research associations; and what steps he is taking to encourage greater scientific and technological research by these associations.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: There are approximately 22,000 members of research associations, of whom a few belong to more than one association. The Council

    1119
    for Scientific and Industrial Research awards grants to these associations on terms providing an incentive for expansion. Special grants may be given for extraordinary capital expenditure and also for schemes designed to accelerate the application of research.
    Mr. Bence: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of feeling that many of these research associations do not receive the co-operation of very large companies in making basic research into various processes of industry? The Report on the Long-term Demand for Scientific Manpower takes the view that the demand for scientists within private industry should be far greater than the demand of the research associations. Therefore, we may assume that the research associations will not expand at the rate at which they should because of the failure of many large industries to co-operate in basic research in these establishments.
    Mr. Freeth: I would not say that the large firms were necessarily less or more co-operative than medium-sized or small firms in active membership of research associations. It is a very difficult question to go into properly at Question Time, because there is such an enormous difference between research associations themselves. To quote an example, in the wool industry 99 per cent. of research is done in the research association, whereas in the electrical industry probably only 1 per cent. is done there.
    Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend agree that rather than it being a problem to get research associations to undertake research, the big problem is to get all the firms which should to take up and develop what the research associations produce?
    Mr. Freeth: I agree with my hon. Friend in that. As the House is aware, the whole position of research associations is at present being reviewed by the Research Council at the request of my noble Friend.
    Mr. Rankin: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that we have been hearing these Answers for a number of years now and, despite them, the total amount of research in its scientific and technological aspect in Scotland is still negligible and in some aspects it is totally
    1120
    non-existent? Have we now to await consideration of the Toothill Report before anything is done?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that the hon. Member is being rather unfair in suggesting that the D.S.I.R. does not Rut the due proportion of its total qualified manpower into Scotland, because no less than 15 per cent. goes into Scotland, whose population is only 10 per cent. of that of Great Britain as a whole.

    Space Exploration
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science, in his study of the possibilities and advantages of space exploration by means of rockets, what information his Department has sought and received from the United States of America and the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics about the scientific knowledge they have thus gained from sending men into space.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: Our plans for space exploration do not include any projects for sending men into space. No specific inquiries have therefore been directed to this activity. Much relevant information from both the United States and the U.S.S.R. is available to British scientists.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it true, as reported, that it is my hon. Friend's belief, although he has not made any inquiry, that the Americans and the Russians are not getting value for money out of sending men into space?
    Mr. Freeth: My noble Friend has been advised that the possible scientific benefits of sendings men into space would not justify our incurring the expenditure involved in putting men into space. This, I think, is the application of the principle to this country.
    Mr. J. T. Price: While the hon. Gentleman is considering this matter in further detail, could he give the House an interim indication of how his Ministry views the comments on space exploration by the Astronomer Royal who is reported as having said some time ago that he regarded this business as "all bunk"?
    Mr. Freeth: I think that goes rather wider than the Question.

    Linear Accelerator, Glasgow University
    Mr. Willisasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science why the Natural Philosophy Department of Glasgow University was not provided by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research with the necessary funds to proceed with the installation of its new linear accelerator which would have enabled them to undertake work in an area of nuclear physics hitherto not explored at all in Great Britain.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research considered the request from Glasgow University for £600,000 for a new linear accelerator in relation to other requests for major items of research equipment from universities, and in relation to the funds which they were prepared to allocate for this type of grant. The Council concluded that it could not then accede to the request from Glasgow University.
    Mr. Willis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Principal of Glasgow University has said that this project might well have put Great Britain ahead in this scientific enterprise and that, for lack of funds, we shall now lag behind other countries? Is not this a rather shocking state of affairs?
    Mr. Freeth: The hon. Member must realise that my noble Friend must take advice on scientific priorities from his scientific advisers. That is what he has done in this case.
    Mr. Lawson: Is it not the case that there was a choice between Glasgow University and Oxford University and that the Department chose Oxford rather than Glasgow?
    Mr. Freeth: I think the hon. Member is gravely mis-stating the decision that was taken when he says that Oxford was chosen rather than Glasgow. What was chosen was a project emanating from Oxford rather than a project emanating from Glasgow. In the opinion of my noble Friend's scientific advisers on the Research Council, the Glasgow proposal, though good, was not rated as highly as the proposal which came from Oxford at the same time.
    Mr. Albu: On a point of order. May I have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? Why was the Parliamentary Secretary prepared to answer this Question about research grants to universities but not the Question I put down?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not understand the point of order that the hon. Member is raising.
    Mr. Albu: I ask for your protection and guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how we can prevent Ministers from transferring Questions in a completely arbitrary manner and apparently according to no rule.
    Mr. Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I cannot as the Chair accept any responsibility for transfer.
    Mr. Willis: On a point of order. In view of the very unsatisfactory nature of the Answer to this Question, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Further to that point of order. I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will agree that this is a valid point of order and of some constitutional importance. In reply to a number of recent supplementary questions the Parliamentary Secretary has continually repeated the phrase. "My noble Friend must accept the opinion of the experts". Is this a correct attitude? A Minister is under no obligation to accept anybody's opinion. He is entitled to listen to it with the deepest respect, but for any representative of the Treasury Bench to tell the House that a Minister must accept—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is no point of order whatsoever. I do not have to direct Ministers how to answer or even if they should answer.

    Scientists (Employment)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Parliamentary Secretary for Science if he will give an estimate of the number of scientists employed on defence, and of those employed in industry, education, health and other civil services.
    Mr. Denzil Freeth: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman give the House an approximate indication of how many are employed on defence and how many on the other services?
    Mr. Freeth: Out of a total employment of 173,000 qualified scientists or equivalent in January 1959, which is the latest date for which I have figures, defence took 20,000.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Why has not the hon. Gentleman got figures for a later

    The most recent estimates relate to January, 1959:—

    Field of Employment

    Scientists

    Engineers

    Total

    Defence

    Not available

    Not available

    20,000

    Private Industry (Notes 1 and 2)

    24,254

    51,975

    76,229

    Education

    29,080

    4,570

    33,650

    Central Government (Notes 2 and 3)

    8,478

    10,624

    19,102

    Total Employment

    72,200

    100,800

    173,000

    (Source: "Scientific and Engineering Manpower in Great Britain, 1959 " Cmnd. 902)

    NOTE 1: Including building and contracting.

    NOTE 2: The estimates relating to defence include scientists and engineers engaged on defence projects in private industry and central government, as well as in the Armed Forces. Separate figures for the health services are not distinguished.

    NOTE 3: The A.E.A. is covered by this heading.

  HOUSING

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. K. Lewisasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he will take powers to ensure that local authorities which have approved applications for improvement grants do not subsequently withhold payment of such grants.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Dr. Charles Hill): This is not necessary. A local authority is already bound to pay a grant, where a valid application which complies with the statutory requirements is approved.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have a case in my constituency where an officer of the Ketton R.D.C., having approved an application for an improvement grant, has refused to issue the completion certificate for payment? Does he not think that this is a deplorable situation? Will he use
    1124
    date than 1959? Are not the figures kept up to date?
    Mr. Freeth: The difficulty here is not Government employment but employment in private industry. To get all the figures involves a very large amount of work. I do not think that it is worth suggesting that industry should do it every year. However, the figures will be collated again in January, 1962.
    Following is the information:
    his good offices with a view to getting payment in this case?
    Dr. Hill: If my hon. Friend has in mind a case in Stamford, the application was not valid because the owner did not at the time possess the requisite interest in the property. In fact he gave inaccurate information to the council by saying that he was the freeholder. The council's approval was conditional on the production of the title deeds before any work was started. In going ahead before doing this the applicant proceeded at his own peril.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the first I have heard of this? As I have received a letter from his Department which did not indicate this to me, perhaps the case is different. I cannot think that his original letter and his reply today are on all fours.
    Dr. Hill: If my hon. Friend will supply me with the details and so remove any danger of misapprehension, I shall be glad to reply to him.

    Evicted Persons (Accommodation)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs if he will introduce legislation empowering him to provide accommodation for persons evicted from their homes in consequence of the operation of the Rent Act.
    Dr. Hill: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave him on 28th November.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I read that Answer with considerable amazement, as did my borough council? Does he not think that when the Government introduce a Bill leading to evictions, as the Rent Act has done, they should take responsibility for providing accommodation for persons evicted? Is he aware that in Slough in the last few weeks there have been thirteen evictions. Ten of these have been under the Rent Act. There is no accommodation whatsoever to house these families.
    Dr. Hill: I recognise the difficulties of Slough, which arise in large part from a shortage of land in the area. I recognise that there is a considerable need for additional housing in the area, despite the fact that 2,500 houses have been built since the war—
    Mr. Brockway: Private houses.
    Dr. Hill: No. Two thousand, five hundred private houses and 3,720 council houses have been built since the war.
    Mr. M. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of his hon. Friends, namely, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. G. Johnson Smith), in a television programme has urged requisitioning as a cure for the problem of the homeless? Will he adopt the suggestion of my hon. Friend and introduce legislation to give either himself or local authorities the power to requisition to deal with homelessness?
    Dr. Hill: I have no such intention.

    Housing Programmes
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs how many
    1126
    housing authorities have now submitted their housing programmes in accordance with Circular 37/61; and what proportion of these authorities have informed him that they are unable to reduce their proposed programmes due to acute and pressing housing needs.
    Dr. Hill: Seven hundred, of which three have specifically informed me that they are unable to reduce their proposed programme due to acute and pressing housing needs.
    Mrs. Butler: In view of the serious housing shortage and the fact that 90 per cent. of our householders cannot afford to buy houses, is it not evident that any curtailment of council-house building is an economy that the nation cannot afford, particularly as the cuts will not be effective for a considerable time and council-house programmes, once disrupted, cannot easily, if at all, be restarted?
    Dr. Hill: I dealt in general with the prospects for next year in the housing debate two or three weeks ago, and I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.
    Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the private houses now being constructed do not provide accommodation for those most in need? Is he aware that the largest company building private houses in Slough says that 90 per cent. of those buying are not resident in Slough, and do not even work there?
    Dr. Hill: Of course I am aware, as I made clear a few weeks ago, of the substantial housing problem which confronts the country, and I have nothing to add to what I said on that occasion.

    Houses, Edmonton (Compulsory Purchase Orders)
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs why the Edmonton Borough Council was refused permission to purchase compulsorily, in accordance with his predecessor's Circular No. 45/60, five houses of which they considered rents had been exorbitantly increased.
    Dr. Hill: The two compulsory purchase orders covering these houses were not confirmed because the rents asked by the landlords were not thought to be exorbitant.
    Mr. Albu: Is the Minister aware that the rents asked are about four and a half times the gross value, and that, in addition, the landlords impose a condition that tenants must have incomes of at least four times the amount of the rent, plus rates? Is he further aware that most of these people earn about £12 or £16 a week, and that if they are turned out they have absolutely nowhere else to go where they can get houses to rent; and that they are now too old to be allowed to put down the money, even if they had it, to buy a house on mortgage?
    Dr. Hill: A typical house of the five mentioned was offered on a lease at £221 a year. I understand from the property company that the words to which the hon. Gentleman refers are being withdrawn, and that the tenants of the five houses are being offered alternative accommodation at considerably cheaper rents.
    Mr. Albu: That is complete news to me. Where the right hon. Gentleman gets that information, I do not know. Would he not, however, agree that this shows the extreme value of the Parliamentary Questions that are now being addressed to him? Does he not also think that if powers are given to local authorities, the authorities should be allowed to use them, so that tenants are not put to weeks and weeks of utter misery waiting to find out what is to happen?
    Dr. Hill: I warmly agree with the hon. Gentleman on the first point. He says that the information is new to him. It was new to me until this morning. I sought it in order to give a more effective and informative answer to him.
    Mr. M. Stewart: If four and a half times the gross value is not exorbitant, what is?
    Dr. Hill: The inspector examined the circumstances in detail. He recommended that these were not exorbitant rents, and the Minister accepted the recommendation.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Soft Detergent
    Mrs. Slaterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (1) what effect the use of soft detergent has on river pollution; and how far its use could be extended;
    (2) if he has considered the fourth progress report of the Standing Technical Committee on Synthetic Detergents; and what recommendations will be made on the extensive use of the soft detergent.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): The Committee reported a reduction in the concentration of synthetic detergent in effluents from sewage works in areas where soft detergent had been sold; but found that the soft detergent now in use did not provide a complete solution and that further improvement was necessary.
    Mrs. Slater: Would not the use of soft detergent considerably reduce foam and also the amount of detergent left in sewers? This would be a considerable saving to many local authorities and would help in the working of the sewerage departments. Could not my suggestion be examined to see how far use of soft detergent could be extended in other areas?
    Mr. Rippon: The Luton experiment served a valuable purpose in this regard and preliminary investigations have been satisfactory. The Committee found that it could not reach any firm conclusion on the advantages to be gained by replacing the hard detergent by the soft detergent at this stage. More research is necessary. The Committee is pursuing this and I think that we shall have some more information in its next report.

    Leicester and Leicestershire (Boundary Commission's Proposals)
    Mr. Farrasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs when a public inquiry will be held to investigate objections to the Local Boundary Commission's proposals to merge parts of Leicestershire with the City of Leicester.
    Dr. Hill: I cannot give a precise date but I expect to arrange this inquiry in the spring.
    Mr. Farr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have received over 5,000 letters strongly objecting to these proposals? Will he hold the inquiry as soon as possible so that over 20,000 people will have the opportunity of expressing their views through their representatives and be put out of their uncertainty as to whether they will remain in the City or the County of Leicester?
    Dr. Hill: The opportunity for objectors will come in due course. The West Midlands investigations, which were the subject of a report before the investigation to which my hon. Friend refers, of themselves involve fifteen public inquiries. So it is not possible to start the inquiry in which my hon. Friend is interested until the spring.

    Towns and Cities (Redevelopment)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs whether he is now prepared to assist local authorities in the financing of the redevelopment of their towns and cities, by enabling them to forgo payment of interest on loans until revenue begins to accrue; and when he will make a statement as to his intentions.
    Dr. Hill: Local authorities have power to defer provision for the repayment of loans in respect of expenditure on certain services, but I am advised that it would require legislation to extend this to redevelopment. I would be prepared to consider this when a suitable opportunity arises, but I cannot say when that will be.
    Dr. Stross: While, in part, thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his Answer, may I ask whether he remembers that his predecessor—and, certainly, the former Parliamentary Secretary—appeared convinced that this would be a desirable step to take? May I, therefore, urge the right hon. Gentleman, in view of his past professional career, to take steps as soon as possible to see that local authorities have the power to take this opportunity of rebuilding their cities and towns?
    Dr. Hill: I had intended my Answer to convey sympathy with the hon. Member's point, but what I cannot say is when it will be possible to introduce any such change.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Further to the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross), would the Minister do all he can to help local authorities to escape the clutches of property speculators, who are always lying in wait for an opportunity to develop town centres?
    Dr. Hill: That is just a rhetorical question, intended to convey bias rather than to seek information.

    Derelict Land
    Mr. Boydenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs what amount was expended by local authorities, and what percentage of this sum was contributed by his Department, by way of general grant during 1960, in respect of planting, reclaiming or otherwise improving derelict land; and what additional expenditures and measures are proposed for 1962.
    Mr. Rippon: I do not know how much local authorities spend in total on improving derelict land under their various powers. Where it is done under planning powers the expenditure is of a kind that is taken into account in fixing general grant, but it cannot without a great deal of work be isolated from other planning expenditure which is also taken into account. The increased general grants for 1962–63 assumed a 43 per cent. increase in planning expenditure over the level of the previous year.
    Mr. Boyden: Is it not most extraordinary that when the Minister of Education has to deal with teachers' salaries he knows precisely how much of the general grant goes in those salaries, but that where it is a matter of urgent reconstruction the hon. Gentleman does not know the figure? Is not his programme almost as bad as that of the Board of Trade, which has done no reclamation or development in the last year, or is he really trying to stimulate an interest in this work?
    Mr. Rippon: I do not think that it is at all extraordinary. The local authority associations do not find any difficulty at all in acting on this basis.

    CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (QUESTIONS)
    Mr. Jayasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to answer Parliamentary Questions.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The normal arrangement is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Economic Secretary answer those Questions put down to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for oral answer on a Thursday.
    Mr. Jay: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answers Questions in his own right? As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is a very important Minister, as a member of the Cabinet and responsible, apparently, for the whole field of public expenditure, should not hon. Members have an opportunity to ask him Questions direct?
    The Prime Minister: The only Questions which the Financial Secretary has, by long tradition, answered, are those that deal with the Civil Service, where he is recognised as having a special responsibility. I think that it would be really more satisfactory to keep to the normal rule of putting questions to the Ministerial head of the Department, and for them to be answered as is convenient, according to the subject.
    Mr. Jay: As public expenditure is a matter of very great concern to the House, and as the Chief Secretary is a member of the Cabinet and the Financial Secretary is not, should not hon. Members on both sides have the chance to ask Questions of the Chief Secretary who, otherwise, will not appear at Question Time at all?
    The Prime Minister: I think that this will work itself out in the most convenient way if Questions are put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It just so happens that there has not been a Thursday recently on which the Treasury Questions have been reached.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Would the Prime Minister reconsider this matter? If the Financial Secretary to the Treasury answers Questions in his own right—as, of course, he does—is it not really commonsense that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury should deal with Questions on public expenditure for which he is specifically responsible, and has been made responsible by the Prime Minister himself?
    The Prime Minister: I only wish to do what is convenient to the House. If Questions on these particular subjects are put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer they will be answered by the Chief Secretary, but I do not think that, without careful thought, we want to upset the whole arrangements for Questions, because we shall only deprive other hon. Members of opportunities.

    PIT CLOSURES, SCOTLAND
    Mr. Gourlayasked the Prime Minister when he received a letter from Kirkcaldy Town Council calling attention to the need for Government action to remedy the effects of the closure of sixteen Scottish pits; and what was the nature of his reply.
    The Prime Minister: I received the letter on 27th November. The Kirkcaldy Town Council was told that the terms of the resolution which it had sent to me had been noted.
    Mr. Gourlay: Is the Prime Minister aware that this resolution was unanimously approved at a specially convened meeting of the Kirkcaldy Town Council which, politically, is evenly divided? Is he aware that the town council's action underlines the growing apprehension in all sections of the community in Scotland about the future of Scottish collieries? Does he deny that he condones the apparent intention of the Coal Board and the Government to close the Scottish coal fields irrespective of the grave social and economic consequences of such an action?
    The Prime Minister: That, of course, is a very large issue. With regard to this particular letter, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not think that I was guilty of any discourtesy in merely acknowledging it. I was informed that

    1133
    a very long, reasoned reply was being sent by the Minister of Power, and the town council informed me that it was sending a copy of that letter to the hon. Gentleman.
    Miss Herbison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only the Minister of Power who must be concerned in this business? Is he not aware that every local authority in Scotland is concerned, and that, if there are to be closures, we want alternative industry? Alternative industry involves other Ministers, and the Prime Minister is over all.
    The Prime Minister: That process is, of course, going on. As the House was, I think, informed, alternative work will be available within travelling distance of their homes for the great majority of the miners affected by these closures.

    NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION AND WARSAW PACT
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with President Kennedy with regard to the President's recent proposal for a non-aggression pact between the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and Warsaw Pact countries.
    The Prime Minister: In the reports that I have seen of the interview that President Kennedy gave to the Editor of Izvestia the President said this:
    "I think it would be helpful if N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact engaged in a commitment to live in peace with each other. I certainly believe we should take every conceivable step to prevent surprise attack".
    Any discussions which I may have with President Kennedy would of course be confidential. But when we meet again later this month we shall continue our discussions about the international situation and, naturally, all the important current problems will be covered.
    Mr. Henderson: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the signing of a non-aggression pact between the N.A.T.O. Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers would be a useful contribution to the reduction of East-West tension and the
    1134
    building up of European security? May we take it that Her Majesty's Government will support this proposal by President Kennedy?
    The Prime Minister: The signing of a pact is not in itself important, although it may be valuable. What is important, and I hope we shall work at it, is trying to get a negotiation on Berlin, then, gradually, the possibility of getting a settlement of wider questions and then, in the terms of the President's proposal, we might be in a position to get some sense of security into Europe.
    Mr. H. Wilson: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us feel—as I am sure he does himself—that the President's interview with Izvestia gave a very welcome leadership to the West and one that was long-awaited on this as well as on other issues? On this issue, would the Prime Minister, in advance of his meeting with the President, say that he agrees with and endorses the words used by President Kennedy in respect of an agreement between the two pact organisations?
    The Prime Minister: President Kennedy carefully avoided the use of the word "pact" and I must remind the House—as I have been reminding myself by reading the history of the years immediately before the last war—that there were more pacts signed by everyone on every conceivable subject, from the Kellogg Pact onwards. What we want is a basis on which the President's proposals can become effective.
    Mr. Wilson: That was interesting, but would be Prime Minister now answer the question whether he, in advance of his very important meeting with the President, agrees with the words used by President Kennedy on that occasion which, as he said, made no reference to the word "pact"? Does he agree with those words?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, of course. President Kennedy said:
    "… it would be helpful if N.A.T.O. and the Warsaw Pact engaged in a commitment to live in peace with each other."
    I am sure it is. He went on to say:
    "I certainly believe we should take every conceivable step to prevent surprise attack."

    1135
    This is one of the essentials, and he continued:
    "… if the relations between our countries can be normalised, there will be less military buildup on both sides; but we cannot now withdraw our troops from Europe, way back across the Atlantic Ocean, when you "—
    the Russians—
    "merely withdraw your troops to the Soviet Union which is only a few hundred miles away."
    That is why we need some understanding of what the situation will be in Berlin, Europe and Germany. With all that, I think that all hon. Members would be in agreement.
    Mr. Grimond: Would not the Prime Minister agree that the settlement of Berlin may itself depend on some wider settlement in Eastern Europe? When the President speaks of commitments and the Prime Minister speaks of finding a basis for peace, what can this mean except some form of agreement or pact covering the area?
    The Prime Minister: I do not want to be drawn into a discussion of how we should now best approach what is a very difficult and may become a critical situation. Myself, I feel and hope that we shall soon be in a position to make a fruitful negotiation. Exactly its extent and how and where it should begin and end must be a matter first of agreement with the Western Powers, and then we can see how the negotiation can proceed.

    SECURITY (H.M.S. "DREADNOUGHT")
    Mr. Shortasked the Prime Minister what review of security arrangements he has ordered as a consequence of the recent evidence on security concerning the atomic reactor in H.M.S. "Dreadnought", details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central.
    The Prime Minister: None, Sir. The security of H.M.S. "Dreadnought" has not been compromised nor are her security arrangements unsatisfactory.
    Mr. Short: Yes, but is the Prime Minister aware that, much as I dislike his Government, I am not trying to embarrass him on this question? Is he not aware of the importance of the
    1136
    allegations made on 2nd June by Senator Clinton Anderson, which have just been revealed, and which should be cleared up; allegations in which he said that American secrets of submarine nuclear propulsion had gone from this country to Russia? Would the Prime Minister be a bit more forthcoming about that, and say whether the Radcliffe Committee has yet reported to him and, if so, whether it has considered this specific matter?
    The Prime Minister: There are three parts to that supplementary question. First, much as he may dislike me, I do not dislike him at all.
    Mr. Short: I did not say that.
    The Prime Minister: Me and my colleagues. I do not dislike him or his colleagues at all. On the second part, there was no evidence at all. On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman sent me a Press report consisting of a denial by the United States authorities of an assumption made by the United States senator in question. On the third part, I hope to make a statement before Christmas after considering the Report of the Radcliffe Committee. I will be in touch with the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition as to the best moment for making that statement.

    INDUSTRIAL HEALTH
    Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if he will consider the appointment of a Secretary for Industrial Health and the establishment of a new department to promote and administer a comprehensive occupational health service.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Pavitt: In spite of the good work being done by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, may I ask whether the Prime Minister is aware that there are still two or three people killed every working day and that fifty-six times more people are absent from work through illness than through strikes? According to Parkinson's Law, if one divides things between two Ministries one gets little advance. Perhaps the Prime Minister will consider doing the same as was done for the Department of Technical Co-operation, and combine two Ministries in this way?
    The Prime Minister: I am anxious to make all the progress we can. I do not wish to stand in the way for purely administrative reasons, and I will discuss this matter further with the Minister of Labour to see by what means he thinks further progress can be made.

    OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS (CLASSIFICATION)
    Commander Keransasked the Prime Minister whether he will take steps to review the arrangements for the classification of official documents in Government Departments.
    The Prime Minister: This is one aspect of our security procedures, all of which have recently been under review by the Radcliffe Committee.
    Commander Kerans: Will not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a terrible tendency in most Government Departments to overgrade documents, and will he look into the matter and advise Departments to downgrade wherever possible, which would lead to fewer incidents than has been the case in the past?
    The Prime Minister: I will consider this matter in connection with the Report.

    TRADE AND INDUSTRY, NORTH OF SCOTLAND
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he is aware that trade and industry in the North of Scotland are suffering as a result of the lack of co-ordination between the policies of Her Majesty's Government with regard to transport and trade, respectively, in that area; and if he will direct the Secretary of State for Scotland, the President of the Board of Trade, and the Ministers of Aviation, Labour and Transport to consult together as to the best means of encouraging trade, industry and labour to the North of Scotland.
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends concerned always maintain the closest consultation in implementing the Government's policy of steering industry into development districts like the North
    1138
    of Scotland; so no special direction by me is necessary.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister look down from his great eminence on the conflicts that are going on between the Ministers mentioned in the Question and the immediate chaos of trade, industry and employment in the North of Scotland, and take urgent steps to resolve the conflict so that full employment may be achieved?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's premises and, therefore, I cannot accept his conclusion. As he knows, in the area of Aberdeen the rate of unemployment for the three months ending November was 2·9 per cent. compared with 3 per cent. in the previous year.

    DR. ADENAUER (MEETING)
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister whether, in his forthcoming discussions with Dr. Adenauer, he will propose that, in the forthcoming negotiations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the question of future security arrangements in Central Europe shall be discussed as well as the Berlin situation.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister to what extent, in his forthcoming meeting with Dr. Adenauer, he proposes to convey to the German Chancellor the concern in Great Britain about the growth of the German armed forces and the proposals made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to arm Germany with nuclear weapons.
    Mr. M. Footasked the Prime Minister whether, in forthcoming discussions with Dr. Adenauer, he will express clear British opposition to any proposals made in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for the establishment of a North Atlantic Treaty Organisation nuclear deterrent and the supply of nuclear weapons to West Germany.
    The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) on 28th November.
    Mr. Warbey: Yes, but can the Prime Minister say whether the Government

    1139
    accept the policy impressed on them by Dr. Adenauer and the N.A.T.O. military chiefs that it is better to keep Berlin and Germany divided with all the fateful consequences of such a policy rather than to accept any form of arms control or disengagement in Central Europe?
    The Prime Minister: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementry question, I cannot accept his statement and, therefore, I would not discuss the value of the policy which he alleges has been accepted.
    Mr. Hughes: Can the Prime Minister say if the supply of nuclear weapons to Germany is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that concern is growing in the country about the increased military organisations and the military strength in Germany?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the second part of that supplementary question, German armaments are in accordance with policies agreed both under the Brussels Treaty and N.A.T.O. With regard to nuclear weapons, no nuclear warheads are under German control.
    Mr. M. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that President Kennedy recently made a new declaration on this subject in his interview with Izvestia, that Dr Adenauer has made a report to his Parliament on the subject—a report which seems to contradict what has been said by President Kennedy—and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is his duty to give to the British House of Commons as full a report on this matter as Dr. Adenauer has given to the German Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. In the present situation—I ask for some forbearance from the House—I think that the best contribution that our country can make is to play its rôle in these preliminary discussions and hope that they will lead to fruitful negotiations.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Reverting to Question No. Q8, has the Prime Minister abandoned for the, as we hope, forthcoming discussions on Berlin any idea that a zone of controlled disarmament should be introduced? Is not this one of the most fruitful ideas, and one which he
    1140
    discussed with Mr. Khrushchev some time ago? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is strong support for this idea in the country?
    The Prime Minister: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that, when I discussed that with Mr. Khrushchev and published it jointly with him, it was part of a larger peace plan as a whole.
    Mr. Gaitskell: Nevertheless, is it not a fact that in the communiqué to which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman was referring, it was stated that both he and Mr. Khrushchev agreed that the plan was well worth further study, and we have always been trying to find out when that further study was to be given to it?
    The Prime Minister: The point was that it was to be part of a larger settlement. I am asked now whether I will state what proposals we shall put forward. I ask again for the forbearance of the House. The first thing to do is to try to get through the immediate Berlin problem and crisis. To do that we want to reach a joint Western position. We must then enter into negotiations. The negotiations may be difficult and prolonged, or they may be much easier than we think. We may be able to widen them into something more fruitful or we may have to rest content in the first stages with a narrower agreement. What we want to do is to remove the sense of crisis and try to get at least the beginning of some settlement. I honestly ask the House to allow the Government to play their rôle as best they think in trying to arrive at this result.
    Mr. H. Wilson: I think we all understand the Prime Minister's request for forbearance, but is he aware that, although we all welcome what he has just said about the factual situation in relation to nuclear arms for Germany, namely, that they do not have them, is he aware that we should all welcome from him a clear statement—which would not in any way tie his hands—that Her Majesty's Government will oppose any change in that situation and will insist that nuclear arms be not given to Germany?
    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government can play their part so far as they have power under the Brussels Treaty, under which, as the right hon.

    1141
    Gentleman well knows, the Germans are precluded from the manufacture of nuclear arms. That, therefore, is within the power of Her Majesty's Government as signatory to the Treaty. On other questions, it is a matter not of power but of influence.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Does not the Prime Minister realise that, although we all understand the limits affecting one ally in consultation with other allies, what the House would like is an expression of the Prime Minister's own opinion on this matter? In view of his reference to the agreements under which German armaments were allowed and to the fact that under those agreements nuclear weapons were not permitted, could not the right hon. Gentleman give one word of reassurance to the House that Her Majesty's Government are at this moment opposed to any alteration of those agreements which would result in the German forces having control of nuclear weapons?
    The Prime Minister: This is where there has been so much misunderstanding and mis-statement in the country. The Germans do not have control of the nuclear war heads. There has been great pressure that their forces should be less well armed than those of their allies. That I believe to be impossible in any military formation; they must have the same armaments as the formations working by their side. Control of the warheads which are given to them by the American Government lies in the hands of the American Government alone.
    Mr. Grimond: But will the Prime Minister at least agree that any building up of nuclear arms in Germany which led to the impression that forces in Germany were becoming more and more dependent on nuclear arms rather than conventional arms would create the worst possible atmosphere for starting the sort of negotiations of which he has spoken?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman realises what are the actual formation and military arrangements by which the tactical nuclear weapons are held. So far as the N.A.T.O. authorities wish them and have agreed that they should be held, there is no distinction made between the
    1142
    various allied countries in N.A.T.O. What remains is the control of their use, which, in the case of these weapons where the warhead is nuclear, lies with the American Government.

EGYPT (COMPENSATION AGREEMENT)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. HIRST: To ask the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government have yet been able to provide for increased interim payments of compensation to British subjects whose property in the United Arab Republic has been Egyptionised or suffered loss or damage while under sequestration.
Mr. WALL: TO ask the Lord Privy Seal what increases it is proposed to authorise the Foreign Compensation Commission to make in the interim payments to British subjects whose property in Egypt was Egyptianised or suffered loss or damage while under sequestration.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will now answer Questions Nos. 70 and 71 together.
A new Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Interim Distribution) (Amendment) Order was laid before the House yesterday. Its Schedule sets out the following new scale for the payment of compensation to those claimants whose property was either taken over by the Egyptian Government or suffered loss or damage while under sequestration:

90 per cent. on the first £5,000 of each claim;

60 per cent. on the next £45,000 of each claim;

35 per cent. on the next £450,000 of each claim;

20 per cent. on all amounts over £500,000.

This Order, which supersedes the scale laid down in the Order of 30th November, 1960, comes into force today. The increases for which it provides apply to all claims which can properly be made against the Egyptian Compensation Fund, whether already assessed,

1143
or still to be assessed, by the Foreign Compensation Commission.
Mr. Hirst: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said, but is he aware that the sum of money appears to be a good deal too small out of the sum available? Can he give any information as to the total payment which this entails on top of the £6 million already paid out? Does he realise that these tedious and halting steps towards repayment, though welcome, are really painful, and, having in mind the Prime Minister's speech in the House when he did not rule out larger sums being available if the fund was not sufficient to liquidate the debts, will my right hon. Friend accept that a more venturesome policy could be indulged in?
Mr. Heath: Eight and a half million pounds have so far been paid by the Foreign Compensation Commission. These new rates will increase that sum considerably. As there is still a considerable number of claims for loss on sequestration to come in as the property is being desequestrated, it is not possible to estimate exactly what the total amount paid at these new rates will be. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact figure. What I have said goes as far as we can go at the moment.
Mr. W. Yates: Is the Lord Privy Seal aware of the statement made by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer that, if the sums of money available were not adequate to meet these claims, Her Majesty's Government would see that they were met properly?
Mr. Heath: Yes, I am well aware of that statement, and, of course, Her Majesty's Government adhere to it; but we cannot yet foresee what the total amount will be. Until desequestration is nearly at its end, it will not be possible to do so.

CONGO (SITUATION, KATANGA)
Mr. A. Henderson Mr. A. Henderson (by Private Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether, in view of the criticism yesterday by Mr. Tshombe of the United Nations and its Secretary-General, he will make a statement on the further deterioration in the Congo.
The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Edward Heath): The situation in the Katanga has deteriorated in the past week. Incidents which have taken place have resulted in casualties on both sides. The Katangans are believed by the United Nations to be holding a number of United Nations Service men and civilians, although they have only admitted to Her Majesty's Consul to holding one. The United Nations deny that they hold any Katanga gendarmes.
Her Majesty's Consul has told Mr. Kimba on his own initiative that he hopes that any prisoners held will be released at once. He has since repeated this at the request of the United Nations. I have seen reports of Mr. Tshombe's speech in Paris on 4th December and I very much regret the intemperate nature of some of his remarks.
There are now reports from the Katanga that fighting has broken out again. The extent of this is not clear. The United Nations civil authorities, after announcing that they had discovered a Katanga "battle plan", said that in the circumstances they had handed over control to their military colleagues. I have instructed our representative at New York to make immediate inquiries about this. Her Majesty's Government will continue their efforts to lower the tension in every way open to them.
Mr. Henderson: In view of the allegations made yesterday by Dr. O'Brien, would the Lord Privy Seal clarify the Government's policy on these two points? Is it their intention to work towards the recognition of Katanga as an independent republic? Or is it their policy to give the fullest support to the new United Nations Secretary-General in his efforts to secure a peaceful settlement of this problem by implementation of the resolutions of 21st February and 24th November in the General Assembly?
Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government's policy in the Congo has been made absolutely plain on a very large number of occasions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—by my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary at the United Nations, by the British delegate at the United Nations in each of the debates, and by myself here in the House of Commons, and in the country during the events in September when the House was not

1145
sitting. It is that the Congo should remain within its present frontiers as a united country. That we have always emphasised. Whatever constitutional arrangements there may be within those frontiers is a matter for those in the Congo to settle themselves. We believe that they should be given every help in settling them. I think that that answers the right hon. and learned Gentleman's first point.
In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's second point, Her Majesty's Government have supported the resolutions of the United Nations and made their position plain. When they have had reservations, the British delegate at the United Nations has explained those reservations. We have, in fact, supported the United Nations in carying out its resolutions. On 17th October we debated the events of September in the House. I gave a very full account of those events and Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards them. I pointed out then that what was at stake was not the question of implementing the resolutions, but whether those in the Congo had exceeded the authority which they had under the resolutions. That is a quite separate question. Her Majesty's Government have supported the resolutions.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Would it not be quite wrong for the United Nations again to try to suppress the aspirations of the Katangan people? Is it not clear, that, if the United Nations forces were not there, there would be no conflict? However, taking the position as it is, is my right hon. Friend aware that Her Majesty's Government will have the full support of this country in anything that they can do for conciliation?
Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Government have made it plain that they believe that force should be used in the Congo only in the last resort and to prevent civil war among those there. That is Her Majesty's Government's policy, and we adhere to it.
Mr. H. Wilson: While endorsing what the right hon. Gentleman said in deploring the terms of Mr. Tshombe's recent speech, and also his concern about the very serious deterioration in the situation in Katanga now that the Katangan forces seem to be completely out of control, may I ask him whether
1146
he is aware that we feel that the Government have still quite a lot to explain to this House, particularly the statement of the British representative to the Security Council, our vote on the resolution and a number of other allegations, including those referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson)? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider either making a fuller statement, or asking the Leader of the House whether we could have Government time to debate this matter more fully in the near future?
In advance of that, would the right hon. Gentleman clear up one matter which is causing concern, namely, whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's Government's Vice-Consul in Elisabethville is also a member of the Ministry of External Affairs of the Central African Republic?
Mr. Heath: Since the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for the first time in his new capacity on the Opposition Front Bench, may I congratulate him on his new post? I must say that I do not understand the point of the last part of his question. I dealt with the last resolution in the United Nations at considerable length last Wednesday at Question Time, during Questions on the Congo.
The right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, who has heard what the right hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if some of the African gendarmerie in Elisabethville have been out of control recently, it is a direct result of the policy of getting rid of the so-called mercenaries and white officers of the forces? In so far as they supported this policy at the United Nations, Her Majesty's Government must take some responsibility in this matter.
Is it really fair to ascribe the word "intemperate" to the terms of the speech made by Mr. Tshombe when Mr. Tshombe and his Government see their whole country being wrecked by the United Nations' adventures in Katanga? They are, in fact, in a state of war with the United Nations, which has invaded them once and has been responsible for the uprising of the Balubas, and so on.

1147
Therefore, are we immediately going to withdraw our supply of money for this force in Katanga?
Mr. Heath: Concerning the situation about the gendarmerie, we have not yet been able to get any direct information from our own officials in the Congo or from the United Nations about the situation in Katanga this afternoon. Therefore, I do not propose to comment on that aspect of the situation. I do not think—and here I believe that the House will agree with me—that this serious situation will be helped by intemperate language from any quarter.
I much regret that there should have been language of the type used by Mr. Tshombe in his speech. It is again indicative of the very high tension which exists in Katanga and other parts of the Congo at the moment, which is why Her Majesty's Government have been devoting all their efforts to trying to bring about a meeting between Mr. Tshombe and Mr. Adoula in order to lower the tension and to reach a settlement of the constitutional problem.
Mr. Warbey: In view of the fact that Mr. Tshombe and the Katangan authorities are now in full and flagrant defiance of the United Nations, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the Government will desist from weakening the United Nations in carry-
1148
ing out the decisions of the Security Council and will henceforth give the United Nations full support in carrying out whatever actions may be necessary to ensure that those decisions are executed?
Mr. Heath: I must completely repudiate the hon. Gentleman's remark about Her Majesty's Government's policy.
Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the Lord Privy Seal tell us what protests were made by Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville to Mr. Tshombe against the continued incitement to violence which he has carried out over recent weeks, particularly the speech inciting the people to all-out war against the United Nations which preceded by one day the attack on Mr. Ivan Smith and Mr. Urquhart?
Mr. Heath: Her Majesty's Consul in Elisabethville has throughout used his influence in the cause of conciliation. He has been doing it untiringly. We have complete confidence in him. Moreover, there have been a number of occasions in recent months when Her Majesty's Consul has been the only form of "go-between" between the United Nations and the Government in Katanga. The United Nations has asked him to carry out functions for that purpose. We have complete confidence in him.

NORTH ATLANTIC SHIPPING ACT, 1961 (REPEAL)
3.49 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Hale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the North Atlantic Shipping Act, 1961.
It was said sadly by a distinguished King's Counsel when hearing his first Admiralty case as President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, "I hope that there will be no moaning by the Bar when I put out to sea." I humbly echo that hope.
Although we were at one time a great maritime nation, with a great Atlantic fleet under British command, and although there was a day when all of us must have felt the salt in our blood and
"longed for a tall ship and a star to steer her by,"
I must confess that my most adventurous journey on the Atlantic was an unpremeditated and completely involuntary one made by dinghy, which almost caused a by-election.
My only journey across the Atlantic on a "Queen" was, unhappily, made at a time when the "Queen Mary" had not been refitted after the war, when it was completely denuded of all forms of equipment, with no taps, doorknobs, hooks, and so on, most of which were wandering around space as memories and memorials, when we were accommodated in a doorless dormitory and I was awakened at 4 a.m. by a respectable and grey-haired lady holding my hand and inquiring anxiously if I was saved. I replied brutally and inaccurately that I was, and I still have some regret at the disappointment that she was occasioned.
Of course, this is unfair to the Cunard Company. I am one of those who feel that the Cunard Company has been very unfairly treated. Whatever may be thought of the original proposal, there is no justification for all that has occurred. The Cunard Company is left with the melancholy realisation that when Her Majesty's Government were smiling benevolently upon them, their shares and their shareholders were both jittery. Now that Her Majesty's Government have turned their face to the other
1150
side, a measure of equilibrium has been restored.
Perhaps I might briefly explain the financial implications of the Measure which I propose. The North Atlantic Shipping Act provided for the allocation of a total sum of £18 million from public funds, of which £14¾ million was to be on the "Kathleen Mavourneen "—" it may be for years, and it may be for ever "—and £3¼ million was in the form of a pourboire.
If we limit our discussion to the £3¼ million which immediately becomes available for any purpose, it is, even in the present day, no small sum. At present rates, it would purchase half a dozen Rembrandts or about 30 Jimmy Greaves. It would provide 100 luxury flats under the present Government, or 2,000 working-class houses under a Labour Government. It could buy 250 tons of caviare for the general and leave some money for a necklace for his wife. What is more important, it could provide the penicillin which could save 15 million children crippled by yaws, or provide research into the causes and control of onchocerciasis and tripanosomiasis which might save millions of people from blindness.
I apprehend, however, in referring to this matter, that the decision of the House was that the money should be used to help merchant shipping. My hon. Friends who represent the shipbuilding constituencies, and hon. Members on the other side, some of whom made almost a declaration of interest that they had secured their election by promising two "Queens", and who may now wish to promise something else, have made a case for the shipping industry. No one really doubts that there is a case.
I am one of those who have never been convinced that the necessity of maritime supremacy involved the provision of huge liners. I think in terms of merchant shipping and of tankers, not perhaps in terms of Quinquireme of Nineveh from distant Ophir, but rather of the
"Dirty British coaster with a salt-caked smoke stack,
Butting through the Channel in the mad March days,
With a cargo of Tyne coal,
Road-rail, pig-lead,
Firewood, iron-ware, and cheap tin trays."

1151
All the available modern evidence is in favour of that proposition. If we take the most rapidly expanded maritime nation in the world—Liberia—we find that she has no large liners and, indeed, very few large ports. The largest individually controlled and the most prosperous merchant fleet in the world is owned by Mr. Onassis, a man who is certainly no Tom Bowling, because his interests are so extensive that they embrace even grand opera. His best known ship is a yacht. As far as I am aware, he has comparatively few ships of the very large tonnage envisaged by the Act.
We all know that the Act is dead. At the conclusion of the Third Reading debate on the Measure, which obtained the support of only one-fifth of the Members of the House in the Lobby, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport talked gaily of the maiden voyage and the safety of the passengers on board. We were told that John Brown had allocated a berth for the building of the ship. We know now that this other body of John Brown lies "a'mouldering in the grave" and that the time has come when the Act should be repealed.
I have no desire today to say anything controversial, or to indulge in polemics. There is, however, one other aspect of the matter. No one is quite sure how the Bill was begotten. I find some historical sympathy with the desire of the Government to treat their unpremeditated election pledges rather as Charles James Fox used to treat his gambling debts: a matter of priority over more solid engagements. All the available evidence seems to suggest that the origin of the Act was an unpremeditated observation by the Prime Minister on a gay election night in Glasgow, when he was reported as having promised two "Queens". That may, of course, have been a stutter, but it does not seem to have been disputed that he promised one. But there is a point when this House should try to remember that the promises made in the pre-election prosperity period have to be carried out, if they are to be carried out at all, in the post-election economic crisis.
I do not want to say anything unkind. I wondered whether I might make my point by recording an example from
1152
French local government. I recall the French village after the war that was devastated by explosions and war damage to the extent that it was isolated, the bridge was down, the road was up and the commercial activity of this charming village had been brought almost to an end. A Left-wing maire, with the help of a devoted highway surveyor, tackled the job. The years went by, but it still was not complete.
There came an election. A highly respected local worthy, noted for his interest in le sport, was invited to stand for the mairie and was elected. Only after the election vote was it recalled—the cognoscenti certainly recalled—that his devotion to sport meant that amongst his lares and penates he possessed five sporting guns, four fishing rods and three mistresses, on all of whom he lavished devoted care, rubbing some of them over with an oily rag every day, and treating the others after their fashion.
The inevitable result was that when the woods had been restocked with game, the rivers with fish and the mistresses with mink, there was no money left to repair the road. The highway surveyor was left lonely in his office writing a definitive life of John Macadam and the solitary hotel was almost unapproachable, still boasting proudly the little notice "lci a dormi Selwyn Lloyd". under which an irreverent gamin had written, in blue chalk, "et n'a jamais réveilé".
I ask the Leader of the House to allow me to introduce this important Measure. I hope that if leave is accorded, when I advance to the Table the House will imagine me at least as accompanied by the unspoken but moving words of Kipling and the music of Elgar:
"Come back Unity, Claribel, Assyrian. Stormcock and Golden Gain"
Mr. Speaker: The Question is, That the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) be given leave to bring in a Bill—the principles of which he has been explaining—to repeal the North Atlantic Shipping Act, 1961.
4.1 p.m.
Sir John Vaughan-Morgan: I rise to oppose the Motion. First, I should like to say with what difficulty I follow the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), who has spoken with

1153
his usual wit, cogency and rapidity. I can at least claim that I shall speak a little slower. The House must be very grateful and deeply moved to think that we have been allowed this witty speech only because the hon. Member was saved from both the dinghy and the grey-haired lady. Though it satisfied you Mr. Speaker, I thought that the hon. Member gave singularly few reasons for moving his Motion. If I may, I shall fill in any gaps that he left.
In all seriousness, this proposed Bill should not be given priority over other Private Members' Bills. First, the hon. Member means it as a serious Measure and I think it fair to say that it will probably be opposed. Secondly, is it right that private Members' time, of which there is all too little, should be used to frustrate or nullify the Government's intentions?
Mr. John Rankin: What are they?
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: Is it right when, as in this case, events in the shape of the Board of the Cunard Company have, fortunately in my view, done it for us.
I must also say that I think it ill becomes the Opposition to urge the repeal of the Act. They failed to oppose it on either Second Reading or Third Reading, with one or two honourable but unofficial exceptions, one of whom, of course, was the lone-star Liberal Leader. On the occasion of Second Reading, the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) made a very telling and forceful speech and then failed to take his legions into the Lobby. His remarkable denunciation of the Bill followed by no vote was a classic example of Vauxhall et praeterea nihil. It is fortunate that the right hon. Gentleman did not divide the House, because hon. Members like myself would have found ourselves in a considerable dilemma.
It is an open secret that many of us dislike the Act intensely, but we could not vote against it because of an election pledge. We found ourselves hamstrung in action because of this millstone of an election pledge round our necks—if I may mix my metaphors. We were unhappy at the course of events which led the Government to implement their
1154
pledge, which was, I remind the House, to support the replacement of the "Queen" liner.
Mr. Rankin: It was not. It was two "Queens."
Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: But one cannot support a replacement if there is no replacement.
My hon. Friends who dislike the Act need have no fear. The Act is as dead as the dodo. There will be no Q.3 and if there is a Q.4 its building will not take place under the provisions of the Act. The days of the begging bowl are over. My hon. Friends can contrast the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when winding up the Second Reading of the North Atlantic Shipping Bill, as it then was, with the remarks he made on 26th July, when he said that he saw no reason ahead for more assistance to private industry.
I, for one, welcome that conversion. This Act, unloved, unhonoured and un-implemented, will eventually be revised into oblivion. Let it for the moment remain on the Statute Book. Despite all the work of those whose job it is to consolidate and revise our Statutes, the Statute Book contains a large number of Measures which have fallen into honourable desuetude. They are what I would call "statutory layabouts."
In browsing through one volume only of the Statutes I have found plenty of examples. There is the Act of 1711 giving the Electress Sophia and her descendants precedence over the Archbishop of Canterbury. There is also the Act of 1754 for taking away mortuaries in the Archdeaconry of Chester and, most surprising of all, the Act of 1765 declaring the colonies and plantations in North America subordinate to and dependent upon the Imperial Crown and Parliament, a matter which ought to be at least investigated before the Bermuda Summit meeting.
These Acts resemble the ruins and follies which sometimes decorate the parks of the stately homes of England, and this Act qualifies on both counts. It was a folly and it is a ruin. There are ample precedents for not approving this Motion, but I think that the most

1155
important reason of all is that we should be very jealous of any abuse or misuse of private Members' time.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring

Division No. 17.]

AYES

4.8 p.m

Abse, Leo

Hart, Mrs. Judith

Pargiter, G. A.

Ainsley, William

Healey, Denis

Parker, John

Albu, Austen

Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)

Paton, John

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Hill, J. (Midlothian)

Pavitt, Laurence

Awbery, Stan

Holman, Percy

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

Holt. Arthur

Pentland, Norman

Blyton, William

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Plummer, Sir Leslie

Bowles, Frank

Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

Prentice, R. E.

Brockway, A. Fenner

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

Probert, Arthur

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

Hunter, A. E.

Rankin, John

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Reid, William

Callaghan, James

Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Castle, Mrs. Barbara

Jeger, George

Robinson,Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Chapman, Donald

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

Cliffe, Michael

Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)

Skeffington, Arthur

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Slater, Mrs Harriet (Stoke, N.)

Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement (Montgomery)

Kelley, Richard

Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Kenyon, Clifford

Sorensen, R. w.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Spriggs, Leslie

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Ledger, Ron

Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

Deer, George

Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

Stonehouse, John

Delargy, Hugh

Lewis, Arthur (West Ham. N.)

Stones, William

Diamond, John

Lipton, Marcus

Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

Dodds, Norman

Logan, David

Swingler, Stephen

Driberg, Tom

Loughlin, Charles

Symonds, J. B.

Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

MacColl, James

Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

McInnes, James

Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

Edelman, Maurice

Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda. W.)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

McLeavy, Frank

Thorpe, Jeremy

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Wade, Donald

Evans, Albert

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Warbey, William

Finch, Harold

Manuel, A. C.

Watkins, Tudor

Fitch, Alan

Mapp, Charles

Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

Fletcher, Eric

Marsh, Richard

White, Mrs. Eirene

Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

Mason, Roy

Whitlock, William

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mayhew, Christopher

Wilkins, W. A.

Forman, J. C.

Mitchison, G. R.

Willey, Frederick

Ginsburg, David

Monslow, Walter

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Gooch, E. G.

Moody, A. S.

Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

Greenwood, Anthony

Moyle, Arthur

Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

Grey, Charles

Mulley, Frederick

Woof, Robert

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Neal, Harold

Wyatt, Woodrow

Grimond, J.

Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

Gunter, Ray

Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

Oliver, G. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Hamilton, William (West Fife)

Oram, A. E.

Mr. Sydney Silverman and

Hannan, William

Owen, Will

Mr. Hale.

NOES

Aitken, W. T.

Bourne-Arton, A.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Allason, James

Box, Donald

Cary, Sir Robert

Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

Channon, H. P. G.

Ashton, Sir Hubert

Boyle, Sir Edward

Chataway, Christopher

Atkins, Humphrey

Braine, Bernard

Chichester-Clark, R.

Balniel, Lord

Brewis, John

Clark, William (Nottingham. S.)

Barber, Anthony

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

Cleaver, Leonard

Barlow, Sir John

Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

Cole, Norman

Barter, John

Brooman-White, R.

Cooke, Robert

Batsford, Brian

Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

Browne, Percy (Torrington)

Corfield, F. V.

Bell, Ronald

Bryan, Paul

Costain, A. P.

Bence, Cyril

Buck, Antony

Coulson, J. M.

Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

Bullard, Denys

Craddock, Sir Beresford

Berkeley, Humphry

Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

Critchley, Julian

Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

Burden, F. A.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

Biffen, John

Butcher, Sir Herbert

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Bishop, F. P.

Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

Cunningham, Knox

Black, Sir Cyril

Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

Curran, Charles

Bossom, Clive

Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

Currie, G. B. H.

in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 281.

Dalkeith, Earl of

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ramsden, James

Dance, James

Kerans, Cdr. J. s.

Rawlinson, Peter

d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Kerby, Capt. Henry

Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

Digby, Simon Wingfield

Kimball, Marcus

Rees, Hugh

Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

Kitson, Timothy

Rees Davies, W. R.

Doughty, Charles

Lagden, Godfrey

Renton, David

Drayson, G. B.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

Duncan, Sir James

Leburn, Gilmour

Ridsdale, Julian

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

Elliott,R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Robson Brown, Sir William

Emery, Peter

Lindsay, Martin

Roots, William

Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

Linstead, Sir Hugh

Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

Farey-Jones, F. W.

Litchfield, Capt. John

Russell, Ronad

Farr, John

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

St. Clair, M.

Finlay, Graeme

Longbottom, Charles

Sandys, Rt- Hon. Duncan

Fisher, Nigel

Longden, Gilbert

Scott-Hopkins, James

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Loveys, Walter H.

Seymour, Leslie

Foster, John

Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

Sharples, Richard

Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Shaw, M.

Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Short, Edward

Freeth, Denzil

McAdden, Stephen

Simon, Rt, Hon. Sir Jocelyn

Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

McLaren, Martin

Skeet, T. H. H.

Galpern, Sir Myer

McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

Gammans, Lady

Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

George, J. C. (Pollok)

Maclean, SirFitzroy(Bute&N. Ayrs.)

Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

Gibson-Watt, David

Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

Spearman, Sir Alexander

Gilmour, Sir John

MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

Speir, Rupert

Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

Stanley, Hon. Richard

Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

Maddan, Martin

Stevens, Geoffrey

Godber, J. B.

Maginnis, John E.

Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

Goodhart, Philip

Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

Goodhew, Victor

Markham, Major Sir Frank

Stodart, J. A.

Gower, Raymond

Marlowe, Anthony

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

Grant, Rt. Hon. William

Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

Storey, Sir Samuel

Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

Marshal, Douglas

Studholme, Sir Henry

Green, Alan

Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

Gresham Cooke, R-

Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

Tapsell, Peter

Grimston, Sir Robert

Mawby, Ray

Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

Gurden, Harold

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

Hall, John (Wycombe)

Maydon, Lt-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

Mills, Stratton

Teeling, William

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W)

Men gomery, Fergus

Temple, John M.

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

Morrison, John

Thomas, Peter (Conway)

Harvie Anderson, Miss

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

Hastings, Stephen

Nabarro, Gerald

Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

Hay, John

Nicholls, Sir Harmar

Tilney, John (Wavertree)

Heald, Rt. Hon. sir Lionel

Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

Timmons, John

Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

Noble, Michael

Turner, Colin

Hendry, Forbes

Nugent, Sir Richard

Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

Orr, Capt. L. P S.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hiley, Joseph

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Vane, w. M. F.

Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Vickers, Miss Joan

Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

Hocking, Philip N.

Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

Walder, David

Holland, Philip

Partridge, E.

Walker, Peter

Hollingworth, John

Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

Wall, Patrick

Hopkins, Alan

Peel, John

Ward, Dame Irene

Hornby, R. P.

Plokthiorn, Sir Kenneth

Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

Homsby-Smlth, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

Webster, David

Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

Pike, Miss Mervyn

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

PilKington, Sir Richard

Whitelaw, William

Hughes-Young, Michael

Pitman, Sir James

Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

Hurd, Sir Anthony

Pitt, Miss Edith

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Popplewell, Ernest

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Iremonger, T. L.

Pott, Percivall

Wise, A. R.

Irvine. Bryant Godman (Rye)

Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

Wolridge-Gordon, Patrick

James, David

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

Jennings, J. C.

Prior, J. M. L.

Woodhouse, C. M.

Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

Yates, William (The Wrekin)

Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

Pym, Francis

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Joseph, Sir Keith

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan and

Mr. Kershaw.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make temporary provision for controlling the immigration into the United Kingdom of Commonwealth citizens and to authorise the deportation from the United Kingdom of certain Commonwealth citizens convicted of offences and recommended by the

  Division No. 18.]

  AYES

  [14.19 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  James, David

  Aitken, W. T.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Allason, James

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Jennings, J. C.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Doughty, Charles

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Drayson, G. B.

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Balniel, Lord

  Duncan, Sir James

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Eden, John

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Barber, Anthony

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Barlow, Sir John

  Elllott,R.W.(Newcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Barter, John

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Kimball, Marcus

  Batsford, Brian

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Farr, John

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Beamish, col. Sir Tufton

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Bell, Ronald

  Fisher, Nigel

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got & Fhm)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Legge-Baurke, Sir Harry

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Foster, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Lindsay, Martin

  Biffen, John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Freeth, Denzil

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Bishop, F. P.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Lloyd,Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Gammans, Lady

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Bossom, Clive

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Box, Donald

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Braine, Bernard

  Goodhart, Philip

  McAdden, Stephen

  Brewis, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  McLaren, Martin

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Gower, Raymond

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Brooman-White, R.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Green, Alan

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bryan, Paul

  Gurden, Harold

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Buck, Antony

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Bullard, Denys

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Burden, F. A.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Butcher, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Maginnis, John E.

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hay, John

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward

  Marshall, Douglas

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hendry, Forbes

  Marten, Neil

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hicks Beach, Maj. W.

  Mathew, Robert (Honlton)

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hiley, Joseph

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Clark, Will am (Nottingham, S.)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Mawby, Ray

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Cole, Norman

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Cooke, Robert

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Mills, Stratton

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Holland, Philip

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hollingworth, John

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hopkins, Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Coulson, J. M.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Morrison, John

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Homsby-Smlth, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Critchley, Julian

  Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Curran, Charles

  Hurd, Sir Anthony

  noble, Michael

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Dance, James

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  court for deportation, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred for the purposes of that Act by the Secretary of State, the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Health.
  Resolution read a Second time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:—
  The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 199.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Roots, William

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Ropner, col. Sir Leonard

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Russell, Ronald

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, w.)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  St. Clair, M.

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Partridge, E.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Turner, Colin

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Seymour, Leslie

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Peel, John

  Sharples, Richard

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Shaw, M.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Pitman, Sir James

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Walder, David

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Walker, Peter

  Pott, Percivall

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Wall, Patrick

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Speir, Rupert

  Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Webster, David

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Stodart, J. A.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Pym, Francis

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Ramsden, James

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Wise, A. R.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Redmayne, Rt- Hon. Martin

  Tapsell, Peter

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Rees, Hugh

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Renton, David

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Teeling, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Temple, John M.

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Mr. Whitelaw.

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Forman, J, C.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Ainsley, William

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)

  Albu, Austen

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Lipton, Marcus

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Logan, David

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  George, Lady MeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Awbery, Stan

  Ginsburg, David

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Gooch, E. G.

  McCann, John

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  MacColl, James

  Bence, Cyril

  Gourlay, Harry

  McInnes, James

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Blackburn, F.

  Grey, Charles

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Blyton, William

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  McLeavy, Frank

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Boardman, H.

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Grimond, J.

  Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Bowles, Frank

  Gunter, Ray

  Manuel, A. C.

  Boyden, James

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Mapp, Charles

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Marsh, Richard

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Mason, Roy

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hannan, William

  Mayhew, Christopher

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Millan, Bruce

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Healey, Denis

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Callaghan, James

  Henderson,Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Monslow, Walter

  Castle, Mm. Barbara

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Moody, A. S.

  Chapman, Donald

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hilton, A. V.

  Mulley, Frederick

  Collick, Percy

  Holman, Percy

  Neal, Harold

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Holt, Arthur

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Houghton, Douglas

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Oram, A. E.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Owen, Will

  Deer, George

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hunter, A. E.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Dempsey, James

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Parker, John

  Diamond, John

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Paton, John

  Driberg, Tom

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Jeger, George

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. c.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Peart, Frederick

  Edelman, Maurice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Prentice, R. E.

  Evans, Albert

  Kelley, Richard

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Probert, Arthur

  Finch, Harold

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Fletcher, Eric

  King, Dr. Horace

  Randall, Harry

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Ledger, Ron

  Rankin, John

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Reid, William

  1162

  1163

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. John

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)

  Whitlock, William

  Ross, William

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Willey, Frederick

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Symonds, J. B.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Short, Edward

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Small, William

  Timmons, John

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Wade, Donald

  Woof, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Warbey, William

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Steele, Thomas

  Watkins, Tudor

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Weitzman, David

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Storehouse, John

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Mr. Sydney Irving and

  Stones. William

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mr. Lawson.

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  4.30 p.m.
  The Chairman: I have issued a provisional list of the Amendments selected for discussion. I hope that this will be convenient to hon. Members.
  Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: We appreciate your informing us of your decision, Sir Gordon, on what Amendments are to be selected.

  Clause 1.—(APPLICATION OF PART I.)
  Mr. Gaitskell: I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end to insert:
  "or
  (b) a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or".
  The Chairman: I think that it would be convenient if we discussed also the following Amendments: in page I line 13, leave out from "passport" to "or" in line 14.
  In Clause 2, page 2, line 40, after "citizen", insert:
  "other than a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies".
  Mr. Gaitskell: That would be convenient, Sir Gordon.
  The attitude of our party to the Bill has been made abundantly clear. During the Second Reading debate we explained the reasons why we are opposed to the Bill as a whole, but today we are in Committee and concerned with its details.
  The first Amendment does not deal with the principle of the Bill, though it does deal with a very important part of it. It has been described in one of
  1164
  the newspapers as a wrecking Amendment. I wish to make it plain that in my opinion it is not a wrecking Amendment. It may well be that some Amendments could be so described; I do not know. There may be people who would argue to that extent, but I think that when the Committee has heard the explanation of the Amendment it will agree with me when I say that it is not a wrecking Amendment. If it is accepted, it will leave the Bill, in our view a deplorably bad one, but perhaps not quite so bad as it is now.
  What does the Amendment do? It draws a distinction between independent territories in the Commonwealth, self-governing territories, and those which are dependent territories; between, to use the older phraseology, Dominions and Colonies. It emphasies, therefore, that although all the territories are within the Commonwealth, one can for certain purposes legitimately draw a distinction between them.
  The obvious reason for this distinction is that the Colonies are our responsibility; that we do in the last resort still continue to govern them. They have governors appointed by Her Majesty, but the Secretary of State for the Colonies is responsible to this House for what the Governor does, in a way that neither he nor any other member of the Government is responsible, for instance, for what the Government of India or the Government of Canada may choose to do.
  With that goes something else, that these Colonies of ours have no independent nationality of their own. They are not separate countries. They are part of the phrase "United Kingdom and Colonies". This was recognised very plainly by the British Nationality Act, 1948, which happens to be the latest

  1165
  legislation on this subject. Before that Act was passed, no distinction for the purpose of nationality was drawn between the citizens of the United Kingdom and those of any other part of the Commonwealth, including the so-called Dominions.
  After that Act such a distinction was drawn, and it was drawn very clearly between, to use the phrase which we have used in the Amendment, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on the one side, and citizens of self-governing members of the Commonwealth, on the other. I should add that even in the 1948 Act, only thirteen years ago, we still felt sufficiently strongly about the need to preserve the relationship between the Commonwealth and British citizenship to write into that Act that the citizenship of any of these other countries—I am speaking of Dominions not Colonies—carried with it the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizenship. But I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the first distinction, the distinction which identifies clearly in that Act for the first time citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  In law at present, we here in Britain are in precisely the same position as regards nationality as the citizens of our Colonies. There is no difference. We all have the same passports. There is no question of a distinction between the place of issue, or the Government who issues it. The phrase is the same in them all, and any hon. Member who chooses to look at his pasport will find stamped in it, "British Subject, Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". That is what we all are. I must confess that to introduce, as the Bill does, a new distinction according to how the passport—still the same blue passport—is issued, is an extraordinary innovation, for we are still, even after this Bill, citizens, in the Colonies or here, of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  What is being done by the Bill is to introduce a distinction between two kinds of Government. Clause 1 (2) says:
  "This section applies to any Commonwealth citizen not being—

  (a) a person born in the United Kingdom;

  (b) a person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or who holds such a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland …"

  1166
  Then, if one turns to subsection 3, one finds the definition of "United Kingdom passport", and these are the crucial words:
  " ' United Kingdom passport' means a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom."
  I again remind the Committee that I am not speaking about Governments of independent countries within the Commonwealth. I think that the Committee will observe that we are introducing here a remarkable distinction between what the Government of the United Kingdom in Britain does, and what the Government of a Colony does, which seems to me wholly untenable.
  What we are, in effect, saying is that the Government of Gibraltar—and after all, Gibraltar is obviously one of the territories affected—can issue a passport to a member of the Gibraltar community, to a citizen of Gibraltar,—he is still a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—but it does not carry with it the rights of a United Kingdom and Colonies citizen who happens to have a passport issued by the United Kingdom Government. This is done despite the fact that we still have responsibility for the government of those territories. I find this constitutionally an extraordinary position.
  I submit that these people of whom we are speaking this afternoon are British. They cannot be described in any other way. They are British people. There is no proposal before us to amend the British Nationality Act, 1948. They are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and they have no other home. They have no other nation. We have not granted them independence. They are part of us. I venture to say that this argument alone is an extremely weighty one which hon. Gentlemen opposite will find some difficulty in disposing of. I appeal to them to consider carefully what they are doing in this.
  There are a number of other reasons for the Amendment. During the course of his Second Reading speech, the Home Secretary urged, as his first reason for the Bill, that it was highly embarrassing for us that within the Commonwealth

  1167
  there were no fewer than one quarter of the world's population. He was frightened that they might all come here. It was a very specious argument, as the right hon. Gentleman knew very well. At least, this Amendment might appeal to him, for if it is accepted, he need have no anxiety. It will not involve the 400 millions of India coming here. It will not involve the Pakistanis coming here. It will not involve anyone but the citizens of the remaining Colonies, so long as they are Colonies.
  We know, roughly, what they are. I suppose that the largest territories are still in Africa—Gambia, Northern Rhodesia, and, for the time being Nyasaland, I suppose, Kenya, for the time being, though for how long we do not know, some islands, Gibraltar, also of historic importance which I should not have thought people could ignore altogether, Malta, and, of course, Uganda—
  Mr. Gordon Walker: For the time being.
  Mr. Gaitskell: My right hon. Friend says "for the time being".
  Of course, there is also the West Indies. It may well be that the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "Well, that would be all right if it were not for the West Indies. We would not worry, because, after all, there is not an enormous number of people coming here from East Africa, there is not an enormous number coming from Mauritius or Zanzibar, or any of the other islands which are still colonies, but there are many people coming here from the West Indies". Therefore, I make no apology for concentrating now upon their case.
  I think that we should recall just a little of the history of the West Indies. The overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of these islands were not there when we acquired possession of them. Barbados was uninhabited, and in most of the other islands there might have been some natives there, but they were comparatively small in number. We find that, overwhelmingly, the population there has come from other continents—from Africa, and to some extent from India. How did they get there?
  1168
  They did not go as free immigrants. They went there because our ancestors, British traders and planters of that time, needed their slave labour to work on the plantations. In that sense, we created these islands ourselves. Britain did it, and we cannot escape responsibility for what was done. After all, this is not a very recent thing. Some of these islands—I think I am right in saying Barbados and Jamaica—have been British for about three hundred years. They have never been anything else. We made them. We brought them up in our own traditions. They have no other language, and nothing is spoken there except English.
  Those hon. Members who have been there will agree with me—it is a rather entertaining thing to do—that we find various accents which we can trace to different parts of the British Isles. We find an Irish accent quite common, and also a Welsh accent in some cases, and we find that these accents are there because our forefathers taught them those accents. Their culture has been affected by us, and I need hardly emphasise their sporting abilities. Few small islands could have been so brilliant at cricket as those in the Federation of the West Indies. That is one reason why I think that, far from taking the view that because the West Indies are still a Colony, we cannot accept this Amendment, we should say, "Right, this is a good case. We have special obligations here, and we should not apply these distinctions"
  I do not know how many hon. Members heard or saw Sir Grantley Adams in his television appearance and interviews last night. I did not see him myself, but my wife did, and she told me how deeply moved she was—and I have heard it from other people—because of what he said about the feeling of the people that they were British and had never felt anything else. If people are like that, and they are British, how can we keep them out of Britain? How can we do this thing?
  4.45 p.m.
  There is another reason. It may well be that the main motive for people coming here has been economic. I have never denied that, but if we were to stop Indians and Pakistanis coming here, though I would deplore it, for the reasons I gave on Second Reading, I certainly

  1169
  would not claim that the trickle of immigrants from these territories made any substantial economic difference to the situation in the countries from which they come. In the West Indies, it is a very different matter. If we stop them coming in, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know this very well, we shall be throwing back their unemployment problem upon them. We cannot say that this is not a matter for us. They are still our responsibility. How can we do this? I beg hon. Members opposite, and I beg the Government, to think very seriously about what the consequences may be.
  If we stop them coming here, and we stop this outlet, and, at the same time, we give them the impression, as we must,—let there be no illusions about this—that this is a colour bar, let us consider what the political consequences are likely to be in these islands. There are groups and parties in Jamaica and the other islands which are frankly racialist in their outlook. What a fillip it will give them. I am not surprised that those who are at present governing—the Prime Minister and Ministers in these islands under our Colonial Office—should feel bitterly about this, and sad, too, because there is something else about the West Indies with which I think those hon. Members who have been there will agree with me.
  One of the things that impressed me so deeply was the absolute absence of any racial friction there, and the real feeling that one had of racial equality. It may be partly because we do not just have two colours, but because we have a great many different colours. Whatever it may be, it is something which, I should have thought, was, in this moment of history, rather precious. It is particularly tragic that we should destroy it, as I am afraid we shall.
  There is yet another reason. Nobody would think that, even with immigration to this country, the economic situation in Jamaica and Barbados and the other islands is particularly good, even with the efforts we have made, as we learnt at Question Time the other day, in trying to induce the United States to grant a quota-free entry to these islands. I will not trouble the Committee with the details, although I was aware of them before, but there are possibilities here, and the matter is under examination by a Congressional Committee.
  1170
  We want our Government to encourage the United States to do this, because it would be helpful to these islands. How can the Government go to the Americans and say, "Will you please lift your quota?" at the very moment when we are imposing ours? How can that be done? Is it not obvious that this is bound to prejudice any efforts which we may make in that direction? One would have thought that at least the Government would try to start with their hands free, without the burden of this Bill, to go to the President and American Government and urge them to take this step.
  What is the Government's case for this? It is definitely not that we may be flooded out. We cannot be flooded out by the few millions remaining in the Colonies. Let us be clear about this; there is no possibility that all of them will come over here, any more than there is the possibility that the Indians and the rest will come over here. The case so far made out has been principally based on the argument—and here, I gather from the newspapers, the point was made again by the Prime Minister—that although it is all right now there may later be unemployment, and then it will be very difficult.
  At the Tory Party Conference the Home Secretary said the same thing. He said:
  "There is no immediate anxiety about the employment of immigrants but we must look ahead… Will this country be able to absorb indefinitely immigrants at the current rate of entry together with the natural growth of our population?"
  My first question is: if there is no immediate anxiety about the employment of immigrants why are the Government rushing the Bill through now? We are entitled to an answer to that question. How do these arguments add up? If there is no immediate anxiety, and it is merely a vague fear, what will happen in the future? Surely the least that should have been done was to ensure that proper consultations were held before the Bill was proceeded with—and I shall return to that matter shortly.
  Secondly, when did the Government start getting frightened about unemployment? Is this something that we must take seriously, or is it a patent excuse, due to the fact that they cannot think of anything else to say? We are

  1171
  entitled to a further explanation here. The Prime Minister referred to this point in his talk with Sir Grantley Adams. I should like to repeat and also to enlarge upon what I said in the Second Reading debate. If hon. Members are seriously frightened about unemployment and its possible consequences here, and about the possibility of there being a lot of coloured immigrants out of work, I ask them to consider the facts—that is to say, the relationship between the immigration from the West Indies and the number of outstanding vacancies here. I said then that as the number of vacancies arose the movement of migration also went up, and as the number of vacancies went down that movement declined.
  I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I give some figures here, because they are extraordinary. I begin with 1956. In the first quarter of that year there were 257,000 outstanding vacancies, and the number of West Indian migrant arrivals was 4,700. In the second quarter there was an increase in the number of outstanding vacancies, to 270.000, and a substantial increase in the number of migrant arrivals, to 9,000. There was a fall in the number of vacancies in the third quarter and also a fall in the number of arrivals from the Commonwealth. There was yet another fall in the number of vacancies in the fourth quarter—a sharp fall this time, as the economic situation evidently deteriorated—and also a fall in the number of arrivals, from 8,000 to 3,500.
  There is the same picture in 1957. In the first quarter the number of vacancies went down, and so did the number of migrant arrivals. There was a rise in the number of vacancies in the second quarter, and also in the number of migrant arrivals. I have the figures for the past five years, and in practically every case it is a matter of equivalent movement, quarter by quarter. What does this suggest? It suggests that these people come here when they are wanted and do not come here when they are not wanted. That is common sense.
  When the Home Secretary talks about the fear of unemployment I suggest, first, that he had better explain how frightened he is. What does he expect? Is this a serious argument? Secondly, I
  1172
  suggest that even if he is frightened that there will be a depression here he need not worry about the immigration figure. I think that he can take it as certain that if there were to be any serious increase in unemployment here, with a consequent diminution in the number of outstanding vacancies, not only would the number of arriving migrants decline sharply but that there would be a large return to the West Indies. Last week, we saw the beginning of this trend. I cannot understand how any serious-minded person can put forward this argument in the face of those figures.
  It is also sometimes suggested that during the last five years there has been a steady increase in the numbers coming from the West Indies—that the numbers are gradually increasing year by year, and that we shall eventually be flooded out with them. That is simply not true. The figures vary from year to year, and I will quote them. I am dealing now entirely with the West Indies. In 1955, the number was 27,500; in 1956, it was 29,800; in 1957—the crisis year—it was 23,000, a decline. In 1958, as the contraction went on here, the migration figure fell to 15,000. It rose slightly in 1959, to 16,400 and in 1960 to 50,000. The same sort of figure is probable for 1961. This does not show a steadily increasing rush of migrants. It shows a variation according to the economic situation existing here.
  What other arguments can the Government adduce? One has been mentioned in various newspapers, and I want to ask the Government a direct question in relation to it. Were they asked at any time, in the discussions about the Common Market, before we went further with this matter, to make sure that we could control the flow of migrants from the Commonwealth, so that, in turn, Europe would not have to face a possible flow from this country? I have not mentioned that possibility before, but I have read it in several newspapers, and since it has been said we should be clear whether or not there is anything in it.
  As far as I can see, unless the Amendment is accepted citizens of the Colonies—those who have passports issued in the wrong place—will be kept out. What will be the position of the Irish? Can

  1173
  we know? First, they were in the Bill—that is to say, they were to be subject to control. Then, in the Second Reading debate, the Home Secretary said that we could not keep them out. The whole implication of his speech was that they were to be taken out of the Bill. Then, so quickly do Government minds change, the Minister of Labour, when winding up said that the Government would have another look to see whether they could pop them in again in the Bill.
  This is an absurd situation. So far as I can see there are no Government Amendments dealing with this matter. What will they do about it? I hope that they will at least be honest with the Committee and will not try to pretend that they are going to keep the Irish out and then quietly allow them in. I do not wish to keep the Irish out, any more than I wish to keep out people from the rest of the Commonwealth; they are just as useful to us over here, and have been for years, as those coming from the West Indies. But it will be an intolerable position if the Irish are allowed in and the people from the Colonies, for whom we are responsible, are kept out—and I mean kept out, effectively.
  Will he Home Secretary tell us whether the Government are proposing to introduce Amendments dealing with the problem? If they are not going to do so, how, precisely, will the Bill be administered so as to keep the same degree of control over immigration from Ireland? Or will the Home Secretary tell us that the Government will leave it in the Bill, but, of course, will not attempt to administer control? I suppose that it would be better to be told that the Government were going to administer it, although, in practice, they would not be able to do so.
  There is one other question which has special reference to the West Indies, and that is the question of consultation. The Government record in this matter is extraordinary. Earlier we asked about consultation and we received general replies from different Ministers saying that it had taken place. Then Sir Grantley Adams sent me a telegram—which I passed to the Prime Minister—in which he described exactly what had happened. The Committee should be
  1174
  reminded of this. Sir Grantley Adams said:
  "I categorically deny that West Indies Government was ever consulted in any way whatever about form or detailed provisions of Bill. On October 13th we were told in confidence the intention to introduce restrictive legislation given its broad general terms and promised the Secretary of State's readiness 'to discuss any matter which may arise from time to time from operation of Bill' We strongly protested.
  On October 31st he repeated those assertions, again using the word 'operation'. On November 7th we first knew of provisions through receiving savingram dated November 1st with printed copies of the Bill without invitation to comment. On November 16th we received another confidential telegram explaining the mechanics of voucher system and asking for our co-operation in working out details."
  This is what the Government call consultation. I ask the Government again: how is it that before they decided to introduce the Bill they did not have proper consultations with the Prime Ministers and leaders of the Colonies most likely to be affected by it? How can this be defended?
  5.0 p.m.
  I know what will be said, or perhaps it will be said—"Oh yes, of course we did have discussions." On 23rd November the Prime Minister told me:
  "The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that informal and confidential discussions on this matter have gone on for a long time."
  A little later, he said:
  "This matter had been discussed and had been in the air for a very long time. Confidential and informal discusions were held… "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 1541–2.]
  When I asked the Leader of the House about this very recently; when I said:
  "Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman consulted Commonwealth Governments about a proposal for the British Government to control immigration from the Commonwealth?"
  he said:
  "No, Sir. That side of it was dealt with by the Prime Minister."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 632.]
  "Dealt with" is a strange phrase to use in that connection. The fact is that there have been no informal discussions whatever with Sir Grantley Adams and with Mr. Manley. I can tell the Committee that. Sir Grantley Adams told me so himself, and I think that there are enough hon. Members who know him well enough to realise that he would not have invented that. There

  1175
  was none at all. I say that this is really a scandalous thing for the Government to have done and it is not improved by the way in which Ministers have tried to pretend that there were consultations when there were not.
  I do not regard the parliamentary correspondent of Punch as being particularly biassed on our side, but I think that what he said over this matter is worth recalling. In his report in the issue of 29th November he said:
  "The trouble about being a clever politician is that after a time nobody believes what you say—least of all when it happens to be true."
  Then, after various points which were illustrating that, he said:
  "So, in the same way on Thursday, nobody quite believed, however bold the assertions, that Mr. Macmillan had consulted Sir Grantley Adams over the Immigration Bill as fully as he pretended. People believe that he didn't simply because he said that he did. Indeed, when Mr. Macmillan said, 'The Prime Ministers' Conference did not in its open session discuss this question"—
  Mr. Compton Carr: On a point of order. With the greatest respect, may I ask whether the matter now being raised by the Leader of the Opposition is in order in discussing this Amendment?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): Had he not been in order I should have called the right hon. Gentleman to order.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged, Mr. Arbuthnot.
  I would say to the hon. Gentleman that I think the question of whether we are to exclude from this Bill citizens of the Colonies is closely related to whether those persons or their representatives had been properly consulted. I am saying that they have not been properly consulted and evidently that is the view of the parliamentary correspondent of Punch; and he thought, evidently, that it was also the view of most hon. Members in this House.
  I will complete the quotation. He said:
  "People believe that he didn't simply because he said that he did. Indeed, when Mr. Macmillan said, 'The Prime Ministers' Conference did not in its open session discuss this question as Prime Ministers', what were Members expected to believe? This may be
  1176
  all most unfair, but I am afraid that that is the way it is."
  Yes, that is the way it is—and a shocking state of affairs, too.
  I do not know, but possibly hon. Members opposite, and the Government, are so desperately frightened at the danger of racial friction here that they feel that they must rush this thing through. If that is the case I wish that they had told us. I do not think they are right to be so frightened. I do not know whether many hon. Members read the interesting article on the position in Nottingham, published in the Economist. I will not read it all, but after pointing out that the immigrants were not packing into and smashing up the houses they inhabit it states:
  "… the city's medical officer of health reports that neither disrepair nor overcrowding is more serious in immigrants' houses than it is in the rest of Nottingham."
  After saying
  "few immigrants are on National Assistance. Few young coloured people are unemployed; but their elders are less easy to place"
  it states—I think that I must read this—about the health of the immigrants:
  "… in Nottingham, far from being simultaneous carriers and spreaders of everything from smallpox to leprosy, the coloured population suffers mainly from digestive troubles (being unused to British food), coughs and colds; their children suffer unbilical hernia more often than English children do; and their babies get bronchitis. Tuberculosis, it is stressed, is rare. The crime bill is remarkably clean. Nottingham's chief constable finds that only coloured people sometimes have noisy parties, which break up when the police ask them to. But, he says, 'so far there is no evidence that they engage in crime'. How many other of 8,000 people could match that?"
  This is a Bill which had much better be dropped altogether. The Bill with our Amendment would at least be one degree more tolerable. The Amendment has, I believe, logic, compassion and common sense, and I hope that the Committee will approve it.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I think that it may be convenient if on this occasion I make an immediate answer, even though it be a short one, to the speech which we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should like to make perfectly clear, first, to the right hon. Gentleman, and to his hon. Friends, that there is no question of dropping this Bill and that we

  1177
  propose to see it through. We have brought it in for very good reasons, which I gave in my speech during the Second Reading debate, because the situation is one which should be taken hold of before there is any deterioration in certain of the areas to which the right hon. Gentleman referred.
  I accept immediately the tone in which the right hon. Gentleman addressed the Committee, and I accept personally the reports of the chief constables and the social reports we get on the question of indulgence in crime by many of our immigrants from overseas, which cannot be said to be in any way worse and are often in many ways better than that of the local population. I accept all those things. But I still say that this Bill is vital at the present time, and I propose now to try to answer the right hon. Gentleman.
  It is an extremely peculiar Amendment that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen with which to make his first onslaught on the Bill. The position, frankly, is that U.K. and colonial citizenship is to be exempted and others are to be included. I think that we must get clear what this means. It means that the right hon. Gentleman, having come to the Committee stage of the Bill, immediately concedes that a wide measure of control of immigrants from the Commonwealth is necessary—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—
  Mr. Gordon Walker rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. If the Minister does not give way the right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
  Mr. Gaitskell rose—
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Gaitskell: I am obliged. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to try to keep the debate at a slightly higher level. I said nothing of the kind. I made it perfectly clear that we were opposed to the Bill as a whole and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, which Amendment happens to come first depends on the Bill and the accident of the selection of Amendments. The position still remains that we detest the Bill as a whole. But if we have to have the Bill as a whole, as evidently we are, we
  1178
  would rather have it with our Amendment.
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Butler: I have to take the Amendment as I find it on the Notice Paper. The effect of the Amendment on the Notice Paper would be to leave a wide measure of control over Commonwealth self-dependent countries and remove simply those with U.K. and colonial citizenship. I think we had better get it quite clear that the effect of this Amendment, which I consider would be wrong, in the initial stages of this discussion would be that a diminishing part of the Commonwealth would be exempted from control.
  When we come to the case of the West Indies, on which the right hon. Gentleman spoke with considerable power and emotion, Sir Grantley Adams and everyone else there must realise that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would be that on gaining independence, which is in sight, they would come under control. Therefore, we must balance against the high-minded phrasing and sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman that if you are dependent you have free entry and if you are independent you have control. I should regard this Amendment, therefore, as being for these reasons extremely unsatisfactory and not at all suitable to the Bill.
  Also, in my view, taking the Amendment as we find it on the Notice Paper, which we must do in discussing this Bill, it would be invidious to draw distinctions between Commonwealth countries, in favour of a country like Australia or Hong Kong and other dependent territories. I do not believe this will be well received overseas, and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman's argument will be received as anything but a great mistake in the course of the passage of the Committee stage of the Bill.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has to take this Amendment as it is on the Notice Paper. I take it that he has taken the trouble to read the whole of the Amendments on the Paper. It is quite clear that we have to take one thing at a time. We want in later Amendments to exempt citizens of Commonwealth nations. It is a cheap

  1179
  and pettifogging point which the Secretary is trying to make.
  Mr. Butler: In that case, the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) gives the lie to what was said by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He said that his Amendment was in no sense a wrecking Amendment. Taking the Amendments to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick has now referred in company with this Amendment, they are obviously wrecking Amendments to the Bill. If there is to be any charge of insincerity, it should be laid at the door of right hon. Members opposite who attempt to prove that they are not indulging in wrecking Amendments. I hope I have said enough to show that this Amendment by itself—
  Mr. John Diamond: On a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. We have been notified of the Amendments which have been selected, and those Amendments include a number of Amendments which the Home Secretary now describes as wrecking Amendments. Is it in order to describe as wrecking Amendments Amendments which have been selected by the Chair?
  The Temporary Chairman: The Amendments we are now dealing with are: the Amendment which has been moved, the Amendment to page 1, line 13, and the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 40.
  Mr. Diamond: Further to that point of order. I apologise for not having made my meaning clear. May I refer to Amendments appearing later on the Notice Paper which the Home Secretary has just mentioned in your hearing? May I refer to those Amendments which have been selected and which have been notified in the Division Lobby as having been selected? Those Amendments dealing with Commonwealth countries the Home Secretary has now termed wrecking Amendments. Is it in order to describe as wrecking Amendments Amendments which have been selected by the Chair?
  The Temporary Chairman: Those Amendments have been only provisionally selected and we are not discussing them now.
  Mr. Sydney Silverman: Further to that point of order. With great respect, it would appear that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond) has been misconceived. I understand that he is not suggesting that we should discuss now any other Amendment than the one which has been moved. What he is suggesting to you, Mr. Arbuthnot, is that it is a reflection on the Chair to describe as a wrecking Amendment an Amendment which the Chair has selected.
  The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Member looks at the Paper giving the selection by the Chair, he will see that it is a provisional selection. We are at present dealing with the first Amendment, the Amendment to page 1, line 13, and the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 40.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: Could we have your ruling, Mr. Arbuthnot, on whether it is in order to describe as a wrecking Amendment an Amendment which the Chair has provisionally selected?
  The Temporary Chairman: It is not incumbent upon me to answer metaphysical questions.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Further to that point of order. We are discussing the first Amendment on the Notice Paper, an Amendment which was selected by the Chair as proper for discussion. It is that Amendment, among others, to which the Home Secretary has referred as a wrecking Amendment. Is it in order for the Home Secretary to refer to something as a wrecking Amendment which has been actually discussed with and has passed the Chair?
  The Temporary Chairman: I do not consider that the reference made by the Home Secretary was that this Amendment of itself was a wrecking Amendment.
  Mr. Butler: May I congratulate you, Sir, on your discernment and the correct appreciation you have made of my remarks? My reference to wrecking is simply that if we are to get the Bill cut into ribbons here and cut into ribbons there nothing will remain of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

  1181
  Hon. Members acknowledge that. If they accept that definition, I tell them in perfect good humour that the Government are not going to stand for it. We are proposing to get this Bill through substantially in its present form. I would also add—
  Mr. J. Grimond: Is the Home Secretary implying that it is a waste of time to move Amendments and that the Government are not going to listen to the arguments?
  Mr. Butler: I was coming to my next remark, which is that we are going to see the Bill through substantially in its present form, but there are a great many Amendments which we can consider favourably—as a result of looking at the Notice Paper, those which have been selected by the Chair. I shall refer to a particular question, namely the duration of the Bill, in the course of my remarks this afternoon in answer to the Leader of the Opposition. There are a great many other points on Clause 1, including the questions of residence and students. All those are things on which possibly we can get a substantial amount of agreement. I believe we can meet a great many of the constructive points in the Amendments put down, but I do not believe that we can meet an Amendment such as this which would sunder United Kingdom citizenship from Commonwealth citizenship. I do not believe that we can divide the immigration problem in that way. I do not believe we can accept the sort of Amendments to which the right hon. Member for Smethwick referred. I hope that will inform the Committee that we approach this Committee stage in a constructive manner. We shall try to do our best to make the Bill a better Bill when it passes into an Act. I think this will be found not to be a humbug when we have completed the Committee stage.
  Before I refer to some of the questions put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, I think it my duty to refer in answer to the method of operation of Clause 1. The purpose is to define those who belong to the United Kingdom, and therefore have right of entry, and those who have no United Kingdom citizenship—the right hon. Gentleman referred to the Act of 1948—and on whom we do not confer exemp-
  1182
  tion. Under the Act of 1948, there are separate citizenships. The self-governing territories of the Commonwealth created their own citizenship, and there is citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to which he referred. Then there are other British citizens who have, so to speak, been left behind by the tide, some of whom live in Eire and some of whom live in fairly large numbers in India and Pakistan.
  The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will be the first to agree with me that there is no more complicated subject than citizenship or nationality and the Acts concerned with it. Therefore, in order to define "belonging to the United Kingdom" two criteria have been laid down in the Bill—first, that the person should be born here, and, secondly, that he should have a United Kingdom passport. In the latter case, if the holder is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, his passport must have been issued in the United Kingdom or in the Republic of Ireland, The latter proviso is to include certain Irish loyalists who under the 1948 Act elected to remain British but stayed in the Republic. Those are the only types to be covered by this proviso. Dependants will be shown on the passport.
  The criteria in Clause 1 have been chosen partly for simplicity for the immigration officer to interpret. He can tell at a glance from the passports who is covered and who reasonably belongs to the United Kingdom. If hon. Members require a simple definition of the British Nationality Act, 1948, they will see in the explanation of Clause 1, which is contained in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, a clear definition of who is exempted and who is not.
  The reason why we believe that we must adhere to our point and cannot take up the point of the right hon. Gentleman is that we believe that the pressure of immigration comes not only from the Commonwealth but also from the Colonies. The Bill is made necessary by the figures I announced, which were net figures, some of which the right hon. Gentleman quoted. So there is no need for me to quote them. They are the net figures of hard immigration which make the Bill necessary.

  1183
  The right hon. Gentleman quoted some figures for the West Indies. The total net figure of inward movement for the first ten months of 1961 from the West Indies, East and West Africa, Cyprus, Gibraltar, Malta, Aden, Hong Kong, Malaya, Singapore, India, Pakistan and Ceylon is no less than 113,500, as compared with 57,710 in 1960, 21,620 in 1959, and 29,830 in 1958. This is regarded by the Government as an indication of a very considerable rise in immigration. That is why we are introducing the Bill, because we feel that the situation should be capable of being controlled, although we do not believe that when the Bill is finally passed it will be unreasonable or that it will make it impossible for bona fide immigrants to come to this country, especially those seeking work, those who are coming here on visits, those who are coming as students, and so forth. When the Committee has had an opportunity of going into these matters in detail, I believe that it will realise that this control is not going to be so impossible or severe as Sir Grantley Adams and many other sincere and decent people overseas fear it will be.
  Mr. John Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman divide the figures into those coming from the Colonies and those coming from independent countries, so that we may have them in perspective in discussing the Amendment?
  Mr. Butler: I will certainly make some figures available. I think that they have been circulated in the past in the OFFICIAL REPORT. If they have not been, I will see that they are circulated. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that the figure for the West Indies for the first ten months of 1961 was 57,700. The figure for India was 18,300. The figure for Pakistan was 19,280. The net inward movement from India during 1958 was 6,200. The net inward figure for the West Indies was, as quoted by the Leader of the Opposition, 15,020. That gives some indication of the numbers. The numbers from the other countries I mentioned are not so large.
  It is for these reasons that we have decided that we must proceed with the Bill. Let us hope that we can make it
  1184
  a better and a suitable Measure as we pass it through Committee and Report.
  I was asked by the right hon. Gentleman to give an answer on the question of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was permitted by the Chair to discuss Ireland and so, if I may, I will answer him. I hope that I shall be regarded as being in order. I will not go into the full case about Ireland because there is a later Amendment on the Notice Paper—that in page 2, line 6, which seeks to delete subsection (4)—which I think would be more appropriate for a detailed consideration of this subject. Therefore, if I truncate my remarks it will not be from a desire to avoid the subject but merely because we shall be considering it again.
  As I explained in my Second Reading speech, there is a close association with Ireland, geographically and for every other reason. There is a close association in citizenship, the Southern Irish being regarded as British citizens. There is a close association in voting, the Irish being allowed to vote. There are always very many anomalies when we deal with the Irish question.
  On Second Reading I explained why it is virtually impossible to control the Irish coming in by the ports, unless we impose a control within the United Kingdom itself—that is, against United Kingdom citizens in Northern Ireland. The Government have considered this very carefully. They have considered the possibility of manning and policing the border between Eire and Ulster, but have decided that the difficulties are too great to make this possible. That is the decision which the Government have reached. I am giving the right hon. Gentleman the decisions, because he asked to have them.
  The next question which arises is: why was Ireland mentioned in the Bill. It was natural, we thought, to mention the Republic of Ireland in the Bill, for a variety of reasons. The main one was that we genuinely wanted to have the power to control Irish immigration in the case of absolute necessity. [Laughter.] There is no need for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, because I am trying to explain the details of this difficult problem. The main reason why we want to have this power in reserve is that, if the Government of the Republic

  1185
  do not control immigration from the Common wealth coming to their shores, it would be necessary to adopt the inevitable course, undesirable though the Government regard it, of imposing an immigration control at the docks to catch immigrants coming in.
  But I have reason to believe that the Southern Irish Government have recently indicated in the Dáil—Mr. Aiken, the Foreign Secretary, was the speaker—the likelihood that the Government of the Republic would take steps at their ports to control immigrants. If that is so, there will be no reason from that point of view to impose control at the ports.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech of the Minister of Labour in winding up the debate on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend said then that we would consider every possibility of controlling the Irish, even if control at the ports were not possible. He said that a variety of points had been put to me and we would consider them.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Does the Committee understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly? Does he say that he has some sort of assurance from the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland that, in order to maintain the right of his citizens to come here, he will put an embargo on the ports to keep other people out?
  Mr. Butler: There is no such arrangement. Nothing has passed between the Governments in this sense. What I have read in the newspaper is the statement made by the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republic that they were intending to impose control at their ports. No sort of persuasion or anything else has come into the matter. It has been decided by the Government of the Republic.
  Mr. Silverman: Will the Home Secretary explain this a little further? Does he say that he made the statement that he made just now without any authority at all, except what he read in the newspaper, and without any consultation whatever with the Foreign Secretary of the Republic of Ireland?
  Mr. Butler: There are the normal consultations between Governments, but I made this statement without having
  1186
  attempted to persuade or in any way affect the Government of Southern Ireland, and the statement was made and then communicated to me in the ordinary manner. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
  5.30 p.m.
  I was saying that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, in his winding-up speech on Second Reading, said that every possibility would be examined. The Government's position in relation to Irish immigration remains that we desire to keep this power in reserve. We regard it as a power that is extremely difficult to use, but we wish to keep it in reserve. We propose between now and the time when this Measure needs to be renewed to take every possible precaution to obtain information about the scope and nature of the problem of Irish immigration.
  We intend to do that by investigating the insurance cards laid with the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance; to approach it through the records of the Ministry of Labour and, if necessary, to approach it by using the power contained in the First Schedule to impose the need for landing cards. We propose to accompany that plan with the suggestion contained in an Amendment which I propose shortly to put down to Clause 5—which will meet much of the sense of the various Amendments to Clause 5—that we should treat this subject as we treat alien control, and provide that this Bill shall expire in December, 1963, and that it then shall be renewed by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act.
  We believe that that will give an opportunity for the whole question to be reviewed, not only in the light of developments that may or may not occur in the Irish problem, but also in the light of developments that may or may not occur in the Common Market problem—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]
  Mr. Paget: As I understand what the Home Secretary has said about the Irish problem, it is that the control is not to be applied to the Irish unless there is an absolute necessity; that that absolute necessity will not arise as long as the Irish immigrants continue to be white, but if, owing to Commonwealth people

  1187
  coming through the Irish ports, the Irish immigrants begin to be black, an absolute necessity will arise.
  Mr. Butler: No, that is not the interpretation. It is very rarely that I can accept an interpretation from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and that one is totally wrong—
  Mr. Paget: That is what the right hon. Gentleman said.
  Mr. Butler: No, it is not what I said. If it became obvious that Commonwealth immigrants were able to come through the Irish ports without possibility of control, it might be necessary to reconsider — [HON. MEMBERS: "Who?"]—Commonwealth immigrants as a whole. Immigrants—Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, or anyone from the Commonwealth would be susceptible to the same control; if that occurred, we should have to review the position.
  I have made a secondary reservation that we shall watch the position between now and the time when the Bill comes up for renewal in case for any other reason it seems necessary to apply control to the Irish immigrants—
  Mr. Hector Hughes: What the right hon. Gentleman has said about his relations with the Irish Republican Government is rather vague. Will he tell the Committee whether or not he has had direct communication with the Foreign Secretary of the Irish Republican Government?
  Mr. Butler: Relations with Ireland are usually vague, and it is, perhaps, better that they should be left vague. There have been the usual methods of communication with the Irish Government, as well as with any other Government concerned.
  May I now answer—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Butler: No, I must proceed—
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): Order. Unless the right hon. Gentleman gives way no other hon. Member may be on his feet.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: With due respect, Sir William, I asked the right hon. Gentleman a question and he has evaded answering it.
  The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is not in order to remain on his feet if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way.
  Mr. Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Butler: No, I must answer the other points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. We are in Committee, and I do not wish to speak for too long.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been any agreement or arrangement in relation to the Common Market; whether we had been asked to control Commonwealth immigration. I would hold to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal on 29th November, 1961, in which he said:
  "We have had no discussions whatever with the European Economic Community Governments about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1961; Vol. 650, c. 49.]
  Mr. Frank Bowles: I am obliged to the Home Secretary for giving way. I, too, have been reading the newspapers, and one of them said:
  "The Common Market is the real reason for the Government's proposed curb on immigration, said Jamaica's Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Keble Munn, yesterday.
  Britain does not want to sit down at the bargaining table, he said, liable to attack as a pipeline through which coloured Commonwealth citizens can be fed into Europe."
  That appeared in the Daily Express on 25th November. Is it right?
  Mr. Butler: I am afraid that I cannot always accept what is in the Daily Express as correct. I must leave my interpretation, as given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal, as being the correct one in answer to the right hon. Gentleman who asked the specific question.
  Before I leave Ireland, I would add that the Government, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I myself have considered every possibility of controlling the Irish, once they get here, by a system of work control. We

  1189
  have studied the Northern Ireland Safeguarding of Employment Act, but have found that for various reasons, particularly to do with the difficulty of providing public assistance, with the difficulty of identification, and with the difficulty of imposing this as an offence and finding the person who has offended—for all these reasons—and the possibility that deportation would be the only sanction against some wretched Irishman who was refused a job—we have found that these methods are not sound, so we have not been able to put them before the House.
  I do not believe that during the course of this Committee stage we shall find, in the immense population of our industrial country, a method of internal control of labour that is possible to enforce. I mention that only because some of my hon. and right hon. Friends have asked us to look into these matters; we find them extremely difficult to carry through—
  Mr. Charles Royle: What happens to the Jamaican who arrives in Cork and comes to this country from Dublin? Will he be in the same position as the Irish in the way the Home Secretary has now described it?
  Mr. Butler: If a control is imposed at the Irish ports—that is, control by the Government of Southern Ireland of entry into Ireland—such a matter would not arise, and I cannot deal with every hypothetical question. Our general intention is to impose a control on Commonwealth immigrants, and I can only trust to the ingenuity of the immigration officers to deal with any situation that may arise—[Interruption.] The answer—
  Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Sir William. Is it not the fact that the Home Secretary is now, in respect of this particular matter, attempting to answer for the policy of the Southern Ireland Government, and is not that completely out of order?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The Home Secretary has said nothing that is not perfectly in order in debate.
  Mr. Butler: Thank you, Sir William, for your kindly interpretation of my remarks.
  1190
  I think that I have answered most of the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. We shall have a further opportunity—
  Mr. Thorpe rose—
  Mr. Butler: No—we shall have a further opportunity of going into the Irish aspect in the later stages—
  Mr. Thorpe: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I should like to ask him what is, I hope, just a simple question about Ireland. He has said that he will try to take precautions to obtain information—whatever that may mean. Does it, in fact, come to this: that Jamaican citizens will be subjected to the provisions of the Bill when coming into the country but that foreign citizens from the Republic of Ireland may come in completely freely? Is that the position?
  Mr. Butler: I have just explained to the Committee that the Government cannot find a workable or desirable method of controlling the entry of Irish immigrants into this country. The answer to the hon. Member, therefore, is "Yes." [HON. MEMBERS: "Colour bar."] It is not a colour bar at all. The Bill is applied to citizens of the Commonwealth, whatever colour they may be. The exception is this Irish question, which has proved to be an anomaly in the past. I am very ready to make it quite clear that it is an anomaly, and that it is being carried forward because we can find no solution to it. The more clearly we can accent that situation—at the opening of the Committee stage; and that is why I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for raising this—the more easily we can discuss the Bill in a dispassionate manner.
  I have done my best to answer the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. We have had this matter before us for several years. When the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of consultation, I can assure him that we have been in touch with overseas Governments. For example, we were very much in touch with them in 1958 and 1959 on their methods of control, which were very effective and which we hope they will be able to continue. We have since had continuous consultations

  1191
  with Governments overseas, not just in sending the Bill to them, although I am not prepared to deny or confirm the dates when communications took place between Governments as was Sir Grantley Adams. That is not usual in communications between Commonwealth or Colonial Governments and the home country. It is not usual, and I am not going to fall into the error of naming dates.
  We all have perfect confidence in the nobility of character and the general bearing of Sir Grantley Adams, and although I do not wish to go further into this matter, I must add that it became quite clear to us over the course of the passage of time that they could not find the chance of controlling their emigrants from their countries. A decision, therefore, had to be taken by the British Government. We acknowledge that the decision is unpalatable. We took it. It is our decision, and now we have taken it we hope that we can make this Bill work to the best possible effect.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has, in effect, just rebuked Sir Grantley Adams, by implication, for giving the date of the passage of a communication between this Government and his own. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that on 14th November the British Prime Minister did exactly the same thing? The Prime Minister said that communications had been made to Commonwealth Governments some weeks before the right hon. Gentleman announced it to his own party conference. If what was done by our own Prime Minister is perfectly right, then surely what Sir Grantley Adams did was right.
  Mr. Butler: I am not aware that the Prime Minister of this country gave the exact date, but if the right hon. Gentleman cares to communicate with me about it I will look into the matter.
  Mr. Nigel Fisher: I did not raise this matter before because I did not want to interrupt the Front Bench speakers. Although they raised the Irish problem, it is, technically, quite impossible to discuss that problem on an Amendment which deals with citizens of the United Kingdom and the Colonies.
  1192
  The Irish are neither of these things. I want to know, from the point of view of back benchers, and since the Irish problem is of great importance in this debate, whether we are to be allowed to talk about Ireland, or whether special dispensation has been allowed to the Front Bench speakers because of the importance of the matter?
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It would surely be absolutely in order, indeed necessary, to a sensible discussion to compare the rights of United Kingdom citizens and the Colonies under the Bill and compare them with the rights of citizens of the Irish Republic. This must be necessary, I submit, in order to have a sensible discussion. I do not mean that we should necessarily increase the whole field of the debate but that it is necessary to discuss this matter.
  The Deputy-Chairman: An opportunity will occur later—on Amendment No. 141—to deal purely with the Irish question. But as the debate has gone, from the two leading speeches from the Front Bench, Ireland has been frequently mentioned and undoubtedly it will not be out of order for hon. Members on the back benches to follow that example to a certain extent, bearing in mind that Amendment No. 141 will be debated later.
  Mr. Grimond: Seldom can a worse Bill have been defended by weaker arguments than those we have heard today. What has the nobility of Sir Grantley Adams to do with the question of whether he was consulted about the Bill? The Government must not write things off in this way, for it is not the way for them to gain a congenial and useful Committee stage.
  Questions have been asked about Commonwealth consultation, a matter of considerable importance, and all we are told—and no one is impugning the nobility of Sir Grantley Adams—is that various discussions took place. We were not given any concrete answers to those questions. It seems a curious spectacle; the Home Secretary reading in the Irish Times or Irish Independent, over breakfast, the news that the Irish Government are prepared to put some check on immigration. Are we to understand that

  1193
  that is the way in which the Government are handling the Bill? Is the Home Secretary looking at the various newspapers to find out if other Governments, inside and outside the Commonwealth, will be helpful or otherwise?
  We now know that the Bill will not be applied to Ireland. After learning that we are told that if the position becomes desperate, it might be applied to that country. In the same breath we are told that it is impossible to do that, anyway. Yet, despite this, the House of Commons is being asked to consider a Bill for which the Government have offered this sort of opening defence.
  Surely this country today needs Irish immigrants. The only question in the Government's mind is whether they can get away with allowing it and, at the same time, not appear to be moved by colour prejudice against the West Indies. But this country, of course, needs West Indian immigration, too. The obvious way out is to drop the whole thing, including the Bill.
  It is true that should the economic circumstances change it is conceivable that the need for labour might decrease. We have had no answer to the question whether the Government expect the demand for labour to decrease and no answer has been Riven to whether their statement about the dangers of a slump should be taken seriously or is just another throw away line. It has already been pointed out that should there be the danger of a slump, immigration from Ireland and the West Indies would fall off normally.
  What a pathetic attempt it was to try to persuade the House of Commons that opposition against the Bill as a whole is, nevertheless, in favour of part of it if that opposition tries to strike out another part of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman was not on top of his form if he thought that one up—and if someone else thought it up before him I suggest that he should get rid of them. The suggestion that because we want to take out the Colonies from this miserable Bill we are, therefore, in favour of leaving in the Dominions is too childish. It is like a comment to an under seven debating circle.
  The right hon. Gentleman must realise that even if we cannot get rid of the
  1194
  whole Bill, the Amendment, if carried, would certainly do some good. Does the Home Secretary intend to stand by his statement that his obligations to the Colonies are exactly the same as those to the Dominions and Ireland? Because of our special obligations to the Colonies, it is reasonable for us to ask that they should be treated differently from the other areas.
  There is a further point of considerable importance with which the right hon. Gentleman did not deal. We have been told time and again that the present situation is not very serious but that it is the great danger of hundreds of thousands of Indians and Pakistanis hanging over us. So it would seem that there would be more like 50,000—rather than 50 million—people pouring in if we do not pass the Bill.
  There is a simple way out; keep the Indians and Pakistanis in the Bill and exclude the Colonies. The Home Secretary has said that that would not be fair to the West Indians. But it would not be more unfair on them than the Bill as it stands. It is no good the Home Secretary wringing his hands and saying that when they become a Federation they will all he excluded, because that is what the Bill is all about. That is what the right hon. Gentleman wants. We want to know whether or not it is a serious argument that the Government and their supporters are afraid of massive immigration from countries representing a quarter of the world's population. Let us drop that argument. Let us drop the Irish argument. Let us drop the pretence of consultation, and, finally, let the Government drop the Bill.
  Mr. Norman Pannell: This Amendment—I assume that we must speak to it without reference to those which come later—clearly has the object of admitting without restriction all citizens of the Colonies and subjecting to restriction all citizens of the independent countries of the Commonwealth. Therefore, in present circumstances, it would admit without restriction West Indians, Gambians, Mauritians and people from Hong Kong and from various countries in Africa. Also, it would admit without restriction citizens from Malta and Gibraltar.

  1195
  Hon. Members will observe that, with the exception of the last two countries I have named, Malta and Gibraltar, all the citizens are coloured. Compared with the small population of Malta and Gibraltar, about 350,000, there are the millions in the West Indies and the other countries I have mentioned. The Amendment would subject to control citizens of Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
  On this side of the Committee, we have been accused of wishing to introduce a colour bar. It is said that we have that in our minds in our arguments in favour of the Bill. I can only say that right hon. and hon. Members opposite, by this Amendment, are introducing a colour bar in reverse.
  Mr. Bowles: On a point of order, Sir William. Have you noticed yet—I have no doubt that you probably will very soon—that the hon. Member is reading every word he says?
  The Deputy-Chairman: It is within the experience of the Committee that hon. Members frequently wish to consult notes. It is to be hoped that they will not consult notes to excess.
  Mr. Pannell: I thank you for that Ruling, Sir William. I have in my hand only notes of headings, and what I read to the Committee were the names of countries which did not come readily to mind. My notes are very brief, as you can see, Sir William. They are merely headings. It is quite wrong to say that I was reading from these papers.
  I emphasise that the people who, under the Amendment, would be admitted without restriction are coloured people, almost without exception, the only other ones to be admitted without restriction being people from Malta and Gibraltar.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition spoke of the value and purpose of passports issued to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I once had a passport issued to me in Nigeria. I returned to this country with that passport and, some years later, I returned to Nigeria with the same passport. The country was then under the control of this country
  1196
  and had reached much the same stage of development as the West Indies have today. At the port of entry to Nigeria, I was required to give a guarantee that I would not be a charge on public funds and, eventually, I was given an entry permit valid for 21 days and subject to renewal for a further seven days.
  It would be the same for the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), I am sure, or for any hon. Member here. That is how things were worked in Nigeria then and how, obviously, they would be worked today in the West Indies and other Colonies for which we are responsible.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: This suggestion is trotted out very often, but it really ought to stop. We have taken great trouble to publicise the clear statement of West Indian Governments like that of Jamaica that there is no restriction of the entry of people from Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman does his own cause harm by repeating things which he knows to be untrue.
  Mr. Pannell: I have been to the Office of the Commissioner for the West Indies in London to ask what restrictions would be imposed on me if I wanted to go to Jamaica. I was told that I could go as a visitor but that I could not go as a settler without giving a guarantee that I should not be a charge on public funds.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Sir William. The sound amplification system appears not to be carrying anything which my hon. Friend is saying while it allows to be heard the interventions of hon. Members opposite. Might the attention of the appropriate authorities be drawn to this.
  Mr. Chapman: What I wanted to point out to the hon. Member for Liverpool. Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) is that he was informed of the letter of the law which is a law passed under the colonial Government when we were responsible for Jamaica. What has happened is that, as the Premier of Jamaica has made clear in a public statement, his Government decided, when they attained internal self-government, not to apply this law passed under British rule.
  Mr. Pannell: Without disclosing who it was who gave me the information, I can tell the Committee that the answer I had from the West Indian office in London was as I have given it. I was informed that if I were an intending settler I should be told exactly the same and that I could not go to that country without giving a guarantee. That is my personal experience, and I give that fact to the Committee as opposed to the theory of the hon. Gentleman.
  The Leader of the Opposition made great play about our responsibilities to the people of the West Indies. He spoke about the slave trade and indicated that, perhaps in retribution, we should admit them freely to this country on that account.
  Mr. Scholefield Allen: Why the West Indies?
  Mr. Pannell: Because of all the countries which would be exempted from control under the Amendment the West Indies are clearly the most important.
  I have here some figures about the West Indies and I hope that I shall be allowed to put them. The population of the West Indies today is 3,115,000. Forty years ago it was 1,600,000. So it has doubled in the last forty years. But that is not the only point. The birth rate today varies between 33 and 46 per 1,000. The death rate varies between 9 and 13 per 1,000. That means that, at the present rate, the population will double again in the next twenty-three years.
  Do hon. Members opposite suggest that we should take the whole of the surplus, as we have done during the last year? That is the rate at which they are coming in now. We are taking the whole of the surplus population. It is estimated that there will be 70,000 immigrants from the West Indies this year. The right hon. Gentleman said that they came only in relation to vacancies. He spoke of the vacancies in 1956, when 18,800 came in. The figure of vacancies which he gave was, I think, 283,000.
  I do not want to be accused of reading too much, so I shall try to rely on my memory. Do hon. Members suggest that the total of 70,000 coming in today is related to the number of jobs available
  1198
  and that the number of jobs available in this country has risen in that proportion? Obviously not. That argument entirely falls. In fact, there are very few more vacancies today, when 70,000 are coming in, than there were in 1956, when 18,000 came in.
  6.0 p.m.
  I am trying to reply to the points raised in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the Medical Officer of Health for Nottingham, a very favourable report so far as immigrants are concerned. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman read in The Times of today the report made by the Medical Officer of Health for Birmingham. I should like to quote from it. According to The Times, he said:
  "'…I think it is most unfortunate that these people are subjected to housing conditions which are by far the worst in Birmingham. Life in these lodgings in which most of them live is infinitely worse than living in the slums which are being demolished. It is not a matter of colour'."
  The Times goes on to say:
  "The report shows that rising figures of illegitimacy, venereal disease and tuberculosis were all due, in some measure, to the greater number of immigrants in the city."
  An Hon. Member: Is that Irish immigrants?
  Mr. Pannell: I will come to that.
  The Times continues:
  "The increase in the number of half-caste and West Indian children was producing more social problems than ever, the report states. It points out that in the West Indies and South America more than 60 per cent. of all births are illegitimate and accepted by public opinion."
  I shall not weary hon. Members with any more quotations, but I can assure them that there are several which are as unfavourable as those that I have made.
  It is clear that conditions are difficult in our major cities where immigrants congregate, in particular where West Indians—I relate myself to the Amendment which refers to West Indians—have congregated, especially in Birmingham and other cities.
  Hon. Members opposite are quite unrealistic in their opposition to some control of immigration. They know very well that some control should be exercised, but oppose any suggestion for control. The newspapers generally have

  1199
  adopted much the same attitude, particularly The Times. The feeling is that something ought to be done, but that any action is unthinkable. It is not so much a case of willing to wound and yet afraid to strike, but of willing to strike and yet afraid to wound.
  All right hon. and hon. Members opposite know that this is a serious problem, but they have made no alternative suggestions for solving it. They put forward Amendments which try to destroy the purpose of the Bill. They are not true to their responsibilities by showing such irresponsibility in the face of such a grave problem.
  Mr. Victor Yates (Birmingham, Lady-wood): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) has been engaged for such a long time in a campaign favouring the control of immigration, but the case that he has made out this afternoon is not a very good one. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden), have been engaged in a campaign on immigration which has brought terrific fear to the minds of those already in the city who are anxious to have their families join them.
  Why have the figures of immigration increased? The Home Secretary made a speech which, I regret to say, I found extremely nauseating. If he examines the figures, he will find that a considerable number of people have come over here in the past year to join their families. In the City of Birmingham no fewer than 1,000 children have been brought over in the last year because the campaign which has been carried on has caused their parents to fear that they would not be able to join their families.
  Mr. N. Pannell: We cannot consider this problem in miniature. Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the 57,000 West Indians who have come here this year were women and children? If he can, we will have a proper appreciation of the problem.
  Mr. Yates: I do not know. I should think that the figure is probably 50 per cent.
  Mr. C. Royle: According to the figures from the office of the West Indian Commissioner, the number of depend-
  1200
  ants who have come here this year is about 43 per cent. of the total.
  Mr. Yates: I said that I thought that the figure was about 50 per cent.
  I am looking at this problem from Birmingham's point of view. Birmingham takes about one-third of the immigrants coming to this country. Therefore, we have the right to say whether or not this is a grave problem. I agree that immigration creates problems which the city has to consider and tackle.
  I was referring to West Indians, but I have here a September communiqué from the Indian Embassy, in which it is stated:
  "A total of 12,277 passports and endorsements were granted to the United Kingdom during the period January to June, 1961. There was an increase of 2,110 passports and endorsements in 1961 as compared with the corresponding period in 1960. Asked what accounted for the increase in the issue of passports, the Parliamentary Secretary replied that the families of those who had found jobs in the United Kingdom wanted to join them and this fact accounted for the increase."
  In my judgment the campaign which has been carried on by hon. Members opposite has contributed to the increase.
  On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Selly Oak explained why Birmingham should be excluded from a consideration of this problem. He referred to what he called the housing problem. Those of us who have been on the local authority know what a grave problem housing is in Birmingham, but it has not been created by immigration. In 1955, before immigration began, 50,000 houses out of just over 300,000 were considered unfit for human habitation. The hon. Member for Selly Oak said:
  "Slum clearance was in sight in Birmingham, but now it is not. A tremendous number of new slums have recently been created. It is easy for hon. Members to gibe, but I challenge them to come with me to Birmingham, where I can show them people living in the most appalling circumstances."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 741.]
  I know Birmingham. I represent an area in the centre of Birmingham which probably has more slums than any other part of the city. When I was a member of the city council, we protested about these 50,000 unfit houses, but the fact is that the authority is not able to deal with the problem as some of us

  1201
  would wish. The representations that we have made to the Government show quite clearly that it is not the immigrants who have caused this problem.
  Mr. Leonard Cleaver: Why does not the hon. Member get the Socialist-controlled council to do something about it?
  Mr. Yates: The hon. Member knows perfectly well that we made representations even before the question of immigration arose.
  Mr. William Yates: On a point of order. Is it in order to discuss the affairs of the City of Birmingham here?
  The Deputy-Chairman: I was beginning to feel myself that the hon. Member was going rather too far in that direction.
  Mr. V. Yates: I appreciate your observation, Sir William. I am trying to relate my remarks to the fact that in the City of Birmingham we have 30,000 West Indians. The question whether these people can be adequately housed is one about which the House of Commons ought not to have any misundersanding. A five-year registration is necessary before these people can be considered. Hon. Members must know that this year the city council can allocate only 26 houses to those who could qualify as immigrants, as coloured persons.
  Mr. Harold Gurden: The hon. Member has referred to me on no less than four or five occasions. I do not object very much to any of his references. He has given me credit for bringing this serious matter—which the hon. Member himself agrees is serious—to the notice of the House and of the country. May I ask the hon. Member why it is so wrong to point out that uncontrolled immigration adds seriously to the housing problem? I have never said, nor have I seen that anyone else has said, that it caused the housing problem in Birmingham, but why is it wrong to say that it has aggravated it?
  Mr. Yates: The hon. Member said much more than that in his speech to which I have referred. Many of us on this side who represent Birmingham thoroughly resent and object to his remarks. It is not true that worse slums than ever before have been created as a
  1202
  result of immigration. I am seeking to give reasons why West Indians and others should be excluded from the operation of the Bill.
  We have been told about crime in the City of Birmingham. The hon. Member for Selly Oak knows that the Chief Constable of Birmingham recently issued a report for the city. I challenge the hon. Member or anybody else from Birmingham to quote me any reference in that report to immigrants and crime.
  In replying to the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) about crime in Birmingham, the Home Secretary said on an earlier occasion:
  "It is the view of the Chief Constable of Birmingham that, in general, the coloured population of the city are no less law-abiding than the other inhabitants. I have been in touch with the hon. Members representing the city on this and other aspects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th July, 1961; Vol. 643, c. 146.]
  I am surprised that some of those hon. Members should have used that argument on Second Reading, or that the hon. Member for Selly Oak should have suggested that a great deal of crime was being committed in Birmingham and that the coloured immigrants were to some extent responsible for it.
  I support the Amendment, particularly because I believe that Birmingham could never have progressed in the manner it has done during the last ten years without both the Irish and the West Indians.
  Mr. John Hall: Tory rule.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Yates: The hon. Member can call it Tory rule if he likes, but, apparently, it will not be Tory rule any longer, because the good work that has to be done is suddenly to be brought to a halt. My right hon. Friend gave some figures about employment and vacancies—
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member said that this work will soon be brought to a halt. Is he arguing on the basis that the proposal of the Bill is to stop all immigration or to control it?
  Mr. Yates: I appreciate that the Bill is not designed to stop all immigration. Nevertheless, it will make it extremely difficult in future for West Indians to come, as they can now, to this country, to see the work and to be absorbed.
  Mr. John Hall: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member's argument and am trying to follow what he is saying. Why will it be so much more difficult for any citizen of the Commonwealth to come here if there are jobs available to be filled?
  Mr. Yates: I want them to have the opportunity to come without all these restrictions. I use Birmingham as an example and I see no justification for the restriction.
  Looking at the national situation, the total number of persons registered as unemployed in the whole of Great Britain at 13th November was 387,339, a percentage rate of unemployment of 1·7. The percentage of coloured immigrants unemployed certainly was 5·6. Birmingham is a specific area which is concerned with these problems. The total number of coloured Commonwealth immigrants unemployed there at the time of the survey on 7th November was 251, 158 men and 93 women. At 13th November, the total registered coloured employed were 13,763, representing 1·8 per cent. of the total unemployed in the Birmingham area. Unfilled vacancies in Birmingham numbered 4,549.
  It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that our arrangements in Birmingham have broken down, for the simple reason that these people have come and are being employed. We have in Birmingham a liaison department for coloured persons whose staff has been increased to three liaison officers. Wonderful work is being done in integration. There has never been any difficulty in Birmingham, as there has been in some parts of the country. It is an area which is vitally affected. Therefore, I want the West Indians to be allowed to come to this country and to Birmingham. We are grateful for the help they have given in the hospitals. There is one hospital in Birmingham where the ratio of nurses is about six coloured to two white.
  It is a great tragedy that the Bill should have been introduced without the fullest consultation and careful thought. I deny that Birmingham cannot cope with this problem. Apart from the question of the immigrants coming in or not, there is no doubt that we have problems in Birmingham which the Government have failed to solve. They might have done something vital and dynamic in
  1204
  providing Birmingham with a new town when we were pressing our problems upon them long before immigrants came to Birmingham.
  We have created 61,000 jobs in Birmingham during the past five years. This work is going on and must continue if we are to have industrial expansion. Somebody must do this work. If we are prepared to bring people into this country to do difficult and irksome work we should show them consideration in other respects as well. To say, "We will take you only when we want you" is not very ethical conduct for a country which has boasted of its Commonwealth and its close relationship with the Colonies
  I want to make clear that, although I support the Amendment, I do not accept the Home Secretary's interpretation that this means that I am, or anybody else is, in favour of the Clause or of the Bill as it stands. It is part of Parliamentary practice not only to propose Amendments, but, even when they have been proposed, to vote later against the Clause standing part of the Bill and against the Bill itself. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will remain firm throughout the Committee stage on every one of their Amendments. We are trying to improve the Bill, but, as the Guardian said this morning, this is a bad Bill. It is unnecessary and it ought not to have been introduced. I hope that there will be a great deal of support for this Amendment, which will at least limit the evil that the Bill can do.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: I am sure that immigration has brought great problems to Birmingham but I am beginning to hope that I shall not hear about them again for a long time—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there is a very much wider problem here than one relating to any one city.
  The problem should be considered on a very wide plane. It has been said, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Victor Yates) himself said it at the end of his speech, that there was no consultation before the Bill was introduced. As one who has been complaining for a long time to his right hon. Friends that they were spending too long

  1205
  on consultation and consideration, it is specially my duty to come to their support on this occasion.
  We have had answers for years past to questions about Commonwealth immigration that the Government were in consultation with Commonwealth Governments and that the matter was under active consideration, and so the matter drifted on from year to year. I should like to illustrate that by a quotation which has some interest on its own account. This was the Minister of State for Colonial Affairs, then Mr. Henry Hopkinson, speaking on 5th November, 1954, having been pressed by hon. Members opposite to do something about Commonwealth immigration. I am sorry not to see the hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) here. He played an honourable part in all this.
  Thus pressed, the Minister said:
  "We are not at the moment in a position to make a statement, but it is our intention to do so as soon as we have been able to go into all these intricate problems, involving the possibility of legislation, if that is thought necessary, to impose some measure of regulation or control upon this flow."
  Then follows a passage which, I think, will appeal to hon. Members:
  "In case hon. Members may think that we are merely giving this what is described as 'active' consideration, I would explain that it is far more than that. We are very well aware of the importance of the problem, of its urgency and of the deep concern which it causes in many parts of the country and we are determined to press on with our work and to see that a satisfactory solution is evolved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th November, 1954; Vol. 532, c. 831.]
  Mr. H. Hynd: It does not say anything about consultation.
  Mr. Bell: I did not say that it did. The hon. Member is one step behind, as so often in his political life. What it shows is that as long as seven years ago the Government were promising urgent consideration. They said that they were considering legislation. Therefore, it can hardly be said, as the hon. Member for Ladywood said, that we now have a rush of immigrants because they feel themselves presently threatened by some imposition of control.
  Mr. John Diamond: Does the hon. Member not recollect that when he opened that part of his speech he hung it all on the question whether or
  1206
  not there should be consultation. I listened very carefully and all his remarks were related to that.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Member was not listening carefully enough. I said that there had been years of consultation. I had dealt with consultation and I was then dealing with consideration.
  Mr. Michael Foot: Would not the hon. Member agree that after all the consideration he talks about as having gone on over all these years, the Government view was expressed from the Treasury Bench in debate in the House that such a Bill as this was quite unnecessary?
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Member has certainly simplified that. What was then said from the Treasury Bench was that the Government were not then satisfied that such a Measure was inevitable. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. They have been all along extremely reluctant to take this step. None the less, they have been poised upon the brink, though not wishing to take it until the step was forced upon them. I am perfectly satisfied that there has been steady consultation with Governments and, what is more, two of those Governments, in response to requests, have introduced a voluntary scheme of limitation, that is, the Governments of India and Pakistan.
  I am satisfied that the West Indian Government were repeatedly invited to introduce such a scheme of voluntary limitation and they flatly refused to do so. I do not think that anybody here is in a position to deny that fact. This is why we are faced with this problem tonight. I recognise, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, that if we tackle this problem at all we have to split up the unitary conception of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I do not think that we should shrink from that, disagreeable though it is, if we are satisfied for other reasons that some action is necessary. I am so satisfied.
  6.30 p.m.
  This is one of those questions where principle and degree are intertwined. Those who want to be absolute in their opposition to limiting Commonwealth immigration must be prepared to hid up indefinitely and never yield their principle. There are some hon. Members in

  1207
  that category, and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition is one of them. They earn the respect one always gives to intransigence. But I do not think there are many. Most would agree with The Times when it said, in extremely equivocal form, I am sorry to say:
  "…if it is indisputable that a small and overcrowded island may not be able indefinitely to keep open its doors to an unlimited influx from the almost inexhaustible reservoirs of population which the rest of the Commonwealth affords …"
  If that is so, then at some point we have to say that it is right to impose a control.
  If that is so, then this is not a matter really of principle, but of degree; and the question we have to ask ourselves in practical terms is whether we have reached the point where we have to do something. I want to tell the Committee why I think that we have reached that point, and why we have to do this, more especially in relation to the West Indies, which are the subject matter of the Amendment.
  The right hon. Member for West Indies—I am sorry; the slip was entirely accidental. It could have been premeditated, but it was not. The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) said that the West Indies deserve special consideration from us because of the background of the slave trade. If this were a problem which dated from past generations, something which had its roots in those events, I would see some substance in the argument, but what is the nature of the problem?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) dealt with the figures. The West Indies have always had a high birth rate. So have India and Pakistan. In the past, the birth rate used to be balanced by a high death rate. The birth rate in the West Indies has been about 37 per 1,000 for a long time. In 1930, the death rate was 25 per 1,000, so that there was a relatively small increase rate of about 1·2 per cent.—high compared with Great Britain, but low for tropical people. The problem has arisen because the death rate in the West Indies has fallen from 25 per 1,000 to about 10 per 1,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Yes, it is
  1208
  splendid, but that is what we have done for these countries. We have brought Western medicine and sanitation to them—above all, D.D.T. That is the principal factor.
  Of course, by doing that we have enormously raised the increase rate, so that now the natural rate of increase of, for example, Jamaica is about 2·8 per cent. per annum, which is a fabulous increase rate. That is what has happened during the last thirty years.
  Mr. John Baird: Is it not a fact that, whilst the death rate has gone down, creating a problem, we have also created a problem by building up a one-industry economy in the West Indies, and that it is only by supplying capital for new industries that the labour can be absorbed there?
  Mr. Bell: I am not going to avoid that point. I intended to come to it.
  First, I want to state the problem, because one should be sensible about this. It has nothing to do with taking people to the islands through the slave trade. This problem has arisen all over the world in the last thirty years, and it is due to the fall in the death rate caused by Western science.
  In another place, at the end of the last Session, it was brilliantly epitomised by a noble Lord when he said that whereas it had taken the world 200,000 years to reach a population of 2,500 million, that would increase by 2,000 million—almost double—in thirty years. That is the staggering background against which we must consider these policies.
  What are we to do about this problem? It is new in one sense because of its intensity, but it was recognised more than twenty years ago by the West India Royal Commission, which wrote this immensely prescient sentence:
  "The sharp contrast between the present birth rates of tropical peoples and those of most peoples of European stock is, indeed, a phenomenon of the most profound importance, with far-reaching implications.
  That was written when the process I described a moment ago had only just started. The increase rate in the West Indies has nearly doubled since those words were written. In fact, I see this as now the dominant problem in the world, and I am, therefore, absolutely

  1209
  convinced that we are on the right lines in introducing this Bill at present, however reluctant we may be to do so. I say quite frankly that three years ago I would not have supported a Bill of this character, but I think that one realises now that it is no good talking about vacancies pulling in immigrants and saying that the influx will vary according to the economic situation.
  Of course, it will vary, but only marginally, and the trend is bound to be upwards because these countries are bursting with population, which has to go somewhere. Or else, of course, these countries have to face up to the problem which exists inside them. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird) put a point which I can answer directly. His question was: is not the answer to this problem to raise the economic standards of these countries?
  Although, some years ago, I would have agreed with that, in my view now—and this, in a way, is why I support the Bill—we have reached a point in world affairs where, over a considerable part of the globe, it is no longer possible to proceed that way round. I will buttress this argument. The rise in population in these parts is so dramatic that it swamps economic development. Therefore, we have to start the other way round—with family limitation, otherwise everything is finished. [HON. MEMBERS:" Hear, hear."] I am not giving a mildly eccentric view. This has been recognised by Mr. Nehru, who has allocated more money in each five-year plan for family limitation. I should like to read what he has said, because it bears on the Amendment:
  "We have found that we can never plan for the nation, and our Five-Year Plans have no meaning, if the population grows at this rate."
  Economic development there has been swamped.
  Again, President Ayub Khan of Pakistan said recently:
  "If we continue to increase at the present rate it will ultimately lead to a standard of living which will be little better than animals."
  That, too, is a comment on the suggestion that we can, by economic development, in some way short circuit this problem.
  Is it true of the West Indies that we ought to solve the problem by economic
  1210
  development? In this, the West India Royal Commission is a perfect authority. Two most distinguished members of the party opposite sat on the Commission. I knew them both. This is no partisan approach. They wrote:
  "We regard a reduction in the number of births as an indispensable condition … of improving or even maintaining the standard of life in the West Indies."
  The Royal Commission recommended various economic proposals to better the conditions of the West Indies, but said that they would be
  "only a superficial palliative, a mere postponement of the evil day"
  unless the rate of growth could be limited. It went on:
  "The material betterment of the West Indies must be accompanied by, and is to a large extent conditional on a moral resurgence among the people themselves."
  We are introducing a Bill to limit immigration from the West Indies. What is our objective in doing that? On our domestic considerations we are justified in preventing an uncontrolled influx of this problem into our own country unless it can be shown against us that there is a reason of quite transcendental importance why, in the interests of others, we should allow it to happen and that we would help the West Indies by allowing them unrestricted immigration into this country.
  Let us get the price clear first. Every other country has shut the door already. That is the trouble.
  Mr. Chapman Mr. Chapman indicated assent.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Member is kind enough to agree with me. We are left alone to take the whole population surplus if we propose to do it. I do not know what it is, but I would have said that it was about 70,000 a year. This year's influx is probably somewhat exaggerated by anticipation. This is a tremendous influx and it would give us a population of West Indian extraction by the end of the century of at least 1½ million, and probably many more.
  Mr. Chapman: It is when we come to this issue that we find the difference between us. In countries like Jamaica we are buying ten years' time in order that they can begin to solve this problem for themselves. We are not trying to buy time to the end of the century.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Member is trying to buy time for a considerable period and I suggest that it is wrong to buy time because of the extracts from the Report of the West India Royal Commission which I have read. The members of the Royal Commission said that they came away with one dominant impression—that of a reliance upon other people. Paraphrasing, but doing so quite conscientiously, they said that there was no hope of a reduction in births unless something dramatically brought home to the people of the West Indies the fact that this was the only solution.
  How are we to bring it home dramatically? The Bill is too weak, but it can help. I do not believe that Mr. Manley, or Mr. Bustamente, in Jamaica, has any intention whatever of tackling the problem unless forced to do so. The name of Sir Grantley Adams has been frequently mentioned in the debate and I would like to be fair to him and say that he is one of the few men in the West Indies who has had the honesty to face up to this issue. I am a little surprised that Sir Grantley Adams has opposed the Bill, because he opened the Family Planning Association conference in the West Indies last year. His wife is the president of the Association and Sir Grantley very courageously said at the time that the West Indian people must not think that they could go on indefinitely exporting their problem. He said that it was time they faced up to it. That was a very courageous thing to say and I absolutely agree with it. But I do not think that they will face up to it so long as they can export it.
  It is right for ourselves and right for them that we should now do something which is dramatic. The Bill is not dramatic—I wish it were—but at least it will come home to the people of the West Indies that they must tackle this problem at the right end, appreciating that any idea of economic investment and development doing it for them is purely illusory.
  6.45 p.m.
  Mr. V. Yates: Why is that argument not applied to the Irish, who come here in greater numbers?
  Mr. Bell: I am speaking to the Amendment and there is nothing about the Irish in the Amendment.
  1212
  I want now to say a few words about ourselves and why we should reject the Amendment. Here, again, one should be honest. It is not a question of colour and I never thought that it was. Pigmentation is a protection against strong sunlight and nobody in his right mind would think that it had anything to do with this problem. But it is a question of the cultural levels of tropical peoples, and that is an inescapable fact. What is the consequence to this country of a large influx of West Indians? If they come in in small numbers, they could be and I think that they are successfully—[Interruption.] I gave way to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) and I hope that he will now listen. One does not gain by these brawling interruptions.
  If they come in in small numbers, they can be assimilated into the life of the country. If they come in in tens of thousands, they clot together in communities and preserve the characteristics which they brought with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] It is true. What is the very important characteristic which they bring with them? It is their completely promiscuous method of breeding. Everybody knows that that is true. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] I am surprised that hon. Members should not like to hear that said. It is common ground between the two sides that the illegitimacy rate in the West Indies is between 60 and 70 per cent.—those are the figures of the Royal Commission.
  Mr. James MacColl: The hon. Member said that the history of the West Indies was not relevant to the existing problem, but he is now indicating one way in which it is very relevant. It is precisely because we did not want our slaves to marry that their habits are not sanctioned in quite the same way as ours in this country. It is precisely because we created a culture pattern in that country to suit our own economic convenience that these problems arise today.
  Mr. Bell: There is a shadow of a point there. I say a shadow because it is quite illusory to imagine that in their native communities in West Africa, whence most of them came, these people had the institution of monogamous marriage. This is one of those simple

  1213
  arguments which are found on examination to be not very valid, but there is slight justification inasmuch as these people were taken to be the slaves of a European community and might well have been taught the institution of Christian marriage. I concede that they were not and that there is much in the hon. Member's case, but we have to consider this problem pragmatically and, according to the Royal Commission, 60 or 70 per cent. of the children in the West Indies are illegitimate. Marriage is rare.
  Mr. Chapman Mr. Chapman indicated dissent.
  Mr. Bell: That is the fact. If the hon. Member studies the figures he will see that, unfortunately, the marriage rate is still declining. I do not suppose that the hon. Member is really interested in the facts of this subject, but it is the truth that the marriage rate, inconceivably low, is still declining.
  Mr. Denis Howell rose—
  Mr. Bell: I have given way several times and I must conclude.
  Mr. Howell: They are all getting married in Birmingham, so we had better get more of them over here.
  Mr. Bell: I wish that that were true.
  Mr. Howell: It is true.
  Mr. Bell: These people come here and live in communities, and retain their characteristics. This is the answer to the hon. Gentleman. I took the trouble to make some inquiries about this. On making inquiries from the great national children's societies in this country, I found that as long as three years ago they began to impose a quota of four coloured to six white children in their nurseries to prevent swamping. I recently asked what these children were. I was told that nearly all were half-castes.
  As a rule, children of pure blood, although illegitimate, are kept by their mothers because that is the normal state of affairs in those islands, but the fate of half-caste children is tragic because nobody wants them. They go into the care of nurseries in this country, and there they grow up as illegitimate half-caste
  1214
  children, knowing no parents and no homes.
  According to my information, these half-caste children represent four out of ten children in all the nurseries in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] This is borne out by the figures recently released by the Medical Officer for the County of London, which show that illegitimacy in London has risen from about 10 per cent. to 11·4 per cent. in the last year, whereas in the rest of the country it has been for a long time and remains at about 5·1 per cent.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Analyse the figures.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: What about the American soldiers?
  Mr. Bell: I will analyse the figures. I have the figures for last year, and the analysis of this year's figures may be much more dramatic. These are the figures given by the Medical Officer for the County of London. At the five control points, illegitimate births from United Kingdom mothers totalled 1,270. From Southern Irish mothers, the figure was 455.
  Mr. C. Royk: On a point of order. Have the figures which the hon. Gentleman is quoting anything to do with the Amendment? The hon. Gentleman is dealing with the illegitimacy rate in London, without any reference to any people who have come here from the Colonies. I submit that this has nothing to do with the Amendment.
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): I assumed that the hon. Member was using these figures in support of his argument that coloured people ought not to be permitted to come here, but I hope that he will come to the point of the Amendment.
  Mr. Bell: I was coming to it, Mr. Hoy. I read the first two sets of figures because it is no good reading the third set without a basis for comparison. Illegitimate births from United Kingdom mothers totalled 1,270; from Eire mothers, 455; and from West Indian mothers, 236. These figures show that Irish and West Indian immigrants were responsible for approximately 700 as against 1,270 illegitimate births in the Administrative County of London.
  Mr. Lipton: There is no restriction on the Irish.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) was one of the hon. Members who, in past years, pressed most strongly for something to be done about this. If he changes sides as often as that, he will find himself as editor of The Times before much longer. I gave that analysis of the figures only because I was asked to do so.
  The point is the broad one, that the illegitimacy figures in London are enormously enhanced by the rate of immigration from Ireland and from tropical areas. We ought, in our own interests as a country, to control the rate of immigration so that the people who come in can be quickly absorbed into the life and standards of this country, and will not come in in a flood so that they live together in communities and remain insulated from the assimilating influences to which they would otherwise be subject.
  That is the justification for the Bill, and I have dealt with the point about excluding the West Indies by examining the situation there and showing that it will be in the long-term interests of those territories to pass this Measure so that they join Mr. Nehru and the Government of Pakistan in an energetic campaign to control their own problem at home, from which, I am sorry to say, until now they have completely stood aside.
  Mr. Charles Royle: Because of the view we take of the Bill, I should have thought that it would have been the duty of hon. Members on this side of the Committee to delay the passage of the Bill and that we would be doing a good job if we succeeded in our efforts. I am therefore grateful to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) for assisting us in this ideal. In the 35 or 40 minutes during which he has occupied the Floor of the House he has greatly assisted us in delaying the passage of the Bill.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: May I take it from that that it is the intention of the hon. Gentleman merely to delay the proceedings of the Committee?
  Mr. Royle: No, I am expressing my thanks to the hon. Member for setting an example.
  1216
  The hon. Gentleman denied that the Bill had anything to do with the colour bar. He devoted part of his speech to advocating a cultural bar. That is almost as dangerous. I consider that we should open our doors to the people who have not had the advantages of culture that we have had and thereby help to educate them. By introducing the Bill in its present terms, the Government are handicapping that progress.
  The hon. Member also devoted a considerable part of his speech to birth control. We have heard nothing like it for a long time and I am sure that tomorrow morning he will receive a hearty vote of thanks from the Family Planning Association. Not that I object. On the contrary, I think that there is wisdom in what he said. But, after all, we have something more to discuss, and I want to bring the debate back to the terms of the Amendment.
  I was deeply disappointed this afternoon. We had two powerful speeches, one from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the other from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), and wedged in between them a completely unconvincing speech from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. I am extremely disappointed with him. It has been my lot for three or four years to consult him occasionally with regard to immigration, and we have, together with other hon. Members, discussed the details of the immigration problem. Knowing what he has said in the past, I heard him making that speech this afternoon with a great deal of disappointment.
  7.0 p.m.
  What caused the right hon. Gentleman to do it? One can suggest only two things, one of which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in brief terms—whether there was any relationship between this question and the negotiations on the Common Market. The other one is the pressure which has been brought to bear upon him at successive Conservative Party conferences, and particularly by a small coterie of back benchers in this House. I feel that this is a complete fall from grace on the part of the right hon. Gentleman and of his right hon. Friend who is now Leader of the House in that

  1217
  they have given way to this terrible—I can name no other word—agitation from the benches behind them.
  Let me make it clear that, along with my hon. and right hon. Friends, I am not trimming at all. I want a complete open door for the whole of the British Commonwealth into this country, but we are at this stage discussing an Amendment which deals with a certain section of the Commonwealth, and that section comprises the places which we still call Colonies.
  May I say in passing that the hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell) made an accusation that hon. Members on this side of the Committee have placed an alternative before the Home Secretary or the Committee. It is not true. I had the opportunity of addressing the House during the Second Reading debate, and, without going into the matter in detail again, perhaps I should be permitted to repeat that I had made to the Home Secretary, along with other hon. Members, suggestions on dispersal, and things like that could have been dealt with very many years ago. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Kirkdale.
  In this Amendment, we are specifically discussing the question of the Colonies, and therefore I make no apology for concentrating, as has been the case with so many speeches today, on the West Indies, because the West Indies is the outstanding example among the Colonies. In the first place, let me say that the reason why this Amendment has been tabled from this side of the Committee is because, while not departing from the principle, we recognise that there is some difference between the Colonies and the rest of the Commonwealth. That is due to the fact that this country has a greater responsibility for the people in the Colonies than it has for those in the rest of the Commonwealth.
  Those of us who know something of the West Indies know something of the conditions which prevail there, and those conditions, whether they be social or economic or both, are still our responsibility. Not only that, but they are conditions—let us face it—which, to some degree, we have created in the days that have gone by. I wonder how many hon. Members, and there must be
  1218
  quite a number, have had the experience of going to the delightful north coast of Jamaica, with all the wonder and beauty of Montego Bay and that string of high luxury hotels along that coast, patronised by rich Americans and film stars. Did they also see, within 800 yards at the most of those luxury hotels, some of the worst slums in the world? Has any hon. Member who has gone along the road between Kingston and Spanish Town looked in at the shanty town on the way?
  These things are our responsibility. We have been governing that territory and owning that territory for 300 years, and if bad housing exists today in Jamaica and in other parts of the West Indies the responsibility lies heavily on our shoulders for the fact that these conditions exist. Let it be said that improvements have been made in recent years, when the West Indians have had a greater share themselves than they ever had in the past, and it is they who are being responsible for the changed conditions which now obtain.
  What about the poor economic circumstances and conditions of the West Indians? For years and years the main economy of Jamaica has been dependent on sugar, and we all know that apart from the actual growing, harvesting and the work which takes place in the sugar factories, there is no industry and it is practically a one-crop economy. Because of the reliance on that industry, we find Jamaica and other West Indian islands in their present economic circumstances.
  Let us look at the question of trade agreements. Every time representatives come from the West Indies to discuss matters of sugar prices and supplies and citrus prices and supplies, we keep hearing all the time of the battles going on behind the scenes in order to get the best terms possible in the agreements that are to be made. Is it not our responsibility, and, over the years, ought we not to have seen to it that the economy of the territories was greatly improved by giving much better terms than we have been liable to do in the past?
  Because of these social and economic problems, we find these people looking for somewhere else to go. As I had the temerity to say on Second Reading,

  1219
  there is a search all the time for better conditions of life and a lifting of their standards so as to obtain a fuller life than is possible in the conditions in these territories. Therefore, our doors should be opened wide to them, and this Committee should be taking no step whatever to limit the opportunities to be given to these people to increase their standard of living. Why should we restrict entry at this time? Is there any real reason for it?
  There was put into my hands today a summary of a document which has been prepared by the British Market Research Bureau for Flamingo magazine. The Bureau has been carrying out some careful researches into the circumstances and living conditions of the West Indian population in this country, and I want to quote one or two figures from the report. First, I want to refer to the size of West Indian households in this country. That may be an answer to the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South. The average West Indian household, as determined by the survey, consists of 2·72 people. At that time there were an estimated 100,000 West Indian households in the country. The average net income of those households was approximately £10 15s. a week, which is about 66 per cent. of the average income of the whole population. In only 2 per cent. of those households in which there was a male at the head was £8 or less earned each week. In 90 per cent. of the households with males at the head there was an income of £20 a week or more.
  Now let us consider the question of employment. Nearly 62 per cent. of the heads of households interviewed had semi-skilled or skilled occupants—bus drivers, conductors, machine operators, fitters, electricians, and so on. Eighteen per cent. had unskilled jobs—porters or labourers, for example—and 5 per cent. were professional workers, self-employed or employed as foremen, supervisors or charge hands.
  We can bring the unemployment position up to date, because the Report was published only on 4th December. Of the informants questioned, 3 per cent. said they were unemployed at the time they were interviewed. The national average of employment, according to the
  1220
  last Ministry of Labour figure, is 1·7 per cent., and the unemployment figure for Scotland is 3·2. The proportion of immigrants who had been unemployed at some time during the last twelve months was 23 per cent., but about half of those had been unemployed for less than nine weeks in the year. Only 19 per cent. of the informants who had arrived in the United Kingdom before 1959 had been unemployed in the previous twelve months.
  I want to make one more reference, concerning accommodation. No less than 17 per cent. of the informants owned their accommodation. In the London area 4 per cent. owned their own accommodation, as compared with 8 per cent. of all households in the L.C.C. area. In the Manchester and Birmingham areas, 31 per cent. owned their own accommodation, as compared with 37 per cent. for all the households in the conurbations covered by the Rowntree Trust Housing Study in 1961. About half those people paying rent paid an average of £2 10s. a week. Most West Indians tended to live in small units of one or two rooms. Ninety per cent. had a private bathroom, or shared one, and 92 per cent. had the use of a separate kitchen.
  These are the people who have come to us, and this is the way in which they are living and behaving here. In the light of those figures, is any hon. Member prepared to suggest that those people are a burden on the economy and the social life of this country? These people come to us as of right. They are colonial people and are British subjects. The independent territories have a greater responsibility for their own social and economic conditions than do the people of the Colonies.
  I suggest that the Colonies are our direct responsibility and that it is part of our responsibility to see that if their people wish to improve their conditions and raise their standard of living they should be given an opportunity to do so by being allowed to come to this country. I have become a little worried about the Government. I remember all the circumstances leading to the negotiations concerning the Common Market and the accusations of a lack of consultation. There is no doubt that there has been a failure to consult other Governments in this connection. I begin to wonder

  1221
  whether at last the Tories have made up their minds that there is nothing left for them in the Commonwealth. I wonder whether they have now reached the stage, when exploitation is finished, of thinking that the Commonwealth means nothing, and that the thousands of millions of people in the Commonwealth should now have no relationship with us because they can no longer be exploited as they have been in the past.
  There would seem to be some strength in that suspicion, and I am sorry to find it so. As I said in the Second Reading debate, when we have finished with the Bill—and we are now only in the early stages of Committee—the country and the Commonwealth will know which party is the friend of the Commonwealth. It will not be the party opposite. As we now enter upon many days of debate and discussion of this issue, we ought to set the example and say that, whatever the Bill may be in the end, it is a shocking Bill and that it will be a disgrace to this country and to the House of Commons if we pass it. I hope that we shall lead the way in the right direction this evening by accepting the Amendment as a token of the Committee's feelings in the matter.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Hall: I had not intended to intervene, because I did not have the pleasure of hearing the opening speeches dealing with the Amendment. I am moved to intervene, however, because I feel that some speakers have missed the real problem which lies before us. I do not apologise for referring to my constituency, because those hon. Members with special constituency interests have dwelt at some length on them. In High Wycombe we have had an increasing number of immigrants in the last two years, Today, it is estimated that between 8 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the population of High Wycombe consists of immigrants from Pakistan and the West Indies.
  High Wycombe is no stranger to incursions of immigrants from different parts of the world. After the last war we had them from Yugoslavia and Poland, and because they came in quickly they created the same kind of tensions and housing and social problems as are being created owing to the rate at which today's immigrants are arriving. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) said that we owed
  1222
  a great deal to the West Indies and that we ought to have a completely open door. I do not see why he should have restricted his argument to the West Indies. The same problem applies in Pakistan.
  Mr. C. Royle: I did not restrict it, but I was speaking to the Amendment.
  Mr. Hall: I apologise to the hon. Member. Nevertheless, I do not think that that is the point. The real question is: at what rate can this country accept immigrants, from whatever source, so that they can be absorbed into the community with the minimum amount of dislocation and social tension? A year or so ago, together with the late Mayor of High Wycombe, I was instrumental in helping to form a committee known as the Overseas Consultative Committee. Its purpose is to try to help immigrants, from whatever source, to adapt themselves to the life of the community into which they have come, to try to sort out problems as between the indigenous residents and the immigrants, and solve them before they go too far and become out of hand.
  That committee has done some useful work, but it is becoming very overworked. If we look at it from the point of view of the ordinary citizen, especially of a citizen in a small community, we can understand the problems. Here, in a comparatively small town—and in other places in the neighbourhood and in big towns—people who are suddenly confronted over a very short period of time with a number of arrivals who form a very useful addition to the labour force in the area, but whose general background, whose habits and ways of life and thought are radically different from the community which they have joined.
  A few people of that kind can come into a community, and it does not make a great deal of difference. They can be absorbed and get used to the community and adapt themselves. But, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), if they come in large numbers they tend to congregate together in communities and maintain their own habits and way of life. I am not criticising their habits and way of life.

  1223
  I am merely saying that they are completely different, and it is this very question of difference which produces a social tension. If we do not do something designed at least to slow down the rate of inflow of immigrants, we shall find, springing up in the areas most affected a growing tension which I think may lead to very unpleasant disturbances—
  Mr. Denis Howell rose—
  Mr. Hall: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. This has nothing to do with the country of origin. It would apply to any group of immigrants if they came in too quickly and in too large numbers. Now I will give way to the hon. Member.
  Mr. Howell: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that he has raised a substantial point. Because immigrants tend to congregate in certain areas social frictions and problems arise. Will he tell the Committee of a single passage in this Bill which will alter that situation? Indeed, is it not a fact that if we have a system of permits to go to work all the immigrants will be directed to the places where there are jobs, and in the places where there are jobs the social and housing problem will be worse? This Bill will do nothing about that problem.
  Mr. Hall: I see the strength of the point which the hon. Member has made. It seems to me that under the provisions of the Bill it would be possible to do something which perhaps the hon. Member for Salford, West had in mind when he produced suggestions for the solution of this problem some time ago. It might be possible through the issue of labour vouchers to direct some of the immigrants to other parts of the country so that their numbers could be spread more thinly. The real problem arises because they concentrate in certain areas far too quickly.
  One of the anciliary problems which arises and which is serious from the point of view of this country is the increase in disease. That is not necessarily because immigrants bring disease with them. It is because they live under conditions which encourage its growth. I will mention one instance. In my own
  1224
  constituency the recent figures for V.D., for example, have doubled over the last two years. That is not because the immigrants come with V.D. but because of the large number who come without their families and are driven into associations with the less desirable kind of prostitute in this country and get V.D. The terrible consequences of that could be very serious for the community in which they are living. To overcome this evil we ought to allow in their wives and families so that they may live normal family lives. Then that kind of evil might be stamped out.
  Mr. Diamond: Can the hon. Gentleman give the figures for the increase of V.D. for the whole of the country over the last few years?
  Mr. Hall: I cannot. I have seen only the figures for my constituency where this problem has arisen.
  If we are to encourage and allow wives and families to enter this country it will add considerably to the number of people coming in. In my own constituency there are about 600 or 700 Pakistanis. The majority are here with out their families. I know of only two Pakistani families. If we are to encourage them to live as responsible citizens, to settle down and become part of the community, they must be allowed to bring their families to this country and, therefore, the number of Pakistanis in the area will double—
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I shall be grateful if the hon. Member does not continue to argue along those lines, as, perhaps he is aware, there is a later Amendment which deals with immigrants from Pakistan.
  Mr. Hall: I apologise if I have transgressed the rules of order. I think that I have made the point which I was trying to make. That is one of the problems which arises through the artificial conditions in which immigrants have to live.
  Dr. Barnett Stross: I agree with what the hon. Member is saying, and I intervene only to ask whether he is aware that what he has said about venerial disease is true of tuberculosis? In the main, these people come in free from T.B. but contract it when they are here because of overcrowding and longer hours of work.
  Mr. Hall: I accept that entirely. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. It makes it all the more essential that we should allow an inflow of immigrants at a rate which will permit us to deal with the housing problems and the problems regarding education which arise for those with families, and at a rate which does not create tension through different habits of life and thought between the existing community and the immigrants, and make it possible for us to welcome these people as useful members of the community. But if we allow the present flow to go on unchecked, I am afraid that there cannot be other than problems and tensions, and even the kind of racial riots which we all deplore and hate to see. I welcome the Bill if for no other reason than that it safeguards the immigrants already here and will enable us as a country to absorb and give hospitality and a real welcome to those who want to settle among us.
  Mr. Llywelyn Williams: In resisting the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Home Secretary pointedly suggested that it and similar Amendments were really wrecking Amendments. I join issue strongly with him on that point. I interpret the Amendment, moved so admirably by my right hon. Friend, in terms of a salvage operation; an attempt to salvage something from the shambles and the wreck, which I am sure is a right description of this Bill; an attempt to preserve something which is good and decent and in accord with the highest and best spirit of this country.
  I genuinely regret having to say this, because, like everyone else interested in Parliamentary government in this country I have regarded the Home Secretary as one who has deservedly enjoyed a very high prestige over many years. If I may use a colloquialism, the right hon. Gentleman is regarded as a Parliamentary heavyweight champion. Today, we read quite a lot about heavyweight boxers and what happens to them. I speak with sincerity when I say that to me it is almost sad to see the Home Secretary appearing before us here like a punch drunk ex-heavyweight champion boxer—not knowing what to hit, but blindly lurching out in various directions in the faint hope of hitting something.
  1226
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying that, but I say it because I feel it, and this feeling is shared by other people. It was the saddest speech that I have ever heard the right hon. Gentleman make. It could be delivered only by an hon. Member of this House who, honestly and genuinely, could not believe in what he was saying.
  For what it is worth, I declare that the Home Secretary, from the beginning, has never convinced me that his heart is in the Bill. I know very well that we are all circumscribed procedurally and by party affiliations, but if, one day, he is able to speak openly and frankly about the Bill, I hope that he will disavow it as something with which he once was unfortunately connected.
  7.30 p.m.
  I want to concentrate particularly, as the Amendment does, on the Colonies and on the West Indies. As did my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), who made such a moving speech, I have visited the West Indies. As has been said by other hon. Members, and as was said so touchingly by Sir Grantley Adams on television last night, the West Indians regard themselves instinctively as British people. They regard this country as their own country. Although they may have been brought up in the West Indies, which is a Colony of the United Kingdom, nevertheless, in their general attitude and feeling they regard themselves as British people. This Bill, which this Amendment is trying to correct, is for the West Indies a slap in the face.
  I ask the Home Secretary to remember a fact which was quoted some months ago by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. A. Henderson), who, at one time, was Secretary of State for Air in a Labour Government. He informed the House that 8,000 Jamaicans served in the Royal Air Force in the last war. There was no control of this kind exercised over them. We were glad to accept every Jamaican in our Air Force, our Army or Navy. We are certainly glad to accept them and utilise their friendliness and warmth of disposition in our hospital service and transport services.

  1227
  What sort of hospital service would we have were it not for the West Indians? We hear much about industrial strife. I say heaven help the Government if the West Indians, for just one day, were to withhold their services from the transport service and the hospital service. I believe that this problem could never have arisen, and need never have arisen, if the Government had followed out in spirit and action the Distribution of Industry Act, which was passed by a Labour Government. That would have been the obvious solution to immigration from the West Indies and by other peoples from our Colonies.
  The great indictment of the Government is that, even with that Act on the Statute Book, giving them all the necessary powers to diffuse our industry and distribute our population more evenly and sensibly, instead of having these absurd concentrations in two or three connurbations in the Midlands and London, the coming to this country of people from our Colonies has aggravated this situation.
  Mr. John Hall: I am listening to the hon. Member with great interest, but it is true, is it not, that there are a number of industrial areas where unemployment figures are very low and there are a large number of vacancies, yet where there are practically no West Indians, or none? The fact is that a nucleus in a particular area tends to attract others. That has nothing to do with the distribution of industry as such.
  Mr. LI. Williams: I do not accept the hon. Member's argument.
  I do not feel that the Home Secretary addressed himself as he should have done to the main argument which my right hon. Friend used when he was moving the Amendment. My right hon. Friend said that the nub of this matter is economic and that where we have a fluctuating number of vacancies we also have a corresponding fluctuation in immigration to this country.
  I speak, I hope, with some imaginative feeling on this subject. I wish to offer to the Committee an analogy. I know that it is not perfect, for all analogies break down at some stage. I am a Welshman. My little nation, whose population is roughly 2½ million, has
  1228
  seen conditions very analogous to the poverty and destitution now existing in Jamaica. Between 1921 and 1938, from the South Wales Valleys 400,000 to 500,000 Welsh people migrated to England. There were some very unfortunate consequences of that mass migration. The same mistake was made then as is being made now with immigration from the Colonies.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall) referred to the concentration of immigrants in certain areas. That is exactly what happened with the Welsh immigration before the war when, for instance, 10,000 Welsh people settled in Slough. I am, naturally, proud of being Welsh, but I think that it is asking too much of the residents of Slough to dump 10,000 Welsh people on them. The same happened in Luton and other centres. My argument is that if we had planned our policy of immigration from the Colonies with more understanding, then the vexatious issues and problems which have arisen in some of our cities would not have arisen.
  To prove that fundamentally this is an economic issue, I shall describe the situation as it obtains today in Wales. There is no migration from Wales to England today. No Welshman in his senses wants to come to live in England. Fortunately, we have in South Wales today a fairly prosperous economic industrial situation.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: If Welshmen did return to England, would it not be by way of reoccupation rather than migration?
  Mr. LI. Williams: I think that there is a lot of truth in what my hon. and learned Friend says.
  The point I am trying to make is a basically simple one, and, I think, is basically crucial to this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that the fears expressed by the Home Secretary and other hon. Members on Second Reading—fears about what might happen if unemployment reappeared in this country—are without foundation. They are imagined fears. I say this even about a Conservative Government. I am certain that even they will never allow a condition of mass unemployment to recur in Britain.

  1229
  These fears are imagined unless, as one hon. Friend is now prompting me to say, the Government are bluffing. The genesis of the Bill has been referred to so often by my hon. Friends. It is a succumbing to a culmination of pressure from back benchers opposite and from the Conservative Party Conference. It is abject and cowardly that a Government who have proclaimed so often their belief in the Colonies and in the Commonwealth should have allowed this type of pressure to influence their judgment. In some cases this is against the better judgment of some members of the Cabinet, and I refer particularly to the Home Secretary.
  I wholeheartedly support the Amendment, because we owe more to the Colonies than we have given them. I do not deny that in many instances our colonial history has its bright and brilliant chapters of selflessness. Our colonial history is nothing to be ashamed of; I have never thought or said that it is. I have been in places where it is difficult to say these things, but even in America I have been as eloquent and warm as anyone in paying tribute to our colonial history. The Bill is putting the clock back. In that sense it is abject that, in 1961, the Government should have taken this attitude because of the pressures to which I have referred.
  Mr. Fisher: I agree very much with the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams). We have ranged so widely from Birmingham to Wales and other places that I must apologise to the Committee for returning directly to the Amendment. I am sympathetic to it, for two reasons. I do not want to labour the point which was eloquently made by the Leader of the Opposition, but I think that he was absolutely right in saying that there is a rather important difference between imposing a Bill such as this upon a colonial dependency for which we are still responsible and applying it to an equal and independent Commonwealth country. This is the first strong argument in favour of the Amendment.
  My second reason is this, that on Second Reading I made the point, in defence of the Government's position in relation to the Bill, that what my right hon. Friends are worried about is not
  1230
  so much the actual numbers coming in from the West Indies but the potential numbers who might come in from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth—who could come here and have a perfect right to come as things are at the moment. With no restraints at all, citizens of India and Pakistan could come here literally in their millions. I do not say that they would, but they could. If they did, they could not possibly be absorbed, either from the point of view of housing or of employment, into the economy of this small island.
  On the other hand, in the context of the Amendment the position of the Colonies is quite different and much less serious in the numerical sense. The total population of the West Indies is rather over 3 million. In a normal year probably not more than 30,000 people would want to come here from the Caribbean. I stress the word "normal" because this year has not been a normal year and to a somewhat lesser extent last year was not a normal year either, for the same reason. People who might have come next year or the year after have rushed to come this year. In Jamaica this movement is known as "Operation Christmas", because they are rushing to come here before the Bill becomes law, because they will not after that be able to come here.
  If the citizens of the Colonies are exempted from the provisions of the Bill, which is what the Amendment seeks to do, we shall reduce the migrant intake to a manageable and ascertain-able size. It is not then a vast problem. It is not the same as the many millions of people who could come from the Asian countries of the Commonwealth. It is a much smaller problem.
  7.45 p.m.
  I want to be quite fair and, if possible, unbiased. There are two valid arguments which can be advanced against the Amendment. The first is that for the time being it is a wrecking Amendment. I do not say this in any derogatory sense. It is a wrecking Amendment in the sense that it deliberately excludes from the Bill the largest single category of migrants, namely the West Indians. As I am devoted to the West Indies, I am in favour of that. I join with all those hon. Members, particularly hon. Members opposite, who have paid very generous

  1231
  and absolutely accurate tributes to the West Indians for what they have done to help our economy.
  But the fact remains that if we start excluding any category from a Bill such as this we shall be in trouble. This is one of the difficulties now facing my right hon. Friends, because they have had to admit that in practice they must exclude the Irish. This is a very real embarrassment for the Government. It is the real difficulty. Later Amendments on the Notice Paper seek to exclude every Commonwealth country. In that context this can be described as a wrecking Amendment, because it drives a coach and four through the Bill.
  The second argument against the Amendment—it is, in a way, a contradictory argument—is that if it is intended to help the West Indies it will probably turn out to be of rather marginal and ephemeral assistance to them, because the majority of the migrants come from Jamaica. Jamaica will be independent in May next year. It is still open to doubt whether Trinidad will lead a smaller federation of the Eastern Caribbean. If she decides to do so, there is no doubt that that Federation would very soon become independent. If Trinidad does not decide to take up that position, she in her turn, if she wants to go it alone like Jamaica, will become independent in a short time. Therefore, most of these territories will be independent within the next year. In practice, by the time the Bill becomes law, all that we have been discussing this afternoon will be almost irrelevant. We have all been talking about the West Indies and we are all sympathetic to their position, but by the time the Bill is in serious operation most of the West Indian migrants who might be affected will be excluded by the main body of the Bill, whether the Amendment is carried or not.
  So I do not think that there is very much in the Amendment in practice—at any rate for the West Indies. However, in so far as it would be helpful to the West Indies, even temporarily and even in a small way, I am not disposed to vote against it.
  I now want to deal shortly with the Irish problem. This has nothing whatever to do with the Amendment, but,
  1232
  Sir Gordon, we have been allowed by one of your predecessors to discuss it.
  The Chairman: Certainly, provided that the hon. Member does not go too far. There is another Amendment which deals with this question.
  Mr. Fisher: I should not dream of going too far, Sir Gordon.
  Having listened to my right hon. Friend's announcement about the Southern Irish position, I cannot pretend that I feel any happier about it now than I did on Second Reading. The plain fact is that unless the Southern Irish, who are not even citizens of the Commonwealth are effectively—and I want to underline that word "effectively"—included in the Bill, it really does become a colour Bill; its whole impact will fall on the coloured nations and coloured citizens of the Commonwealth.
  That is all there is to it. I know that it is not the Government's intention to make this a colour Bill—of course it is not—but that is what it will seem like and, quite honestly, what it does seem like to every coloured citizen in our multi-racial Commonwealth. That being so, I cannot avoid the feeling that it is bound to harm race relationships in the world and Commonwealth relations towards this country.
  People who think that it will not are really thinking of the Commonwealth as it was when it was the Empire. I am afraid that they are thinking of it in terms of the older white Dominions, but they are probably fifty years out of date. The Commonwealth is not like that today. None of the older white Dominions is likely to be affected by this Measure. Their citizens who come to Britain are either tourist visitors, students, returning British migrants, perhaps disappointed in their careers overseas, or are self-supporting, or are skilled men, or men who come to prearranged jobs.
  From the practical point of view, very few people come from Australia or Canada as unskilled manual workers with no job arranged or in prospect—
  Captain Walter Elliot: I have particular experience of people coming from Australia. It is true to say that tens of thousands of young Australians come here, do a job for a

  1233
  short time, travel to the Continent, come back here and do another job, and so on, staying for about a year or 18 months.
  Mr. Fisher: I should be very surprised to find that my hon. and gallant Friend's figure of tens of thousands was correct. When, in a few months time, hon. Members put down Questions to my right hon. Friends, as I have no doubt they will, asking how many Commonwealth citizens have been excluded by this Bill; how many from Australia, how many from Canada, how many from the West Indies, India, Pakistan, and so on—
  The Chairman: That does not arise on this Amendment.
  Mr. Fisher: It does not arise on this Amendment, no, Sir Gordon, but it is difficult, when one is interrupted, not to be permitted to give a short answer. I think that when all the answers are forthcoming it will be found that the vast majority of those excluded by this Bill have been our coloured Commonwealth citizens.
  The fact is that almost the only unskilled white labour entering the country is to be found among the Southern Irish. I do not want my feelings about them to be mistaken. I like the Southern Irish, and I know Southern Ireland very well. I know that, like the West Indians, the Southern Irish are making an extremely useful contribution to our economy, but if they are not included the Commonwealth will say, and believe, that we are legislating against colour—and in practice, though not in intention, I am afraid that will be true.
  I had hoped very much that some way would be found to distinguish in this Bill between citizens of Northern Ireland and those of Southern Ireland. I knew that it would be very difficult; I said so in the Second Reading debate, and I have said so in many speeches inside the House and outside it for years.
  We have seen circulated in the Press the suggestion that the Northern Ireland National Insurance cards might possibly provide a solution; that people from Southern Ireland who did not possess such cards would not find employment here. I gather that that and similar proposals have had to be rejected on administrative grounds. The position
  1234
  now is that we shall have an interval of, I gather, two years in which to get information about the Southern Irish, presumably to see how many of them come seasonally, how many stop here permanently, whether they live in camps or require permanent housing—I suppose that is the kind of investigation we shall have—
  Mr. Raymond Gower rose—
  Mr. Fisher: I just want to finish this point, which is the purpose of the argument.
  Why is it thought likely that in 1963 we shall suddenly be able to find a solution of the Southern Irish problem that we cannot find today? I simply cannot believe that my right hon. Friend's statement this afternoon about the Southern Irish was a really valid one. To me, it seems to be just another attempt, perhaps, to help those like me who are in a very difficult position, but it is not a successful attempt, because if we cannot get a solution today, after all the thought and the very sincere efforts that my right hon. Friend has devoted to the matter, why should we be better able to get it in two years' time?
  I am afraid, therefore, that we are in the very difficult position, if we cannot find a solution—and I do not honestly think it very likely that we shall—that this Measure remains a colour Bill. This is the main difficulty for me, and probably for some others of my hon. Friends. It is a most unhappy position, but as long as the Irish are excluded in practice just so long will this remain a colour Bill. That makes it quite impossible for me to give my right hon. Friend and the Government the loyal support I should genuinely like to give them on any major Government Bill.
  Some of us on this side of the Committee, who feel deeply about the Commonwealth and strongly about things like this, are being put in a terribly difficult position when our loyalty is requested, when we are anxious to give it, but when the situation is such that we cannot give it without betraying very sincere convictions held over a very long period of time. That, in the final analysis, I cannot do.
  Mr. Ede: Part of this road I have travelled before, as the right

  1235
  hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was careful to remind me on Second Reading. I did not take part in that debate, because I know the difficulty that confronts him. He quoted what I said on 13th July, 1948, when, dealing with the Irish in relation to problems of this kind, I said:
  8.0 p.m.
  "It is true that this may present anomalies, but in my experience of attempting to deal with the Irish, whether Southern" or Northern, if one can do anything at all it is sure to be either by way of creating an anomaly or of recognising one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1948; Vol. 453, c. 1112.]
  Having studied the problem during the intervening thirteen years I am more than ever convinced that the experience of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with this Bill confirms the view that that is the inevitable conclusion to which English politicians will be driven in any attempt they make to control the Irish. We have been trying it for 700 years. Some of our ablest statesmen and some of our best generals have been employed in that task; the Irish have beaten us every time, and they will continue to beat us.
  We can only deal with this problem by becoming out and out Fascists. Hitler was determined to control the Jews. He was troubled by no scruples about inflicting indignity on fellow human beings so he said, "Every Jew shall wear a yellow badge." No English politician, let alone statesman, will ever be able to say, "In order that I may identify the Irish, every Irishman who comes from Northern Ireland shall wear an orange badge, and every Irishman who comes from Southern Ireland shall wear a green badge." We would not inflict on any minority such a social indignity. It is because we do not have the hardness of heart to do that that, in this matter, the Irish will beat us every time.
  What exactly is the basis of this and similar Measures? It is to deal with easily recognisable minorities. This Bill becomes a colour Bill because we do not have the pluck, the hardness of heart, or the wickedness to inflict the social indignity of having to wear a badge on people whom the Government would like to exclude. One can see the colour of a man's face. I have even seen in
  1236
  police reports on occasions—and I objected strongly to it whenever I saw this—the reference to a man having an "Hebraic countenance"—which meant that one would probably try to designate him a Jew because of his facial formation. The easily recognisable minorities are, of course, far easier to deal with than other people who, villains though they may be are so apt to look like the most respectable and peaceable of citizens.
  That is the problem which confronts the Government in dealing with this matter. I give credit to the Home Secretary—who has had a rather rough time this afternoon—for not succumbing to the demands of some people that the Irish should be excluded. I do not want to exclude anyone. I am not an economist, but while I have seen Germany beaten in two world wars I now see that country among the most prosperous nations on earth. How do they do it? I ask this question of my economist friends, of whom there is a large number among my hon. Friends, although they regard me as an outcast because I am never able to take part in their discussions. Not that they discuss matters, for they are as pontifical as any Pope who rules in Rome. When I ask how the Germans do it they reply, "Look at the great influx of labour Germany has had with the refugees."
  This is the answer I get and as I travel about Britain, especially on public transport in London and in the provincial cities, I soon realise that our public transport, faced with the most tremendous difficulties, is today only kept running because these people have come in. They have picked up the local knowledge, although, I admit, the majority of them would rather one supplied the name of the "pub" than the name of the church at which one wished to alight. Perhaps that is because it is easier to read the name on the "pub" than to read the small type on a church notice board. The way they acquire this knowledge on where one should change, especially on London's underground, is remarkable. This particularly applies to a journey where one must make two or more changes and it is an indication that any attempt to write them off as being inferior or unintellectual is founded on a misconception.

  1237
  I have given up trying to determine whether an Irishman living in the Scotland Division of Liverpool regards Ireland or England as his home country. A Scotsman will even sometimes allow that he is British, but if one calls a Northern or Southern Irishman British he will at once say that he is Irish.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: I simply cannot allow that to pass. A Northern Irishman is very proud of being called British.
  Mr. Ede: I had some responsibility for Northern Ireland. One job that nearly broke my heart was trying to work with the Government of Northern Ireland. It is far easier to work with the South.
  The Chairman: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment deals with the question of the Colonies?
  Mr. Ede: I apologise, Sir Gordon, for I should have ignored the remark of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I merely wished to treat the hon. Gentleman with appropriate respect.
  This afternoon we had what I regard as a valuable speech from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who faced up frankly to the problems involved. I was responsible for introducing the wonderful phrase "Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" into the law of this country. It was done deliberately to associate us most particularly with people living in foreign climes for whom we in this House accept the responsibilities of government.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) used at one time to ask, "Is Labour fit to govern?" Whenever I was asked that question at an election meeting, I always replied, "No. No one man is fit to govern another, but it becomes necessary on occasions that the job should be undertaken"—and I always thought that I was as capable of doing it as anyone else.
  As I say, this was a deliberate act on the part of the Labour Government and I carefully explained this on the Second Reading, in Committee and on the Third Reading of the 1948 Act, because we always felt a special responsibility for people we must govern because the
  1238
  development in their territories had not advanced them to a stage when they could undertake the task themselves. I rejoice that, steadily, we are now being able to pass on that responsibility to them. Therefore, it will be a diminishing number. But, while we retain responsibility, if we call them citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, we must remember the tie which we ourselves on this side of the Committee have created.
  I know that the phrase was not popular on the benches opposite. The Bill, by a misfortune, was introduced in another place. In another place everything which we had put in was struck out, and another nomenclature was put in. This nomenclature we reversed during the Committee stage of the Bill in the House of Commons. We went right through it and struck out everything which had been put in in another place and restored the Bill as we had introduced it.
  We have a very heavy responsibility particularly for the people of the West Indies. I had the great honour of being appointed, with the right hon. Gentleman, as he then was, Sir Thomas Dug-dale, now Lord Crathorne, and the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir H. Studholme), to go to the West Indies to present a Mace from this House to the House of Representatives there. We had the great honour of being entertained by Sir Grantley Adams. There is no truer friend of British ideals in the world than Sir Grantley Adams. No denunciation can be too strong for the way in which this Government have treated him in the promotion of the Bill.
  I had the great honour to have a private lunch given to me by a member of the Government of Trinidad, the Hon. Leary Constantine. Anyone with a greater friendship for the enlightened members of this community than Leary Constantine I should very much like to meet. As Minister of Transport in the Government of Trinidad he has been showing how he managed to assimilate in this country, as well as in the West Indies, the British way of life and, more particularly, the English way of life.
  Mr. S. Silverman: The Lancashire way of life.
  Mr. Ede: I give my hon. Friend his point. Mr. Constantine felt greatly

  1239
  honoured because he had been represented in Parliament by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman).
  These people have an affinity with us which is very striking, although one has to allow for the different climate in the way in which some parts of their lives are lived. For myself, if I had to choose a place in which to live, I should still prefer England, because I have not the kind of blood in my veins which likes living for fourteen successive days in a temperature of 95 degrees.
  We have a very heavy debt to repay these people. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) accused them of promiscuity. Their ancestors had a tribal life in Africa with its own standards, not quite the same as ours, which we disrupted in a disgraceful way. The other night, in preparation for this debate, I read in the Dictionary of National Biography the biography of John Hawkins, the man who founded the slave trade, and who, in promotion of that trade at the time, was actually given a vessel by the first Queen Elizabeth, a vessel which, in view of the use to which it was put, was I think, almost blasphemously called "Jesus".
  Her Majesty took some of the profits, but made no contribution towards the expenses of the voyages. These people were taken from Africa where they had a tribal organisation which they had built up as a result of experience. They were transported to America, largely to the West Indies, and they were the originators of the present inhabitants of the West Indies.
  8.15 p.m.
  They lived for about two-and-a-half centuries in a state of slavery. I read in a book provided for me by the Governor-General of the West Indies, whom we used to know better in the House as Mr. Buchan-Hepburn, a description of the way in which this primitive organisation had managed to survive during the years of slavery and how, when liberation came, many of the practices which inherited from their African ancestors still remained in the rather newer state of society into which they moved.
  1240
  It is an astonishing thing that there is no legitimacy or illegitimacy in the West Indies. It just does not exist. A man and a woman living together are recognised as such by the community. I do not want to say anything which might upset the Scots, but I have understood that, in earlier days, Scottish marriages were not very different from that. If the family breaks up, the girls are looked after by the grandparents on the mother's side and the boys by the grandparents on the father's side.
  I am not defending that sort of life, but neither am I attacking it. These people have had to adapt themselves, as a result of our misdeeds to their ancestors, in order to build up a new civilisation which can help them in the world today. To suggest that we can now treat them as if we had no responsibility for them, and as if, in the words of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South, they had now got to work out their own destiny, is to suggest something exhibiting a lack of responsibility for our imperial debts as well as for our imperial honour which will never, I hope, be supported by the Committee.
  We are, by this Bill, opening a new chapter in British history. I recall that I got into great trouble in the House when, as Home Secretary, I was once asked whether I would take powers to enable me to deport Canadian subjects who were giving us some trouble during a shipping strike at the docks in the East End of London. I said that I wished I could have powers to deport Canadian citizens because I should then deal with the proprietor of the Daily Express. Hon. Members on what was then the Opposition Front Bench said that it was very wrong to say a thing like that about a Member of the other place. Let me say this for Lord Beaverbrook. He wrote and said, "If you ever want me to go out, send me a note and I will go quietly". I hope that I have as good a sense of humour as Lord Beaverbrook.
  We are being asked to take an important decision in this Amendment. I regret that it was not included in the Bill by the Government. I believe that, if the Amendment is defeated, we make a completely new start in our relationship with the coloured peoples of the Commonwealth. I believe that it is a bad new connection to make, and I for one hope

  1241
  that, if not tonight, at least before the Bill reaches the Statute Book, we shall continue to extend to the Colonies which we govern, and for whose economic and political future we are responsible, the wish that they should be one with us and and that all the advantages which we enjoy should be shared among all of them.
  Sir Richard Pilkington: I listened, as did every other hon. Member, with great interest and respect to the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I think it probable that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will take some comfort from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman supported the Home Secretary's decision concerning the Irish. Two distinguished occupiers of the office of Home Secretary have apparently come to the same conclusion.
  The hon. Members for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) and Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams) both hazarded the opinion that what had brought the Bill about was back bench pressure and not the decision of the Government themselves. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have heard of a newspaper called the Daily Herald? If so, and if they read it, they will have seen that earlier this week it referred to the letters which the editor had received about the Bill. They may remember that the article dealing with the problem that we are considering stated that, out of the 57 letters which the editor had received, only six supported the line which the Opposition are taking. I therefore think that it can be said that it is not only Conservative back bench pressure that has brought the Bill into being.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and another hon. Member opposite went into the history of the West Indies and called attention to the fact that our ancestors were largely responsible for bringing Africans from Africa and putting them in the West Indies. The right hon. Member for South Shields referred to what he called the tribal life that they were living before that. Perhaps he should have mentioned that the tribal life that they were living knew slavery very well indeed. He might also have said that, although we did a great deal of the carrying of slaves across the Atlantic, it
  1242
  was this country which led the way to the abolition of the slave trade and, later, of slavery itself. It is as well that we should get the picture rounded.
  I have every sympathy, if I may say so respectfully, with those who really believe that this is a bad Bill. I attach full importance to the strength of the arguments that we have heard on this Amendment. However, it seems to me that the arguments against the Amendment, not by a long way, but by some way, override the arguments for it.
  I put my belief on three main grounds. If the Amendment and all that goes with it were accepted, this growing nucleus of immigrants would grow at a faster rate than do the people now living in this country, because, as has been said by several hon. Members, their birth rate is that much higher. After all, we are supposed to legislate not only for the present, but for the future. It seems undeniable that this country would then suffer the same sort of problems which are confronting the United States and which they have found insoluble. I think that that is the overriding consideration in all the other important considerations which concern the Bill.
  Mr. Chapman: Which problem does the United States find insoluble?
  Sir Richard Pilkington: The hon. Gentleman may have heard the name Little Rock. In America, Little Rock is not an end but a beginning. I am anxious to avoid the same sort of thing happening in this country.
  Mr. Leslie Hale: Does the hon. Gentleman regard this as a colour Bill?
  Sir Richard Pilkington: I believe that I am right in saying that I have no feeling one way or the other personally about the colour question. It is an inescapable fact that where too many people of a country and too many immigrants are too close together—this applies to other countries where the experience has been the same—then the sort of friction to which I have referred arises.
  Mr. Hale: Is not that the situation in Kenya today?
  Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman said that, if this Amendment were

  1243
  accepted, we would be in danger of creating in this country the same insoluble problem which exists in the United States.
  Mr. Hale: And which exists in Kenya.
  Mr. Silverman: Whether the problem is insoluble or not, the problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers is a colour problem and only a colour problem. Therefore, if he says that to accept this Amendment would be to create a colour problem in this country, then to reject it would be to avoid the colour problem in this country. The hon. Gentleman has given the Government's case away. He has demonstrated that this is a colour Bill and nothing else.
  Sir Richard Pilkington: If the hon. Gentleman had listened with his customary attention he would have remembered that I referred in every case to "immigrants". I did not bring the question of colour into it because I do not think that that is necessary. We are an overcrowded island already. We are dealing with immigrants, whatever their colour. It is only a matter of administration that we cannot bring the Irish in at the same time.
  Mr. Hale: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how he would propose that the new Kenya Government should deal with European immigrants in Kenya?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. John Arbuthnot): The hon. Member for Old-ham, West (Mr. Hale) is not in order on this Amendment in asking the hon. Gentleman how the Kenya Government would deal with the matter.
  Mr. Hale: I am trying to deal with the people in Kenya and to relate my intervention to the hon. Gentleman's observations about Little Rock. If Little Rock is not in the Bill, Nairobi is not in the Bill. With great respect, I should be grateful to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if you would tell me why it is permissible for the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) to develop a detailed argument about a place in the United States but not permissible for me to develop an argument about a place which is, to an extent, still under British rule.
  Mr. John Dugdale: Further to that point of order—
  The Temporary Chairman: It was not a point of order.
  Mr. Hale: I did raise a point of order, Mr. Arbuthnot. It has had no reply. I ventured to challenge your Ruling, with great respect, and to say that, whilst respecting the Chair, I humbly asked for guidance as to why an observation about the colour bar in Kenya was not relevant when an observation about Little Rock was.
  The Temporary Chairman: That is not a question for me to answer.
  Mr. Hale: With great respect, Mr. Arbuthnot, this was the intervention you made to me. You directed me virtually to resume my seat on the ground that I was out of order in referring to Nairobi. I am asking why you say that I was out of order.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order.
  Mr. Hale: No, I will not give way in these circumstances. You have ruled, Mr. Arbuthnot, that you are not responsible for your own Ruling and I venture to ask you why.
  The Temporary Chairman: When I am on my feet, the hon. Member must resume his seat. I have told him that we could not discuss on this Amendment a matter which was the responsibility of the Kenya Government.
  Mr. Gordon Walker rose—
  Mr. Hale: Further to that, this is not a matter of responsibility for the Kenya Government. It is still a matter for the United Kingdom Government. I was intervening to make a point in which I was suggesting that the hon. Member who had the ear of the Committee was a little wide of the point in referring in complete detail to Little Rock, which is a purely colour bar question in a limited area, in a depressed and rather poverty-stricken area of the United States.
  I asked the hon. Member to explain to me, in view of our responsibility for the present negotiations in Nairobi, in view of the fact that the Government of Kenya is under discussion, in view of the fact that the Colonial Secretary is

  1245
  at the moment discussing with Mr. Jomo Kenyatta and others the future of Kenya, which will involve the security and the safety of European citizens, including United Kingdom citizens, who have not abandoned their nationality, why this, was not a matter to consider in the light of the argument that the hon. Member was putting.
  8.30 p.m.
  The Temporary Chairman: I cannot see that chat arises on this Amendment.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The Amendment deals with citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Inhabitants of Kenya are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Therefore, is it not directly relevant to the Amendment?
  The Temporary Chairman: Sir Richard Pilkington.
  Sir Richard Pilkington: The second speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was not as good as his first speech earlier in the day. Density of population is the answer which I could give him in three words, but which I must not give him more fully, because, Mr. Arbuthnot, you have ruled it out of order.
  I have tried to make the points which I regard as of overbearing importance in this difficult problem, but there is one further thing to which, possibly, hon. Members opposite who speak after me may care to refer. What is the limit which hon. Members opposite who are in favour of the Amendment consider would be the proper limit of immigration into this country? Is there no limit that they would put? If there is a limit, at what level would they put it? Surely, it is right at this stage to get the machinery in the hands of the Government so that if later it becomes necessary to control one way or the other the number of people coming into the country, it can be done.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: The speech which the Committee has just heard from the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington) seems to me to be an abject confession of failure. The hon. Member has compared the potential situation which existing immigration has created with the Little Rock situation. In my submission, the Bill is a condemnation of the Government because they, too.
  1246
  have taken a wholly defeatist attitude to the problem of how to organise a multiracial society.
  There was an occasion not long ago when the Minister of State referred to the United Kingdom as "the focal point of a multi-racial Commonwealth." Can he say that now, after the Bill, when the Government are saying that even though we have not got a population of 500,000 immigrants, it would create too grave a problem, it would create dangers of racial disorders and we could not risk it?
  Is that the example that Britain is setting to those territories where, according to spokesmen of the Government, we are advocating multi-racial societies and communities? Is this the message of Britain, that multi-racialism is all very well across the oceans but not here, and that we cannot cope with it here, with all our resources, our wealth, our traditions, our tolerance and our neighbourliness? Is that the verdict that the human race is to pass upon Britain, that we cannot absorb in this community 1 per cent, of the population which has a different colour from ours? What a message for a party of Commonwealth and Empire.
  I have had occasion several times this year to be in Africa and I have been in some of the Colonies. I remember one evening in a remote farm in Kenya early this year some of our people there, European settlers, saying "For God's sake, what are you doing about the Government's plans on immigration? What do you think our fate here in Kenya will be? Here we are in a lonely outpost, in lonely farms, where we have survived the challenge of Mau Mau. There is a new challenge now coming to our position from England, from the Tory Party or part of it, in Britain." I suppose that the British white population of Kenya is about 24,000. It may be more, though not much more.
  Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby: Is it not about 100,000?
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: Whatever it is, it is a very small proportion of the total population, and I stand to be corrected on the figure. We happen, however, to own a great deal of wealth there. We have invested a great deal there, and it

  1247
  is perfectly true that we have made a great contribution.
  The Temporary Chairman: I think that the hon. and learned Member is going into too much detail and is a little wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: With great respect, Mr. Arbuthnot, surely on this Amendment it is legitimate for the Committee to consider what the reactions of the Colonies will be to the Bill if it is not amended. We have a practical responsibility for the Colonies. We still have responsibility for their government, and I submit that this is a highly relevant and a most material part of the argument which the Government have to face.
  To return to the situation in Kenya, the small white population there has been subject to serious challenge and threat, but it has survived, and now there is a prospect in Kenya of multi-racialism developing. There are better relations between the farmers and their neighbours. Africans are moving in as neighbours to the white farms. I have seen it happen. I am sure the Colonial Secretary is eager to surmount these difficulties. This is the root of survival in these territories, but what an example the Bill will be to the Kenya Government. It will be a direct provocation to the racialists there who will say to the whites, "Get out. We do not want you." This is the kind of thing that will happen if this sort of Measure goes through.
  I see that the Attorney-General is present and I wonder what he as a lawyer feels about the Bill. It does violence to a tradition of the common law which has existed for over 350 years. We on this side of the Committee have always thought that the Tory Party was reactionary, but the party has not in recent years gone back to the 15th century for its precedents as it is doing in this Bill. Ever since the great judgment of Lord Chief Justice Ellesmere in Calvin's case in 1608 it has been the rule of our law that all have enjoyed the same rights to the King's protection.
  Our law does not know and never has known any distinction between British subjects in respect of race or colour. It
  1248
  is a great and noble tradition. It is the tradition that led Lord Chief Justice Mansfield to make his famous decision which led to the ending of the slave trade. I was in Sierra Leone this year. It is a somewhat rare experience for a lawyer to go to a country where a former Lord Chief Justice is a national hero. It is not one of the normal attributes of the holders of that high office, if I may say so. Lord Chief Justice Mansfield was applying the famous principle declared by Lord Chief Justice Ellesmere when he said that King James I was "one entire king" over all his subjects in whichever of his dominions they were born and that they all enjoyed the same right to the King's protection.
  That is not going to be said after this Bill. They will not enjoy the same Queen's protection, wherever they may be. It will no longer be possible to say of a British subject, if this Bill goes through, as they said proudly of Roman subjects—civis romanus sum. Where are the shades of Palmerston? Where is the idealism of the Tory Party, if it ever had sincerity in this? Has all this interest in Imperialism merely been a squalid interest in property overseas?
  Here is the moment, of all times, when we should not be turning the pages of history backwards. Here is the moment, of all times, for us to assert once again the brotherhood of man and the rôle of the Commonwealth.
  The Temporary Chairman: Order. I must ask the hon. and learned Gentle man to come back to the Amendment.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: I do not wish to be impertinent to the Chair, Mr Arbuthnot, but the whole purpose of this Amendment is to try to introduce something of humanity into an inhumar and wholly illiberal Bill. As I was say ing, and I repeat it, this of all moments in the development of the Commonwealth is the worst in which to take this step. There is a great challenge of world forces with which we should be concerned at this present moment. There is a great challenge in the places we have left and in those which we are about to leave. There are others who are very ready to enter these places. This Bill will give encouragement to them. It is deplorable, it is reactionary, and

  1249
  the refusal to accept an Amendment which at least would give some corner of decency to it is about the most depressing Parliamentary development for a very long time.
  The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) wondered what I, as a lawyer, felt about the Bill. I hope that I shall inform him, in the course of my speech, of my views on this Amendment. But I might say first, if I might, that I think that some of his language was somewhat exaggerated. He approached the Bill as though it were a Measure to stop all immigrants from coming to the country. It is, of course, nothing of the sort.
  The hon. and learned Member also sought to represent the Bill as one which alters a person's nationality. He said that we would never be able to say, as the Romans said, civis romanus sum. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has pointed out, however, the Bill makes no difference in this respect to the Act of 1948. That is to say, it does not alter the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  This has been a wide-ranging debate and if I would not perhaps get out of order by saying so, I would say that it has appeared at some stages to be somewhat analogous to a Second Reading debate—though, of course, Mr. Arbuthnot, you would not permit a Second Reading debate on an Amendment which, although very important and far-reaching in its consequences, is an extremely narrow Amendment.
  It has been a wide-ranging debate, for it has ranged from a discussion of matters appropriate for consideration by the Birmingham City Council—raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Lady-wood (Mr. V. Yates)—to consideration of vital statistics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), in a very interesting speech. It has even ranged in its later stages from Little Rock to Nairobi.
  8.45 p.m.
  I do not intend to attempt to cover the whole range of the discussion. I want primarily to deal with the Amendment, because, after all, what we have to decide is whether the Amendment
  1250
  should be made. I would like, first, to say that it is perfectly true that no one likes the Bill. Some of us think that it has to be enacted if it can be. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has said, it is a sad necessity, but if we are right in thinking that it is a necessary Measure at this time the Government would be failing in their duty and their responsibility if they failed to tackle the problem.
  In the course of my right hon. Friend's speech, the right hon. Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) asked for the figures to be split up, showing the number of immigrants from what I might call the principal Colonial Territories and those from the self-governing Commonwealth countries for which figures were available. I can give him the approximate figures of the net inward movement from both categories.
  In 1958, there were 15,700 immigrants from the principal Colonial Territories and 14,600 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries; in 1959, the respective figures were 16,650 from the Colonies and 4,500 from the Commonwealth countries; in 1960, 49,000 from the principal Colonial Territories and 9,600 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries; for the first nine months in 1961, 54,250 from the principal Colonial Territories and 41,500 from the self-governing Commonwealth countries. The total has risen from just over 21,000 in 1959, to 58,600 in 1960 and 95,750 in the first nine months of 1961. We may be right or wrong, but that seems to us to indicate a marked trend towards much increasing immigration.
  Mr. Diamond: Is it not fair to point out—and it is the reason why my right hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich (Mr. Dugdale) asked for these figures—that the trend is wholly in the direction of immigration from the Commonwealth, which is not covered by the Amendment, and that the figures for the immigration with which the Amendment is concerned have been more or less static for the past two years?
  The Attorney-General: I do not accept that for one moment. I do not think that a difference from 16,650 in 1959 to 49,000 in 1960 and 54,000 in the first nine months of 1961 can be regarded as more or less static. However, there

  1251
  may be a difference of points of view. I think that the right hon. Member who asked for the figures will appreciate that we have done our best to supply them.
  I was about to say that, rightly or wrongly, we believe that those figures show a trend of movement which has to be dealt with. The Committee has heard of the prolonged consideration given to this question of immigration into our country. It has gone on for many years and it is finally and reluctantly that we feel it incumbent on us not to prohibit immigration, not to prevent all people coming here, but to take power now to control immigration. After all, we are a thickly populated island.
  It is one of the common arguments of an Opposition, an argument which I admit I have advanced several times in years gone by, to say of legislation introduced by Her Majesty's Government either that it is too soon or that it is too late. In this field, I believe that it is far better to be too soon in taking power to exercise control than to be too late in introducing such legislation. Once one has the power which the Bill seeks to give Her Majesty's Government, the power to exercise control, then I submit to the Committee that it is desirable that the control should be flexible and, indeed, that the House of Commons should know how the controls are being imposed and how they are being exercised.
  The point I want to make, because there seems to be some misconception about it, is that the Bill as it stands applies to all Commonwealth citizens, except those who come within Clause 1 (2). It applies also to British-protected persons. They are brought in by subsection (4). They are not British subjects and so cannot come within subsection (2). By subsection (4) it is also applied to citizens of the Republic of Ireland.
  I cannot agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), to whose speech I listened with interest, when he says that unless controls are exercised in relation to the Southern Irish this would be, and was, a colour Bill. He said that no less than three times. I cannot accept that as a proper description of a Bill which applies to the
  1252
  whole of the Commonwealth. I simply cannot accept that that is a correct description of the Bill.
  The effect of the Amendment would be simply this, that Commonwealth citizens of the independent self-governing territories would still be liable to control, because they would still be within Part I of the Bill, but the residents in the Colonies would not. I suggest that that would create an invidious distinction, and I crave leave to doubt whether it would be welcomed by such Commonwealth Territories.
  I regard the Amendment as creating illogicality. It is not logical to provide that territories on reaching independence, should lose the freedom of access which the Amendment seeks to give them. The logical scheme is the one which seeks to distinguish, for purposes only of immigration into this country, between residents here and residents elsewhere, and that is what the Clause does. It is convenient to take the passport method, because, after all, the immigration officer can then have a document readily available on which he can act.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that all have similar passports. That is not the case. For instance, the passport would show whether it had been issued to a Jamaican by the Government of Jamaica. It is not the case that they have the same passports. The passport is an easy method of distinguishing, and if we are to have control on immigration we must distinguish between residents and nonresidents, and that is the easy way of doing it.
  Mr. S. Silverman: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman importing a distinction which is not to be found in the Bill?
  The Attorney-General: No.
  Mr. Silverman: There is nothing in the Bill to distinguish between residents and non-residents. Indeed, the very first exception, in Clause 1 (2, a) concerns persons born in the United Kingdom. They do not have to continue to be resident here; it is enough that they should be born here.
  The Attorney-General: I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman has

  1253
  taken that point. The easy way of putting it—the colloquial way—is by drawing a line between the "belongers" and the "non-belongers", but these are words that I do not like using. The hon. Gentleman has put a narrower construction on the word "residents" than I was intending to convey. I think that "belongers" and "non-belongers" is probably better. If we try to control immigration into this country in some way, we have to make that separation.
  The point was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition that we are all—both the inhabitants of the Colonies, those who have their homes there and those in the United Kingdom—citizens of the United Kingdom and. Colonies, and that is so, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) pointed out, under the Measure which he introduced in 1948. We will remain so, and that is not affected one iota by the passage of this Bill. The fact of this control will no more alter that than the fact that the majority, if not all, of the Colonial Territories have a power to control immigration from this country affects the status of persons resident in this country.
  The House has accepted the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, and it is right, if we have to have it and if the principle is accepted, that we should have the power of control over the whole field of possible immigration into this country. That is all that Clause 1 seeks to secure, subject to the exceptions in subsection (2).
  I will not say that the Amendment is a wrecking Amendment, for I should probably be called to order if I did, but I do say that it is certainly one that seeks to perform a major surgical operation on the Bill. It is one of a mutilating character, and I therefore ask the Committee to reject it.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I rise because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General has risen, although I am fully aware that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee who are eager to speak and who have unquestionably very important contributions yet to make to this debate, and, of course, the evening is still young.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the House had accepted the
  1254
  principle of the Bill on Second Reading. Of course, that is so, but he will remember that many of his own hon. Friends gave rather conditional acceptance to this Bill. One of his hon. Friends specifically said that unless the Bill was changed in Committee in certain considerable respects he would vote against it on Third Reading, and I think that he was speaking for more than himself.
  9.0 p.m.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated the sophistry—if I may use that word—launched upon us by his right hon. Friend in his argument that the Amendment would create a distinction between citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and Commonwealth citizens at large. As everybody knows, that is a consequence of the order of procedure of the House. We cannot help taking one Amendment at a time, and it was a very cheap argument to put forward. It was really unworthy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman or his right hon. Friend.
  I also thought that he took rather too far the argument that the Bill makes no difference to the Nationality Act of 1948. It is true that in form it does not. The Act remains—and I shall return to that point later. But the Bill makes a very great deal of difference in fact. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—a status created by the Measure introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields in 1948 stall have the right of free entry into this country until this Bill becomes law. This is a very important part of the status of a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Bill would take that right away, and to say that it makes no difference to the Act of 1948 is to talk in pure formalities. It makes a substantial difference. The Bill is full of facades of this kind. The treatment of the Irish is another of the facades, as is the pretence that it is not a colour Bill and that it does not affect the status of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  The Attorney-General seemed to be in doubt—and I think that doubt persisted from the moment his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke and throughout most of the speeches made by his hon. Friends—as to which leg he should rest on in arguing the case for

  1255
  the Bill. We should like to know which argument the Government are resting on. Is it necessary, as the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) said, and as some words uttered by the Home Secretary suggested, for us to take a dramatic step that would keep lots of them out? That is one of the arguments we have heard. The other argument is that this is a tolerant Bill which will make no difference; that it is just something in reserve.
  On the whole, the Attorney-General seemed to come down in favour of the second argument, which was also put forward by the hon. Member for Poole (Sir Richard Pilkington)—the argument that this is machinery for the future and is of really no great importance, and will not make any difference, but that things might happen and that we must therefore have the power in reserve. The argument is that it is much better to act quickly a long way ahead of any danger than it is to act too late. That is a most extraordinary doctrine for this Government, which in no other field have shown the slightest desire to move fast in connection with any kind of problem.
  If the argument is that although the Bill is not needed at the moment it might be needed in the future, and that we must have powers to act in reserve, it is difficult to understand why the Bill has been brought in so hurriedly that the Government have not been able to discover a way in which the Irish can be effectively brought in. This was bound to cause trouble through the Commonwealth and in the Colonies. It has evoked feelings that this Bill is a colour bar. It would have been quite reasonable if the Government had introduced a Measure which imposed certain health clearances and certain rights to deport criminals, accompanied by real proposals to cope with the problem of over-crowding, which is the substantial problem that faces us.
  But the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot rest on the argument that overcrowding is the real problem and then say that the Bill will not make any difference, and that it merely provides a power to hold in reserve. That will not do anything to prevent overcrowding. Indeed, it will make overcrowding
  1256
  worse. In order to prevent overcrowding we must either stop all immigration, which the Government do not want to do, or cope with the problem—
  Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: The right hon. Gentleman has already made a Second Reading speech once.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: If the hon. Member does not want to hear me and leaves the Chamber, it will not break my heart.
  I now turn to the question of consultation, about which the Home Secretary spoke in some detail. It seems to be established beyond doubt that the Government, on 13th October—a date of some importance, as I shall show in a moment—first informed the Prime Minister of the West Indies of their intention to introduce the Bill. They informed him in very broad terms without going into detail.
  Clearly the Government regarded the critical date as 11th October. That was the date on which the Home Secretary announced the intention to introduce this Bill to the Conservative Party Conference, because the Prime Minister said to us—it is reported in HANSARD of 14th November at column 190—that Commonwealth Governments—by which the right hon. Gentleman meant fully sovereign Governments—had been informed some three weeks before the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement on 11th October. They therefore regarded 11th October, and the announcement by the right hon. Gentleman to the Conservative Party conference of the Government's intention to introduce a Measure of this kind, as the critical date.
  The Government did not inform the Prime Minister of the West Indies until 13th October. Two days later—after the whole world knew of their intention to do this—they gave him no information, except a vague idea, apparently, that there would be vouchers used, with no possibility of commenting. It seems to me—in respect of a Commonwealth country like the West Indies, which is so intimately affected by this Bill—really callous and irresponsible. To fail to consult him in this way and to give information after the critical date in such a form that it was impossible to comment on it is almost a deliberate insult.
  I should like to return to the point made by the Attorney-General about the

  1257
  Act of 1948, and, indeed, to the Representation of the People Act. I am not sure the Government fully realise what they are doing with this Bill and if we can amend it in this way we shall make it a good deal better. It is breaking up or rendering nugatory and meaningless the category of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This category was set up by the 1948 Act, and it is treasured. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Labour Party showed how this common citizenship is treasured in the West Indies and other Colonies, and, of course, it is logical.
  We have done this, and we did it in 1948, because we have a responsibility for the Colonies. In the last resort we can govern them, we can over-ride their decisions, and therefore we must accept responsibility. This responsibility is now to be abandoned. We have the same power of Government as before, but we are rejecting and throwing away the responsibility. The way in which the Government are doing it is, I suggest going to infringe—this is to the best of my ability a legal argument, if I am wrong the right hon. and learned Gentleman will correct me—and interfere with the rights of some voters in this country and even some potential Members of Parliament in this country.
  Section 4 the British Nationality Act. 1948, says that everyone born within the United Kingdom and Colonies is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That is the definition. Section 1 says that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies are to be treated as British subjects. That is really what is established by the British Nationality Act, 1948. Anyone born within the United Kingdom and Colonies is a British subject. Then the Representation of the People Act, 1949. defined electors as British subjects resident for a certain time in this country. And, of course, British subjects, wherever they come from, are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and are capable of being elected to this House.
  Therefore, this Bill and this Amendment dealts with people who are electors, or who could be electors, and many of them are eligible for election to this House. Were this Amendment not carried and they were admitted under conditions
  1258
  setting a period for which they could stay and relating to work and so forth, and if as under Clause 14 (3) they could be arrested without warrant if it was thought by the immigration officer rightly or wrongly that they had broken those conditions, they could then be sentenced by a court to six months imprisonment and, under another Clause, because that is a sentence of imprisonment, they could be deported.
  It follows logically, I think, subject to correction, that we are now saying for the first time in our history that electors of this Parliament can in certain circumstances be deported at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Even someone who was a candidate for election to this House, or perhaps elected to it, at the discretion of the Home Secretary, can be deported under this Measure. When I pointed this out to the Prime Minister in Questions a day or two ago, he said that if it were true it would be a very disturbing and alarming interference with our normal procedures.
  I do not say that it is likely to happen but that it could happen solely because the Government are introducing this Bill. If the Government come to the conclusion that that is a possible consequence of the Measure they are now asking us to pass, I urge them to think about it again and to try to find another legal way of achieving their purpose, because we certainly do not want voters, and possibly Members of Parliament, to be deportable. That would be a very grave departure from all our traditions.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) spoke, I thought, both relevantly and very powerfully about the effect of bringing this concept of United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship to those who are also citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in our African colonies. Britons out there depend very much upon a multi-racial society which, as the Leader of the House knows, is growing. They depend on this idea that there is not a real distinction between citizens of the United Kingdom and of the colonies. When these countries are growing in this way and when British minorities there

  1259
  depend upon racial and legal distinctions not being made, it seems very hard to believe that the Leader of the House could really have understood what was happening when he gave his blessing to this Bill. It is something which is so much against our interests as a colonial Power bringing multi-racial societies to independence. It is so grotesquely against those interests that I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman brought himself to agree to a Bill which does this at this time.
  A number of hon. Members, including the Attorney-General, have spoken about the bursting numbers of people in the West Indies having to go somewhere and all coming here. The hon. Member for Poole asked how many I thought should be the limiting factor. How that argument is compatible with the other argument that this Bill is not going to be used but is just a reserve power I leave the Attorney-General to sort out. He used the two arguments. I suppose that he thought they were far enough apart in his speech for us not to connect them. He used the argument about the bursting numbers and the terrible problem and yet said that the Government are not going to do anything but want the powers in case they should be necessary. He suggested that it is much too early, but it is better to act early. How he reconciles that with the argument about the bursting numbers, I do not know.
  This question is put in a false form. The truth is that an expanding economy creates jobs and creates the need for jobs. We have to start from this point of view if we are seriously to tackle the problem. This has always been so. People from the Colonies could always come here. When India was a Colony, people from India could come here freely. It was always true that they had a backward standard of living and a relatively high rate of increase of population. We have a high standard of living. For many years since Lloyd George's reform we have had a better Welfare State than most outside countries and certainly a better one than any of them.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: My right hon. Friend must not believe that.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It is certainly better than any the West Indies and India have. If people were likely to come from those countries solely because there was a higher standard of living and a better Welfare State here than they have at home, they would have come in the past. The truth is that they did not come in the past because we had mass unemployment. They are coming now in largish numbers because we have full employment. There is a direct demand sucking them in. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition showed that there has been an extrordinary close correlation between the demand for labour in this country and the number of immigrants coming here and staying. It is true that this year the correlation seems to have been somewhat broken. They are coming here a bit faster than the number of available jobs would lead one to suppose. The new factor this year is the Bill.
  Mr. John EdenThe Bill has had a very small effect.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: There has been the threat of and the agitation for the Bill. The hon. Gentleman himself said that there had been a factor of anticipation.
  Mr. Eden: Very small.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that it has been considerable, but we agree that there is a factor of anticipation. To act as if it is certain that it is a small factor is dangerous. No one can be absolutely certain. It is dangerous to say, just because for the first time since records have been kept the correlation has been broken a little, that this is a great new trend. But the Attorney-General talked about a trend.
  Mr. Eden: The Bill was announced in October. The figures my right hon. and learned Friend gave were for the first nine months of this year. The agitation for the Bill has continued for over seven years and I have taken part in it.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent. He has agitated for seven years, but the chief agitation arose with great force in the course of this year. During the

  1261
  course of the last seven years nobody took the agitation seriously. This year all sorts of people have taken it seriously. Our Press, the foreign Press and the Colonial Press have taken it seriously. The trend at which the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look is that of which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition spoke, namely the correlation between the number of vacant jobs and the inflow of immigrants. This is the real trend. It has moved up and down. There has not been the great upward trend which the right hon. and learned Gentleman tried to show by choosing merely a few years. If the Attorney-General had gone back further and checked the number of immigrants against the number of vacant jobs he would have found the most extraordinary correlation, except for this year when this new factor has entered the picture.
  There is absolutely no evidence that there will be an appalling in-flow of immigrants. This is a figment of the imagination, as all the figures show. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite must face this point. Some of them are honest enough to say that they want to stop immigration—not like the Attorney-General who stands on two legs here, first on one and then on the other.
  The Attorney-General: I always stand on two legs. I spoke of controlling immigration, which is very different from stopping it.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman first spoke of a dangerous trend, an urgent need and appalling numbers. Then he asked us not to exaggerate the importance of the Bill. He said that the Government will use it moderately. The right hon. and learned Gentleman in one of his voices and other hon. Members opposite who are honest enough to say that they want to stop immigration and not merely take these powers, which might be used, must decide whether they are prepared to slow up our economy in order to do this. Or are they to get immigrants from elsewhere?
  That is something they must face. If they are to shut off the present flow of immigrants, who come in because there are jobs for them and the economy
  1262
  cannot run without them, those who wish to stop that immigration must either slow up the economy, make it more stagnant or draw in immigrants from Ireland, Italy, or wherever it may be. We should be told which of those courses they are really prepared to adopt to achieve their end. If they say that they will draw immigrants from somewhere else, that is a naked colour bar attitude, and they should tell us. If they want to slow up the economy, to stop immigration without colour bar—just keep them all out—we should be told that, because we know that we would then head into a slump.
  The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), who made a very radical speech, should tell us which of these two courses he is prepared to adopt. That is what he would not tell us, and will not tell us, because both answers are very dangerous for him to give. Nevertheless, he must give one or the other if he is to be at all logical or consistent—and if he is prepared to give either answer now I am prepared to listen to him now.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: The right hon. Gentleman is very kind, but I thought that I talked too long as it was, and I also made a Second Reading speech. I would be delighted to give the answer, but not in an intervention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I cannot deal with a subject like that by intervention, but I shall certainly seek an opportunity to do so in the course of the Bill.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I certainly look forward to hearing the answer. It is striking, though, that throughout this whole debate the answer has not been given by any hon. Member opposite who shares the hon. Member's view.
  On the question of Ireland, both the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General seemed excessively evasive. I want to make it perfectly clear that none of us on this side wants to keep out the Irish. Indeed, our intention is the opposite; we want them all in. We want them all to have the same present right to come in, but we say that it would be monstrous to give the Irish, who are not Commonwealth citizens, who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, a preferential status over those who are.

  1263
  The Secretary of State used some extraordinary arguments. He said that we had to leave the Irish out of the operation of the Bill because we had a very close association with them, because we had a common citizenship with them, and because they were voters in this country. That applies to all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We have with them the close association and the shared citizenship and, when they are here, they can vote exactly as do the Irish. That is no argument at all. His argument for keeping the Irish out of the operation of the Bill would apply in advocacy of our Amendment.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested, and I was staggered to hear it, that the Republican Government of Ireland were prepared—so I understood him to say—to apply a colour bar Bill to their own ports to keep out coloured Commonwealth citizens, including those from the West Indies, in order, apparently, to buy themselves off from a threat made by the right hon. Gentleman. That is what I understood him to say. There was the little characteristic ambiguity. We did not know how he knew what the Government of Ireland would do. We did not know whether he had read about it in the newspapers, or whether someone had rung him up. But we were told that the Government of Southern Ireland were to impose a colour bar immigration Bill which would apply at their own ports.
  That, I cannot believe—I just cannot credit that the Irish Government will do that—but the right hon. Gentleman is certainly trying to force them to do that. He says, "If you do not do it, I will try to enforce this Bill. Under it, I hold powers in reserve, and if you yourselves do not impose a colour bar immigration Bill, we will bring all the powers of the Bill to work against you." I do not think that that is a threat which—
  Mr. S. Silverman: The right hon. Gentleman said that if the Southern Irish Government did not do that he would consider measures to close the ports in this country.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Yes, he said that he would enforce the Bill, which would mean that it would be enforced at our own ports.
  1264
  This is a threat which Southern Ireland should not take seriously, because the right hon. Gentleman has himself said that it would be impossible to operate it. Thus, they have been fully warned now that this is an "empty threat" and if, as I believe, they will have nothing to do with this sort of control at their ports, they need have no fear that the teeth of the Bill will be set into force against them.
  Concerning this question of trying to force the Irish to impose a colour bar immigration Bill, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) dealt with this dramatically in an intervention when he said, in effect, "The Government are saying that if the Irish immigration continues to be white they will let the immigrants in, but if black immigrants begin to come over the Atlantic they will try to keep them out."
  After all, if Canadians come to Britain through Southern Ireland—a perfectly easy and natural way for them to come—does anyone think that the Government would try to enforce the Bill because Commonwealth citizens were coming in? Of course not. They would all be white and the immigration officers would not even notice them. But if Jamaicans or Barbadans start coming across the Atlantic, through Ireland to Britain, then that would be another matter.
  When the right hon. Gentleman was asked what would happen if Jamaicans came to Britain through Ireland the right hon. Gentleman gave an extraordinary answer. He said that the Government were determined to keep out Commonwealth citizens and that they had to rely on the ingenuity of the immigration officers. That means that the immigration officers can tell, by appearance, a coloured immigrant—but not a white one. It cannot mean anything else. The immigration officer will not notice a Canadian—but he will notice a Jamaican.
  We are getting used to the right hon. Gentleman's language. Ingenuity is becoming a synonym for the practice of the colour bar, for this is the only possible meaning that can be given to the use of that word.
  A point which has not been mentioned in the debate so far, yet which seems to

  1265
  be of great importance, is that if the Amendment is rejected we will be the only Western country that has, or has had, colonial possessions to take this attitude towards the inhabitants of those Colonies or ex-Colonies.
  Hon. Gentlemen opposite should remember cases such as Holland, which has a common citizenship with the Dutch West Indies. The people can move about freely in that instance and people from the Dutch West Indies move easily to Holland. Further, the French West Indies are a part of metropolitan France. The people in this instance can vote and move about freely. The United States allow inhabitants of their islands to move about freely in large numbers and, indeed, enormous numbers of Porto Ricans go to New York.
  As I say, we would be the only country of these Western nations to take this attitude towards our Colonies or ex-Colonies. And all the arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South should equally be related to Holland, the Dutch West Indies and to France, where the same population increases are taking place. Those countries have not taken this palliative measure. They have not listened to the pressure from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and certain newspapers. Only the British Government will be in that position.
  Then, of course, if we enter the Common Market we will be in a grotesque situation. Let us suppose that we are in the Common Market. People from the Dutch West Indies can go to Holland and then come here. People from the French West Indies can go to France and then come here. Jamaicans cannot come here with the same freedom. People can go from the Dutch West Indies to Holland with absolute freedom; they can then move in the Common Market with practically complete freedom, and, after a few years, with complete freedom. They can come to this country with complete freedom, or, if not with complete freedom, with much more freedom than, if the Bill were law, Jamaicans could come here.
  9.30 p.m.
  It is no good hon. Members shaking their heads. Everyone knows that that is true. Many people suspect that this is
  1266
  one of the hidden reasons behind the Bill, that it is the sort of price, like getting rid of Commonwealth Preference, one has to pay if one wants to enter the Common Market. If the Amendment is not passed, we shall be in the extraordinary position of being unable to keep out a person of colour from the Dutch West Indies who goes to Holland first and then comes here, but we shall be able to keep out a Jamaican of colour who goes to Ireland first and then wants to come here in a similar way.
  Indeed, I think that the same would apply, so far as I understand it, if he went to Paris; we should be able to exclude him under the Bill, or put him under all sorts of conditions, whereas, if he came from the French West Indies he would have much greater freedom of entry into this country. Such a situation would be grotesque.
  Mr. John Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman should be careful. It is important that there should be no misunderstanding. While I am by no means happy about many of the provisions in the Bill, or about the haste with which it has been introduced—I think that it would have been much better if we had taken a little more time to think it out and debate it—I fear that the right hon. Gentleman's argument is in danger of leading to a great deal of misunderstanding.
  Under the Treaty of Rome, someone wishing to move from one country to another may do so only if there is a vacancy for him to go to and if it is a vacancy for which he is qualified. For his first year of residence in the country, he has to stay in the job to which he went. Even if he has his term renewed for the second and third years, he must go on doing the job for which he is qualified. It is only in the fourth year that he may move to another comparable job, and only after the fourth year is he free to do anything.
  If we were to give what the right hon. Gentleman apparently pretends is this freedom to people from our Colonies and from the Commonwealth, would it not follow that many of them could not come here at all because they would not be qualified to do jobs, whereas at the moment, and under the Bill, they would be able to come and work provided that any sort of job was open to them?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and the way he put it and, indeed, for his views about the Bill. I think that I should be in agreement with him if I amended my first remarks to say that, after four years in the Common Market, the things I have described would be happening. I am quite prepared to do that. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that, after four years, there would be much freer entry.
  Mr. Harvey: I do not want to detain the right hon. Gentleman, but four years is a long time. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will agree that, if, or when, this House has to enact new provisions about this matter as a result of our signing the Treaty of Rome—if, or when, we do—then the whole House would accept that it would be illogical for us to continue to discriminate against members of our Colonies and Commonwealth in some way quite different from the provisions of the Treaty.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I am quite prepared to accept that that is the genuine view of the hon. Member, but I would not put it beyond his Front Bench to do exactly what I fear. They are doing it now. While negotiating to enter the Common Market, they have picked this very moment to introduce the Bill. It shows their attitude.
  Of course, after four years, which seems to be the time, they may well not be in office. But were they in office I should be very much alarmed that they would do just this. It is the whole character of the Bill, which has been hastily and ill-considered, to use the words of the hon. Member for Waltham-stow, East (Mr. J. Harvey). Why was it introduced in this hasty and ill-considered way? Why will not the Government do something just as hasty and ill-considered concerning the Common Market?
  This is a very great Bill that the Government have introduced. It makes a tremendous change in our law. It is something which gravely offends people throughout the West Indies, for instance, who are devoted to this country and have a great attachment to it. It creates the impression throughout the world that we are introducing a new colour bar
  1268
  element into our legislation. The Bill has been introduced hastily and without consideration and, therefore, for motives which are not too easy to understand. It will be very greatly improved if this Amendment is carried. It will not solve everything in the Bill, but it will solve a great deal.
  The Amendment would make the Bill a great deal less bad. It would not offend, for instance, the feeling of the people in the West Indies if this Amendment were carried. That would be a great gain, not only in the West Indies, but in many Colonies where there is a great attachment to their relationship with the United Kingdom which is embodied, not only in the 1948 Act, but in the force that we gave the Act by allowing people free entry.
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter very carefully before they reject and vote against the Amendment. There are many hon. Members opposite who do not want to do harm to the Colonies or to the emerging countries of the Commonwealth. Many of them may be persuading themselves that the Bill will not do all the harm that we have said it will do. I ask them to think very carefully. There is much evidence now that it will do the sort of harm that we are alleging, evidence from observers and from leaders of the people about whom we are talking.
  Hon. Members opposite have the majority at the moment. They have in their hands and in their care these things which we have treasured for so long that we almost took them for granted until the Bill was suddenly thrust on us. We never thought about altering these things; we thought that they were permanent. They ought to be permanent. The Government have suddenly thrown the matter into doubt. I ask hon. Members opposite to remember their very grave responsibility now and during later stages of the Bill. If it produces the sort of results that we think it will produce, they will be responsible. We can only argue; they can decide. They will be responsible if this sort of result is produced. I hope that before the Bill is finished, and it leaves Committee, and, indeed, on this Amendment, we shall be able to shake the Government so much that we compel them to think again.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

  Division No. 19.]

  AYES

  [9.38 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Farr, John

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Fisher, Nigel

  McAdden, Stephen

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Barber, Anthony

  Foster, John

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Barlow, Sir John

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Barter, John

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Freeth, Denzil

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Beamish, col. Sir Tufton

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Bell, Ronald

  Gammans, Lady

  Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Biffen, John

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Maddan, Martin

  Bingham, R. M.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Godber, J. B.

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Bossom, Clive

  Gower, Raymond

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Marten, Neil

  Box, Donald

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Green, Alan

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Braine, Bernard

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Brewis, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Morgan, William

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Morrison, John

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Buck, Antony

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Bullard, Denys

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hastings, Stephen

  Noble, Michael

  Burden, F. A.

  Hay, John

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Hendry, Forbes

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Carr, Robert (Mircham)

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wytnenshawe)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Partridge, E.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Holland, Philip

  Peel, John

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hollingworth, John

  Percival, Ian

  Cole, Norman

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Peyton John

  Cooke, Robert

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Costain. A. P.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Pilman, Sir James

  Coulson, J. M.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Craddock, Sir Berestord

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pott, Percivall

  Critchley, Julian

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  James, David

  Price, David (Eastleign)

  Crowder, F. P.

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Cunningham, Knox

  Johnson. Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Curran, Charles

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Dance, James

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Pym, Francis

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ramsden, James

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Kimball, Marcus

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Rees, Hugh

  Doughty, Charles

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Renton, David

  du Cann, Edward

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Duncan, Sir James

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Eden, John

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Roots, William

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Elliott, R. W .(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Russell, Ronald

  Emery, Peter

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  St. Clair, M.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Longbottom, Charles

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Sharples, Richard

  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 276, Noes 207.

  Shaw, M.

  Teeling, William

  Wall, Patrick

  Shepherd, William

  Temple, John M.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Webster, David

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Whitelaw, William

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Speir, Rupert

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Wise, A. R.

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Turner, Colin

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Stodart, J. A.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Woollam, John

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Worsley, Marcus

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Walder, David

  Mr. Edward Wakefield and

  Taylor,F.H.(M'ch'ter & Moss Side)

  Walker, Peter

  Mr. Chichester-Clark

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford N.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Gourlay, Harry

  Moody, A. S.

  Ainsley, William

  Grey, Charles

  Morris, John

  Albu, Austen

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mort, D. L.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Awbery, Stan

  Grimond, J.

  Neal, Harold

  Baird, John

  Gunter, Ray

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Noe1-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. P. J.

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Bence Cyril

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Oram, A, E.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hannan, William

  Oswald, Thomas

  Blackburn, F.

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Owen, Will

  Blyton, William

  Hayman, F. H.

  Paget, R. T.

  Boardman, H.

  Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Bowles, Frank

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Parker, John

  Boyden, James

  Hilton, A. V.

  Paton, John

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Holman, Percy

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Holt, Arthur

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Houghton, Douglas

  Peart, Frederick

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pentland, Norman

  Callaghan, James

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Hunter, A. E.

  Chapman, Donald

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Probert, Arthur

  Collick, Percy

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Randall, Harry

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Rankin, John

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jeger, George

  Redhead, E. C.

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Reid, William

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, H.

  Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Ross, William

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Deer, George

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Delargy. Hugh

  King, Dr. Horace

  Short, Edward

  Dempsey, James

  Lawson, George

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Diamond, John

  Ledger, Ron

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Dodds, Norman

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Driberg, Tom

  Lipton, Marcus

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Logan, David

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Loughlin, Charles

  Small, William

  Edwards. Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  MacColl, James

  Snow, Julian

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mclnnes, James

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Evans, Albert

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Finch, Harold

  McLeavy, Frank

  Steele, Thomas

  Fitch, Alan

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Storehouse, John

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

  Stones, William

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Manuel, A. C.

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Mapp, Charles

  Swingler, Stephen

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mason, Roy

  Symonds, J. B.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Mellish, R. J.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Ginsburg, David

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Monslow, Walter

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  1272

  1273

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Whitlock, William

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Timmons, John

  Wigg, George

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Woof, Robert

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Willey, Frederick

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Warbey, William

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Weitzman, David

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Williams, w. T. (Warrington)

  Mr. Charles A Howell and

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Mr. McCann.

  Questions put accordingly, That the proposed words be there inserted:—

  Division No. 20.]

  AYES

  [9.49 p.m.

  Abse, Leo

  Gunter, Ray

  Owen, Will

  Ainsley, William

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Albu, Austen

  Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne valley)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hamilton, William (West Fife)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Harman, William

  Parker, John

  Awbery, Start

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Paton, John

  Baird, John

  Hayman, F. H.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Henderson, Rt.Hn.Arthur(RwlyRegis)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Peart, Frederick

  Bence, Cyril

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Pentland, Norman

  Blackburn, F.

  Hilton, A. V.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Blyton, William

  Holman, Percy

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Boardman, H.

  Holt, Arthur

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Houghton, Douglas

  Probert, Arthur

  Bowles, Frank

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Boyden, James

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Randall, Harry

  Braddock, Mrs, E. M.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Brockway, A, Fenner

  Hunter, A. E.

  Redhead, E. C.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Reid, William

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Rhodes, H.

  Butter, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Callaghan, James

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Chapman, Donald

  Jeger, George

  Ross, William

  Cliffe, Michael

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Collick, Percy

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Short, Edward

  Cronin, John

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Slater, Mrs. Hamlet (Stoke, N.)

  Davies, Rt .Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Small, William

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lawson, George

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Ledger, Ron

  Snow, Julian

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannook)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Lipton, Marcus

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Deer, George

  Logan, David

  Steele, Thomas

  Delargy, Hugh

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Dempsey, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Stonehouse, John

  Diamond, John

  MacColl, James

  Stones, William

  Dodds, Norman

  McInnes, James

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent)

  Driberg, Tom

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  McLeavy, Frank

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Evans, Albert

  Manuel, A. c.

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mapp, Charles

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Finch, Harold

  Mason, Roy

  Timmons, John

  Fitch, Alan

  Mellish, R. J.

  Ungoed-Thomas Sir Lynn

  Fletcher, Eric

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Wade, Donald

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Millan, Bruce

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Warbey, William

  Forman, J. C.

  Monslow, Walter

  Watkins, Tudor

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Moody, A. S.

  Weitzman, David

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Morris, John

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mort, D. L.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Moyle, Arthur

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Ginsburg, David

  Mulley, Frederick

  Whitlock, William

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Neal, Harold

  Wigg, George

  Gourlay, Harry

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Grey, Charles

  Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn.Philip(Derby,S.)

  Willey, Frederick

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Oliver, G. H.

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Oram, A. E.

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Grimond, J

  The committee divided: Ayes 210, Noes 279.

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Woof, Robert

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Woodburn, Rt- Hon. A.

  Mr. McCann.

  NOES

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)

  Aitken, W. T.

  Foster, John

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, s.)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Freeth, Denzil

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Barber, Anthony

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Barlow, Sir John

  Gammans, Lady

  Maddan, Martin

  Barter, John

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Manningham-Bulier, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Bell, Ronald

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Bennett, Or. Reginald (Got & Fhm)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  Godber, J. B.

  Marten, Neil

  Biffen, John

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Bingham, R. M.

  Gower, Raymond

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Bishop, F. P.

  Gram-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Green, Alan

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bossom, Clive

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Box, Donald

  Gurden, Harold

  Morgan, William

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Morrison, John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Braine, Bernard

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Brewis, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Bromley Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Noble, Michael

  Brooman-White, R.

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Hay, John

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Bryan, Paul

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Buck, Antony

  Hendry, Forbes

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Bullard, Denys

  Hiley, Joseph

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Hill. Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Partridge, E.

  Butter, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Percival, Ian

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Mucking, Philip N.

  Peyton, John

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Holland, Philip

  Plckthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Hollingworth, John

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W)

  Hopkins, Alan

  Pitman, Sir James

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hornby, R. p.

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Cole, Norman

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Pott, Percivall

  Cooke, Robert

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Corfield, F. V.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Costain, A. P.

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Coulson, J. M.

  James, David

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Pym, Francis

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ramsden, James

  Crowder, F. P.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Cunningham, Knox

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Curran, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rees, Hugh

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. s.

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Renton, David

  Dance, James

  Kimball, Marcus

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Deedes, w. F.

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Lanoaster, Col. C. G.

  Roots, William

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Leather, E. H. C.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Russell, Ronald

  Doughty, Charles

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  St. Clair, M.

  Dray son, G. D.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  du Cann, Edward

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Sharpies, Richard

  Duncan, Sir James

  Litchfield, capt. John

  Shaw, M.

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Shepherd, William

  Eden, John

  Longbottom, Charles

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carahalton)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Elliott, R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  Emery, Peter

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  McAdden, Stephen

  Speir, Rupert

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  McLaren, Martin

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Farr, John

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  1276

  1277

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Stodart, J. A.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Webster, David

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  Whitelaw, William

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Turner, Colin

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Tapsell, Peter

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Wise, A. R.

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter & Moss Side)

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Teeling, William

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Woollam, John

  Temple, John M.

  Walder, David

  Worsley, Marcus

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Walker, Peter

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Wall, Patrick

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Chichester-Clark and Mr. Peel.

  Committee report Progress.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Question put,
  That the Proceedings on the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill be exempted, at this day's

  Division No. 21.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Cooper, A. E.

  Gower, Raymond

  Aitken, W. T,

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Corfield, F. V.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Costain, A. P.

  Green, Alan

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Coulson, J. M.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Barber, Anthony

  Craddock, Sir Beresford

  Crimston, Sir Robert

  Barlow, Sir John

  Critchley, Julian

  Gurden, Harold

  Barter, John

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Batsford, Brian

  Crowder, F. P.

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Baxter, Sir Beverley (Southgate)

  Cunningham, Knox

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Curran, Charles

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Bell, Ronald

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere(Macclesf'd)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Dance, James

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, sir Henry

  Hastings, Stephen

  Biffen, John

  Deedes, W. F.

  Hay, John

  Bingham, R. M.

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Hendry, Forbes

  Bishop, F. P.

  Donaldson, Cmdr, C. E. M.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Doughty, Charles

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Bossom, Clive

  Dray son, G. B.

  Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  du Cann, Edward

  Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)

  Box, Donald

  Duncan, Sir James

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Boyd-Carperrter, Rt. Hon. John

  Eocles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Braine, Bernard

  Eden, John

  Holland, Philip

  Brewis, John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hollingworth, John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Elliott, R. W .(Nwestle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Brooman-White, R.

  Emery, Peter

  Hopkins, Alan

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Hornby, R. P.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Bryan, Paid

  Farr, John

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Buck, Antony

  Finlay, Graeme

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bullard, Denys

  Fisher, Nigel

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bullus, Wing Commander Eric

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Burden, F. A.

  Foster, John

  James, David

  Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Gammans, Lady

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Cary, Sir Robert

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Channon, H. P. G.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Kerby, Capt. Henry

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Godber, J. B.

  Lagden, Godfrey

  Cole, Norman

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Cooke, Robert

  Goodhew, Victor

  Leather, E. H. C.

  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

  Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Iain Macleod.]
  The House divided: Ayes 282. Noes 208.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdate)

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Partridge, E.

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Linstead, Sir Hugh

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Percival, Ian

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Peyton, John

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth

  Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter & Moss Side)

  Longden, Gilbert

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Teeling, William

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn

  Pitman, Sir James

  Temple, John M.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  McAdden, Stephen

  Pott, Percivall

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  McLaren, Martin

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Prior, J. . L.

  Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

  Profumo, Rt. Hon. John

  Tilney, John (Wavertree)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Turner, Colin

  Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Harold(Bromley)

  Pym, Francis

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Ramsden, James

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Maddan, Martin

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Rees, Hugh

  Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Renton, David

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Marlowe, Anthony

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Walder, David

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)

  Walker, Peter

  Marten, Nell

  Robson Brown, Sir William

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Roots, William

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Webster, David

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Russell, Ronald

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  St. Clair, M.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Williams, Dudley (Exeter)

  Moore, Sir Thomas (Ayr)

  Sharpies, Richard

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Shaw, M.

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Morgan, William

  Shepherd, William

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Morrison, John

  Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn

  Wise, A. R.

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Smyth, Brig, Sir John (Norwood)

  Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Woollam, John

  Noble, Michael

  Speir, Rupert

  Worsley, Marcus

  Nugent, Sir Richard

  Stanley, Hon. Richard

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Oakshott, Sir Hendrie

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Stodart, J. A.

  Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Peel.

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  NOES

  Abse, Lao

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Gunter, Ray

  Ainsley, William

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham. W.)

  Albu, Austen

  Deer, George

  Hail, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hamilton, William (West File)

  Alton, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dempsey, James

  Hannan, William

  Awbery, Stan

  Diamond, John

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Baird, John

  Dodds, Norman

  Hayman, F. H.

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Henderson,Rt.Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegls)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Bence, Cyril

  Ede, Rt. Hon. C.

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Hilton, A. V.

  Blackburn, F.

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Holman, Percy

  Blyton, William

  Edwards, Walter (Stepney)

  Holt, Arthur

  Boardman, H.

  Evans, Albert

  Houghton, Douglas

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Bowles, Frank

  Finch, Harold

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Boyden, James

  Fitch, Alan

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen. N.)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Fletcher, Erie

  Hunter, A. E.

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Hynd, H, (Accrington)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Forman, J. C.

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Callaghan, dames

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Chapman, Donald

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jeger, George

  Cliffe, Michael

  George,LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Collick, Percy

  Ginsburg, David

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham. S.)

  Cronin, John

  Gourlay, Harry

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham>

  Crosland, Anthony

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Grey, Charles

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Davies,Rt.Hn.Clement(Montgomery)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Griffiths, W. (Exchange)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Grimond, J.

  Lawson, George

  1280

  1281

  Ledger, Ron

  Parker, John

  Stress, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-On-Trent, C.)

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Swingler, Stephen

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Symonds, J. B.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Peart, Frederick

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  Logan, David

  Pentland, Norman

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  MacColl, James

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  McInnes, James

  Probert, Arthur

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Pursey, Cmdr. Harry

  Timmons, John

  Mackie, John (Enfield, East)

  Randall, Harry

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  McLeavy, Frank

  Rankin, John

  Wade, Donald

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Reid, William

  Warbey, William

  Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield, E.)

  Rhodes, H.

  Watkins, Tudor

  Manuel, A. c.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Weltzman, David

  Mapp, Charles

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Wefts, Percy (Faversham)

  Mason, Roy

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Ross, William

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Royle, Charles (Salford, West)

  Whitlock, William

  Millan, Bruce

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wigg, George

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Short, Edward

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Monslow, Walter

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Willey, Frederick

  Moody, A. S.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Williams, D. J. (Neath)

  Morris, John

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Moyle, Arthur

  Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Mulley, Frederick

  Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Neal, Harold

  Small, William

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Snow, Julian

  Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

  Oliver, G. H.

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Woof, Robert

  Oram, A. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Oswald, Thomas

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Owen, Will

  Steele, Thomas

  Paget, R. T.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  TELLERS for THE NOES:

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Storehouse, John

  Mr. Charles A. Howell and

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stones, William

  Mr. McCann.

  COMMONWEALTH IMMIGRANTS BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I call the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) to move Amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 17. I think that it will be convenient to discuss, at the same time, Amendments No. 4 and No. 5, both in page 1, line 17, and Amendments No. 31 and No. 32, both in page 2, line 34, except for the provisions relating to students.
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: On a point of order. I do not know whether it is right to raise this matter in Committee, Sir William, but I understood the position to be that a Motion was moved from the Government Front Bench to report Progress, and that you then put the Motion concerning the suspension of the Standing Order. Most hon. Members on this side of the Committee were under the impression that the Motion moved was to report Progress. Either you were talking indistinctly, Sir William, or hon. Members on this side of the Committee need hearing aids. What was it all about?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The normal position, if Mr. Speaker were occupying his Chair and if I, as Deputy-Chairman, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, were occupying this Chair would be that I, or the Chairman of Ways and Means, on vacating the Chair, would report to Mr. Speaker that we had made Progress. Mr. Speaker would then do what I did, namely, call upon the Prime Minister to move the Motion on the Order Paper referring to the Ten o'clock rule. What was carried out in this case was in order.
  Mrs Eirene White: Will you explain your statement that we are not to discuss the parts of the Amendments relating to students, Sir William?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The position is that the provisions relating to students have not been selected by the Chair for discussion now, but they will be discussed at a later stage, which will be more convenient for the Committee. That has been published—and I think it has been generally agreed on both sides—in the notice setting out the Amendments that are to be called together.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: May we have this quite clear, Sir William? You have indicated that we can discuss with Amendment No. 3

  1283
  Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, and it is an integral and important part of both those Amendments that bona fide students should be totally exempted from the provisions of the Clause. We appreciate that the issues concerning bona fide students are somewhat different from the other issues raised in Amendment No. 3, but I should like it to be made quite clear that if we eliminate from the discussion on the Amendment you have called any reference to the position of bona fide students we can have a full and separate
  1284
  debate on their position when we debate the Amendments which are related to them in Clause 2.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That is so. I can give the hon. Member that assurance.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Would that be in connection with Amendment No. 30, Sir William?
  The Deputy-Chairman: The intention is to call Amendment No. 30 later, but not with this group.
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Wade: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert:
  (c) a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one; or
  (d) a person who has in the five years previous 1.o his entry to the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of two years; or
  (e) the spouse of a person who is expected under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d) of this subsection who is not living apart from such person under a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction or under a deed of separation; or any child, stepchild or adopted child (having been adopted in a manner recognised by law) under the age of twenty-one years, of such person.
  After the wide-ranging debate on the first Amendment we now turn to the consideration of some of the details and serious defects in this Bill. I preface my comments with two general observations. The first is that those who wish to see the Commonwealth flourish during the process of change from an Empire to a Commonwealth have striven to maintain the image of Britain as the mother country, and throughout the whole of the consideration of this Bill we should be continually asking ourselves, "Are we helping to maintain that image or to destroy it?" Secondly, we must recognise that some communities which form part of the Commonwealth owe their very existence as entities to Britain and to the British people. It is obvious from the speeches which have been delivered already that the West Indies provide a clear example of that.
  I do not know how many slaves were originally brought to the West Indies. I am told the number is not less than 4 million. But today they regard themselves as British, and apart from the territories in which they live, these islands in the West Indies, their only other home is Britain. Furthermore, there are those people from this country, our own kith and kin, who have gone to live in the West Indies and are helping to create that community and to assist its economic advance.
  It has been admitted by more than one hon. Member opposite that this Bill appears to have been drawn up hastily, and I agree. That becomes clear when
  1286
  one tries to apply the provisions of the Bill to what one knows happens when immigrants come to this country. There seems to be an assumption that immigrants always come as a family unit, but that is not so. Very often the father of a family will come here either because there is employment for him or in search of employment. Having established a home, he will send for his wife and children. Similarly, one who may have been born in this country and gone to another part of the Commonwealth may come back and establish a home here, and then send for his wife and family.
  Surely this is something which we ought to encourage and not discourage, but I do not see that it has been considered at all in the drafting of this Bill. I draw the attention of the Committee to subsection (2) of the Clause. This exception is very narrow. The subsection reads:
  "This section applies to any Commonwealth citizen not being"—
  this is the exception—
  "(a) a person born in the United Kingdom;
  (b) a person who holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"—
  I leave out the reference to Ireland—
  "(c) a person included in the passport of another person who is excepted under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this subsection."
  That is to say, this exception applies to those born in the United Kingdom or who hold United Kingdom passports and are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I understand that as a general rule the names of members of the family do not appear on the same passport in the case of a man who comes to this country on his own in search of employment or to take up a post here and then later bring his family here. That would seem to create very real hardship which ought to be rectified.
  The wording of the Amendment I have moved, in addition to the first two exceptions—those of the person born in the United Kingdom and the person holding a United Kingdom passport and being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—would add:
  "a person ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom on the first day of November, nineteen hundred and sixty-one; or

  1287
  a person who has in the five years previous to his entry to the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of two years;"
  There is another Amendment which is to be discussed with this one in which the period is one year. I say at once that I am quite willing to accept one year instead of two years. The third addition to the exception which we would add by our Amendment is:
  "the spouse of a person who is excepted under paragraphs (a), (b), (c), or (d)."
  We also include:
  "any child, stepchild or adopted child…under the age of twenty-one years,"
  That surely is a reasonable addition. In the debate we have been told that there are far too many illegitimate children in the West Indies. I am not going to debate that. Surely we agree on one thing, that we should encourage family life and people coming here as a unit. If the father comes first, by all means let him be encouraged to bring his wife and children later.
  One might sum up the grounds for this Amendments as follows. The present is too restricted. The Attorney-General used the expression "belongers and non-belongers". It would seem that under the Bill there is to be a further distinction betwen belongers and the families of belongers. Under the Bill as it stands, I understand a distinction would be made between one who is born in this country and another who is not born in this country but has lived here for many years. It may be that such a person will be temporarily out of a job. If I correctly wrote down what I understood the Home Secretary to say, the result might be deportation.
  The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the Irish and said that if nothing was done we might find that deportation was the only action possible for some wretched Irishman who finds himself without a job. Those were the words I wrote down when the Home Secretary was speaking. What about the poor wretched Jamaican who finds himself out of a job? What is to be the position if the father is in a job and his son is out of a job? That is not clear on the wording of this Clause. Surely we should include those who are ordinarly resident in this country even though they have
  1288
  not United Kingdom passports. The test should not be where one happens to be on a particular day when this Bill comes into force.
  Secondly, this Bill should not be retrospective in its effect. If a man has been living here for a number of years and goes abroad he should not be penalised because he happens to be abroad when the Bill comes into effect. Thirdly, we should not do anything which would break up family life. If we are to have this Bill, let us make it as humane as we can.
  Mr. Chapman: I understand that the Amendment in my name, in page 1, line 17, is being discussed with the Amendment which has been so ably moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade). In this set of Amendments we offer the Government a set of alternatives which could be amalgamated or taken apart and put together in a different way so as to amend Clauses 1 and 2. I want to make it clear that we must also consider a distinction between the Amendments to Clause 1 and those to Clause 2.
  I will deal first with the Amendments to Clause 1. Here we are dealing with exceptions from the purpose and operation of the Bill. Our argument on this series of Amendments is that the definitions put into the Bill so far by the Government are unduly narrow. We say that not every person who is a relative of someone exempt from the operation of the Bill will be stated on that person's passport. This is a very important point, because there is no necessity for a wife and children to be on the passport of the breadwinner or the man of the family.
  It is very unlikely that the families of men who are already here and who want their wives and children to join them will be on the breadwinner's passport. Therefore, it is very important that subsection (2, c) should be extended so as to cover families, which I think is the intention of the Government. As the Clause stands, it cannot cover the families of men who are already here and who are exempt from the operation of the Bill. That is why we try in this series of Amendments to Clause I to extend the definition of "family" to cover what subsection (2, c) was meant to cover.

  1289
  We add to that two other main categories. One is the person who has been over here for some time and who might go abroad. From now on, he will have no right of re-entry under the Bill as drafted. If any of the thousands of West Indians and others who are already in this country return to their homeland for a while and then want to re-enter, they will no longer be exempt. They will not be able to establish a right of re-entry. That is why we have included these words:
  "a person who has in the five years previous to his entry into the United Kingdom been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for a continuous period of one year."
  If this provision were written into the Bill, it would enable people who are already in this country to return to their homeland and after a while return to their jobse in this country.
  Both the Amendment in page 1, line 17, which was moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West, and the Amendment in my name in page 1, line 17, mention persons who are dependent on—
  Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. There is such a noise coming from the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) that I can hardly hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman). Could it be suggested to the noble Lord that if he must converse in loud tones he should do it outside the Chamber and not inside?
  The Deputy-Chairman (Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I am bound to say that I could hear perfectly well what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) was saying.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Chapman: You may be able to hear me, Sir William, but I am barely able to hear myself because of the rudeness of hon. Members opposite.
  To continue what I was saying, another point arises in connection with the word "dependent." In my Amendment I have proposed the words "mainly dependent." In other Amendments the phrase is "partially dependent." We are trying to deal with what are known in the West Indies as common law wives—the persons who in the common law of their land are regarded as married, who probably, when
  1290
  they come to this country as they do in increasing numbers, to join their husbands, go through a form of proper marriage and conform to our customs.
  It is very important for these family units, particularly when there are children involved, that such a person who is dependent on, in the sense of being a common law wife of, a person already in this country, should be guaranteed entry to join her husband.
  The last point relates to the paragraph in my Amendment which refers to a woman who satisfies the immigration officer that she is coming to this country for the sole purpose of marrying someone already exempt under the Bill. In the two Amendments to page 2, line 34, we are not trying to make complete exemptions from the Bill but we say that when a person is admitted under Clause 2, under the voucher system or in any other way, after the beginning of the operation of this Measure, then his wife, family or dependants should be allowed to come and join him. I think it is important to make this distinction between total exemption in Clause 1 and allowing the entry of dependants and such people under Clause 2.
  The Minister of State will, no doubt, say that he can deal with these questions under Clause 2 as it stands. Clause 2 (2) says:
  "…nothing in this subsection shall affect the power conferred by this section to admit any Commonwealth citizen into the United Kingdom subject to conditions."
  We do not think that is good enough. There is a very important principle here of making sure that families can be united. We do not want a variation in practice around the ports. We do not want immigration officers to be left with discretion on matters concerning the uniting of families.
  If the Government really mean that they propose to do all these things for which we ask, there seems no reason why they should not say so in the Bill. I believe that most of the representations that we have received from Commonwealth countries about this Bill have referred to this issue alone. People want to know definitely that families will be allowed to come to this country if their menfolk are either excepted from the provisions of the Bill or are admitted under Clause 2.

  1291
  If the Government have good intentions, what possible harm can there be in accepting a form of words which will make it clear to everybody that the Government intend to admit the kind of people to whom I have referred? I trust that as these Amendments have been introduced in a constructive fashion, we shall be met with some constructive response from the Government.
  Mr. S. Silverman: In order to see whether these Amendments should be accepted or rejected, it is worth while seeing what the position is under the Bill as drafted, without the Amendments.
  The hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) have both taken it for granted that it is common ground between the two sides of the Committee that the uniting of families is a desirable thing and that the policy of the Government is in favour of uniting them, not dividing them. That is a misconception. It is not a question of putting into the Bill words which will make certain that what is a common object shall not be left to anybody's discretion but shall be a statutory obligation on the Government, which is what my hon. Friend has pleaded for, but it is rather a question of bringing the Government's general policy on matters of this kind into line with what common humanity would seem to demand.
  These may seem rather hard things to say, but the Home Secretary earlier today said that the scheme of the Bill might be understood if one grasped that it is now proposed to apply the scheme in operation for aliens to these classes of British subjects. Thus, in order to see what the position is, one has to see what Government policy now is with regard to the uniting of families in the business of a man being allowed to come here when he has no legal right to come and then bringing his family to join him after he has succeeded in getting over the difficult years and establishing himself in a position, in an occupation and in a home.
  The present policy of the Aliens Department, as I understand it, is to prevent that very thing happening. As I understand the matter from recent
  1292
  correspondence I have had with the Minister of State, the position is this. A man may be a desirable immigrant by every standard commonly applied. He may apply for a job or be invited to take a job in this country in regard to which the Minister of Labour has no objection. He may thus, considered by himself and on his own merits as an individual, be a man who, within present aliens policy, would be granted a visa by the Home Office and a labour permit by the Ministry of Labour and be, therefore, entitled to come and reside and earn his living here. But that is not the whole story. It may be that such a man has dependent children in his country of origin.
  Mr. Chapman: I have not the slightest interest in defending the Home Secretary, who knows very well what I think about his behaviour in regard to this Bill, but we are, in fact, in a better position than my hon. Friend thinks. On Second Reading, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "Yes, the wives and children"
  and he went on to say
  "When we come to the Committee stage we shall have to consider other degrees of relationship, which is always a problem for the immigration service…I am able to say 'Yes' to the hon. Lady's question". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1961; Vol. 649, c. 696.]
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, the right hon. Gentleman gave us a definite assurance on the matter.
  Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I was present on Second Reading. I heard the speeches. I know what assurances have been given in the course of the Bill so far. I will come back to that presently. For the moment, I am concerned with what is the present practice, because what the Home Secretary has said this afternoon, in spite of what my hon. Friend has quoted from his previous speech, is that it is proposed to apply to these British subjects the present practice with regard to aliens. I hope, therefore, if my hon. Friend will forgive me, to finish my description of the present position as applied to aliens which the Home Secretary, under the Bill, whatever he may have said on Second Reading, proposes to apply to British subjects.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will be replying to this debate, and I hope that he will be replying helpfully. I do not quite recognise the statement of mine that I made this afternoon about aliens.
  Mr. Silverman: If the right hon. Gentleman says that, I must look more carefully at the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow morning, but I am strongly under the impression that it was said in the course of the debate this afternoon—I thought, by the right hon. Gentleman—that the scheme of the Bill was to apply in these respects to British subjects affected by the Bill the same policy as is now applied to aliens. If the right hon. Gentleman says that he is not applying the same policy, that is another story. In that case, he will have to meet the point made by my hon. Friend and say why he does not make it clear in the Bill.
  At the moment, I shall proceed on the basis that the Government are not drawing two lots of distinctions, one between British subjects who happen to be resident in a Colony as contrasted with British subjects who are resident in the United Kingdom, and the other a further discrimination between those people and aliens subject to the same kind, quality, class or category of restrictions as is now to be applied.
  In the case that I have described, if the man were single, if he had no dependants, if he had no children, if he had no family, he could come. If, however, he has dependants, even though he is not asking to bring the dependants along with him, he is refused leave to land and refused a labour permit by the Minister of Labour, merely because he has in his country of origin dependent children whom he may, perhaps, some day, wish to bring to live with him. That is the present policy of the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour with regard to what my hon. Friend calls the unification of families and keeping the family together as a unit.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is not intending that, he ought to accept one or other of the Amendments which have been moved, or, if he cannot do that, he ought to promise to put on to the Order Paper an Amendment which would make operative the passage in his speech to which my hon. Friend the Member for
  1294
  Northfield has just referred. That is my first point in support of the Amendments.
  My next point is of a different kind. The Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West specifically refers to residents. Most of us were present and heard the Attorney-General make a speech at the conclusion of the debate on the last Amendment. He said that to understand the scheme of the Bill, one could roughly categorise the people who would be affected by it as against those who would not as the resident or the non-resident. When I pointed out that the Bill was not quite so drawn, the right hon. and learned Gentleman coined another phrase, the belongers and the non-belongers, opening vistas of speculation as to when a British subject ceased to belong to the British family.
  10.45 p.m.
  As far as I can see, under the law as it stands a British subject born and resident in Jamaica has exactly the same rights in all respects as a British subject born in Manchester. They all belong. What the Bill is then doing, according to this phrase of the Attorney-General's, is to expel or partially expel some members of the family. They no longer belong. They are not members of the family any more. They belong somewhere else. I do not think that the Attorney-General can really have meant that.
  Let us go back then to his earlier explanation that the real distinction which the Government wished to draw was not between members of the family and others who were nevertheless British subjects, but between resident members of the family and non-resident members of the family. That was the real distinction which the Attorney-General asked us to accept as the line of discrimination. If that is so, there can be no reason whatever for not accepting the hon. Member's Amendment. All it does is to make that point of view explicit. If the Government are not willing to make it explicit and are not willing to give the same rights to members of a man's family as they give to the man himself if he is resident or born here, let them not grumble if the result of their policy is to increase every one of the evils, largely imaginary and illusory, on which

  1295
  they profess to base the whole of this discriminating policy. I hope that the Government spokesman will be able to give the hon. Member some satisfaction on the Amendment.
  The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I am glad to say that the Government are in broad agreement with those who put forward these Amendments, to the extent that the various categories of people covered by the Amendments, we think, should be allowed, generally speaking to enter or re-enter the United Kingdom. The question, of course, is whether it would be appropriate or not for them to be dealt with under Clause 1, as envisaged in the first, second and third of the Amendments we are discussing, or dealt with under Clause 2, as the fourth and fifth Amendments envisage, or whether on the other hand they should be dealt with under Clause 2 in the way we have so far intended and have had in mind, namely by instructing immigration officers to admit most of these people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I ask the Committee to bear with me. This is a very important and interesting matter, and there is not quite so much gulf between us as might at first seem.
  What we have had in mind so far is that they should be admitted under Clause 2 by the immigration officers, acting under instructions which my right hon. Friend will give them—in any event my right hon. Friend would have to give them instructions—and incidentally, will be in some ways slightly more liberal than some of the provisions in the Amendments. We shall see that as we go along.
  For reasons which I shall explain, this matter is quite unsuitable for Clause 1. It may be that I can persuade hon. Members that there are great difficulties about writing elaborate definitions and instructions into Clause 2. But I say this—that we will keep an open mind about the possibility of writing some of the contents of these Amendments into Clause 2. We will consider the matter carefully between now and Report.
  Equally, I would ask hon. Members in the interests of the immigrants themselves and in the interests also of having a smooth working machine which does not cause unnecessary delays at the ports,
  1296
  to keep open minds, at least to the end of this debate, for, believe me, it is not an easy matter. I will give an example of the sort of difficulties that arise. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman), whom I do not see in his place, said he did not want immigration officers to have a discretion at all, but the strange thing is that the third Amendment we are discussing, to Clause 1, page 1, line 17, which stands in his name, would give a discretion to immigration officers, because it says:
  "(f) a person who satisfies the immigration officer that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the sole purpose of marrying…"
  It might perhaps be useful if I first of all summarise the categories to which, collectively, these Amendments refer. First, they deal with people ordinarily resident on 1st November, 1961; secondly, with people who, in the preceding five years, have been ordinarily resident for one or two years; thirdly, with spouses, children and other relatives and dependants; fourthly, those intending to marry; and fifthly, they deal with students—a category which, by general consent, is to be dealt with at a later stage.
  The three Amendments to leave out paragraph (c) of Clause 1 and to insert various categories would give an absolute and unrestricted right of entry to anyone falling in any of these proposed categories—a right which, under Clause 1 as drafted, is given only to those born here or truly belonging to the United Kingdom. Surely it is important for us to note that, if these three Amendments were accepted, all people to whom they apply would have an absolute right to come here and remain here even if diseased, or with a criminal record, or if they were security risks.
  It is, as I indicated, our intention that a large proportion of people covered by these Amendments should be admitted under Clause 2, but the question which immediately arises is whether they should be exempted altogether from control under Clause 1. In considering this question we have to consider the principle upon which Clause 1 is based. That principle is that every one who is born here, and most of those who hold United Kingdom passports, shall have an absolute right to enter here because they are, essentially, the people who are native to this country—our constituents.

  1297
  That principle is, of course, easy to apply in practice and is a much easier test than asking an immigration officer to decide whether a person has been ordinarily resident even for a long time.
  The principle is easy to apply in practice, because every traveller, or nearly every traveller, already carries a passport, and every passport shows the place where it was issued, the Government which has issued it, and also the place of birth of the person or people included in it. Therefore, the immigration officer, in dealing with the people who have the benefit of free entry under Clause 1, has no discretion to exercise. He merely has to look at the passport to see either that the person was born in the United Kingdom or that the passport is a United Kingdom passport.
  Let us see what would be the position if we included in Clause 1 any of the categories which are covered by these Amendments. We should get into a frightful muddle; something very different from the simple arrangements of passports about which I have already spoken. First, there is the point of principle, and that is that all people covered by the Amendment belong to and would have come from another Commonwealth country or territory and, therefore, do not come within the exemption of Clause 1, which is designed to facilitate the re-entry to our own country of our own people. Then, even if we departed from the principle or said that there was no difficulty in it, we should still have great difficulties in operation and definition.
  The immigration officer would always have to ask questions and make difficult decisions. For example, if one scans the Amendments, one finds the expression "ordinarily resident" occurring in no fewer than six places in the first three Amendments. Now the term "ordinarily resident" has given a considerable amount of trouble to the courts, and there is a not inconsiderable amount of case law on it, as the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) knows from his own experience.
  I should like to assure the Committee that we propose to instruct immigration officers to admit freely all those people who have been away from this country for less than one year, whatever the previous length of their stay had been.
  1298
  As to those who have been away for longer than one year, the instructions will cover the case and the immigration officer will have to consider how long the absence has been. —[Interruption.] Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) wish to speak? I do not know if that is the way in which he intends to master the responsibilities of his new office, but he has been keeping up a running commentary. These are very important matters, matters which his own constituents might also consider as of great importance.
  I was saying that when those who have been away for more than one year are concerned, the immigration officers will have to consider how long the absence has been and for how long any previous visit was and what was the reason for entry. I can tell the Committee that it is my right hon. Friend's intention to exercise this power in a liberal manner, and he takes note of the fact that those already here should have special consideration. If I might go on with this exercise of showing how this would work out if we followed the Amendments in relation to Clause 1, I would like to speak first of relatives and dependants. Those are very wide terms, the understanding of which varies in the different countries of the Commonwealth, and I assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) that we are anxious that families should be united and that parents and children should have ease in getting together.
  At the same time, it would not be right to have wives and children exempted by Clause 1, unless the head of the family was himself exempted. If he is exempt, of course his wife and children will be, if their names are endorsed on the passport, and that is the point of subsection (2, c).
  Mr. Fletcher: Why should their right of entry depend on whether their names are entered on the husband's passport? Why should they not have the same right if they have independent passports?
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Renton: They would, indeed, have the same right if they had independent passports, and they would get that right under paragraph (b), but paragraph (c) is a matter of convenience so

  1299
  that the wife and children would not always have to have separate passports of their own.
  Mr. Wade: If the wife did not hold a United Kingdom passport and if her name did not appear on her husband's passport, she would not be exempt?
  Mr. Renton: I would like to consider that. If it needs adjustment—[Interruption.] These matters of nationality and passports, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) with his long experience of the Home Office knows extremely well, are very complicated. It is not only a question of the law which applies, for practice also enters into it. However, I would prefer to consider that point and let the hon. Member know.
  Mr. Ede: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that he has not previously considered that?
  Mr. Renton: I know that this point has been considered, but I am not absolutely certain that I heard the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West correctly. It would be a great mistake incautiously—[HON. MEMBERS: "Repeat it."]—to give an answer which might not be accurate. It is much more sensible that I consider the matter and get in touch with the hon. Member.
  Mr. Wade: If the hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear correctly, may I repeat it? It is very simple and it is clear enough. If the wife does not hold a United Kingdom passport and her name does not appear on the passport of her husband, will she be exempt or not?
  Mr. Renton: It depends—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—on where she was born and whether she is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If she was born in the United Kingdom, it does not matter where her passport was issued. If she needs a passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, her duty would be to obtain a United Kingdom passport, which she would be able to do not merely in the United Kingdom but, if it was as defined in subsection (3), a passport issued—[An HON. MEMBER: "It says 'not being a passport issued'."] Let hon. Members wait. As I understand the position, it is possible for the Government of the
  1300
  United Kingdom to arrange for their own passports to be issued outside the United Kingdom, and I think that that is the crux of the matter which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West raised. As I have said, it would be much more sensible, in spite of the explanation which I have endeavoured to give, if I were to consider the point further and get in touch with the hon. Member.
  The first three of the Amendments which we are now discussing would both conflict with the principle of Clause 1 and interfere with its practical operation, and if these considerations are to be dealt with, we say that they are better dealt with in Clause 2. I therefore come to Clause 2 and the possibility of dealing with them in that way. I must confine myself to the Amendments in Clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert:
  "or
  (c) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of whole or part-time study; or
  (d) that he is a person who is related to or wholly or partly dependent upon a person resident in the United Kingdom".
  and in Clause 2, page 2, line 34, at end insert:
  "or
  (c) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom for the purpose of whole or part-time study; or
  (d) he is the spouse, the child, stepchild or adopted child under the age of twenty-one of, of a person mainly dependent on a person admitted under this section; or
  (e) that he wishes to enter the United Kingdom solely for the purpose of marrying another person admitted under this section".
  I have already dealt with the position of those who are resident and have said that my right hon. Friend wishes to have a liberal attitude towards them.
  As to wives, the position seems simple to us in this country with our ideas of legal forms of marriage resulting in monogamous unions, but, as the hon. Member for Northfield pointed out, some immigrants, especially from the West Indies, contract so-called common law marriages. In fact these marriages do not have the binding force of law which common law marriages do, for example, in Scotland. Also, it is rare for there to be any documentary evidence of such marriages.
  However, we are anxious for husbands and genuine wives, even common law

  1301
  wives, to live together, and so we propose that the immigration officers should strive to achieve this by admitting wives accompanying their husbands, and by letting in those who later wish to join their husbands. Clearly the immigration officer will have to ask some questions to decide whether the wife is what she claims to he. Fortunately her passport will generally show this, although that is not always so in the case of a common law marriage, and in a case like that further questions will be necessary.
  As to children, I join those hon. Members who wish to see children and their parents remain together. In this context, children would include not only those begotten in wedlock, but also natural children, step-children, and adopted children. Generally there will be no difficulty about children, as they will be on the passport of one or other parent if they are under sixteen. That age happens to include all children of our present compulsory school-leaving age or below. It will be our practice to admit freely children under sixteen joining or accompanying their parents.
  As to other relatives and dependants, the Amendment to Clause 2, page 2, line 34, does not define the word "related", but one knows that in some parts of the world the word "cousin" is freely interpreted. Similarly, the word "dependants" can have a broad meaning. If we wrote anything into the Bill about other relations or dependants, we should at once be in great difficulty of definition, and surely it is more humane, as well as more practical and likely to lead to better administration, to give some detailed guidance to the immigration officers about how to deal with these cases.
  Our instructions to them will be framed so as to enable them to deal appropriately with cases of hardship. I should remind the Committee that in practice the factor of hardship is often more important than the precise degree of relationship. We have to be rather careful about this question of relatives and dependants, because there could easily be rackets run to circumvent the system of labour vouchers by bringing in so-called relatives and dependants.
  As to people who want to marry, we propose to instruct the immigration officers to allow people in for this purpose
  1302
  when one of the intended spouses is already here, provided that there is evidence that the parties are personally known to each other. [Laughter.] Strangely enough, it has been found that Cupid has done his work entirely through the post on some occasions. We find that with regard to the administration of aliens, and then there is the question of marriage bureaux here and abroad which has to he looked at very carefully.
  We will insist that the parties are personally known to each other, and that the marriage will take place within a specified reasonable time, which we would normally regard as being three months.
  I would point out that Amendment No. 32 is defective, because the man might be coming here to marry a woman who did not wish to marry him. In any event, I can assure the Committee that the experience obtained in the administration of the Aliens Order has been valuable and that it is quite capable of dealing with these matters.
  Mr. John Baird: On a point of order. The Minister is making a deplorable speech and obviously does not know what the Bill is about. In those circumstances, would it not be better if he withdrew the Bill and presented it once again next week?
  The Temporary Chairman (Mr. James H. Hoy): That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) made a comparison between the Bill and the Aliens Order. The only important thing that the two have in common is that in each case a discretion is given to immigration officers. But the Aliens Order, as it is administered, is very much more stringent than the provisions of the Bill. I ask the hon. Member to bear that fact in mind in thinking further about this comparison.
  We propose to consider, between now and Report, the various points which arise in the Amendments. As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are in broad agreement that the vast proportion of people covered by the Amendments are people who should be allowed in, and any difference there may be between us is a difference of method.
  Mr. Fletcher: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Member's speech has satisfied the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) or my hon. Friends, but it has certainly not satisfied me. The Minister seems to have done his best to cover the Bill with ridicule. He has confessed that the whole tenor of the Bill had not been properly considered before it was introduced. He admitted, as my hon. Friends have said in connection with an earlier Amendment, that this is a piece of hasty, ill-considered legislation.
  The Minister had to admit that many of the problems raised in the debate had not been thought out. He said that he accepted the principle of the Amendments, but did not want to incorporate them into this Clause, and he gave a series of reasons why he could not incorporate them into Clause 2. He said that he would try to consider, between now and Report, whether he would be able to do something about the question at a later stage. But all he has really said is that he proposes to give instructions to immigration officers to administer the Bill in a liberal and humane way. That is not good enough. In a Bill of this kind, dealing with fundamental human rights and the traditional rights of entry into this country, the Committee is entitled to insist upon absolute safeguards.
  As the Committee appreciates, the difference between this Clause and Clause 2 is that certain categories of persons are given absolute rights in this Clause, whereas everybody who can come into this country only under the provisions of Clause 2 is dependent upon the discretion—perhaps the arbitrary discretion—of the immigration officers. Everything the Minister has said has indicated that it will be very difficult for immigration officers to make a decision, in many cases. There is no certainty that any of the classes of persons that the Amendments seek to include will have the benefit of the of the arbitrary discretion of the immigration officers, if left to the tender mercies of Clause 2.
  Having heard what the Minister has had to say, I think it essential that the provisions contained in the Amendments should be written into the Clause. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that there are certain classes of
  1304
  person who are entitled to have precisely the same rights as are given to those persons already included in the Clause.
  11.15 p.m.
  Clause 1 confers an absolute right on persons born in the United Kingdom, but we do not think that goes far enough. We think that that right should be conferred on persons ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom whether they were born here or not. People who have made this country their home and have lived here for any length of time, to use the phrase of the Attorney-General, belong to this country just as much as persons who were born here. Therefore, there is a class of persons which ought to have the fundamental right to come to this country whenever they want and to be able to have holidays abroad without a passport, and certainly without having to satisfy an immigration officer.
  We think that the same rule should apply to their dependants. The Committee should notice the difference. Under Clause 2 dependants could be excluded on various grounds, for example, on medical or criminal grounds. No one who comes under Clause 1 can be excluded at all, and if a person is entitled to come to this country under the provisions of Clause 1 we think that his wife and dependants should have the same absolute right. They certainly ought not be be excluded on medical grounds.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman and the Home Secretary paid lip-service to the principle of not breaking up family life. But that can be practised only if the dependants of the person who has a right to come here also have the absolute right to come, and cannot be excluded on medical or criminal grounds. It would be monstrous if a person with an absolute right to come here were to find that his wife were excluded either on medical or criminal grounds, or, I venture to think, on security grounds, because people who belong to this country ought to have the same right of entry as natural-born British subjects who have always lived here. That is why I hope that on principle my hon. Friends will press this Amendment to a Division.
  It seems to me to raise the whole issue that the class of person who has the

  1305
  right to come here should be defined as widely as possible and that it should include not only those born in this country but those who have made their home here by residing here for a certain period of time; whether it be one or two years within the last five years does not matter. If there has been a monogamous marriage they should be able to bring their wife. If they have come from the West Indies where people have what are called common law wives under the law and system of marriage under which they have been living in Jamaica or other parts of the Caribbean or elsewhere, the same right should apply to them. There should not be any attempt to discriminate. I think that we should be failing in our duty to these people if we left them at the mercy of an immigration officer under the provisions of Clause 2, or if they were left to rely on some instructions which could be given, which might be administered humanely in a great many cases, but in certain cases, perhaps exceptional cases, would enable an immigration officer at his own discretion to exclude people from the right to enter this country. I hope that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division.
  Mr. R. H. Turton: I do not quite agree with the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) on how easy it would be to bring in under Clause 1 a family or spouse joining someone in this country. I think my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State made a good case by saying that it would add to the difficulties if we put this into the exceptions in Clause 1, but I think the Government should think again about leaving it merely to the instruction to the immigration officer under Clause 2.
  I should have thought that where a family was joining up here it ought to be written specifically in the Bill. In addition, no doubt, the immigration officer should have discretion in other cases, but where a wife was joining her husband or a husband was joining his wife the Bill should make it quite clear because I know it is the intention of the Government that such a union should take place.
  I have risen because I wish to put two other types of case which I believe
  1306
  should come under Clause 1. The first is where there is a Commonwealth or colonial citizen here now who wants to go on holiday, either back to his own country or it may even be to France. I am told that at present there is great consternation, certainly among West Indians, because they feel that if they go back to the West Indies for a holiday they cannot come here again. I am quite certain that it is not the intention of the Home Secretary that there should be this restriction on them going on holiday. They should be encouraged to go. They are welcome in the country and this Bill should not apply to them. It might be—I do not know, and I hope the Attorney-General can satisfy me on this—that in some provision of a Clause in the Bill which I have not found there is a complete right of re-entry for those Commonwealth and colonial citizens who are here now. I have not found it. I think that before we part with the Bill that should be made clear in Clause 1 and not left to Clause 2.
  I am also concerned about a great number of people who may well have been born in the Commonwealth and been the sons of settlers and want to come back to this country. I believe those people, who have done a very good work, sometimes for the United Nations or sometimes for a Commonwealth Government, when they want to come back should come back as of right. I hope my hon. and learned Friend will have consideration for that very numerous class of people who regard Britain as their home and would hate to have to come back here subject to the scrutiny of an immigration officer. I should dislike seeing that class of person dealt with under Clause 2; they should be dealt with under Clause 1.
  Mrs. Eirene White: I do not think we should allow discussion of this subject to pass without having at least one woman speaking on it. It seems to me that the attitude of the Government to the Clause as drafted is derogatory to the female sex.
  It is suggested that a woman should be included on the passport of her husband, but there is no reason at all why a woman should be so treated if she

  1307
  does not wish that. She need not necessarily herself be a United Kingdom subject. She may have dual nationality. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, there are complications in this matter, but the absolute principle is that if she is legally married under any nationality to a person who is exempt under Clause 1 she should have an absolute right to come in with her husband. "Those whom God hath joined together" are not for the Home Secretary to put asunder. There should be an absolute right with no question whatever. Whether the form of words in these Amendments is correct, could be discussed, but the principle should be absolutely accepted as that surely is the wish of the people of this country.
  Similarly, there should be an absolute right for children, and not merely children up to the age of 16. So far as I recall the Minister of State made no reference to children between 16 and 21. A child might not necessarily accompany either of its parents. What is to happen then? These things should not be left to the discretion of immigration officers. They should be absolute.
  I also consider that there should be an absolute right for mothers and fathers to come to join their children who have settled in this country. The principle of family life and its sanctity should be respected in a Bill such as this. We hear the most unctuous sentiments from Ministers of the Crown—from the Home Secretary, the Minister of Education, and others—about the need to cherish Christian ideals.
  "Honour thy father and thy mother…"
  That should appeal to the Government. They should give us an absolute assurance that people will not be separated from their mothers and fathers.
  I agree emphatically with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) that this should be absolute. It should not be subject, for example, to medical certificates. Many of us have had to deal with refugees. We have had experience of trying to get families out of refugee camps when one member of a family had a medical disability. Sometimes years passed with no success because one member of a family could not pass the neces-
  1308
  sary medical tests, so the whole family was left lingering in a refugee camp.
  It will be shameful if that kind of attitude is adopted in regard to the Bill. We must have an absolute assurance from the Government that they will write into the Bill a right in this respect. We have heard a great deal about the value of having a charter of human rights for various parts of Africa. Let us have a charter of human rights for this country. It should be written into the Bill.
  It is not good enough to say that elaborate instructions will be given to immigration officers and that the Bill will be liberally interpreted, whatever that may mean. Several times we have been asked to trust the good intentions of the Government in administering the Bill. I do not need to remind the Committee where good intentions leave one. The whole attitude of the Government is that we should leave to them the administrative instructions, with which we may not be acquainted and which we cannot alter. The whole attitude is that we should trust the Home Secretary and his successors. Those of us who have had to deal with the problem of aliens find it very hard to place this unbounded confidence in the attitude of the Department.
  It is humiliating to the House of Commons for the Government to present it with a Bill which has so clearly been inadequately thought out. The problems which we have discussed this evening are problems which any self-respecting Minister would have thought out thoroughly before he faced the Committee. It was obvious that they would be raised. The standing of the wife was clearly a matter which would be of interest to us. The Minister should have prepared his case more thoroughly.
  I understand that some parts of the Amendments which we are discussing may need closer definition. I agree that the phrase "related to" is rather wide. In my country of Wales we have a fairly wide cousinship. We have an extended family. I appreciate that it may he necessary to define more closely the degrees of consanguinity. I do not think that any one of us would object if the hon. and learned Gentleman said

  1309
  that the Government felt that there should be a closer definition of the degrees of relatives, that some people could come of absolute right, but that in the case of others it should be discretionary. But those whom we have mentioned, the immediate close family kinship, should be absolute. When their legal status is in some doubt I admit that we need some discretionary element if we are to have this Bill at all, but where the legal relationship is clear within the close family circles that I have described —father, son and so on—I think there should be no question whatever, and I cannot believe that the Committee would wish to pass this Bill without these guarantees written into it.
  11.30 p.m.
  The Attorney-General: I should first like to explain the reason why Clause 1 sticks so closely to what is shown on the passport. If we are going to have any system of control of immigrants, it is obvious that it must be one that is workable. The test that we have taken, as I indicated when I spoke earlier, is the passport ab initio. The immigration officer will be able to see straightaway from what appears on the passport whether the person seeking to enter comes within one of the exempted categories in Clause 1 (2).
  The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) has made a powerful plea for the female sex and sought to suggest that this provision as it now stands is derogatory of that sex. I assure her that that certainly was not the intention. After all, many wives have their own separate passports. Many wives of persons born in the United Kingdom will hold a United Kingdom passport and they will be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. So, if one bears in mind that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (2) deal with what appears on the passport, perhaps this becomes a little easier to comprehend.
  May I go on to say that to write in other exemptions under subsection (2) will cause real practical difficulties in the administration of the scheme. While saying that, I do not want to be unsympathetic to the views which have been expressed; we are not unsympathetic. My hon. and learned Friend
  1310
  the Minister of State made it clear that there is not much difference between both sides of the Committee as to what we want to achieve. The real problem is how it should be achieved.
  A point was made about wives and children not on the passport. If the children are not on the passport and the wife does not have a separate passport, then obviously subsection (2) will not apply ab initio. That cannot happen. But what we certainly want to achieve is that wives will be able to come and join their husbands if their husbands are already here, and the same applies to children under 16 if their parents are already here.
  The difficulty about that—and I should like the Committee to face it squarely—is this. It is quite wrong to say that we have not considered these matters. We have. We have spent hours going through this Bill and considering the various problems. I may say straightaway to the hon. Lady that the problems that she and my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) have raised are by no means novelties. What we thought—and the Committee may disagree with us—was this. One can make the position perfectly clear by instructions to the immigration officers. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) said that is not good enough. But it has this advantage, which I would ask him to appreciate, that it gives a considerably greater degree of flexibility than a definition of "relative" inserted in the Bill, because, under a definition of that kind one is apt to have the borderline case and, if a case does not come within that category, the immigration officer may say, "That is laid down in black and white, and I have no power to go either way on it".
  That was one approach. There is also the other approach of seeing, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested, whether we can meet what are the wishes of both sides of the Committee and, indeed, our objective all through, by administrative means, securing that wives and children who do not possess passports or who are not entered on the passport are not refused admission. The same problem arises in much the same way in regard to holidays and the question of re-entry. We had it in mind to deal with it in

  1311
  that way and give a good deal of flexibility.
  Taking, first, those who are here and who go out, there is power for them after a certain time to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and then, if they wish, obtain a United Kingdom passport. But, quite apart from that, if they do not take that step, if proof were established that they are people who have left this country and are seeking to re-enter—the matter of proof, if it were to be written into the Bill, would have to be considered carefully—we should certainly not be in favour of excluding them.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton raised the question of settlers who want to come back and who regard Britain as their home. I apprehend that the vast majority of those are entitled to come in, possibly, under subsection (2). I say "possibly" because a lot depends on the particular circumstances of each individual. It is easy to talk about the British settler, but a British settler may have abandoned United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship and taken the citizenship of somewhere else. It is difficult to generalise.
  Viscount Hinchingbrooke: What about Australians and Canadians? What are they to do?
  The Attorney-General: If they were born in the United Kingdom they will come back. They will not be shut out. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) talked about people who have been in this country for some time and then go out. Anyone of that kind would have to satisfy the immigration officer that the facts in his or her case were as alleged. That is Clause 2(2), the subsection which deals with satisfying the immigration officer. There is no particular mystery about the word "examination". The burden would be, and would rightly have to be—because it could not rest on the immigration officer to prove a negative—on the applicant where it was not shown in the passport in what category he came. The applicant would have to satisfy the immigration officer that the facts were as alleged.
  I assure the Committee that there is no real division of view as to what we
  1312
  want to achieve. The argument relates to the method. For the reasons I have given, bearing in mind the position of the immigration officer, it will not be possible, as I see it to make Amendments to Clause 1 to deal with this problem, but, as my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State indicated, we shall give serious consideration to the wishes of the Committee and see to what extent we can meet them by making it clear in the Bill—because that, I gather, is the wish of the Committee—that if someone comes along and says to the immigration officer, "I am the wife of someone who is in this country at the present time", or, "I am of British ancestry", they should not be excluded. We do not want to exclude them, and none of us does. We want to see that if we have this control, it works satisfactorily. I can give the assurance that we shall seek to endeavour to put in what the Committee indicates it would not be content with in instructions, although I think that instructions would give more flexibility. We will see whether we can put in words which achieve what the Committee wants and yet retain that degree of flexibility that I believe to be desirable.
  Mr. Thorpe: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman a point of information about what is meant by "United Kingdom passport". This is of importance, and I consider the drafting extremely ambiguous. By subsection (2, b) as drafted, those who have complete exemption are either those holding a United Kingdom passport, being citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or somebody
  "who holds…a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland".
  In subsection (3), "United Kingdom passport" is defined as being
  "a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom, not being a passport…issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom".
  If one tries to find out what is meant by "a Government outside the United Kingdom Government" and one tries to find out whether this means a Commonwealth Government which is completely independent, such as, for example, Australia or New Zealand, or whether it is a Government which is still dependent,

  1313
  such as Jamaica, upon this country for external affairs, one turns to the interpretation in Clause 21 and one gets no assistance.
  For the purposes of subsection (3), does a Jamaican passport issued by a dependency or a passport issued in Zanbar, Kenya or Nyasaland qualify as being a United Kingdom passport, or are those dependencies Commonwealth Governments for the purposes of the Bill?
  The Attorney-General: The answer is "Neither". This point arises more properly on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill", but if it is for the convenience of the Committee I will certainly deal with it now. The drafting is perfectly all right. It is rather tight drafting, I agree. The United Kingdom passport is, however, accurately defined as
  "a passport issued to the holder by the Government of the United Kingdom—"
  that is, in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—
  "not being a passport so issued on behalf of the Government of any part of the Commonwealth outside the United Kingdom."
  There will be passports issued to persons who have, say, come from Australia or Jamaica or any part of the Commonwealth, and who are in this country, in replacement of passports which may have been destroyed, lost or anything of that sort. Those passports will be issued on behalf of the Government of the country concerned—say, Australia or Canada. Therefore, the holders of those passports will not come within the scope of subsection (2). That has to be so, otherwise there would obviously be a gap in the scheme.
  The hon. Member has drawn attention to subsection (2, b). That, again, is carefully drawn so that one gets the automatic exemption when one
  "holds a United Kingdom passport and is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or…holds…a passport issued in the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland".
  The reason for those words, as my right hon. Friend explained—the hon. Member may not have been present—is that there are passports issued by the United Kingdom, for instance, to British-protected persons who are not even British subjects. I think that the wording is all right, but if the hon. Member has any
  1314
  further anxieties and cares to write to me about them, I will certainly give him as full an answer as I can.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given a rather conditional undertaking to try to write certain things into the Bill, but, clearly, to satisfy us he also relies in part on instructions to immigration officers. He laid great weight on the fact that a great deal that the Committee wanted would be achieved in this way. Would those instructions be known to the House, or would we have any way of telling that these things were being carried out?
  The Attorney-General: I think the Committee would certainly want some information about that. It is common ground. We all want to know how it works. The people affected will want to know, but it is not a question for me to answer. On the question of the propel form in which this would be done I would prefer that the Committee asks my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  11.45 p.m.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: In the course of my speech on Second Reading, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition raised this point, and at that time, basing myself on present practice, I said that there would be great difficulty in publishing such instructions. Since that date I have given the matter my personal consideration and, in my view, I would be right to depart from precedent and make these instructions available. The only thing I can do is to promise to make them available at a particular date. I do not think that they could be rushed during the Committee stage or anything of that sort. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) understands that. But they would be available before the Bill is again before the House. I think that that is a considerable departure from precedent, but it will show the type of instructions which we intend to give to immigration officers.
  We cannot put these things in Clause 1. We can put them in Clause 2, but if we state them too rigidly, without flexibility, it may have unfortunate results. For example, in the case of children, suppose we say "children up

  1315
  to school-leaving age" what happens if we want to include a child of 17 in a particular case? We want to combine statutory form and instructions. The instructions will be liberal, but when they are put on paper in statutory form they will be a minimum, and therefore I think that we are probably giving the Committee more, and meeting the Committee more, than it has hitherto realised. We are trying to combine a liberal instruction with a basic statutory wording.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: We want to know that the instructions are truly liberal. The right hon. Gentleman said that when he publishes them will give an indication of the type of instructions, but we want to know the actual instructions and know that we can debate them if we do not like them.
  Mr. Butler: The question of debate is a matter which we shall have to consider, because that would raise a completely new form of Parliamentary debate. I will certainly consider that, and I foresaw that we should reach that question at this stage. If we discussed for hours on end in Committee the whole of our aliens administration we would find difficulty, whereas in the final result our aliens administration is liberal. In the final result the administration of the Bill will be more liberal than our aliens administration, and we wish to make it so. Therefore, I will do all I can to meet the wishes of the Committee, but I cannot go further on that than what I have said tonight.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: In connection with the Amendment to which I have attached by name, in page 1, line 17, to leave out paragraph (c) and to insert five new paragraphs, I am still left in serious difficulty by the Government's assurance. We have been told that we shall be notified when instructions are given to immigration officers in respect of the persons covered by that Amendment, but the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have made it clear in dealing with this type of Amendment that they are not prepared to grant rights to these categories of persons under Clause 1 and that they must be dealt with under Clause 2. In my mind one difficulty stands out here. That is, even assum-
  1316
  ing wildly for the moment that the Home Secretary's instructions to the immigration officers will be really liberal in this respect, we are still left with the fact that any such instructions issued under Clause 2 will be subject to subsection (3) of that Clause. In other words, the admission of these persons will be subject to medical and security checks.
  This is a very important point because of what the right hon. Gentleman has told us tonight. He tried to tell us that we and the Government were seeking the same aims but by different methods. For reasons which I found unconvincing, he said that the Government were not prepared to accept the method of putting them in Clause 1 but would put them in Clause 2. But the Government have shown that their aims are quite different from ours in the treatment of dependants and other individuals mentioned in the third Amendment we are discussing, because they wish to remove them from the category of people having an absolute right to enter the country. They want, instead, to put them into the category of those who have qualified right of that entry, being subject to medical and security checks.
  If we accept the Government's method, we are accepting a piece of retroactive legislation. The Government have said that the reason for the Bill is to deal with a future problem of immigration, to check a flow which may become a flood. Therefore, by inference, we are not, under this Bill, interfering with the rights of existing immigrants. We are not dealing with the rights of people already resident here, or of people who have been resident here in a recent period and who have gone abroad for a holiday, as already mentioned by the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). The rights of these people should not be touched by the Bill.
  Equally, we are not, by inference, dealing with the rights of persons already here—people who have already been admitted in the past—to bring their dependants over to join them. The Government say they are anxious that families should be re-united, but in the third Amendment we are not dealing with dependants of people who may be coming in the future for the first

  1317
  time, but with dependants of those who are or were ordinarily resident here on 1st November, 1961, or who have been resident here but whose residence has been temporarily interrupted.
  These are the people who have, under our legislation to date, had an absolute right of entry, as have their dependants. This is not the future flow of immigrants which the Government are wanting to control. If the Government now say, "Yes, we agree that these people should be exempted from control in the future, and it is merely an argument between us as to the method by which it is to be done," then I reply that if these people are the ones who are to be exempted they are the people who should have an absolute right. But Clause 2 cannot give them an absolute right because, under subsection (3), they will be subject to medical, security and other checks.
  This is, therefore, saying in effect that these medical and security checks, which are an innovation in dealing with Commonwealth citizens, will now retroactively deal with those already resident or who have gone on holiday. This is an intolerable interference with the absent rights of our Commonwealth citizens. The absolute right of Commonwealth citizens to enter this country is the status quo. The legislation which we are introducing is to modify and clarify that right and is something for the future.
  The Attorney-General: I fear that I cannot have made clear to the hon. Lady what I was trying to say. I made the point that under subsection (2) of Clause 1 the passport is cogent evidence of the status of the person wanting to come in; that is easily done by the immigration officer. Under Clause 2 (2) one is dealing with the case where other evidence has to be relied upon by the immigration officer, for there we have categories about which the immigration officer has to be satisfied; where he is satisfied on certain evidence that there is an absolute right. So, there is the absolute right in Clause 1 or 2 and it is only a question of establishing how one is entitled to that right.
  I hardly conceive it to be possible that one would want to submit wives or children of somebody resident here, who
  1318
  are coming to this country, either to a medical test of any kind—
  Hon. Members: It is in the Bill.
  The Attorney-General: Yes, but we have said that we would see if we could meet the views of the Committee by putting some words into Clause 2 which would cover that situation. If we do that we can at the same time make provision for dealing with the point on medical examination to which the hon. Lady refers. I thought that it would save the time of the Committee if I indicated that at this stage.
  Mrs. Castle: The more I listen to the intentions of the Government as pronounced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the more clear it becomes to me that the Government plunged into this Bill without considering the meaning of the words. I do not claim to be a constitutional expert, but I can read. How can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that anybody is given an absolute right under Clause 2?
  I would ask the learned Attorney-General to read subsection (3) of Clause 2. He says that he will find some form of words for that in order to give absolute rights to certain persons under subsection (2) of Clause 2. But that subsection says:
  "Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of this section. …"
  Really, I do suggest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he and I ought to change places. I believe that I am the most modest person in this Committee, but I must say that I am at a loss to understand how anybody with any claim to legal training should say that I should withdraw Amendment No. 5 which demands an absolute right in favour of a qualified right under Clause 2. The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Withdraw it, for we will include these people, although, under Clause 2, by my own wording subsection (3) qualifies any rights which might be given under subsection (2)." He tells me that I am an ordinary lay person from the back benches and that I should withdraw my Amendment and leave it all to him.
  The more I listen to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the more determined I am not to leave anything to the promises of this Government.
  Mr. M. Foot: I want to comment on the remarkable statement of the Home Secretary. At a quarter to twelve, after we had had about two hours' discussion of these Amendments, the Home Secretary told us that in order to meet the wishes of the Committee he was prepared to make a completely new departure from the arrangements which the Home Office had previously made. He said that, contrary to all previous practice of the Home Office, he was prepared to declare to the House of Commons, in some unspecified manner, the instructions which would be given to immigration officers under the Bill.
  12 m.
  He said that he was doing so in order to meet the claims of hon. Members. But if the Government thought that the way to deal with these Amendments was to enable the House of Commons to discuss instructions given to immigration officers, it is very peculiar that the statement should have been made by the Home Secretary right at the end of the debate, following an intervention by the Attorney-General and following a longer speech by the Minister of State earlier.
  The principal theme of our discussion has been whether the operations of the immigration officers were to be trusted, or whether we should include definite provisions in the Bill. If the Government's main defence was that they intended to lay before the House of Commons the instructions or advice which they were to give to immigration officers, and that the main reason why we should trust their claims was that that was their decision, it is extraordinary that neither the Attorney-General nor the Minister of State said so.
  Neither seemed to be aware of it. The Minister of State spoke very ably for half an hour and went through the details of the matter and said that we should trust the immigration officers. If the Minister of State knew that the instructions to immigration officers were to be presented to the House of Commons, why did he not tell us? I ask the hon and learned Gentleman to say whether when he spoke he knew that it was to be the Government's policy that the instructions to immigration officers were to be declared to the House of Commons. Did he know?
  Mr. Renton: I knew that my right hon. Friend was contemplating making a statement on the lines of that which he eventually did make.
  Mr. Foot: Before I deal with that, perhaps I can put the same question to the Attorney-General. Was he aware that the Home Secretary was contemplating making a statement? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]
  Sir Leslie Plummer: Did the Home Secretary know?
  Mr. Foot: The position now is that the Minister of State knew that the Home Secretary was to make a statement, but he did not tell us. Perhaps the Home Secretary did not know, but I will deal with him in a moment.
  I am sure that the Minister of State has done his best to get his right hon. Friend out of a difficulty. He is an honest fellow, but I do not believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman had the foggiest notion that the Home Secretary was to make such a statement. I do not think that he had the faintest idea, because he is such an honest fellow that if he had known that the whole operation of the Bill was to be altered by an important statement by the House Secretary he would have told us. He would not have kept a trump card like that up his sleeve.
  On top of all the other extraordinary events which we have had with the Bill, we have now had a situation in which the Home Secretary has told the Committee at a quarter to twelve that he is prepared to make a vital change in the practice of the Home Office. When the right hon. Gentleman made his announcement, he did not pass it off as if it were something trivial. He did not say, "I do not suppose that it matters tuppence one way or the other, but it so happens that I am going to tell you what I am going to tell the immigration officers".
  He did not say that. He said, "I have been considering this matter very carefully ever since the Second Reading debate. I have been kept awake at night thinking about it. I have been wondering how I could get out of this hole. I have now decided that, contrary to the practice of the Home Office over the past forty years in operating the

  1321
  Aliens Order, I will accord to the Opposition and to the House of Commons the right to see the instructions we give to the immigration officers". The right hon. Gentleman asks us to believe that he thought over the matter so carefully that he did not even trouble to tell the Minister of State that he was going to make this announcement.
  Nobody in the House believes the Home Secretary when he says that he had thought the matter over so carefully that he had not made his decision about five minutes earlier. I am not saying that he had not considered the proposition earlier, but it was only when he discovered that he was in something of a hole, or maybe that he was a bit light-headed, that he chucked this in to see how it would work. He is in such a muddle over the Bill. He probably said to himself, "If the Irish can be in one moment and out the next, let us see what we can do with this instruction to the immigration officers".
  The truth of the matter is very simple. We know that the Home Secretary is not such a fool as all that. We know that he comes along here at night and smoothly says, "I will tell you what instructions I am going to give to the immigration officers", but when he tells us them they will not mean a thing, and if they do not mean anything they will destroy the whole case put by the Attorney-General, because he is saying, "You must be very careful. You must not destroy the flexibility of immigration officers. You must not interfere with them and prevent them from exercising their magnificent, magnanimous, liberal discretion. You must not do that because the Home Secretary is going to give them instructions".
  Of course the instructions will mean nothing. Indeed, as one of my hon. Friends asked, how will these instructions be laid before the House? What Parliamentary procedure is there for this to be done? If they are not included in the Bill, how can they be debated? When are they to be discussed? How can we decide whether we want to alter the instructions to immigration officers? What are the Committee proceedings on Bills for, if not to settle matters like this? If the Home Secretary thinks that the Committee can be palmed off by his performance, he must think that we are
  1322
  a very innocent lot. He must think that we are prepared to accept the haphazard method he has adopted in dealing with this question.
  The truth is that the Attorney-General says in effect, "You must trust the Government". That is what it adds up to. He says, "You must trust the Government, whether they publish the instructions to the immigration officers or not. You must trust the Government to act in a liberal fashion". If the Government had a strong, powerful, and sustained liberal record, there might be some reason for trusting them, but the only person who thinks that they have a liberal record is the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro). His function in politics is to try to persuade people that the Government are really liberal. Nobody else believes it, and on this Bill we have had a whole series of illiberal actions. Why should we trust the Government?
  Moreover, the Attorney-General says, "You must be very careful. If you write into Clause I the provisions which are demanded in these Amendments, if you say specifically that you are going to protect different categories of people, it will be more difficult to be flexible afterwards". It will not. We can protect all these people in the Bill, and still give discretionary powers to the immigration officers afterwards, even if we are going to send them instructions as well.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: Those are exactly the words I used at this Box.
  Mr. Foot: I am rendered speechless by that intervention. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that that is what he said, nobody else in the Committee accepts it. Moreover, if what he was saying is the same as what I have been saying, why does not he write these provisions into the Bill, and, over and above that, give a discretionary right to immigration officers? If he thinks that he was saying the same thing as I have been saying he should look at HANSARD tomorrow. It seems that he has come here in what is an extraordinary state for him. He has come in a mood very different from that which we expect from him. Perhaps the shedding of his responsibilities as Leader of the House has made him light-headed. But if he

  1323
  agrees with what I have just been saying he should be agreeable to writing into the Clause the categories of people who should be protected.
  Mr. R. A. Butler: When I spoke I was referring to Clause 2.
  Mr. Foot: I was referring to this Clause. That is the argument between us. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) has already disposed of that argument. If we wish to protect these classes of British citizens we can write these provisions into the Clause quite well.
  I want to say a few words about one section of the community which is dealt with in the Amendments but which has not been mentioned by any hon. Member. As has been said, the question of bona fide students is covered by the Amendments, and it would be quite improper if that question was not mentioned. [Interruption.] The question is covered by part of Amendment No. 4. I know that there is to be a further debate on this subject, but nobody can deny that it is covered by the Amendment. That was made clear when the Chairman called the Amendments.
  The Chairman: We are discussing the question of students under Clause 2. It was thought much more convenient to have a separate debate about students.
  Mr. Foot: Yes, but it was stated by you that we were discussing Amendment No. 4, which deals with bona fide students.
  The Chairman: We are discussing Amendment No. 4, except in so far as it refers to bona fide students.
  Mr Gordon Walker: Although it has been agreed that we shall not have a big debate about students, surely in a

  Division No. 22.]

  AYES

  [12.15 a.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

  Aitken, W. T.

  Bingham, R. M.

  Brooman-White, R.

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Allason, James

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  Bossom, Clive

  Bryan, Paul

  Ashton, Sir Hubert

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Buck, Antony

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Box, Donald

  Bullard, Denys

  Barber, Anthony

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Butter, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Barter, John

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Batsford, Brian

  Braine, Bernard

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Berkeley, Humphry

  Brewis, John

  Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

  Biffen, John

  Bromley Davenport, Lt.-Col-Sir Walter

  Channon, H. P. G.

  general way they would be covered by the Clause, and especially by Amendment No. 4.
  The Chairman: It has been generally agreed by the Committee that we should have one debate about students on Clause 2.
  Mr. Foot: I am prepared to reserve what I have to say about students for the later debate, although it was stated at the beginning of this debate that they were covered by it. Moreover, the Minister of State specifically drew attention to the fact that there had been no reference to the question of students, although he apparently came briefed on it if on nothing else. It is very disadvantageous to the Committee that we shall not be able to hear his speech on that subject.
  I repeat that the Government's exhibition in dealing with these Amendments has been worse than their exhibition on the previous one, if that is possible, especially since the Home Secretary has sought to mislead the Committee by suggesting that he was making an important pronouncement—or an unimportant one. I am not sure which it was. If he was making an important pronouncement when he said that he would publish the instructions to be given to immigration officers, that pronouncement should have been made earlier by the Minister of State. If it was an unimportant pronouncement, which I suspect it was, it should not influence hon. Members at all.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne) rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 202. Noes 123.

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hollingworth, John

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Pott, Percivall

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hopkins, Alan

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hornby, R. P.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Corfield, F. V.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Pym, Francis

  Critchley, Julian

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Ramsden, James

  Curran, Charles

  James, David

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Rodmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Renton, David

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Drayson, G. B.

  Kimball, Marcus

  Roots, William

  du Cann, Edward

  Kitson, Timothy

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Duncan, Sir James

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Russell, Ronald

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  St. Clair, M.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Shaw, M.

  Emery, Peter

  Litchfield, Capt. John

  Shepherd, William

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Longbottom, Charles

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'rd & Chiswick)

  Farr, John

  Longden, Gilbert

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  McLaren, Martin

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Tapsell, Peter

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Maclean, SirFitzroy (Bute&N. Ayrs.)

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter & Moss Side)

  Gammans, Lady

  MCMaster, Stanley R.

  Teeing, William

  George, J. C (Pollok)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Temple, John M.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Maginnis, John E.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Godber, J. B.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Turner, Colin

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Green, Alan

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Gurden, Harold

  Monigomery, Fergus

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Walder, David

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Morgan, William

  Walker, Peter

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Michael

  Webster, David

  Harvey, Sr Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Wise, A. R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Hay, John

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Woollam, John

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Peel, John

  Worsley, Marcus

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Percival, Ian

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  TELLERS for THE AYES:

  Holland, Philip

  Pitman, Sir James

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Whitelaw.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Dempsey, James

  Hilton, A. V.

  Ainsley, William

  Diamond, John

  Holman, Percy

  Albu, Austen

  Dodds, Norman

  Holt, Arthur

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Driberg, Tom

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Baird, John

  Evans, Albert

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Fitch, Alan

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Blackburn, F.

  Fletcher, Eric

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Letts, S.W.)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Boyden, James

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Jeger, George

  Brockway, A. Fenner

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Callaghan, James

  George, LadyMeganLloyd (Crmrthn)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  King, Dr. Horace

  Cliffe, Michael

  Gourlay, Harry

  Lawson, George

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Cronin, John

  Grimond, J.

  Lipton, Marcus

  Crosland, Anthony

  Gunter, Ray

  Loughlin, Charles

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Hannan, William

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  MacColl, James

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Molnnes, James

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  1326

  1327

  Manuel, A. C.

  Randall, Harry

  Wade, Donald

  Mapp, Charles

  Robinson,Kenneth (St. Panoras, N.)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Mellish, R. J.

  Ross, William

  Warbey, William

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Short, Edward

  Watkins, Tudor

  Millan, Bruce

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, John

  Small, William

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Snow, Julian

  Willey, Frederick

  Oram, A. E.

  Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Winter-bottom, R. E.

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Stonehouse, John

  Woof, Robert

  Pavitt Laurence

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Peart, Frederick

  Swingler, Stephen

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Plummer, sir Leslie

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Probert. Arthur

  Thorpe, Jeremy

  Mr. Redhead and Mr Ifor Davies.

  Questions put accordingly, That that words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES

  12.24 a.m.

  Agnew, Sir Peter

  Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford & Stone)

  McMaster, Stanley R.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)

  Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)

  Freeth, Denzil

  Maddan, Martin

  Allason, James

  Gammans, Lady

  Maginnis, John E.

  Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Aston, Sir Hubert

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Markham, Major Sir Frank

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Gilmour, Sir John

  Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest

  Barber, Anthony

  Godber, J. B.

  Mathew, Robert (Honiton)

  Barter, John

  Goodhart, Philip

  Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)

  Batsford, Brian

  Goodhew, Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Biffen, John

  Gower, Raymond

  Maydon. Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Grant, Rt. Hon. William

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Bingham, R. M.

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper (Ludlow)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Morgan, William

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Grimston, Sir Robert

  Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

  Bossom, Clive

  Gurden, Harold

  Nabarro, Gerald

  Bourne-Arton, A.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Noble, Michael

  Box, Donald

  Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J.

  Hare, Rt. Hon. John

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Braine, Bernard

  Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Brewis, John

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)

  Page, John (Harrow, West)

  Bromley Davenport,Lt.-Col.Sir Walter

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Brooke, Rt. Hon Henry

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)

  Brooman-White, R.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)

  Brown, Alan (Tottenham)

  Hay, John

  Peel, John

  Browne, Percy (Torrington)

  Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

  Percival, Ian

  Bryan, Paul

  Hendry, Forbes

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Buck, Antony

  Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Pilkington, Sir Richard

  Bullard, Denys

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Pitman, Sir James

  Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)

  Hocking, Philip N.

  Pitt, Miss Edith

  Campbell, Cordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Holland, Philip

  Pott, Percivall

  Carr, Compton (Barons Court)

  Hollingworth, John

  Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch

  Car', Robert (Mitcham)

  Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Channon, H. p. G.

  Honkins, Alan

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Chataway, Christopher

  Hornby, R. P.

  Pym, Francis

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon, Dame P.

  Ramsden, James

  Cleaver, Leonard

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hughes-Young, Michael

  Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  James, David

  Renton, David

  Corfield, F. V.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ridley, Hon. Nicholas

  Critchley, Julian

  Johnson Smith, Geoffrey

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Curran, Charles

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Roots, William

  Currie, G. B, H.

  Kerans, Cdr. J. S.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kimball, Marcus

  Russell, Ronald

  de Ferranti, Basil

  Kitson, Timothy

  St. Clair, M.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.

  Leburn, Gilmour

  Shaw, M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Shepherd, William

  du Cann. Edward

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Duncan, Sir James

  Ll!chfi5id, Capt. John

  Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd & Chiswick)

  Eccles, Rt. Hon. sir David

  Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Longbottom, Charles

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm

  Emery, Peter

  Longden, Gilbert

  Storey, Sir Samuel

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Loveys, Walter H.

  Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)

  Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Tapsell, Peter

  Farr, John

  McLaren, Martin

  Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)

  Finlay, Graeme

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Taylor, F. (M'ch'ter & Moss Side)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Maclean,SirFitzroy(Bute&N.Ayrs.)

  Teeling, William

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)

  Temple, John M.

  1328

  1329

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Vickers, Miss Joan

  Wise, A. R.

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Thomas, Peter (Conway)

  Walder, David

  Woodhouse, C. M.

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Walker, Peter

  Woollam, John

  Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek

  Worsley, Marcus

  Turner, Colin

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Webster, David

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Mr. J. E. B. Hill and Mr. Whitelaw.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Gourlay, Harry

  Oram, A. E.

  Ainsley, William

  Greenwood, Anthony

  Oswald, Thomas

  Albu, Austen

  Grimond, J.

  Paget, R. T.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gunter, Ray

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Hannan, William

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Baird, John

  Hart, Mrs. Judith

  Peart, Frederick

  Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)

  Hayman, F. H.

  Plummer, Sir Leslie

  Blackburn, F.

  Herbison, Miss Margaret

  Popplewell, Ernest

  Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)

  Hill, J. (Midlothian)

  Probert, Arthur

  Boyden, James

  Hilton, A. V.

  Randall, Harry

  Brook way, A. Fenner

  Holman, Percy

  Redhead, E. C.

  Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)

  Holt, Arthur

  Robinson,Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Howell, Charles A. (Perry Barr)

  Ross, William

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Short, Edward

  Callaghan, James

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Castle, Mrs. Barbara

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Cliffe, Michael

  Hynd, John (Attercliffe)

  Small, William

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Irving, Sydney (Dartford)

  Snow, Julian

  Cronin, John

  Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas

  Soskioe, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

  Crosland, Anthony

  Jeger, George

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Crossman, R. H. S.

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Stonehouse, John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)

  Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  King, Dr. Horace

  Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lawson, George

  Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)

  Dempsey, James

  Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)

  Wainwright, Edwin

  Diamond, John

  Lipton, Marcus

  Warbey, William

  Dodds, Norman

  Loughlin, Charles

  Watkins, Tudor

  Driberg, Tom

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John

  MacColl, James

  Whitlock, William

  Evans, Albert

  Melnns, James

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Willey, Frederick

  Fitch, Alan

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Williams, LI. (Abertillery)

  Fletcher, Eric

  Manuel, A. C.

  Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)

  Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)

  Mapp, Charles

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

  Mellish, R. J.

  Woof, Robert

  Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Millan, Bruce

  Yates, Victor (Ladywood)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mitchison, G. R.

  George, LadyMeganLloyd(Crmrthn)

  Morris, John

  TELLERS for THE NOES:

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

  Mr. Wade and Mr. Thorpe.

  Mr. R. A. Butler: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  I do so not because the Government are satisfied with the progress that has been made but in view of the very liberal approach that we have made, especially to the last Amendment. We have done a good deal of work, and in the circumstances I move this Motion.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: We on this side of the Committee naturally agree to the
  1330
  Motion. We disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. We think that we have made very good and rapid progress on so important a Bill as this. We feel that we should be able to deal with it in a reasonable time, paying regard to its enormous and revolutionary importance.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  DE-NUCLEARISATION OF AFRICA (UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. J. E. B. Hill.]
  12.34 a.m.
  Mrs. Barbara Castle: I wish to raise tonight the deplorable failure of the United Kingdom delegate on the Political Committee of the United Nations to support a resolution calling for the declaration of the continent of Africa as a neutral and nuclear-free zone. This was an opportunity, which comes to this country only too rarely, to make clear that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the developing nuclear arms race and its accompanying drift to war required emphatic action wherever possible to stop them.
  One point on which Her Majesty's Government have claimed to be different from the Soviet Union is that Her Majesty's Government have said time and again that we should not merely strive towards the difficult and elusive goal of general and complete world disarmament, but should advance wherever possible by practical steps to that end, stage by stage. One obvious practical step would be to support any effort anywhere in the world to declare certain parts of the globe to be nuclear-free areas into which nuclear weapons should not be introduced if we in the West could do anything to stop it.
  The continent of Africa is, I suggest, outstandingly one of those areas. Some of us would like to see Europe made a nuclear-free zone also, but we recognise that the great Powers are already there in occupation, in situ, nuclear weapons and all, and the possibility of rolling back the forces of the great Powers facing each other, equipped with nuclear weapons, is rather remote and difficult of attainment. But Africa, at any rate until the French Government started their atomic tests in the Sahara, was innocent of the horror of the nuclear weapon.
  We all know that it is the great desire of the overwhelming majority of the African peoples that they should not be embroiled in the cold war and that
  1332
  their country should not become a nuclear battle-ground.
  It was, therefore, a large number of the African Powers who, in the Political Committee of the United Nations, introduced in November of this year a resolution which called upon the members of the General Assembly to recognise the need to prevent Africa becoming involved in any competition associated with the ideological struggles between the Powers engaged in the arms race, particularly with nuclear weapons, and called upon the General Assembly and its members also to recognise that the task of economic and social development in the African States required the uninterrupted attention of those States in order that they might be allowed to fulfil their goals and contribute fully to the maintenance of international peace and security.
  In the context of those introductory objectives, the resolution had the following three specific provisions. It called upon Member States:
  "(a) to refrain from carrying out or continuing to carry out in Africa nuclear tests in any form;
  (b) to refrain from using the territory, territorial waters or air space of Africa in testing, storing or transporting nuclear weapons;
  (c) to consider and respect the continent of Africa as a de-nuclearised neutral one".
  I am at a loss to understand how the representative of Her Majesty's Government, claiming, as that Government do, to care for the goal of world disarmament, could have refused to back that resolution, not only with a vote, but with passionate speeches of support.
  In heaven's name, what are we waiting for to start the disarmament race instead of the arms race? What opportunity, what initiative are we hoping will fall from the skies if we ignore an opportunity such as the one that was presented to us? Indeed, so overwhelming was the case for the resolution that no member of the United Nations dared to vote against it. They would stand indicted in the eyes of the world had they done so.
  What did Her Majesty's Government do? They joined a number of Powers, whose enthusiasm for disarmament is very suspect in the eyes of the uncommitted nations, in cowardly abstention

  1333
  upon one of the clearest issues that the United Nations has ever had to discuss. In doing so, of course, they joined company with such anti-imperialist Powers as South Africa, and they joined company with a number of African States who are associated with the French Community—in other words, who are economically dependent for their future development upon France and dare not, in the United Nations, condemn France for conducting tests in the Sahara in the teeth of opposition from the rest of Africa.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) and I raised this matter in the House the other day, that fact was given as one of the reasons which excused the representative of Her Majesty's Government for joining them in abstention. Everyone knows that in these African affairs, the African nations who are associated with the French Community are in a special class, the class of territories dependent upon the economic neo-colonialism of the French Government.
  When we asked our Question the other day, we were referred by the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to a speech by the United Kingdom delegate for the Government's excuses for abstaining on this issue. I have referred to that speech. It contains no justification whatever. In fact, it is another parade of that typical British hypocrisy which is losing us the leadership of the uncommitted nations, which we could have if we had the courage and the vision to try to seize it in these perilous times.
  The United Kingdom delegate said that he did not believe it was
  "for the United Nations to direct States to follow any particular policy except in so far as, in particular cases, the pursuit of a given policy threatens the peace."
  Does not the introduction of nuclear weapons into an area where they do not exist threaten the peace? What else threatens the peace if it is not the dragging of an unwilling continent into the nuclear arms race of the great Powers in their pursuit of the cold war?
  Another argument advanced by the United Kingdom delegate was that it was not very good passing the resolution because
  1334
  "There could be … no guarantee that Africa would be 'atom free' in the absence of effective international verification. Such verification is possible only within the context of agreement on disarmament in all its aspects."
  This is putting off into the never-never-land any progress towards disarmament.
  It is exactly the same argument that the Soviet Union has recently advanced when some of us have been hoping and praying that we could advance towards a limited agreement on nuclear weapon tests. The Soviet Union started hedging by saying that we could have inspection and control of nuclear weapon tests within the context of general disarmament, and when the Soviet Union used that excuse we all accused her of hypocrisy, myself among them. Certainly Her Majesty's Government did so, but when it suits their books they advance exactly the same argument.
  This is why I have raised this matter on the Adjournment. Great Britain claims that she is an ex-colonial Power. Great Britain claims credit for the fact that she has given and is giving still political independence to certain African States, but in this crucial moment of world history that is not enough. We must enter into the hearts and minds and spirits and needs of these African people if we are to turn a once imperial rule into close partnership and into joint political leadership.
  We shall lose their sympathy, their friendship and their love unless we identify ourselves with their demand that their continent shall be kept clean of nuclear weapons and that they shall be allowed to concentrate on the job of fighting poverty instead of fighting the cold war. What is more, by failing to associate ourselves with them and with the initiative for peace by the uncommitted nations in the United Nations we are jeopardising the lives of our people in our own country and heading the world along the road to war.
  12.47 a.m.
  Miss Jennie Lee: Not much needs to be added to the eloquent plea that has already been made, but I would ask the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs to keep in mind that we have been told that the great drama of our times is the struggle for the souls of men and that ultimately the question whether there will be war or peace will

  1335
  be decided not just by the extent of our arms but by how far we can convince the great masses of men and women that we really mean peace.
  One of the most hopeful and helpful things that have emerged in recent times is the clear indication that the new States in Africa do not want to be the creatures of either Soviet diplomacy or Western diplomacy. Surely this should be our opportunity, and we are doing the gravest disservice when we are deliberately antagonising millions and millions of citizens who are becoming increasingly conscious of the problems of the world as well as those of their own country. As I wish to leave time for others who may want to take part in the debate and for the Government reply, I will say no more than to ask the Government please not to under-estimate the importance of this point.
  12.49 a.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. J. B. Godber): I have listened with care to the remarks of the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). I thought that her speech was somewhat intemperate at some stages and I will deal with the points she made, but I was more impressed by the shorter intervention of the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee).
  I have observed the criticisms that have been made of the action of our delegation in abstaining on this Resolution dealing with de-nuclearisation of Africa. I think I should summarise once again the reasons why we chose to vote in the way we did, but I must ask the hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) to realise the position that the Government felt bound to take up on this matter, and on other matters of similar nature. This is not an isolated resolution. There are a number of resolutions here, and we have followed a consistent policy in this regard and one which I believe has the support of the great majority of our people.
  My hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State explained on 29th November why we did not feel it appropriate to lay down a foreign or defence policy for all the countries in a given area. It is an unreasonable thing, and it would be wrong for us to seek to do so. At that time, the hon. Member
  1336
  for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) said that the great majority of the people of Africa demanded neutralisation of the continent. The hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn has used similar language. It may or may not be the case that the great majority desire that. All we have to go on is the votes of the African states concerned at the United Nations.
  Mr. Fenner Brockway rose—
  Mr. Godber: I cannot give way. I have only a short time. Of these countries, 15 voted for the resolution and 9 abstained when the resolution was voted on in the First Committee. An additional country abstained in plenary at a later stage. Thus, I do not think one can call it an overwhelming majority.
  Mr. Michael Foot: South Africa had a vote.
  Mr. Godber: South Africa I did not include. There was an additional abstention in plenary. I have deliberately excluded South Africa for this argument. The hon. Member for Blackburn sought to say that certain of these countries were not free agents in this matter. I believe that this is a wrong approach to take to countries which have been given full sovereignty and which are members of the United Nations. It could be applied equally to countries of certain blocs which always vote one way as it could to these African countries. They are entitled to be considered as sovereign and independent states. It is a very dangerous line to take to say that they are not free in this respect.
  But even if the majority in favour had been larger, the principle remains that geographical contiguity does not give Governments the right to impose a given policy on their neighbours. If some African states wish to de-nuclearise their territories, they are free to do so. No one would wish to stop them. But if they wish to get their neighbours to follow suit, it is up to them to persuade their neighbours, using the ordinary processes of international intercourse. We do not think it the function of the United Nations to lay down policies for whole areas against the will of some of

  1337
  the sovereign states in those areas. That is something which must be realised but which does not seem to have been realised in the hon. Lady's speech.
  There are other drawbacks which arise from the nature of the proposals in the Resolution. Frankly, although, of course, we understand the feelings of those African states who want to isolate Africa from the threat of nuclear war, we are not sure that such isolation would hold in the event of a world war breaking out. We believe that the only way to remove the danger facing Africa, as with the danger facing the rest of the world, is by seeking to achieve the purpose of this and other resolutions in this vein through the wider effect which we now have to get in the form of general and complete disarmament.
  We would welcome, and wanted to achieve, the banning of nuclear tests all over the world, and we have been very disappointed that there has been such a sharp setback in that matter, but so far as getting rid of nuclear arms altogether is concerned, we believe that that must be done in the context of general disarmament. This is what we want to achieve, and it is what the Government is anxious to achieve. We are working towards it through, we hope, the new body set up at United Nations.
  This is something positive in this field, and we should merely mislead world opinion if we were to claim that isolated zones of peace could be established or maintained while the arms race and the danger of war raged in the rest of the world; and that is true of all arms. After all, it was Mr. Litvinov, I think, who said that peace is indivisible, and that applies in this context; it applies to all arms, and how much more true it is of nuclear weapons. The wide geographical extent of the fall-out of the recent grim series of nuclear tests by the Soviet Union is alone enough to show how impossible it is to confine the effects of nuclear weapons to any one part of the globe.
  This can only be done on a worldwide context with weapons of this type.
  Mr. Stephen Swingler: Does the hon. Gentleman want to stop this?
  Mr. Godber: Another point on which we view this resolution with some
  1338
  reserve is the absence from it of any reference to the need to verify and inspect the measures which would be taken. This applies particularly to that part of the resolution related to nuclear tests. The hon. Lady thought this to be a wholly unreasonable attitude, but this must be the whole basis of anything which has any element of security about it. It is no good at all seeking to carry out measures of this kind unless one has proper and effective international verification. That is absolutely fundamental to any solid basis upon which we can build in this field and it is nonsense to brush this on one side; that does no good to anybody. That applies particularly to this resolution, and the part relating to nuclear tests. The only way of dealing with this problem is a treaty suspending all tests under international verification. That is an essential by which we must stand.
  I was a little puzzled when the hon. Lady, in the context of verification, talked of progress in this field as being something in the "never-never-land." That really is an unreal approach because, unless it is accepted that there must be verification measures in the modern world, with all its suspense and suspicion, there cannot be anything; and that applies to the narrower field as well as to the wider field of armaments as a whole.
  There is a very real danger in passing "cosy" resolutions designed to damp down people's fears, but which in fact do not provide any element of protection or security at all and which almost certainly would be cast aside under the pressure of events. That is something which we have to face up to, and unless there is some form of verification, such resolutions are of no benefit at all.
  Mr. M. Foot: Why did the Government not vote against the Resolution?
  Mr. Godber: We made our stand perfectly clear. We thought it inappropriate and quite sufficient to show our decision by abstaining on a resolution of this kind.
  Mr. Swingler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he answer this question? Why have Her Majesty's Government not put forward any plan to the

  1339
  Governments of the African States for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and bases to the African States, persuading them to adopt a plan for the control and verification of areas in order to prevent the problems of nuclear tests and nuclear bases from arising in Africa?
  Mr. Godber: It seems that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) was so keen to put his question that he was not listening to what I was saying. In effect, I was saying that we believe that these plans for nuclear tests must be on a world-wide basis and that it is misleading to think that there is any value in the basis of dealing with one continent at a time in this way. We have to do it on a world-wide basis if we are to get effective cessation of nuclear tests, or control, or whatever it may be. It must be done on a world-wide basis because of the very nature of nuclear weapons, and I thought that I had already made that abundantly clear.
  Mr. Swingler: They must have nuclear weapons before they are stopped.
  Mr. Godber: On the question of developing nuclear weapons; I must remind hon. Members that there is a very clear difference between the resolution which we are discussing and others which have been tabled to attempt to prevent the spread of nuclear capacity, that is, what is known in the jargon of the nuclear test conference, as the emergence of the Nth Power. Although we do not consider that a resolution such as that which we have been discussing can be effective in isolating particular areas from the danger of nuclear war, or that we could vote for resolutions like the recent Swedish one, for instance, which, we say, would impair N.A.T.O.'s ability to defend itself, if need be with nuclear weapons, at the same time we believe that something can and must be done to prevent the acquisition by any further countries of an independent power to manufacture or use their own nuclear weapons. For this reason, we have voted in this very session of the Assembly for the resolution put forward by the Irish Government to this very end. I think that that is an effective answer to the point which the hon. Member has just made.
  1340
  I do not have time to develop the case as much as I would like, but I repeat that our abstention on this resolution did not indicate a callous indifference or anything of that sort. Still less did it indicate any desire to involve the African continent in the danger of nuclear war. It simply indicated our strong doubt about whether the Resolution would have any useful effect. As I have said, I do not believe that there is any value in passing resolutions which provide no element of safeguard and which merely result in confusing and giving people a false sense of security. That is not the way to help to deal with this problem.
  The best way to advance is to try to get progress in the nuclear test talks, which we have been doing and which I was trying to do in Geneva last week; and also in seeking to get a new form for negotiating disarmament in its widest sense and to make progress in that direction. Those are the ways to do it, but they must be done, I repeat once more, on a definite basis of international verification and control. If once we get away from that, there is no basis for security of any sort. We have a duty to ourselves and to others to whom our lead in the world means something to bring this fact always before their minds and certainly not to mislead them in the way that the remarks of the hon. Lady would certainly mislead them and which I totally reject.
  Mr. John Stonehouse: In view of the great importance of this subject to the Commonwealth, and especially to the States which are not yet independent and which do not yet have their own voices, what steps were taken to consult them and particularly to consult the opinion of Tanganyika and Uganda?
  Mr. Godber: We have regular meetings at the United Nations with States which are independent within the Commonwealth. These matters can be and are discussed on various occasions in that way. There is not the same facility with non-self-governing territories, but various of those countries are coming forward to self-government—Tanganyika will be coming forward soon—and we hope to see her at the United

  1341
  Nations. I have given an indication of policy which applies both to Africa and the rest of the world. I repeat that this is not a matter which can be effectively dealt with on the basis of areas and that it must be dealt with on the basis of the world as a whole.
  Mr. Brockway: The hon. Gentleman said that there was not an overwhelming majority in Africa on one side of this
  1342
  issue. Is he aware that the population—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Tuesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at four minutes past One o'clock.

SCIENCE
  Scientists and Engineers
  Scientists and Engineers
  Common Cold
  Common Cold
  Pulverised Fuel Ash (Use)
  Pulverised Fuel Ash (Use)
  Nuclear Tests (Drinking Water)
  Nuclear Tests (Drinking Water)
  Strontium 90
  Strontium 90
HOUSING
  New Houses and Flats
  New Houses and Flats
  Wales
  Wales
  Improvement Grants (Local Authorities)
  Improvement Grants (Local Authorities)
  Finance
  Finance
  London
  London
  Homeless Families, Middlesex
  Homeless Families, Middlesex
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Gypsies
  Gypsies
  North Lincolnshire (Boundaries)
  North Lincolnshire (Boundaries)
  Works, Cardiff (Atmospheric Pollution)
  Works, Cardiff (Atmospheric Pollution)
  Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
  Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
  Electricity Power Stations (Atmospheric Pollution)
  Electricity Power Stations (Atmospheric Pollution)
  Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1960
  Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act, 1960
  Water Supplies, Manchester (Purification Works)
  Water Supplies, Manchester (Purification Works)
TRISTAN DA CUNHA
  Refugees (Resettlement)
  Refugees (Resettlement)
KENYA
  Study Group
  Study Group
  Jomo Kenyatta
  Jomo Kenyatta
MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Cafeteria, Richmond Park (Incident)
  Cafeteria, Richmond Park (Incident)
  Regent's Park (Vehicle Testing)
  Regent's Park (Vehicle Testing)
POST OFFICE
  Parcels
  Parcels
  Electoral Registration (Postage)
  Electoral Registration (Postage)
  Postmen (Mopeds)
  Postmen (Mopeds)
  Old-Age Pensioners (Television Licences)
  Old-Age Pensioners (Television Licences)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Bridgenorth Exchange
  Bridgenorth Exchange
  Whitchurch
  Whitchurch
  Oxford
  Oxford
  Wales
  Wales
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Central Office of Information (Educational Films)
  Central Office of Information (Educational Films)
  Universities (Research Funds)
  Universities (Research Funds)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  £ Sterling (Value)
  National Institute of Economic and Social Research
  National Institute of Economic and Social Research
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Racing Cars (Tax)
  Racing Cars (Tax)
  North-East
  North-East
  G.A.T.T.
  G.A.T.T.
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
MINISTRY OF AVIATION
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry
  Toothill Committee (Report)
  Toothill Committee (Report)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Medical Laboratory Technicians (Pay)
  Medical Laboratory Technicians (Pay)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (REVIEW BODY)
  DOCTORS' AND DENTISTS' REMUNERATION (REVIEW BODY)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Toxic Chemicals (Report)
  Toxic Chemicals (Report)
EDUCATION
  Commonwealth Education Conference
  Commonwealth Education Conference
  Boarding Schools
  Boarding Schools
EMPLOYMENT
  Shop Stewards and Union Officers (Training)
  Shop Stewards and Union Officers (Training)
COAL
  Mining Industry (Research)
  Mining Industry (Research)
  Advisory Council on Education (Report)
  Advisory Council on Education (Report)
SCOTLAND
  Rents, Lanarkshire
  Rents, Lanarkshire
  Mrs. Arrowsmith
  Mrs. Arrowsmith
TECHNICAL CO-OPERATION
  Training Facilities for Overseas Public Administration (Committee)
  Training Facilities for Overseas Public Administration (Committee)
TRANSPORT
  Canals and Inland Waterways (Closures)
  Canals and Inland Waterways (Closures)

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

N.A.T.O. AND TRADE RESTRICTIONS
2.36 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the OrderPaper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been drawn to proposals recently announced in the Press emanating from official advisers to the United States Government suggesting the possible use by the N.A.T.O. countries of trade restrictions mainly for the purpose of influencing the political policies of China and the Soviet bloc ; and whether they will state that they will not bea party to any such action which would disrupt and weaken N.A.T.O.;exacerbate the critical situation for British exports; and be injurious to the long-term industrial interests of this country.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, I take it
2
that the noble Viscount has in mind a report by a Mr. Samuel Pisar, entitled A New Look at Trade Policy toward the Communist Bloc, which was prepared for a sub-committee of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress. This report is one of several study papers prepared by scholars and experts at the request of this sub-committee to assist them in their researches. It is the work of aprivate individual. It cannot, therefore, be taken as an official statement of United States policy, nor can we judge how much weight will be attached to it when it comes to be considered by the Committee.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his Answer. Of course, it is quite fantastic that advisers to the American Government should come forwardwith any such suggestions as these. But if such proposals come along, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind in relation to them that in 1957 they themselves, to their great credit, took the initiative in dismantling some of the worst rigours of the Chinese embargo, even without the consent of America and COCOM, and that all the otherEuropean countries in COCOM later followed suit?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think that the noble Viscount will be aware that recentlyHer Majesty's Government have effected a rather satisfactory trade with China in aircraft. I think the noble Viscount will have read about it. I want to emphasise, so that

3
there will be no misunderstanding, that this report to which the noble Viscount referred is only one of a series of studies which are being submitted to this Committee, and they must not in any way be considered as being representative of American Governmental opinion.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, can we therefore regard this Question as one of a series?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: As one of a series of Questions? The noble Lord must put that to the noble Viscount.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, would not the noble Marquess agree that the proposal of this individual, if it were implemented, would amount to economic sanction, and is that not unprecedented during peace time?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Baroness has had an opportunity of reading this report. I will not pretend for one moment that I have read the whole of it myself. But Mr. Pisar discusses in greatdetail what the possibilities might be, if some sort of economic embargo were brought in. That is his job. He has to study all eventualities so that the sub-committee which looks at this subject will be able to form an opinion on this report and other similar reports produced by men of equal distinction to Mr. Pisar's.

PURCHASE TAX ON RACING CARS
2.40 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: 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 for the sake of the future of British motor racing they will reconsider their decision to discontinue allowing purchase tax rebate on racing cars.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD MILLS): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognise the value to the British motor industry, on grounds of prestige and technical
4
development, of successful British participation in international motor racing. They do not consider, however, that in present circumstances it would any longer be justifiable to maintain the special concession of a refund of purchase tax on racing cars. The industry willno doubt be prepared to give motor racing their support to the extent that they consider this to be warranted by the benefits which it would bring to them.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that many firms who are interested in motor racing and who represent this country abroad are not big firms such as, shall we say, the British Motor Corporation; they are small firms making their headway? And if they are to be charged an unreasonable amount of purchase tax, how can they possibly afford to go on with their enterprises'?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am quite aware of the firms which participate in motor racing. I am not aware that they cannot afford to go on if this rebate is withdrawn, as it will be; nor am I aware that the British motor industry wouldnot continue to support them.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, is it not a fact that purchase tax is chargeable on motor cars only if they are designed to carry passengers? If that is the case, if these cars are not designed to carry passengers why is purchase tax charged?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, that was all gone into in 1950, when it was decided to give this rebate. Ithink it is a fact that these cars come within the definition of cars liable to purchase tax.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord and the Government not agree that in fact these racing cars are prototypes, and that the reliability of the cars in which your Lordships come to this House every day is largely affected by the experiments which are carried out in this way?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I thought my original Answer testified to the importance of these cars. I agree they are important.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, could the noble Lord give the House any idea of

5
what the gain of removing this concession would be to the Government?
LORD MILLS: Yes, my Lords: it will be about £30,000 a year off the Board of Trade Vote.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the amount of £30,000 has been set against the value of these cars for research purposes to the motor industry?
LORD MILLS: My Lords, I am not sure that that arises. It has been decided to stop this rebate. I have already said that the importance of motor racing to the industry is understood, and I have suggested that the motor industry will probably take that into account, too.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, is this not perhaps another case for a pause for the moment?

ROAD HAULAGE RATES AND COST OF LIVING
2.45 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: 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 is likely to be the effect on the cost of living, and in particular on the price of fuel, food and building costs, of the proposal by the Road Haulage Association to raise haulage rates by 7½ per cent.]
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, road haulage rates are not included in the index of retail prices, and so the proposed change will not affect the index figure directly. Indirect effects cannot, I am afraid, be forecast because they will depend upon the extent to which additional costs are eventually passed onto consumers of the goods carried.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that this increase in road haulage rates is bound to have some effect upon the cost of living, and on the cost of goods consumed by many people, particularly for those with lower incomes? Is it not a fact also that at least 50 per cent. of the extra cost which is necessitated comes not from higher wages but from the direct action of Her Majesty's Government in the last Budget
6
of increasing the fuel tax and the road fund licences on these heavy haulage vehicles?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, in answer to the first question, I do not think I ought to speculate upon what the possible results will be, since they cannot be forecast. We shall have to wait to see what happens. As regards the noble Lord's second question, the Government, of course, were in no way a party to this decision of the Road Haulage Association, and I am not in a position to say what were the factors they had in mind in reaching that decision. But I should imagine that the proposed increased rates are occasioned at least in part by the wage increases which are to come into effect in the industry on January 1.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, even without making any forecast as to the effect that this might have, that it is going to make any pay pause increasingly difficult when the cost of transport of certain essential items goes up by this quite considerable amount?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I do not think I could agree about that.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord say, if the Government are not a party to this increase, why they are not a pasty to it, when they seek most vigorously to be a party against any suggestion that there should be an increase in wages?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Government are not a party to this decision because they do not control in any way the activities of the Road Haulage Association.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, nor do they control the activities of the trade unions. Nevertheless, they seek to be a party to these decisions and to prevent any wage increases, but apparently they have done nothing whatever about this increase in the road haulage charges which, whatever the noble Lord says, is bound to affect end prices.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the Government are not a party to the decisions of the Association, and they cannot do anything about the proposed increase in charges
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, is it not obvious that a good deal of the make-up of the increased transport charge arises from what is called the "little Budget", from the imposition of new charges by the Government, and therefore the Government have some responsibility for it?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I can only say again what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Walston. I do not know, and the Government do not know, for what reason the Association have come to the decision they have reached.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, surely the noble Lord will agree that, if the Government do not know, it is their duty to find out. They are finding out about proposed wage increases. The whole thing is that you cannot go on increasing the cost of living and expect a wages pause to continue. Why do the Government not accept the responsibility of going to the Road Haulage Association and discussing this matter with them?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I think we are now going very much further than the original Question. I do not think I ought to make any sort of general pronouncement, in answer to a question like this, about the Government's attitude to prices.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, have not the National Coal Board put up the price of coal? Is not that a case on exactly the same footing?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.

EGYPTIAN COMPENSATION FUND PAYMENTS
2.49 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: 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 increases the Foreign Compensation Commission are now authorised to make in the interim payment of compensation to British subjects whose property in Egypt was Egyptianised or suffered loss or damage while under sequestration.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Schedule to the new Foreign Compensation (Egypt) (Interim Distribution) (Amendment) Order, 1961, which was laid before your Lordships yesterday, provides for increased payments on all claims at the following rates:
on claims assessed at £5,000 or under: 90 per cent.;
on claims assessed at up to £50,000—that is, more than£5,000 but less than £50,000: £4,500 (that is, 90 per cent. of the first £5,000) plus 60 per cent. of the balance over £5,000;
on claims assessed at up to £500,000: £31,500 (that isthe amount allowable under the first £50,000) plus 35 per cent. of the balance over £50,000;
and on claims assessed at over £500,000: £189,000, plus 20 per cent. of the balance over £500,000. These increases apply to all claims established before the Commission, whether already assessed or to be assessed in the future.
Thus claims assessed at £5,000 or less receive a 20 per cent. greater dividend than before; and claims assessed at up to £500,000 a 10 per cent. greater dividend on the sum assessed over the first £5,000. The dividend on the amount by which an assessed claim exceeds half a million pounds is not increased but remains at 20 per cent. Nevertheless, your Lordships will see that in fact all claimants will benefit by the increased rates; those whose claims are assessed at £500,000 or more will receive an interim payment of £189,000, that is to say, £50.500 more than under the previous Order.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, I hope I am in order if, before I ask a supplementary question, which I have here and of which I gave very short preliminary notice, I say what a pleasure it is that I should be addressing my noble kinsman for the first time in his high office, on this subject or any other. Whilst the increased payments provided for in the new Order in Council will be welcomed by a number of claimants, which mainly includes the large public companies whose property was Egyptianised, it is regrettable that it contains no provision of any assistance whatsoever for the great majority of unfortunate individuals whose property

9
was sequestrated, whose assets now lie blocked in Egypt, and who at best can only hopefully expect to receive a transfer of what amounts to £850 sterling. I must not make a speech, but I must quote just two examples.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No, no.
LORD KILLEARN: It is so important, your Lordships really would like to hear it.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
LORD KILLEARN: I am going to go ahead until I am thrown out, because it is such an injustice. I will put it in the form of a question. Is the noble Earl aware that of two claimants, Mr. A and Mr. B, Mr. A has a claim for £50,000 in respect of property which has been Egyptianised or nationalised, call it which you like? Under this new Order Mr. A will receive £31,500, which is not so bad. Mr. B, who unfortunately has only sequestrated assets valued at the same amount, £50,000, can at present only hopefully expect to receive a transfer amounting to £850. That is a very considerable difference, a glaring difference. I know the noble Earl cannot give an answer off hand, but the difference is so glaring that one hopes and believes it is receivingvery serious consideration by Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am equally glad to reply to my noble friend, whether his observations are didactic or interrogatory. This Order, of course, applies to the compensation in respect of Egyptianised property or in respect of damage to sequestrated property, which has been restored but which suffered damage or deterioration while it was sequestrated. Of course, my noble friend is quite right in assuming that it does not affect the difficulties of those whose property has been restored under the 1959 Agreement, but who cannot get sterling currency out of Egypt.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, might I put this point to my noble friend? There is a total sum available of £27½ million under the Anglo-Egyptian Agreement. I think the Government would accept that. Is it equitable that one class of payment on the Egyptianised property should have what is in effect a priority over that to owners of sequestrated property?—because,
10
there being only £27½ million in all, by the time they are satisfied there may remain practically nothing for the owners of sequestrated property, and they are the ones who need the assistance most. What I would ask the Government is this. While I am sure that everyone is extremely grateful to them for the efforts they have made to try to meet these difficulties, will the case of the owners of sequestrated property, who have not been able to be satisfied because they have been unable to get the information to formulate their claim, be further considered, even if the £27½ million has already been paid out, mostly to the owners of Egyptianised property?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I hope I am right in assuming that the noble Marquess is now referring not to the general difficulty of getting desequestrated property released, but to the payments of compensation to those who have had their sequestrated property restored and who are entitled to claim for damage, because they are two quite different points. None of this £27½ million could be used to help the people who have had their property restored to them, and whose only difficulty is that they cannot get money for it because of currency difficulties. It can be used to pay compensation in respect of damage which was suffered by the property while it was held by the Egyptians. It is, I think, obvious that the formulation and assessment of these claims must take some time, probably longer than the assessment of claims for compensation for Egyptianised property. Certainly it is estimated that after the payments under this Order have been made in respect of claims already assessed and approved, there will still be a margin left in the fund. We cannot yet estimate the amount of these claims, because they take so long to formulate and to be assessed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: MyLords, I quite appreciate what my noble friend has said, that there are two points. But the position in respect of both of them is at present unsatisfactory. What I want to ask the Government is whether they will keep in mind the unsatisfactory position as regards both these two points; that is to say, the people who have not yet been able to formulate claims and, therefore, may

11
not come within the ambit of the £27½ million, and those who may have been satisfied or not satisfied but cannot get their money back to England. Those are the two difficulties facing the claimants at the present time. I understand that there is likely to be a debate on this subject in the near future. I do not wish to elaborate it any further, but these are points which are still worrying a great many people.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, the answer to my noble friend's question is, of course, Yes. The Government have both the sets of cases in mind. I would just remind your Lordships again that the only class of case affected by this Order and by the Question on the Paper is what one might perhaps call—a smaller amount of money is involved —the claims for damage during the time in which the property was held by the Egyptians.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, is there not a third class of British subject involved in this; that is, the 10 persons at least whose properties were desequestrated and whose properties have now been resequestrated by the Nasser Government under recent ordinances?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, that is quite a different question which has arisen in the last month or two. I do not think it arises out of this Question, and perhaps my noble friend would like to look at the reply given in another place on November 15. But, of course, the fact is we cannot give any satisfactory information about this until we have it, and we have not got all the information yet.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, another question has been raised and the noble Earl has been good enough to reply to it since it is all part of the same subject. As facts have been quoted in another place of 37 British nationals who have had their property resequestrated, will he bear that in mind and consider it?
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Of course, my Lords. But I do not think we can answer too many questions which do not arise out of the one on the Paper.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Earl will bear that in mind.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: Certainly.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, may I just add something of which I presume the noble Earl is already aware, that under this recent enactment in Cairo the firm of solicitors who are looking after the interests of these unfortunate claimants have now been sequestrated themselves?

THE CONGO SITUATION AND THE UNITED NATIONS
3.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice: To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the serious deterioration in the Congo situation, and of the attacks yesterday by President Tshombe on the United Nations and its Secretary-General, they will make a statement.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, the situation in the Katanga has deteriorated in the past week. Incidents which have taken place have resulted in casualties on both sides. The Katangans are believed by the United Nations to be holding a number of United Nations servicemen and civilians, although they have only admitted to Her Majesty's Consul to holding one. The United Nations deny that they hold any Katanga gendarmes. Her Majesty's Consul has told Mr. Kimba on his own initiative that he hopes that any prisoners held will be released at once. Mr. Kimba, I understand, is acting in Mr. Tshombe's absence. He has since repeated this at the request of the United Nations. I have seen reports of Mr. Tshombe's speech in Paris on December 4, and I regret very much the nature of his intemperate remarks. There is a serious danger that a continuation of these incidents may lead to serious fighting. Her Majesty's Government will therefore continue their efforts to lower the tension in every way open to them.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am much obliged to the Foreign Secretary for his reply. I take especial note of what

13
he says, and I am very pleased to see it: that the Government will
"continue their efforts to lower the tension in every way open to them".
But with regard to this Congo situation may we have some idea as to what the Government's intentions are regarding the charges made by the recently resigned representative of the United Nations in the Congo against the British Government, the French Government and the Belgian Government, as well as, I think, the very intemperate suggestions about many British citizens in a later statement? As there is a very grave charge against the British Government for a breach of faith with regard to the implementation of the United Nations resolution, ought not the Government at once to make an official statement?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, one really cannot make official statements in response to every melodramatic statement which is made anywhere in the world. But I will just make quite clear what the British Government's position is in the context of what Mr. O'Brien said. The question of Mr. O'Brien's employment is purely one for the United Nations and for the Irish Government. They were his two employers. Her Majesty's Government are not concerned in the matter at all.
The policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the Congo has been made crystal clear in statement after statement, first by myself in the United Nations General Assembly debate; secondly, by my right honourable friend the Lord Privy Seal in another place; and, thirdly, by Sir Patrick Dean, our Permanent Representative in the United Nations. All of us have made clear that we believe that the use of force in the Katanga by the United Nations should be limited to preventing civil war and maintaining order; and that was included in the resolution of February 21. When the recent resolution went beyond that, we made it quite clear in public in the United Nations that we thought that was a mistake. Equally, we have never lost any opportunity in telling Mr. Tshombe and his Ministers in the Katanga that we did not believe that Katanga had any future as an independent State and that therefore he should come together with Mr. Adoula, the
14
Prime Minister, in Leopoldville, and they should work out between them a Constitution for the Congo, which would be broadly representative of what the Congolese people want. Those have been the only two activities which the United Kingdom Government have undertaken, and, I must repeat, we still think that the use of force beyond preventing civil war and maintaining law and order does more harm than good in the Congo.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am very much obliged for the Foreign Secretary's very full statement. Of course, we knew of his original statement in the House at the time he made it, and we appreciated it, but it is a pity that an equally clear statement was not issued on behalf of the Government immediately these charges appeared in the Press. I think it is a great pity that that was not done. If still we have to put on the Foreign Secretary's statement an interpretation of what it really means, does it not mean this? If these charges that the British Government have been an obstacle, with others, to the carrying out of the United Nations policy in the Congo, as laid down by the United Nations themselves, are not correct, then Mr. O'Brien is just simply not telling the truth. And that is what I think is the position arising from the Foreign Secretary's statement.
LORD REA: My Lords, before the Foreign Secretary answers, might I say that, while we all very much welcome his assurance regarding the excessive use of force, there is, nevertheless, a broad feeling of surprise that this comparatively minor area of Katanga can be standing up against the whole strength of the United Nations and, to some extent, getting away with it. Can he assure the House that steps such as sanctions, or something on those lines, are being taken to bring the full force of world opinion against the Katanga into effective use?
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, before the Foreign Secretary answers that, may I ask whether this House does not support the Foreign Secretary in his determination to seek peace and ensure it in the Congo, and whether the Foreign Secretary and the House do not think that it is not a case, or should not be, of the United Nations being against Tshombe, but that both sides, Adoula

15
and Tshombe, have their rights, and that the right thing to do is to try to bring about a solution which brings them together, not by suppression but by conciliation?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, could I please reply now, otherwise we shall get confused with too many questions. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rea, and I stated this many times. The objective which we all want to see, and which I take it most people want to see, in the United Nations, is a united Congo. I myself have made it clear that I think the obvious solution is a federal or a confederal solution that suits African conditions. What we have to do—but so far it has not been possible —is to make these African gentlemen come together to talk about the solution. The Katanga is not the only part the Congo in which there is a secessionist movement. There is a strong secessionist movement by Mr. Gizenga in Stanleyville; and, therefore, if United Nations policy is applied it must be applied all over, equally and fairly, and there must not be selection. But it is not for us, indeed, or the United Nations, to say what constitutional pattern the Congolese should adopt. This must be worked out by the Congolese themselves and must not be worked out, in our opinion, by force applied from outside.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, while recognising that the Congo is not viable without Katanga's being a part of it, it is not nevertheless the fact, or at any rate a view that can be sustained, that it would be better to build a new Congo around the only part of it in which there is law and order and viability rather than try to destroy that part and thus add to the chaos which exists in the greater part of the Congo?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, we have great anxiety that the situation in the Congo should not be made worse, and we have made it quite clear that we think the application of force in the way I have described was in danger of making it worse, and indeed has contributed to some extent to the deterioration of the situation. But I must repeat that the only satisfactory solution for the future of the Congo must be one worked out
16
by the Congolese themselves. I think this country could supply many able advisers who could help the Congolese in these matters. I wish it were possible that we could do so, and I hope somebody will be found who will be able to act as a go-between or a conciliator to help Mr. Adoula and Mr. Tshombe to come together to settle the constitutional pattern.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, may I take it that the Government are continuing in constant touch on this matter with the other African States who are members of the Commonwealth?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not think it is any good concealing that from the earliest days when Mr. Lumumba began to operate there have been some differences within the Commonwealth. But there are Commonwealth meetings in the United Nations every fortnight, when the Commonwealth members meet together and these matters are discussed. I was present at one myself not long ago. I think everybody will feel that in the present dangerous situation all the efforts of the United Nations and the members of the Commonwealth who are concerned about this matter should be applied to pacification and conciliation, and not to the application of force.

TOXIC CHEMICALS IN AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STORAGE
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, with the permission of the House, perhaps I may now make a short statement which s as follows: The Report of the Research Study Group on Toxic Chemicals in Agriculture and Food Storage has been published to-day. Copies have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. This group of scientists has made a thorough survey of the considerable amount of research now going on into the use of toxic chemicals in agriculture and food storage, with particular referenceto protecting human beings, farm animals, bees and the different forms of wild life against possible hazards.

17
The conclusions of the Report are that protective measures now in force are generally successful, but it affirms and spells out the need for more fundamental and applied research into various problems arising in this field. The Government accept the conclusions and intend to implement the Group's recommendations to the full extent of the additional resources which can be made available.
The Government are indebted to Professor Sanders and his colleagues for their helpful Report.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have not had an opportunity to study the Report. May I ask whether the Committee indicate what particular measures are successful, in view of the heavy destruction which was caused previously, or are they suggesting that the measures now taken to restrict the use of certain toxic chemicals at certain seasons of the year will be successful in the future?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the Report, as noble Lords will find when they come to read it, summarises a number of ways in which additional work, and additional fundamental and applied research, are needed. They came to the conclusion on examining the evidence that, on the whole—I will quote the words again which I used in the statement:
"… protective measures now in force are generally successful …"
but that further research is needed.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, is there any proposal in this Report that statutory effect should be given by regulations to prevent or to minimise the amount of toxic chemicals getting into foodstuffs?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No. my Lords. I think, with respect, it would perhaps be more convenient for the House if we could study this Report and its number of recommendations first. If noble Lords want to discuss it and debate it, I have no doubt it can be arranged through the usual channels.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, could I draw the noble Earl's attention to an article in the British Medical Journal of the week before last on this question, in which it states that
18
our knowledge of the toxic effects of many of these food additives, whether fertilisers or other materials added to the food to-day to preserve it, and so on, is very limited? In fact it is a most alarming article in which this authoritative paper, the British Medical Journal, warns the public consuming these foods that there is no authoritative Committee manned by people with specialist knowledge which can definitely say what is harmful and what is not.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I am afraid I have to confess to the noble Baroness that I have not read that report yet. Now that she has drawn it to my attention I am sure that the noble Viscount the Lord President of the Council and the appropriate Ministers and I myself will study it with the greatestcare.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the complacency of the Committee would not be shared by beekeepers in this country?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I think when the noble Lord has read this report he will not find it unduly complacent.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, will the Minister assure us he will not wait for a debate to take place in this House or in another place before his Department and that of the Minister for Science give urgent consideration to the need to provide fresh funds to carry out the extra research which this Report says is needed?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the provision of funds is always a matter to be considered in the appropriate quarters. I hope the House will accept what I have said: that the Government accept the conclusions and intend to implement there commendations to the full extent of the resources which can be made available.

CIVIL AVIATION (EUROCONTROL) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.
COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE (WESTERN SAMOA) ORDER, 1961
3.19 p.m.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the purpose of this draft Order-in Council is to continue to include Western Samoa in the Commonwealth preference area after she becomes independent on January 1, 1962. Western Samoa is at present administered by the Government of New Zealand under a United Nations Trusteeship Agreement. This Trusteeship Agreement comes to an end on January1st, 1962. The Western Samoan Government have asked the New Zealand Government to request us to continue to grant preferences, as we do at present. In return, the Western Samoans have agreed to maintain the preferences which they grant to us.
The preferences which we grant to Western Samoa are of real importance to her economy. Her main products are copra and cocoa. Over half her exports of cocoa and nearly half her exports of copra come to the United Kingdom.
The Import Duties Act, 1958, grants power by Order-in-Council to add the name of any country to those already appearing in Section 2 (4) of the Act as parts of the Commonwealth preference area. The draft Order-in-Council now before the House makes use of this power. This is the first occasion on which we have sought to make use of the Order-in-Council procedure to keep a country in the Commonwealth preference area after it has become independent. This is because whenever our Colonies have achieved independence, a separate Independence Act has been required and a clause has been inserted in such Acts to the effect that the country shall be added to those already listed in Section 2 (4) of the Import Duties Act. No such Act of Parliament is required for the grant of independence to Western Samoa. That is why we are proposing to use the Order-in-Council procedure. I hope that, with this explanation, the House will agree that the draft Order-in-Council should be approved.
Moved, That the Commonwealth Preference (Western Samoa) Order, 1961, be approved.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one question—namely, is it the intention of the Government to consider the exports of Western Samoa in the course of the negotiations that are taking place about the entry of the United Kingdom into the Common Market?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, if this Order is approved and preferences are given to Western Samoa, they will of course be facts of our trade. They will undoubtedly have to be considered, just as all the other facts of our trade with Commonwealth countries or under other trade agreements must be considered in negotiation with the Common Market countries.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUMMER TIME (1962) ORDER, 1961
3.23 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper. Summer time is fixed by the Acts of 1922 and 1925 to run from the Sunday following the third Saturday in April (unless that Sunday is Easter day, when it is the Sunday after the second Saturday) to the Sunday after the first Saturday in October. The Act of 1947, however, provided a procedure for varying this period in any particular year, and it is under that Act that this present Order has been laid.
The purpose of the Order is to continue for another year the summer time arrangements adopted this year, which received general assent in both Houses. This arrangement extended the normal statutory period of summer time which I have just mentioned by adding three weeks extra in the spring and three weeks in the autumn. Public reaction appears to have been generally favourable to this experiment. The Government have therefore decided to propose a similar extension for this coming year, 1962; so that summer time will run from March 25 until October 28. In the light of public reaction to this year's experiment, and also of any expressions of view which may be made by your

21
Lordships to-day or by honourable gentlemen in another place next week, we will consider whether some permanent modification of the arrangements laid down in the Acts of 1922 and 1925 should be made.
The chief merit of the modification on the lines of the proposals now put forward for next year would be that an extended period for summer time probably represents the best compromise as between the various interests which must be considered, and would bring the greatest benefit to the largest number of people in the country. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Summer Time (1962) Order, 1961, be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd of November last.—(Earl Bathurst.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I am sure that most of your Lordships will welcome and approve this statement. But it would he of convenience if we could, as soon as possible, try to make this permanent. It is a little difficult to have this uncertainty from year to year, and now that we shall have tried it for two years, if the general reaction is a favourable one I hope the Government will consider introducing legislation or giving some indication that this is now an established practice.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, by "established practice" does the noble Lord mean the extension now proposed or permanent summer time all the year round?
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I certainly appreciate what the noble Lord has said, but there are many hundreds of thousands of people who will take an opposite view, and I suggest that, in the course of this coming year, we shall be much clearer as to what Her Majesty's subjects would really like.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
3.26 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a third time, I should inform your Lordships that two noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, gave notice that they wanted to raise the question of aliens on the Third Reading. I hope it will suit the convenience of your Lordships if I move the Third Reading formally and then, after hearing what the noble Lords say, do the best I can to reply to their points. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a, —(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, I had given notice that I would raise this point on Third Reading. After further consideration, and in view of a Bill which will be coming to this House at some time, I think it might be more convenient if I deferred any observations on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and on the general question of immigration until we have had this other measure before us. I therefore do not propose to take advantage of this opportunity.
3.28 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, we said nothing on this subject on Second Reading because, on the appeal of Lord Silkin that the hour was somewhat late —it was not very late but it was somewhat late—and in view of the engagements that people had elsewhere, it was felt desirable not to proceed with it on that occasion. I myself do not think that we ought to let a Bill of this kind go forward without a word being said on it at any stage of its passage through the House. Therefore, while I am not going to be long, I think I should just say one word in reference to the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act. This Act and the orders made under it come before Parliament every year. We therefore apply to aliens and to the immigration of aliens a Parliamentary

23
check which is quite important and which no doubt is felt by them and by others as meaning that Parliament has under continuous survey their rights, if they have any, or the desirability of their being allowed into this country.
The Government have now announced, however, that so far as the immigration of Commonwealth citizens is concerned there shall be a five years' review period. All I want to ask is: why should we treat our Commonwealth citizens in this way when, every year, we consider the convenience of aliens? I am not asking for any better treatment for Commonwealth citizens. I am asking, what has decided the Government on this difference in treatment between aliens and our fellow citizens of the Commonwealth?
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, I want to make one point —namely, that the present policy on the admission of aliens is much more stringent than is proposed for Commonwealth citizens under the Bill. I draw attention to one point in particular: that work permits for aliens are granted by the Ministry of Labour only if a job is available which cannot be filled by persons already in the United Kingdom, whether British or alien. I thought that that ought to be generally realised. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has drawn attention to the fact that there is a Bill in another place that contains a provision for the period of review, and of course it will be open to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, to discuss the provision and what he thinks is the correct period when the Bill comes before us.
In view of Lord Ogmore's first remark about the general position, I hope your Lordships will bear with me if, in a few sentences, I give the general picture. I promise the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition that I will not be more than five minutes, but I think it is right that we should just take note of the position. In the year ending September 30, 1961, 1,787,566 aliens came to this country. Of these, only 2,984 were refused admission.
LORD SILKIN: Would the noble and learned Viscount repeat the number who came to this country?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, 1,787,566 is the exact number of aliens who came to this country, and the number refused admission was 2,984.
LORD SILKIN: This would include tourists, would it not?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes. I am going to deal with that point, but I wanted, first of all, to put the general picture to your Lordships. I am told that the ratio of refusals to the total number of foreign arrivals is 1 in 552, and the percentage is 0.18 per cent. Again very briefly may I tell you of whom the 2,984 consisted? On employment grounds as having no permit for employment, there were 1,148; those with insufficient means and no permit were 466; those who came for residence —that is, for permanent settlement—but were ineligible were 440; stowaways were 141; those with no valid passport or travel document were 262; those with no visa, 56; those undesirable on medical grounds, 87; and miscellaneous undesirables, including aliens known to have a criminal record or background, 384. My Lords, if my arithmetic is right, the 384, who were refused on the grounds on which the discussion generally settled, were 1 in 5,000 or ·02 per cent.
Now, my Lords, I should like to turn to one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised when we discussed this matter on a previous occasion. He will remember that one matter that we had in mind was registration with the police. Under the 1960 Order there was a relaxation, and aliens accepted for permanent residence were exempted. At January 1 this year 405,000 aliens were registered with the police. By September 30 over 295,000 were so exempt, and the number who had to register with the police on that date was reduced to 120,000.
The noble Lord asked me about holidaymakers. Holiday visitors, tourists, et cetera, intending to stay for six months or less amounted to no fewer than 1,062,289, and visitors intending to stay more than six but less than twelve months were 3,799. Business visitors intending to stay for six months or less were 269,506, giving a total of 1,335,594. Of the holidaymakers, over 70,000 aliens travelled to the

25
United Kingdom for short holiday visits, using their national identity cards and the British visitors' card, under the special O.E.C.D. scheme. My Lords. I need not harp on the importance of over a million visitors. It is, of course, a vital part of our export trade. That is the general picture, and I hope I have said sufficient, but not too much, to show that on the figures—and I think this would be confirmed if I went into individual cases—the Act and the orders have been administered liberally and sympathetically. That is always the object of the Home Office and I am sure they will try to continue to do that. I think I have just taken my five minutes and no more, but I felt that I ought to give that picture in view of what had been said.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

COMMONWEALTH CONSULTATION
3.37 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH rose to call attention to the importance for the successful functioning of the Commonwealth of the fullest consultation between the member States; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in rising to move this Motion I must apologise for the enforced absence, through indisposition, of my noble friend Lord Attlee. I knew about it only two or three hours ago, and I may, therefore, not be as effective a substitute in moving this Motion as I should desire to be. We shall greatly miss, on our side at any rate, the knowledge and experience of Lord Attlee on all these very important Commonwealth questions, especially in regard to procedure and as to what is advisable or not advisable.
In talks I have had in recent weeks with my noble friend Lord Attlee, he has been exceedingly concerned, personally, about the situation and the prospects in certain aspects of Commonwealth affairs. We have to remember that we have seen not only a very remarkable expansion in the number of independent States in the Commonwealth in the last fifteen years, but also other States within the Commonwealth which have not yet been given independence but which have already made very large strides towards their own independence. At a time
26
when affairs in the world are particularly disturbed and when there are often hazardous circumstances, it is tremendously important, it seems to us, that we should have the best possible arrangements. While not expecting unanimity on every single issue, either from them or from ourselves, there should be the maximum possible amount of agreement, which would lead, in my view at any rate, to the proper place that the Commonwealth ought to take in the affairs of the world.
In the last few months we have been unhappy about the question of consultations between this country and the member States of the Commonwealth. Indeed, there have been occasions over the past few years when we have been equally unhappy. It would perhaps be pertinent to go back just a few years only and to think of some of the main occasions upon which this issue has been raised in the minds and felt in the hearts of members of the Commonwealth overseas. I go back, in the first place, only as far as 1956, and to the great issue which arose with regard to the action of this country, in conjunction with France, in the campaign which was undertaken in Egypt. There were remarkable evidences then, it seemed to us, that there was a very large amount of disagreement in the Commonwealth about the action then taken, and pretty good evidence that perhaps some of the best parts of the case which the Government might have had on their side at that time had not been fully understood previously, or put over to the individual Parliaments and the representatives of the peoples of those Dominions.
It is interesting just to think of what was the situation in the minds of the leading representatives of the Commonwealth at the end of that particular period, when Britain and France had to withdraw from the position in which they had become involved and had to accept the view of the United Nations leading up to the cease-fire.
I would not wish to take too long a time in giving all the instances, nor is there any need to do so; but although there was some agreement on the part of the Menzies Government (if I may distinguish it in that way) of Australia, the general reports of the feeling in Australia then were nearly all against

27
the attitude that this country had adopted, which they regarded as very serious indeed because of the danger at that time of its leading to a much wider and more harmful conflict. In going back over our information, I took particular note of what was the opinion as expressed in Canada. Mr. St. Laurent said, in a national broadcast on November 4 of that year, that
"the present crisis had strained at the bonds of the Commonwealth more than any event had since the Second World War."
That statement could be very much enlarged upon if I went into it in detail. It is also important to remember the opinion at that time of such a leading statesman as Mr. Nehru.
Then, although New Zealand had up to that time almost invariably given traditional support to British foreign policy, at that time they were undoubtedly seized of serious reservations. The late Mr. Holland, who was then the Prime Minister of New Zealand, submitted that several features of the situation were disturbing, and expressed the hope that
"there should in due course be a wider understanding of the considerations which have motivated Britain in her present action".
That seemed to indicate what we then submitted: that there had hardly been the proper amount of consultation between ourselves, called the Mother Country, and the growing numbers of the constituents of this great Commonwealth. When one considers what the results might have been if we had gone any further at that time without the support of at least the majority of the Commonwealth nations (and with insufficient backing, in consequence, of world opinion) to enable us to reach the goal that this country had set for itself, one realises that the disasters would have been almost unbelievable. And yet much of the difficulty could have been saved, I think, by adequate consultation before the event.
I move forward to the next incident that I have in mind, which is almost by way of being a contrast. I refer to the further difficulties that arose in 1958 in the situation in the Middle East. There you had two events: you had the American troops taking the occasion to invade the Lebanon for specific purposes; and, within a comparatively
28
short time, you had our own nation sending troops to the assistance of and to strengthen Jordan. All the records about that event which I have been through hurriedly this morning show quite clearly that there had been such consultations then, in 1958, as to get an entirely different reaction from the majority of the Commonwealth. In fact, practically all the members of the Commonwealth—not quite all: India was still dissident, but nearly all the other members of the Commonwealth—were able to express their understanding of the reasons for these very important projects, which were carried through, of putting American troops into the Lebanon and, later on, British troops into Jordan. Consultation at that time, therefore, seemed to be absolutely essential, and its value was proved, I think, by the actual results of that particular incident.
I come now to two later examples of the need for adequate consultation, and consultation in time. I come to the issue which has become so full of publicity and which has been the subject of as widespread and insistent a pressure group in this country, I should think, as you had over the independent television issue in 1952 and 1953; that is, the question of our entry into the Common Market. The reactions within the Commonwealth will, of course, have to be considered when the sum total of the result of the negotiations, which the Government persuaded Parliament to accept with a view to our entering the Common Market, is known. They will have to be sized up when we know exactly what those conclusions are. We do not know at the moment.
But, in the process of getting to the situation we have now reached, there surely has been far too little consultation, and very often what consultation has taken place has come about not in the kind of way that is appropriate in such a matter. After all, it has now been stated by Government after Government, by our own and by Dominion Governments, and by leading representatives of the six nations in the Common Market, that the event of our joining, if it occurs, will be an outstanding thing in history—in the history of our country, in the history of Europe and in the history of the world. Professor Hallstein said, for example, that even

29
the application of this country for admittance to the Common Market, into the E.E.C., is the greatest thing which has happened to them since their establishment. So there you are.
Now, in this matter you have a "mixed grill" to consider. You have the general economic affairs of the Six, the conditions in each of their countries; you have the general economic conditions in every one of the States within the British Commonwealth; you have our own condition at home as to the effect upon different classes of occupation and industry. That is the economic side. Then there is also the political side, something which is of fundamental importance to the whole of the Commonwealth, because it is quite clear from looking at the later speeches of Her Majesty's Ministers that in this application to enter the Common Market they are as much concerned on the political issues and the political effects as they are upon the economic question. I could suppose from the speeches of the Prime Minister which have been delivered from time to time on this matter, which I have carefully read, that when you are thinking of political questions you are thinking only of the possible build-up of an economic and political answer in Europe to the possible danger of an equally large, or larger, economic and political force in the north of Europe.
But is that the only great political issue likely to be connected with the Common Market? Surely, not so. We have had a tradition in this country for centuries that, if we could possibly avoid it, we would never be placed in a situation in which we should be tied in to the policy and politics of Europe from which we should not be able to extricate ourselves. It is true that, in spite of that tradition, we have not been able to exclude ourselves from three tremendous campaigns—the campaign against the French in the early part of the nineteenth century, and the last two great wars in Europe into which we were pushed or drawn, not only in my lifetime but in the lifetime of most of us.
But when you come to think of the conditions which are attached politically to this situation you can understand that members of the Commonwealth, some of whom I have talked to, are not
30
only concerned with whether Imperial Preference remains or not, or with who is to gain or who is to lose by the withdrawal of Imperial Preference, if that should come about; they are also concerned about the whole political basis of the future of the Commonwealth and its constituent nations as affected by any complete tie-up which takes place politically between us and Europe. Whether they are right or whether the Government are right, I am not here to say to-day. But what I do say is that it is clear to me that there has not been anything like adequate consultation, nor, very often, has there been consultation in time. How can we justify, for example, the visit that was announced of Mr. Heath to Europe to discuss in advance all these matters; and then, for weeks and weeks afterwards, Mr. Duncan Sandys, as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, making a torrent of visits around the Commonwealth to find out what the individual Governments were thinking? Is it not amazing, in these circumstances, that these talks of Mr. Heath, which commenced in April, were preceded by a conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in this country last March, when apparently this matter was never discussed officially at all?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I think I ought to put that right out of the noble Viscount's mind, in case he makes more of it. A special meeting was held between the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Lord Privy Seal and the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, to talk about nothing other than the Common Market.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I am very glad to know that, or to be reminded of it, because it was certainly not in my mind as I was speaking this afternoon. However, I would say that nothing of that nature appeared on the agenda of the Conference as a matter which they would be prepared to discuss; that was not done. I think that is a very great pity indeed, and I stick to my view that, at any rate, there has not been adequate consultation in this matter. The feelings which have been created in the Commonwealth already on various items connected with the application have been, I think, quite sufficiently brought to the

31
public notice so far as they could be. If you look at the representations and the statements which have from time to time been made by Canadian Ministers —Canada being our oldest Dominion—I think there can be no doubt at all as to what the feeling has been. While at last the statement of Mr. Heath which was made in Paris on October 10 has kindly been allowed to come into the possession of the Governments of the Commonwealth, this seems to me to have been just dragged out of the Government and it has left a feeling in the Commonwealth that certainly is not helpful or conducive to the extension of the best arrangements within the Commonwealth.
From that matter, I now come to our experience with regard to a Bill which is now before another place—namely, the Bill to deal with immigration into this country. Here, again, I make the charge on this occasion—and I hope the Foreign Secretary will note it, and I say this deliberately—that there has been insufficient consultation with the Commonwealth with regard to immigration. Certainly this issue was not discussed at the last Prime Ministers' Conference. Here is a Bill which has been printed and is now under discussion in the British Parliament. I, in company, probably, with many other Members of your Lordships' House, viewed last night the programme "Panorama" on B.B.C. television, in which Sir Grantley Adams was interviewed on this question of immigration. Unless the Foreign Secretary can show later that it is not true, I suggest it was remarkable when he said that, as Prime Minister of the West Indies Federation, he was informed of this only when he was at Barbados on October 15—and then he was given very little information, or so I gathered from what he said. I think this is a very great pity and a very great mistake.
Let us think of the results that may accrue in the Commonwealth because of this. Whilst we seem to have regarded, almost with equanimity, the departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth on the ground of their apartheid policy, we are now faced with an Immigration Bill, on which the Commonwealth was insufficiently informed and not adequately consulted in time, which was published first of all
32
under the cover of being quite general in application, covering also immigrants from Eire, but which now, as Sir Grantley Adams said last night, is clearly a Bill which remains only as a form of colour bar.
If anybody has any doubts whether that sort of feeling is confined to the West Indies alone, he had better look at the statement which was made this week with regard to this matter by Mr. Nehru. He went so far as to say that, if the Government proceeded with this Bill, then India will have to consider whether she will take action in the other direction by laying down limitations against the immigration of citizens from this country into India. Surely we should have proper consultation and agree on scheduling the actual points on which there may be disagreement, so that they can be gone into properly before anything happens. This seems to me to be a fundamental error.
I will not take any longer upon that point because I do not want to be too long altogether, but I want to say a final word with regard to the Congo. During Question Time we had a very satisfactory answer from the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, but I am anxious to have an extension of what he said in reply to a supplementary question. In dealing with the United Nations policy in the Congo, I want to know how far we keep in touch all the time with the African States. I want to know what are the views expressed to us by the African States on this matter and what is to be the proper application of the United Nations' decision.
I was immensely interested in the interview last night between a B.B.C. correspondent in Tanganyika and the Prime Minister of that country. In reply to a specific question on whether he thought that the United Nations' action in the Congo was right and whether they ought to have taken action against Katanga and Tshombe, he said, in effect, that the United Nations should do what the Congo nation desires. There is a Congo nation and the United Nations should support them in what they want to do for a free democracy in that country. If I gathered correctly the general view of the Foreign Secre-tary this afternoon, I do not think that he would be against that view.

33
But how do you carry out the decision of the United Nations? It is perfectly true, as the Foreign Secretary said, that our aim is to seek peace within the Congo and to avoid a civil war. I do not exactly know what the functions of the United Nations are supposed to be in this matter, but I should feel much happier if I could be quite sure that Tanganyika, Uganda, Kenya, Ghana and Sierra Leone, as well as the older Colonies in Africa, had really been consulted in this matter, which is so vital to them, with their racial position and their future still to be made, both constitutionally and economically, so as to raise the standards of their people and give them a higher level of social justice.
Everything seems to be affected by the procedure which is adopted. In the absence of my noble friend Lord Attlee, I have not gone over in detail, as I am sure he could have done, the action we took between 1945 and 1951 in arriving at the conferences of Prime Ministers of the Dominions, where many subjects were very successfully dealt with. Of course, these were by no means the only, though perhaps they were the most important, part of consultations with the Dominions. There are two obvious channels for this. There is the channel for dealing with all matters between individual States and ourselves bilaterally. There is also the channel for dealing with matters in the wide cockpit of the world, matters to be brought before the United Nations, where subjects can be decided either in the individual Commissions or in the Security Council or in the General Assembly. Are we satisfied that our procedure is right there?
I was interested to hear the Foreign Secretary say that there was a regular procedure for the representatives of the British nation at the United Nations to consult with the representatives of other members of the Commonwealth. But how far does that go? With what strength can our views be expressed and maintained? Of course, there is the procedure through the High Commissioner and his office. He virtually acts as the ambassador of this country. I should like the Foreign Secretary to tell us whether this is working out satisfactorily and whether it ought not to be specially examined, to see that the
34
machinery is large and efficient enough to cope with the expanding nature of the British Commonwealth. We want to see the Commonwealth not only expanded but grounded on the great principles on which we have tried to bring our Dominions into the highest and best democratic practice. I want to see that continued. Whatever other developments take place, I want the Commonwealth to become a third force in the world, because that would be bound to make for peace. justice and security. I beg to move for Papers.
4.8 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am sure we are all sorry indeed that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has been prevented by indisposition from being with us to-day. I trust that his indisposition will soon be removed. We feel a severe loss by his not being here, because he had an enormous experience in Commonwealth consultations. As I know from personal experience, he always took a keen interest in the fastest possible consultation before an event happened which concerned the Commonwealth. I would stress that we need not only consultation, but also consultation in plenty of time. We are all grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who has had the difficult task of coming in at the last moment. We sympathise with him and express our thanks for the way in which he opened the debate.
There is no doubt about it, the Commonwealth is disturbed and confused. Many of us lately had an opportunity of representing the United Kingdom at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, the fiftieth conference of the Association, which took place fin the Royal Gallery and was opened by Her Majesty the Queen. To me, listening to speech after speech from the large number of delegates who attended, it was obvious that the decision to enter the Common Market had disturbed and surprised them. They all complained that they had not had sufficient notice and that the reasons for the decision had not been properly explained to them. I think it was a little unfortunate that some of our Ministers were unable to make early speeches at the Conference and thus possibly remove a lot of the doubts, but certainly

35
it occurred to me that those who were speaking felt themselves rather in the position of children whose parents they thought, for one reason or another, were going to leave them and were very upset and undecided about the whole thing.
To those of us from the United Kingdom who were listening it was, in a way, pathetic to realise that such old friends could ever have this feeling. I say this as one who was a keen supporter of the United Kingdom's entry into the negotiations. I am still a supporter of the Common Market, unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who is against it. It was, therefore, particularly disturbing to me that this should have been the case.
The other issue, which has come up later than this Conference in September, is the decision to proceed with the Immigration Bill. I am not sure whether these two measures are, in a sense, symptoms of or causes in the decline of the close Commonwealth spirit that we used to have; nor am I sure altogether whether the Government are innocent or guilty in the matter. But, obviously, whatever our views may be on the issues themselves, there has not been sufficient consultation in good time.
The allegations have recently crystallised in statements made by two prominent statesmen in the Commonwealth. The first was by Mr. Fleming, the Canadian Minister of Finance. He said of an article in the Guardian:
"Its statement that I knew almost the whole contents of Mr. Heath's speech on October 10' before I arrived in London a week ago is false in its entirety. I have never seen the speech nor received any briefing on its content apart from the summary which the British Government issued to the Commonwealth Governments on October 10. The statement that my advisers and I were taken through 62 main paragraphs of the Heath text, paragraph by paragraph' is not true. Even the suggestion that I was aware of the contents of the Heath statement when I saw Mr. Macmillan, apart from the authorised summary of it, is false."
These are very strong statements to make. Presumably the Guardian received their information from official sources or they would not have published it in such a categorical way: in fact, they did not withdraw as a result of that statement by Mr. Fleming, but the reporter stuck to the whole of his report. There evidently is a serious clash between Her
36
Majesty's Government, or the official views put out by them, and Mr. Fleming from Canada. It is particularly unfortunate in that, in my opinion, Mr. Heath's speech was an excellent one. I read it with great interest and I could not see anything in it from which I would dissent. In fact, it would have been first-class if we could have had Mr. Heath's speech at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in September; if he had led off with that, I am sure it would not only have calmed the feelings of the various delegates, but would have enabled the Conference to turn to other matters instead of having a long series of speeches on the worries over the Common Market, much of which was due to misapprehension of the likely effects of entering the Common Market. Why on earth there was this secrecy over this excellent speech, I cannot understand.
Another point is that it got to the Americans and eventually to the Press and was put out on an agency report before the Commonwealth received it. I fail to understand how anybody could be so naïve as to think that what was said at an international conference held in Paris, Brussels or elsewhere was going to be retained in secrecy. Mr. Heath has not had a lone experience in international affairs, we know, but surely his advisers could have advised him that nothing said at an international conference is ever secret. With dozens and dozens of people getting to know the text, it is quite impossible. I have no doubt that there were some who felt, as I did, that this was an excellent statement and wondered why it should be kept from the world. It seems to me very hamhanded or flatfooted of the British Government and their advisers to have kept this statement from the Commonwealth, so that they got it only in such a roundabout way, after so many others had already had it and considered it.
As to the Immigration Bill, which is the second subject on which this feeling of the Commonwealth has become crystallised, as the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has said, Sir Grantley Adams delivered a strong attack on the Bill over the week-end. He said that the first he knew of its being introduced was when Mr. Butler made a statement to that effect at the Conservative Party Conference. I must say

37
that that is an odd way of letting the Commonwealth know of the intentions of the Government on this matter which particularly affects them. I do not regard a Party political conference as being in any way a substitute for consultation and consultative machinery in relation to the Commonwealth. Sir Grantley Adams also said, according to a report in The Times to-day, that the Bill was announced on October 11, and his Government received the text of the Bill on November 16.
What are the causes for this failure to keep the Commonwealth informed? They can be only two. The first is a desire to keep the Commonwealth in the dark; or, alternatively, it is a lack of efficiency. My own experience of the Commonwealth Relations Office leads me to believe that there is unlikely to be any inefficiency. They have a long experience of getting out to Commonwealth countries information which affects them, and I should be most surprised if there were any inefficiency whatsoever on the part of the Commonwealth Relations Office. It is significant, I think, that the Under-Secretary for the Commonwealth is not replying to this debate to-day. The Foreign Secretary is to reply, and that would seem to imply that there has been no breakdown whatever in the machinery of the Commonwealth Relations Office. I am sure that is so.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I ought to explain that I received an apology from the Duke of Devonshire. He explained that he had another engagement which was rather important; and we had not given very long notice of our Motion. So I do not think I ought to let my noble friend draw deductions from that.
LORD OCIMORE: I am grateful to the noble Viscount, because otherwise it seemed rather odd to me that the noble Duke, who is actually sitting opposite at the moment in spite of his important engagement, should not be taking part in the debate. However, it was Government policy to keep the Commonwealth in the dark. That is the only conclusion to which we can come.
The first question to which I think we should like an answer is: why did Her Majesty's Government keep the Commonwealth in the dark? Why did they not give them the information to
38
which they were entitled? Quite frankly, I think the House, Parliament, and the country, whatever their political feelings may be, desire an answer to this question. I will not labour the matter, but simply hope that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary will give us an answer.
The second matter that arises on this question is that it shows once again the absence of proper machinery for Commonwealth consultation as a whole. There are no central arrangements for consultation; there are no organisations providing the central machinery for Commonwealth consultation; there is no Parliamentary body, even on the lines of the N.A.T.O. Parliamentarians' Conference, which can discuss problems of this kind, because the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference we held recently is not a Parliamentary Conference in any real sense of the word. It has not yet developed into a shape in which it could perform those tasks, though I hope it will do so in time. Why is there not some central machinery which might be able, as it were, to substitute for the present lack of information? I think the reason goes far back into history, and it is more than anything else because Canada was against any central machinery of this kind. Australia was always for it, and the United Kingdom sat on the fence. That is really the reason. If there are no such organisations, what does the Commonwealth become as more and more Colonies get independence and become independent members? Does it simply mean the weakening of the links of trade and defence, and just a dwindling sentiment? Many of us in this country, I must confess, are as puzzled as the Commonwealth at the way in which things are going and the lack of any real drive and central organisation in the Commonwealth field.
The position of the United Kingdom, whether in or out of the Common Market is, of course, changing fast. In relation to the other members of the Commonwealth and the outside world, our status has obviously changed materially since the end of the war and since we ceased to be an imperialist Power. The psychological and practical effects of this change are being felt in this country and abroad, and will be felt more and more as time goes on. I do not feel that we are considering them at

39
all, and it may mean that in a very few years' time we may find there is no Commonwealth left because no one has been doing anything to retain those links. I remember some years ago somebody saying that it was decided to do away with the British Council in some Commonwealth countries. That was the decision of the Government. I remember saying in your Lordships' House then, "You dare not do away with that sort of link in the old Commonwealth countries, in places like New Zealand and Australia. You cannot assume that fourth or fifth generations of Australians or New Zealanders are going to have exactly the same sentiment towards us as their grandfathers or great grand? fathers had." If you have flowers, you have to water them. If you have friendship, you have to keep it refreshed. if you have links, they have to be strengthened.
As to the new Commonwealth countries, their status is completely experimental. What happens? We grant independence to one of these countries, and before the ink is dry on the Charter of Independence they are plunged into the heady atmosphere of the United Nations. They are taken off to where they get stupendous receptions, and before you know where you are they are making inflammatory speeches, possibly against us, in the United Nations. They get into the orbit of the Afro-Asian Group or Middle-East Group, and there is no Commonwealth Group which can retain their allegiance and friendship. It seems to me a most extraordinary way to carry on a Commonwealth. You give all the tricks to your opponents, and you retain none in your own hands.
There is one further thing I should like to say. We are in an entirely new set of circumstances and a rapidly changing world. There are new adjustments to be made, and I feel that in this country and in the Commonwealth we have to study new methods of association and show more understanding and enthusiasm for the great ideal of the Commonwealth, which is being allowed to drift away through inattention and very often, I am afraid, lack of imagi-nation. I therefore hope that in the future we shall never again need to have a debate of this kind, but that the Government will see to it that what they
40
are going to do is fully appreciated and understood by our Commonwealth partners in good time, before they take any action.
4.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, we are all sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, with his great experience, was not here to introduce this Motion, and we are doubly sorry for the reason which keeps him away; but certainly the noble Viscount, the Leader of the Opposition, was a most eloquent and informed substitute. There were various things with which I did not quite agree in his speech, and there was one which struck me as very odd. That was when he said that it had been our consistent policy to avoid any commitment on the Continent of Europe. He said that it was true that we had had to fight, or had fought voluntarily, in two world wars, but that was all the more reason why we were careful to avoid any commitment. That seemed to me a very odd observation coming from a noble Lord who was a colleague of Mr. Bevin in the Government which made the Brussels Treaty, I think it was called, which initiated N.A.T.O. If you can have anything more definite as a commitment in Europe than, first, the Brussels Treaty, and then N.A.T.O., I really do not know what it is.
This Motion says that we are all in favour of having the closest Commonwealth consultation. Of course we are. We can all subscribe to that. If the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, had put down a Motion to say that we were all in favour of fine weather we should, I am sure, all equally agree. But what I think we can also do, contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is to register with satisfaction that over the last thirty years Commonwealth consultation has got steadily better, broader, more continuous and more effective. In fact, so far as consultation goes, I do not think we have ever had it so good. And, of course, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was himself always a most admirable practitioner of that consultation.
The Motion is not academic. It was intended—and it was plainly stated in the speeches—to be critical. I am bound to say that I do not think either of the speeches we have heard so far was quite fair, and it would be a great pity if a practice which has been consistently carried out by all Governments, whether

41
they were Labour Governments or Conservative Governments, were to be made a subject of Party politics. Some people talk as if the only effective form of Commonwealth consultation was the Commonwealth Conference. Of course, that is most complete nonsense. Consultation is, in fact, going on every day. There is daily pooling of information and exchange of ideas, and it is very important that it should be that way, because, contrary again to what a number of people outside seem to think—and, indeed, from what has been said, one or two people not outside—Commonwealth Conferences do not, and cannot, take decisions. Decisions must be taken by each individual Government responsible to its own Parliament. Therefore, we are very careful at Imperial Conferences, as a rule, not to record anything as a decision. Sometimes there are circumstances in which every Government has discussed matters in its own Cabinet and in its own Parliament and is in a position to express definite and firm opinions at a Commonwealth Conference. Let me say to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore—and I am sure anybody who has held the Office of Commonwealth Secretary would agree, as I am certain my noble friend Lord Salisbury would agree—that he is quite wrong in saying that it was only Canada, under Mackenzie King, who stood in the way of having some central organisation or central authority. Not one single fully self-governing Government in the Commonwealth would ever accept it at all.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, what about Australia? Mr. Menzies, time after time, has suggested that we should have a central organisation.
LORD SWINTON: Really the noble Lord is quite wrong. During the time I was in office, I think I attended every Commonwealth Conference there was. I was present at every discussion where questions came up as to whether there could be a combined secretariat, and it was only the other day that for the first time we got to a combined secretariat, or whatever it is now called—
THE EARL OF HOME: Consultative secretariat.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: —which is being established.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, if I might underline the noble Earl's point, it is now a consultative committee and not an agreed joint secretariat.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: I am much obliged to the Foreign Secretary. I do not want to labour this point, but it would be a complete illusion to suppose that any Commonwealth country would look at anything which was a centralised executive or administrative authority, and anybody who knows the Commonwealth, with great respect, really knows that.
To say that is not to underrate the importance and the value of Commonwealth Conferences. But they are not at all easy things to arrange, as those of us who have had to arrange them know. It is extremely difficult to find a date that suits every Prime Minister. and, of course, the larger the number of independent members of the Commonwealth the more difficult that is going to be; and when they do come to a conference they can stay only a comparatively short time. It is almost impossible to get a Commonwealth Conference to go on for more than ten days, and therefore a full Commonwealth Conference is entirely unsuited for any long and detailed discussions. Where a Commonwealth Conference is of great value is where there is a broad and clear issue: for example, when we had the subject of the nuclear deterrent before the Commonwealth Conference in 1952 or 1953. There, with the hydrogen bomb having come into existence and the whole of the defensive strategy having to be reconsidered, was a perfectly clear issue, and it was invaluable to be able to discuss that at a Commonwealth Conference and to get very general agreement.
Another example was—and noble Lords opposite will remember because it was in their time as a Government—a question whether a Dominion which had declared itself a republic should be entitled to remain within the Commonwealth. There was a perfectly clear cut issue which was obviously suitable for discussion and decision at a Commonwealth Conference, and indeed it had to be decided there, because it was something which required the assent of all the partners, as all in that matter are equal partners. Broad objectives of foreign policy are another example. Those are very usefully discussed. Or,

43
again, where there is a clear common interest, like the stability of sterling. It was invaluable to have a Conference in 1951, where we were all agreed that to restore and hold the stability of sterling was vital and it was a matter of discussing how each of us could best give effect to what was common policy. But, my Lords, the least appropriate or effective use of the Commonwealth Conference would be where the subject involves a mass of detail and where different countries are interested in different subjects, or different aspects of the problem, or where their interests vary.
May I draw an example from my own memories? I will take the Ottawa Conference, which is often cited as an example of how one should do these things—and there is a great deal to be said for that. The Ottawa Conference lasted for six or seven weeks, but during the whole of that time I think there were only two plenary sessions. The whole of the business which was done at the Ottawa Conference was done in the negotiations, by discussions between the individual Governments and delegations. To particularise a little further, one of the successes, if I may humbly say so, of the Ottawa Conference was the fact that at that Conference all the Dominions and India extended a wide range of preferences to the whole colonial empire. But that was not done in a round-table discussion; it was done by a long series of individual meetings between myself and my colonial advisers, drawn from different countries and each individual Government, and, indeed, had been preceded by a very great deal of information which was exchanged before the Conference started.
I would say that the Common Market negotiations are necessarily of the same kind. Indeed, the Common Market negotiations are more complicated, and the details and interests are more varied. Therefore I would say it was essentially a situation in which each Commonwealth country must be fully but individually informed and consulted. From all the information that we have received—and no one suggests, I think, that the Government are misleading us, although, to my intense surprise, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, said (I think on further consideration he would wish to reconsider
44
what he said) that obviously Her Majesty's Government wished to keep Commonwealth countries in the dark; I cannot believe he really thinks that—
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, what I said was that there are only two reasons why I thought that they had not informed the Commonwealth in time. The first was inefficiency on the part of the C.R.O., which I did not believe was possible. The other was the fact that they wanted to keep them in the dark. If there is some other reason, no doubt we shall be told, which is one of the objects of the debate, as I understand it.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: The noble Lord cannot get away with that sort of thing. He is either making a charge that the Government kept the Commonwealth in the dark or he is not. If he thinks he can throw out loose accusations of that kind and say he is merely a genuine seeker after truth, that really will not go very well in this House, nor be very well received in the Commonwealth. So far as I can see, the Commonwealth countries have for months past been receiving the fullest information. They are receiving it to-day. They are receiving it in London, in Brussels, in their own capitals.
Now a lot has been made of the issue of the text of the Lord Privy Seal's speech. I leave the Foreign Secretary to deal with what is the practice. But I think the common practice was followed, which probably Foreign Secretaries on that side followed at Brussels and in N.A.T.O. negotiations, the practice which is, I should have thought, common form in any discussion between Governments and certainly is one which I myself have followed in a good many negotiations.
But what was there concerning the Commonwealth that was in the speech and not in the summary? That is what I should like to know, because if there was something that was not in the summary and which was in the speech, then let that be pointed to. Both have been in the hands of Commonwealth members now for some time, and since the publication of the speech I have not heard of any single item, however small, which concerned the Commonwealth and which was contained in the speech

45
but was not contained also in the summary. When I have forgotten something which I have been told several times I am apt fractiously to say, "Nobody ever tells me anything"; and I seemed to recognise that technique once or twice in the present case.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLS-BOROUGH: My Lords, I have very carefully read the White Paper comprising the whole of Mr. Heath's speech on October 10, and I also saw the summary. Perhaps I am biased, but I would read into many of the passages which are in the White Paper things that the Commonwealth would very much have liked to know. I do not have it in front of me at the moment, or I would have gone through it with the noble Earl and shown him what I mean. Obviously if they wanted the full statement they should have had it at once. As the London Times said, it was ludicrous to keep it secret.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, the noble Viscount is entitled to that opinion, but that is not the gravamen of the charge. Let me concede that what was agreed with the Governments with which Mr. Heath, the Lord Privy Seal, was negotiating should not have been carried out, and that the speech should have been published. Let me concede that. But the gravamen of the charge is that the Commonwealth countries were not told vital matters which were in the speech. I ask what was there in the speech which was not in the summary, and nobody yet has been able to cite a single example of any item. I shall be very much interested to hear what the Foreign Secretary says about that.
Of course, we are not taking the decision about the Common Market to-day; we shall not take the decision until the negotiations are over, and varying views may be held, and are held, about the Common Market. But I should have thought that, unless anybody regards the Treaty of Rome as the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition regards the Church of Rome—a pitfall here and a downfall hereafter—we all agree that it was good business and right that the Government should enter upon these negotiations. Of course, the Government want to carry the Commonwealth with them. Obviously it is in their interest, to put it at its lowest, to carry
46
the Commonwealth with them and to keep the Commonwealth completely informed. And, frankly, in our hearts we all know that they will do so not merely from self-interest but from a deep feeling of concern for the Commonwealth and all that it stands for.
I would add only a word or two about the other charge which is made in connection with the Immigration Bill. I am not going to discuss the Bill at all; I do not think I should be in order or that this is the appropriate occasion to do that. The proper time to do that is when the Bill comes up. But the sole issue before us to-day is: were the Commonwealth countries, particularly those more particularly concerned, informed or consulted, or were they taken by surprise? I think it is fair to say this. Even at the time when I was Commonwealth Secretary, which is some years ago now, and certainly since, the countries have been told that if there was a great influx of immigrants here and some arrangement could not be made by mutual agreement, then it might be necessary to legislate, little as any of us liked the idea when I was a member of a Government, and little as I am sure the Government like introducing this Bill, though they no doubt feel bound to do so. Therefore, I cannot think it is fair to say that the West Indian Federal Government or the individual West Indian Colonies were completely taken by surprise.
Another thing which I think we must remember is that consultation does not mean consent. After all, no Commonwealth country has a power of veto over the others. If we are really to consider motes and beams in each other's eyes, one could go through a very long catalogue of legislation and administrative action by every country in the Commonwealth which we have not altogether liked ourselves. But that is inherent in what we used to call Dominion status, and what is full sovereignty. Obviously this is not a case at all like the issues raised by the Common Market. Here is no case of preferential agreements which have been in force for many years, of patterns of trade which have grown up. It is a situation which has developed remarkably in intensity in the last year or eighteen months.
It is also fair to remember this. There is not a single country—not one country,

47
I think I am right in saying—in the Commonwealth, whether it be a sovereign State or a Colony acting with the approval of the Colonial Secretary, which does not itself impose restrictions on immigration. I think that must be remembered; it is only fair. I do noi like having to have this Bill, but it is only fair to remember that. After having given the fullest information, and after having tried to get (as I believe the Government did, although I speak subject to correction) some sort of voluntary agreement, then, in the last resort, just as every other country in the Commonwealth has done, so this Government and this Parliament must do what it thinks right in the best interests of its own citizens. And, indeed, it may well be that in doing that they are serving not only the interests of the citizens of this country but the interests of the citizens of the other countries of the Commonwealth as well.
4.50 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, my noble Leader, with his usual vigour and clarity, made out the case, to my mind, that consultation with the Commonwealth at the present time was falling down. I certainly do not propose to go over any of that ground or to attempt to convince any of your Lordships who were unconvinced by him that this is in fact the case. All I would say, though, is that if you wish for a monument to lack of Commonwealth consultation you have only to look around you. You have only to look to Mr. Fleming, Mr. Nehru, or Sir Grantley Adams—all of them responsible statesmen, all of them respected, not only in their own countries but also in this country—and to read what they have had to say about this country and about our Government in the past few weeks. If that is not sufficient evidence of the fact that at the present time our consultations with important members of the Commonwealth are not having the success that they should have, I can think of no other evidence that can convince the doubters.
What, in fact, are these ties of Commonwealth that, we all agree, are of such importance to us? On what are they based? When one stops to think of it, one finds it a curious thing that there can be this amorphous group of
48
several hundred million people, of different races, different colours, different religious beliefs, different background and different stages of economic and cultural development, who are somehow held together in what we call the Commonwealth. Why is it that when a West Indian speaks of home you know that he is not referring to his original home in Africa? He is not even referring to the particular Island in the Caribbean where he may be living. He is in fact referring to England. Why is it that that is happening—or has happened in the past? I think your Lordships will all agree that it is because there is, or has been until the present time, this deep background of understanding, of respect and of appreciation of the problems which are facing all the different members of the Commonwealth—not always agreement, not always approval, but at least this understanding of and respect for the integrity of the other country, the other member.
It is that which has enabled the Commonwealth to survive up till now strains which have been put upon it, some of which have been pretty severe. But at the present time those strains are increasing in intensity, and this must be the time for us not to relax such invisible ties as hold the Commonwealth together, but to make sure that they are still further strengthened. What are the present strains? We have heard a lot about the Common Market. Clearly, that is one strain. I do not propose to spend time on that at all, but it does present a serious strain to the Commonwealth, having regard to the many conflicting interests which will have to be taken into account. Many people and many groups fear that their own way of life, their own standards of living, and their own personal profit very often, will be put in jeopardy by our entering into the Common Market.
Then there is immigration restriction. Again, as the noble Earl so rightly said, it is not a subject that we should discuss at this time, but it is, without doubt, one of the severest strains to which the Commonwealth has been subjected. The Congo is a further strain. It may be that we do not realise that sufficiently in this country; but in Africa—particularly in West and Central Africa—it is a problem where feelings run very high indeed. On top of

49
all that, we have the additional strain of the new-found independence of many former Colonies that have now become autonomous members of the Commonwealth, and the still greater number—we are all happy about this—which shortly will become independent. Those are the strains which we have to face to-day, and it is not by any means necessarily true to say that because up to the present time such methods as have worked for consultation in the Commonwealth have had the desired effect, they are the right ones or strong enough to stand up to these additional difficulties which are so rapidly coming upon the whole concept of the Commonwealth.
I expect several of your Lordships read in this morning's papers of a remark by Sir Grantley Adams concerning his interview with the Prime Minister. Quoting from memory, he said that the consultation he had with him, I believe it was yesterday, was rather like the consultation of a father with a boy who is going to have a flogging. I will not comment on that, but we can perhaps quite happily pursue this analogy of father and child, or rather of family, because there is no question but that in the old clays the relationship between this country and its dependencies, whether they were Dominions or Colonies, was very much the relationship of parents to growing children. Now the children are adult; there are a few adolescents, but none of them are young children. None of them are the sort that you can flog for the good of their soul, without any consultation.
To my mind, it is now much more the question (I am following to a certain extent an analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore) of an elderly parent who has decided to marry again—if going into the Common Market can be called a form of second marriage. I do not expect a parent—a widow or widower—to consult the children and ask permission whether he or she should marry a second time. But I do expect that if the father has the right sort of relationship with his children, if he has over the past years carried on this complete understanding and appreciation of consultation, when he does in fact announce to them his decision of a second marriage they will appreciate it, and, even though they may not like their future stepmother, at least will respect
50
and understand the reasons why the old man wants to marry again and will, so far as possible, give him their support. Surely that must be the type of relation. ship that we must aim to achieve with the Commonwealth.
In this respect, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, and disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, about the value of Commonwealth Conferences. I am quite sure that they have their place at certain times; but we must not deceive ourselves into thinking that this problem can be solved by every year, every six months, every five years, or whatever may be the span, gathering together twenty, forty or sixty, however many it may be, Prime Ministers with their retinues, sitting round a conference table and discussing great problems of State. That is not the answer to it. What we must have is continuous, almost daily or weekly, contact, at the appropriate levels between the Commonwealth and ourselves.
So far as the members of the Commonwealth who are no longer Colonies are concerned, we at least have the structure which enables us to do this. They have their High Commissioners here, and we have our High Commissioners in their territories. I cannot speak from any experience here. All I can say is that I sincerely hope that our High Commissioners are in constant touch with the appropriate members of the Governments to which they are accredited and are explaining to them daily or weekly what the problems are. I cannot help feeling that if that form of consultation had been going on correctly and properly and successfully, shall we say in Canada, Mr. Fleming would not have made the remarks he did about whether he should have seen Mr. Heath's speech or not. I do not know whether he should have the Lord Privy Seal's speech, nor do I think it is relevant to this argument. What is relevant is that the relationship between the Canadian Government and Her Majesty's Government in this country was so bad that this particular occasion was taken as an opportunity to make a great "song and dance" about something. Had our relationship with them been right, had they had that understanding and appreciation that they should have and that it is the duty of our High Commissioners

51
in the countries of the Commonwealth to foster and to bring about, the state of affairs concerning the speech of the Lord Privy Seal would never have taken place.
But there is a group of countries which do not come under this particular form of representation by a High Commissioner. They are the countries which to-day are Colonies and which shortly will become independent. Two examples of them are the West Indian Federation and the East African High Commission. I know that both those areas have their own Commissioner or High Commissioner in London, and I have every reason to believe that the relationships of those gentlemen with Her Majesty's Government are good and that they have, in a limited sense, the co-operation and the information that they should have. But it is only a one-way exchange. It is only in this country, in the capital, that there are these Commissioners or High Commissioners. When we come to deal with the territories themselves, we have nobody of an equivalent rank or position.
In the West Indies we have Governors and we have a Governor-General; similarly in the High Commission territories. There is a world of difference between the relationship of a Governor to the Government of a Colony, and the relationship of a High Commissioner or a Commissioner. If Her Majesty's Government wish to discuss with the Government, let us say, of the Federation of the West Indies on the possibility of immigration control, it should be done in Trinidad, it should be done in Port of Spain; it should not be done in London. It should be done with the Prime Minister of the Federation and with the appropriate Ministers—the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Commerce and the rest of them.
The Governor-General is not the man, his office is not the office, for that form of consultation. Because he is the representative of the Queen, he has to summon the Prime Minister to his residence for consultations, and that immediately starts them off on the wrong foot. What we should have there is some form of representative who, just as our High Commissioners, just as our Ambassadors and our Ministers do, can go to see the appropriate Minister in his
52
office and discuss the whole problem, so that the Governments of these countries are fully, and daily and weekly, in the picture. I sincerely believe, my Lords, that unless we change our administration with these new emerging countries we shall never be able to get that right form of understanding that is the only way of preventing the sudden flare-ups, disagreements and spates of ill-feeling which we have been having in the last few weeks.
My Lords, we cannot over-estimate the importance of the whole concept of the Commonwealth. I know that many of your Lordships have experience in Colonies and former Colonies, and I think that all of you with experience feel that it is in fact a very moving experience to realise the good will which we have been able to build up in those countries, in spite of our faults, in spite of our mistakes—and there have been many over the past generations. But unless we are able to adapt our form of consultation, unless we can get out of this habit of thinking in terms of the occasional high-level conference, and have instead a day-to-day understanding, we shall ruin, for good and all, that good will which has been built up over so many generations. Sir Winston Churchill at one time said that he would never preside over the dissolution of the British Empire. I am very much afraid, my Lords, that unless our methods of consultation with the Commonwealth are drastically altered and drastically improved, his successor, Mr. Macmillan, will find himself presiding over the dissolution of something far greater and far better—the British Commonwealth.
5.5 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I should like to echo the words of my noble friend Earl Swinton, and express my regret that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has, through indisposition, been unable to move his Motion. I would express the hope, which I am sure is shared by noble Lords on all sides of the House, that he will soon be restored to health.
The debate this afternoon has been on the issue of consultation, with consultation taken to have the meaning which has hitherto been given to it by Her Majesty's Government, and I would

53
put it broadly under the headings of informing, discussing and exchanging ideas. Indeed, as Earl Swinton said, for the last thirty years that form of consultation has been improving, so that consultation has "never had it so good". But the question I should like to put quite briefly to your Lordships' House is this: have the Government by certain recent actions given a wider and more significant meaning to consultation? If such be the case, then their commitment to consultation in such matters as the Common Market is a larger one than has hitherto been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, within the definition of consultation that I gave a few moments ago.
I am going to submit, and I trust that I may convince some of your Lordships, that, arising from the recently proposed Malayan Federation arrangements, Her Majesty's Government have accepted a meaning for consultation beyond informing, discussing and the exchanging of ideas, and beyond the up until now accepted scope of consultation with a clear avoidance of any suggestion that the consultation carried with it a power of veto. Hitherto the consultations, such as they have been, with the Commonwealth on the European Common Market have come within the previously accepted definition.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not quite understand my noble friend's reference to Malaya.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: You will in a moment.
THE EARL OF HOME: I am just wondering if the noble Lord will make it clear whether he is talking of this as a bilateral arrangement between ourselves and Malaya, or whether he is talking about it in the context of consultation with all the Commonwealth countries.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would allow me to develop the argument, which is not an easy one to develop, but which I trust has some merits in it. My case is that the Government, by their bilateral arrangements with a particular Commonwealth country, can no longer sustain the previous interpretation of consultation, and that the Government are now a party to giving Commonwealth consultation a more important meaning,
54
because the Government have consented to the introduction of consultation as a piece of machinery for the executive execution of Government policy.
The proof is that the Prime Minister of Malaya last week cited Commonwealth consultation—and I use his words—as one of the major means of control his Government would exercise over the Singapore base, if Malaya and Singapore join in a Malaysian Federation. My Lords, there is a written agreement between the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government which provides for less control over the base than the Malayan Prime Minister tells the Malayans he has got, and the Malayan Prime Minister relies upon consultation to fill that gap.
Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will remember the report in The Times of December 2, of the Malayan Prime Minister's Press conference. It was as follows:
"Britain, he said, would consult with Malaya if she wanted to use the base in the event of trouble in the area after sovereignty over it had been transferred to the Malaysia Federation, as a matter of 'courtesy' though nothing was written down about this.
"Asked to define consultation, the Tunku agreed that there was an element of consent on the Malayan side, but did not seem to think there had to be agreement on every point.
"Asked to define trouble, he thought that in the event of war in the area there was provision for consultation under the existing Defence Treaty."
My Lords, it seems to me that that makes it clear that in this particular case Her Majesty's Government are using consultation as an instrument for the execution of policy. I make no complaint about that, but I do suggest that Her Majesty's Government cannot double-think and double-talk in this matter of Commonwealth consultation.
We cannot say to one side of the Commonwealth, even if it be on a bilateral basis, that Commonwealth consultation has a greater meaning, and a meaning concerned with executive action, and to the other part of the Commonwealth that it has a lesser meaning. I submit that this interpretation of consultation means that the old definition is scrapped. I would suggest that this interpretation of Commonwealth consultation means trying to go forward, in agreement, to an agreed end. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Swinton said,

55
every Government is responsible to its Parliament, and each country has absolute power; but if we accept that consultation has a new sense of value, then I think we could say that it means trying to go forward to an agreed end. If agreement cannot be reached on major issues—and, of course, in many cases it cannot—just as in the industrial field, a difference is declared between members, and then we all know where we are.
My Lords, all this makes Commonwealth relationships easier on such big issues as the European Common Market. At least we should know where we agree and where we differ, and there would be no misunderstandings or after-accusations of bad faith. It seems to me that, by this new and wider interpretation of the meaning of consultation, the Government have now made an unanswerable case for more consultation before going much further in the Common Market negotiations. It seems to me that there is a case either for a ministerial meeting, or, alternatively, for a meeting of delegations from the Commonwealth—something akin to what my noble friend Lord Swinton referred to concerning the Ottawa Conference of 1932. Such a meeting would allow us to see where we agree and where we differ, where we could speak with one voice and where we could not. It would make more possible a Commonwealth voice to the Six on certain issues on which we are agreed, not a United Kingdom view with dissentient Commonwealth echoes. My sole purpose in putting forward to the House and to the Foreign Secretary that the Malayan case has in fact widened the previous meaning of consultation, is so that, with the great negotiations of Europe still lying ahead, we shall try to avoid the pitfalls that seem to lie ahead of us now if we do not get the Commonwealth into closer touch with us than seems to be the case at the present time.
5.15 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like first, if I may, to join with other noble Lords who have spoken in sending a message of sympathy to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, who has been prevented by indisposition from moving this Motion on a subject on which he is so peculiarly fitted to speak. I hope that that indisposition
56
is slight, and that he will soon be with us again. In the meantime, if I may say so, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, proved an extremely efficient deputy. Indeed, I think that this afternoon there have been a number of very knowledgeable, authoritative speakers, and, all in all, I am sure we shall agree that the debate has been an unusually valuable one.
When I read the terms of the Motion which the noble Earl had tabled for discussion to-day, I must say that I was greatly intrigued as to what aspect of this vast subject he was proposing to tackle. Had he any complaints of the machinery which has been built up over so many years for consultation between the various members of the Commonwealth? And, if so, what were his complaints? About that, if I may say so, I did not quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I thought he understated the efficiency of the machinery that exists. Indeed, so far as I know, there has never before been anything of its kind so elaborate and so complete in the whole history of the world. Even when I was at the Commonwealth Relations Office (which, I am sorry to say, is now nearly twenty years ago) there were no fewer than five normal channels of communication between Commonwealth Governments.
There was, first of all, the direct communication between Government and Government through what is now the Commonwealth Relations Office in London and the Departments of External Affairs in other Commonwealth countries. That was the main official channel, and through that channel immense numbers of telegrams passed, and I have no doubt still pass, every day. Then, secondly, there were the communications between Prime Minister and Prime Minister direct—a channel which, as Lord Attlee would know far better than I do, was used for matters of first importance, requiring personal consultation at the very highest level.
Then, thirdly, there were the verbal communications which took place with the Governments of the Commonwealth through the High Commissioners of the member States in the capitals of the members immediately concerned. That was the method that used to be used

57
(and, I say again, is no doubt still used) in cases of very delicate questions which were more easily discussed orally than through the more rigid channels of cables. Then, in addition to this ordinary, normal, day-to-day machinery to which the noble Lord, Lord Walston, rightly attached so much importance, there were, and still are, of course, ad hoc visits by Ministers of one Commonwealth Government to another to discuss some topic which specially affected their own Departments. Finally, and in the way of being the most important of all, there are the periodic Commonwealth Conferences and meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, either to review the general state of the world with special reference to Commonwealth interests, or to examine jointly some special problem which affects them all.
This elaborate nexus of consultation, if I may so describe it, has grown up gradually over the whole of the last century, and it has been steadily elaborated and improved with the help of such modern inventions as the telegraph, the telephone, the radio, the aeroplane and all these other inventions of modern science with which we are so familiar. I do not say that it is perfect, but it is pretty good and, presumably, at the present time it is in constant use. What I think preoccupies most of us is not any special defect in this machinery which I have tried to describe it is not the need to introduce some new channel of communication, but the absolute necessity, if relations are to be close and cordial, of using the right channel at the right time. There were certain junctures, of course, when the best methods of consultation were secret and informal exchanges of view between Prime Ministers or other Ministers. But there are other junctures when they will not meet the case at all, and what is needed is a meeting together of all Prime Ministers, so as to get their joint minds on some topic which affects every one of them.
There is no question, as I think Lord Swinton rightly emphasised—or there should be no question—at any such meeting, or indeed in any other circumstances, of a majority of members imposing their will upon a minority. That is not the way the Commonwealth has ever worked in the past, and I do not believe it could work in that way. It is the essence of the Commonwealth that
58
all the members—if I may quote the Report of the Imperial Conference of 1926—
"are autonomous communities equal in status, in no way subordinate to each other in respect of their domestic or external affairs".
It follows, therefore, from that definition that no member of the Commonwealth family can be bound by the views of the other members. Each is free to come to its own decision on any question affecting either its domestic or its external policy. I felt bound to say that in view of certain passages in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough.
On the other hand, clearly if a member of the Commonwealth found itself in conflict with the views of all, or nearly all, the other members of the Commonwealth family, if it were contemplating embarking on a policy utterly abhorrent to them all and that policy were likely to strain almost to breaking point the bonds that hold the Commonwealth together, then, in a situation of that kind, no doubt the Government concerned, while maintaining entirely its freedom of decision, would wish to think extremely carefully before it advanced further on so dangerous a course. In such a situation, my Lords, in order to find out exactly where it stood, and in order to be in a position to put before its fellow members in joint conclave the conditions which had led it to the conclusions to which it had provisionally come, the member nation in question, I should have thought, might very well feel that a Commonwealth Conference or a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers was urgently required before it crossed the Rubicon and came to its final decision.
I suspected, when I read the terms of the Motion, that it was that particular aspect of common consultation that Lord Attlee had in mind to advance to your Lordships had he been here. It is certainly the aspect which I think the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, had in mind, and it is certainly the aspect which I, too, have had in mind. That is why I made bold to take up your Lordships' time for a few moments before we separate for the Christmas Recess. For, as we all know, over their application to join the Common Market and to accede to the Treaty of Rome the Government are

59
about to take a decision not only which is bound profoundly to affect the whole future of our own country, but which is considered by other Governments of the Commonwealth as likely also to lead to a sensible weakening of the bonds which have hitherto held the Commonwealth together.
I am not going to express a view this afternoon as to whether the Government are right or wrong. All I want to say is this: that in such a situation, if ever there is a need for a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, if not for a full-dress Commonwealth Conference, before the final decision is taken, then this is it. I know that the Prime Minister has already been at great pains to try to find out the views of the other members; that he has sent Ministers round to discuss the matter with individual Governments; and no doubt in many other ways he has tried to ascertain their attitude. But, my Lords, that is not at all the same thing as a Conference, any more than it would be the same thing in this country for a Prime Minister to consult individual colleagues on some important issue, instead of putting that issue before the whole Cabinet gathered together. It is the exchange of views by all members, the mutual exchange and moulding of views by all members, that is the essence of the Cabinet system, and at certain junctures (and this, I suggest, is undoubtedly one of them) it is the essence of the Commonwealth system too.
On this I am profoundly in agreement with what was said by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. Probably my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will tell me that I am banging at an open door. Probably the Government have already taken that vital decision. If so. I hope he will feel able to announce it this afternoon; it will allay many of our anxieties. But if it is a decision which is under consideration but which has not yet been formally taken, I hope the Government are in no doubt in their own minds as to what their decision will mean when the time comes. If they fail to bring all the members of the family into conclave on an issue so fundamentally important to them all, it might, I am afraid, well strain the whole institution and deal it a
60
most damaging blow by alienating, above all, those older members of the Commonwealth, of our own blood and of our own traditions, who have always stood by us in past perils and to whom we owe our final salvation. Now, my Lords, even to risk that would be a folly—no, worse than a folly; it would be a folly which I believe this country would never forgive. I am not suggesting that it is a folly which the Government are likely to commit—I hope they will not—but it would relieve all our minds if they could announce their decision this afternoon.
5.28 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I should like to thank noble Lords opposite, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for their expressions of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Attlee on account of his illness, and of regret for the fact that he was unable to make the opening speech. I can assure them that this message, which I am sure will touch my noble friend, will reach him.
It is not often that we on this side of the House—in these days at any rate, although in the past it was more frequent—are able to endorse a speech from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury; but I think this is one of the examples of how sometimes, on important issues affecting the Commonwealth and our relations with foreign countries, there is a degree of common ground which transcends Party differences. The noble Marquess has put far more eloquently than could any of us, I think, the case for convening—perhaps I had better say "suggesting"; I will not say "convening", because it sounds authoritative—a Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers before the Government take the final decision whether to enter the Common Market. That is a plea which we have made on many occasions in the past. As the noble Marquess has said, if it is the Government's intention, as we all hope it is, to do so, we hope that this will be said publicly at the earliest possible moment, so as to allay the anxiety which is felt very generally at this time.
I think all of us, on both sides of the House and on both Front Benches, will

61
agree that, as The Times newspaper said last Friday,
"full and frank consultation is an axiom of the Commonwealth relationship."
The Times went on to say in the same leader—and I think we shall part company with the noble Lords opposite at this point—that on two issues, the Immigration Bill and the Common Market negotiations, the Government had been accused of breaking the rules and that the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. Gaitskell in another place had not disposed of the argument. We on this side of the House agree with The Times in its strictures on the Government, and I shall do my best to support the case made out by my noble friends Lord Alexander of Hillsborough and Lord Walston.
Before I do so, however, I should like to emphasise two things. The first is this—the special and unique importance of consultation and the exchange of information at this stage in the development and expansion of the Commonwealth. This is a point made by my noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and I wish to follow him by enlarging a little upon what he said. The second is the necessity for this country, as the oldest and most experienced hand in the game, to set an example in the punctilious performance of this duty.
We know, of course, that among the old Commonwealth countries consultation and the exchange of views, the use of all the five channels to which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, referred in his speech, which might have been a text-book exposition of the machinery of Commonwealth consultation, have come to be regarded as a settled practice; but sometimes I think that we are inclined to forget that most of the present members of the Commonwealth are new countries which have to learn from their own experience the value of this consultation to them in carrying out their own policies. This applies equally to the other British territories when they become independent, as many of them will in the near future, and join the Commonwealth as full members.
Perhaps I can speak with some special knowledge of the attitude of these new Commonweath countries, as for three years I was close to the Prime Minister of one of them and watched, with the greatest interest, his dealings with Commonwealth
62
neighbours. And the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, was in a position to do the same thing while he was in Australia. First of all, we have to remove distrust and suspicion and replace them by trust. There is a deep suspicion that the old colonial masters do not really mean to treat you as a friend and equal. That suspicion, I am sure, is unfounded but the fact that it is unfounded does not mean that it is not real. We can get rid of this suspicion and win the trust of these countries only by showing that we trust them absolutely. It is for us to show this by never failing to communicate with them and to consult with them before we decide to do something that affects their welfare and national interests. If we withhold information which they regard as important and adopt a policy, such as restricted immigration, without consulting fully our Commonwealth partners, we shall inevitably lose their trust.
Nor should we forget that communication is a two-way stream of traffic. We shall not be consulted or informed by those whom we ourselves do not consult or inform. Let me say at once that I am not accusing the Government of failing to keep Ghana in the picture. The noble Earl opposite was at the Commonwealth Relations Office at the time, and I can only say that so far as I could see his performance in that respect was impeccable. But, surely, when the Government know how well the system works and what excellent results it can produce, there is even less excuse for not working it as it should be worked. I am certain that the remarkable response of Dr. Nkrumah, which I will show in a moment, was due to the fact that he felt that nothing was being withheld from him and that he was consulted whenever consultation was required. It would surprise many people who do not regard Dr. Nkrumah as a friend of the Commonwealth to know how often he used the many channels of communication between Commonwealth countries. It is true that he liked to inform his partners of decisions in advance rather than to consult them before these decisions were made, but he did at least inform them about every decision of importance affecting the Commonwealth.

63
The Economist, which is usually a well-informed and reliable newspaper, is quite wrong when it says, in its issue last week, that the Government of Ghana did not inform Britain when it announced its union with Guinea. I was in Accra at the time, and Dr. Nkrumah told me that he had sent a telegram to Mr. Macmillan, which is, of course, information at high level about matters of vital importance, and had communicated with other Commonwealth Governments through their High Commissioners in Accra. I was particularly impressed by the frequency with which Dr. Nkrumah consulted Mr. Macmillan by letter. This exchange of letters between Commonwealth Prime Ministers, to which I am sure my noble friend Lord Attlee would have referred, is one of the most important links between Commonwealth Governments and Commonwealth leaders. This was certainly due to Dr. Nkrumah's high personal regard for Mr. Macmillan. I cannot imagine so intimate a relationship between Mr. Macmillan and Sir Grantley Adams. That is just part of the damage done by the Government's handling of its immigration policy.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, the noble Earl has just made a very interesting statement; but what does he mean by it? Why cannot there be so close an association between Mr. Macmillan and Sir Grantley Adams?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am only judging by what Sir Grantley Adams said yesterday, which is public knowledge and which the noble Lord must have read in the Press this morning or heard last night, if he saw "Panorama" on the television programme.
There is another aspect of life in these new Commonwealth countries which is important. We do not like the personality cult in politics here, but conditions in these new countries are very different. In most of them, the man at the top is not just a political or Party leader as he is in this country, but the founder of the nation, with the power and the permanence that this achievement is bound to give him. And that is why man-to-man relations between the Heads of Government is of greater importance to-day than ever before in the history of the Commonwealth. Such a
64
relationship is a product of mutual confidence and trust. It takes time to build up and it can easily be destroyed it either man feels that the other man has let him down. This expression of being "let down" was used by Sir Grantley Adams yesterday in speaking of his treatment by the British Government and Mr. Macmillan. I regret deeply that the Prime Minister of the West Indian Federation feels that he has been let down by the Government. I regret deeply that his personal relationship with the Prime Minister here is not the same as it is between him and most of the other Commonwealth Prime Ministers and as it is between Mr. Macmillan and other Commonwealth Prime Ministers.
It is just because the nurture of trust and regard, by confiding in our Commonwealth partners and asking for their views before decisions are taken, is the lifeblood of the new Commonwealth that we are entitled to take the Government to task for any lapse from the high standards to which we are accustomed and to press for an assurance that such lapses will not occur again. My noble friend Lord Alexander of Hillsborough referred to these lapses in the course of his speech. I would deal with only two of them—namely, the most recent that have happened in connection with the Immigration Bill and the Common Market negotiations.
In both cases it seems to me that the West Indies have had a particularly raw deal. We all know that the West Indian territories are entirely dependent on the special treatment they receive in the British market for their sugar and other agricultural products. If this special treatment is withdrawn, their economy will collapse. British Ministers were sent to other Commonwealth countries, including the Central African Federation, to discuss the economic difficulties they would face if Britain entered the Common Market, but no Minister went to the West Indies until after there had been some degree of complaint. It was only then that the noble Earl, Lord Perth, was sent out to discuss this threat to their economy.
In the case of the Immigration Bill, not only was no Minister sent out from here, or invited to London from the West Indies, but, according to Sir Grantley Adams, there was no consultation with

65
him at all. No doubt Her Majesty's Government will not agree with Sir Grantley Adams as to that, but surely the fact that he considers he was not consulted is itself an important and a deplorable fact. I cannot believe that Her Majesty's Government can feel satisfied with their own performance if they cannot convince a Commonwealth Prime Minister that he has in fact been consulted. Mr. Macmillan argued in another place (this was the argument The Times found to be specious. and I am bound to say I agree with The Times) that other countries do not consult us about their immigration policies; and that argument was repeated by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton. But surely two wrongs do not make a right. Moreover, this Bill will affect the lives and the livelihoods of people in the West Indies to a much greater extent than any Bill or Order restricting immigration into a Commonwealth country has affected, or is likely to affect, people living in the United Kingdom. Nor can it be said that the constitutional status of the West Indies precludes full consultation about matters that are vital to them. The West Indies is on almost exactly the same constitutional level as the Central African Federation, and no one has ever complained that Sir Roy Welensky is not consulted by the Government.
If Her Majesty's Government really wish to repair the damage they have done to our relations with the West Indies, they should drop the Immigration Bill pending the fullest possible discussion of its legislative proposals with Sir Grantley Adams and any other Ministers whom he may wish to bring with him to London. I wish that this matter could be discussed in a less partisan atmosphere, because I am quite certain that, if it were regarded in a cool, detached way, from the view of Commonwealth relations, and if Party aspects could be ignored, the Government would find a lot to be said for withdrawing the Bill, not necessarily for good, but postponing it until the people most affected by it could be brought to a point where they could either accept it or, if they still did not agree, could be convinced that they had been fully and thoroughly consulted about it. I still hope—because in this House we can perhaps discuss things in a more detached way than they do in another place—that the Government may
66
consider seriously whether they cannot postpone the Bill pending further consultation and discussion with the representatives of the West Indies.
5.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I, like all those who have spoken already, am very distressed that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is unable to be here and has not, therefore, opened the debate this afternoon. He, of course, has all the qualifications for doing so. It was during his tenure of office as Prime Minister, as the House will recall, that a great leap forward in Commonwealth relations was taken—namely, the emancipation of the Indian subcontinent. So no one could have had a better right to be heard on this subject. But I am glad (and presumably the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, chose the wording of the Motion together with his colleagues) that the Motion is in its present terms, because I agree with all those who have spoken that the cohesion and influence of the Commonwealth in the world depends on the continuing and intimate consultation between its members. I remember Mr. Menzies expressing what is, I think, the common ambition of all those who take part in these affairs. In one of his pungent phrases he said,
"One text should be boldly printed in every department in London, New Delhi, Canberra and other seats of Government: Will any decision I contemplate to-day affect some other nation of the Commonwealth; and, if so, have I informed and consulted them?'."
The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, who so adequately filled the place of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was very careful not to claim that his Party had a monopoly of the virtues so far as Commonwealth consultation was concerned, although I thought the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore and Lord Walston, got very near to it. But let me assure them that we are as jealous as they of the good name of Britain in this question of Commonwealth consultation.
I think I might usefully, at the beginning, remind your Lordships—because there seems to be a great deal of doubt about it—what is the latest model of the machinery of Commonwealth consultation which we all have at our disposal to work. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Swinton that it is the permanent

67
machinery which is much more important than the ad hoc conferences that are called together from time to time, although, of course, they have their part to play. I will not go further back than the Montreal Conference in 1958 which I attended. Out of that a pattern of Commonwealth consultation very clearly emerged. It was decided then that the financial officials of all the countries of the Commonwealth should meet twice a year, once in the spring and once in the autumn, and that the meetings should be followed by meetings of the Finance Ministers; and the whole of that, comprising both the ministerial meetings and the official meetings, was embodied in a committee called the Commonwealth Consultative Council.
As your Lordships will no doubt remember, Her Majesty the Queen very generously put Marlborough House at the disposal of the Commonwealth in order that that should be the centre in London of the meetings of the Commonwealth Consultative Council, whatever form they should take, either ministerial or official. So in the spring and in the autumn the officials and the Ministers meet and review the whole economies of all the Commonwealth countries. Therefore, there are at most—and perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, will take particular note of this—only about five months of the year when, on the economic side of things, the officials or the Ministers are not actually sitting in session; and between those meetings there is a very elaborate arrangement for exchange of visits and of information.
When I was Commonwealth Secretary, I remember the Leader of the House here asking me whether I did not think I should get into trouble because I was so often in the Commonwealth and so little in this House. That, I think, is a complaint which is going to be made about my right honourable friend the present Commonwealth Secretary. Always there is one or other Minister in the Commonwealth Relations Office circulating round the Commonwealth and exchanging visits and views.
I happened to extract from the Commonwealth Relations Office the number of messages that had gone to and fro in the month of October, which was the
68
month in which, in particular, the Common Market discussions were taking place and we were approaching a negotiation. There flowed out from the Commonwealth Relations Office 3,202 messages, and there flowed in 1,694. Then, on top of that, of course, we have the Commonwealth High Commissioners here in London and out in the field, and I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Walston, thinks his noble friend Lord Listowel was doing for five years in Ghana. I can tell him. He was sitting on Mr. Nkrumah's doorstep telling him the view of the United Kingdom and reporting to us the view of the Ghana Government. If any Commonwealth Secretary tried to put a cork on information, he would find twelve very effective corkscrews round the next morning to extract out of him information which they wanted.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt? I think I made it clear that, so far as the Commonwealth non-Colonial countries are concerned, I have no experience, but I thought everything went satisfactorily there. It is in the matter of the countries which are still under the Colonial Office, and therefore have no High Commissioners, that the trouble to-day arises. I am speaking of the present situation rather than the semi-distant past.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, of course if the Governor is in full control, the Governor is the man who is informed and consulted. If there is a sort of halfway type of Government in association with the Governor, then the Prime Minister of that Government is informed and consulted. So I do not really think, although we must always improve our machinery (and I will look at what the noble Lord says), that there is a foundation for his anxieties there.
Then, of course, superimposed on this permanent machinery, which is developing and evolving every day, we have the meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers which now takes place, on an average, every eighteen months. There they make a complete review of the situation within the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth's external relations. Then, of course, it will be well within your Lordships' recollection, for instance, that at the last Commonwealth

69
Foreign Ministers' Meeting a Commonwealth policy on disarmament was evolved and registered with the United Nations. This was a joint act subscribed to by all the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I wish, and believe, that we shall be able over a wider field in future to arrive at common policies in that way.
Of course, I could add to the list. For instance, we co-operate now over the Commonwealth Scholarships Scheme. The Commonwealth sits in permanent co-operation on that scheme. We co-operate in the United Nations, as I mentioned to the noble Viscount at Question Time. I have been at these meetings. I was at one the other day, when we talked in particular about disarmament and about the great problems arising in Europe. Then again, in this country there is sitting at the present time, assessing the economic prospects of the Commonwealth, what is known as the Commonwealth Economic Committee, presided over by the most distinguished late High Commissioner for Pakistan, Mr. Ikramullah. So there is a great variety of Commonwealth consultative machinery actually at work.
Now I should like to relate this machinery as it exists to the particular problem raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, and by the noble Lords, Lord Ogmore, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and others—to the particular problem of the Common Market. I should like to give your Lordships the timetable of consultation on this particular question. Of course, when I was in the Commonwealth Relations Office, almost two years ago now, we were talking with the Commonwealth High Commissioners and had regular meetings about the European Free Trade Area which came to nothing. But let me go back not very far to tell your Lordships this. So far as the European Economic Community goes—that is the Common Market—the Finance Ministers met in the autumn of 1960, over a year ago, and they were given in detail the Government's views at that time, and invited to prepare their own views for the British Government's consideration. The officials of the Commonwealth met in May, 1961, in the Commonwealth Economic Consultative Council, and that meeting of the officials was followed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Meeting in the same month.
70
There was a special meeting, as I told the noble Viscount, where it was arranged that the Prime Ministers should meet the Lord Privy Seal and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Following that again, the two Ministers most concerned, the Commonwealth Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal, and, in addition to them, the Minister of Labour, toured the Commonwealth explaining the Government's views. Again, there was a discussion on the Common Market among the Finance Ministers when they met in Accra in September. Just before the Lord Privy Seal made his famous speech of October 10, the representatives of seven Commonwealth countries, including that of Canada, were here and were given a fortnight in London in which they were briefed on the approach which the Lord Privy Seal was going to make, and asked to give any of their views. All the time, of course, the High Commissioners were reporting backwards and forwards. Does the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, call that keeping the Commonwealth in the dark? I have never seen a more elaborate programme of consultation at every stage extending well back over the year.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I do not understand this assertion on the part of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary. These allegations have been widely made by distinguished members of the Commonwealth. The whole purpose of the debate here is to get the Government's answer. They need not become heated about it. No one will be more delighted than I if they have a perfectly sound answer to the allegations made, not by me but by Commonwealth statesmen.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I am pleased the noble Lord is glad, because he did not seem to be going to be glad when he made his speech; he did not obviously expect to be.
Now perhaps I may turn to the other matter. I think that on the main scheme, in regard to this consultation over the Common Market, it has been carried through in the spirit and the letter for more than a year now. Perhaps I might respond at this point to the question which the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked: that is, whether at some stage of these Commonwealth consultations about the Common

71
Market, and during the negotiations, there might not be a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I will remind him of what the Prime Minister said on July 31 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 645 (No. 159), col. 933]:
"I have made it quite clear, and so have my right honourable friends; if at some point it were thought desirable to have a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, at the right moment, probably when the negotiations had reached a certain stage before any final decision were put before Parliament and the country, then I can only say that I would be the first to welcome such a meeting."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I only ask: if who thought it desirable?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, obviously this is a matter which must be discussed by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers themselves. They will decide upon what form of meeting there should be and if it should be a full Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting. I think that is right, and I think the noble Marquess will agree.
May I now turn for a moment to immigration? My noble friend Lord Swinton said he remembered consultations going on about immigration when he was Commonwealth Secretary. Well, they continued when I was Commonwealth Secretary. We were constantly in touch with the Commonwealth on the question of Commonwealth immigration, and we constantly made clear to every Commonwealth country, including the West Indies, that unless we could agree on a voluntary system of control then we were bound to take action.
There is a limit to the population that this country can hold, and we made that clear time and time again. And I remember we made an agreement—for which I and the Government were very grateful—with India and Pakistan for a voluntary control of immigration. Indeed it has worked fairly well, although there have been difficulties with Pakistanis because they cannot understand the English language. But the trouble was, of course, that the West Indies could never agree to a voluntary scheme—I am not saying whether their reasons were good or bad. But as they could never agree, they were told, quite plainly, that the only alternative would be some measure of control.
72
The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that no Minister had been to the West Indies and discussed these matters. But the Prime Minister went. He was there in March, and the Prime Minister did discuss this question of immigration and gave a warning that it might be necessary for the British Government to deal with the matter unless a voluntary scheme could be agreed. You cannot do better than send the Prime Minister in a matter of this sort. And I do not think Sir Grantley Adams really said he was not consulted. What I understood him to say—and I am subject to correction—is that he was not consulted as to form and detail. Now Sir Grantley Adams and all West Indian Ministers must have understood over the years past that, unless there was a voluntary scheme, we could not continue in definitely to take ever-swelling numbers of immigrants, not because they are bad citizens or anything of the kind, but because the pressure of their numbers creates social and economic consequences which may have ill effects on the Commonwealth countries themselves.
It was the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, who said, I think, that this is a Bill we all dislike. I dislike it thoroughly. We have resisted it, put it off, postponed it as long as we possibly could. Nevertheless, rather than have a swelling increase of immigrants beyond the numbers we can take, we have felt we were. bound to tackle the position now.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I just say this, because there seems to be some misunderstanding about whether or not Sir Grantley Adams considers he was consulted and what he was consulted about? I do not know whether the noble Earl heard what Sir Grantley Adams said on the "Panorama" programme on the B.B.C. last night, but I listened to it, and no doubt other noble Lords were listening, too. He was asked a question whether he was consulted about the Bill. He said he was not consulted.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, I do not know if it is profitable to carry on the discussion here, but I thought he said he was not consulted about the form of the actual Bill. I may be wrong on that. Perhaps we can see the exact text of what he said in a day or two's time. Therefore I would say, taking

73
these two matters together, that Her Majesty's Government will always consult to the fullest possible extent. But Commonwealth consultation cannot be a substitute for British policy, nor can it be an excuse for the British Government's avoiding decisions. That it cannot.
My Lords, we have been talking about both these issues for years, both on the Common Market and on immigration, and we felt it was time we must declare our minds. The noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, has a very good memory, but, like that of all good politicians, his memory is selective. He reminded me that he was discontented at the amount of consultation at the time of Suez and one other occasion. Unfortunately he jogged my memory, which can be selective too, and I remember, because it is now in the wind, the case of the recognition of Communist China. If I am not mistaken, Lord Attlee was Prime Minister, Viscount Alexander of Hillsborough was in the Government, Mr. Bevin was Foreign Secretary, and Mr. Gordon Walker was in the Government, too. Mr. Bevin did not consult the Commonwealth before he recognised Communist China, although the interests of the Commonwealth were deeply involved. The reason he gave was that there was a divergence of opinion within the Commonwealth and he did not put it on the agenda of the Colombo Conference to which he was about to proceed. He announced it just before he went.
Then Mr. Gordon Walker said this: "If an attempt is made to get everything written down and agreed to and understood what the Government of every nation is committed to, the result would be to drive us further apart rather than to unify us. It would force the nations of the Commonwealth to emphasise their differences. The result would be we would get further apart." Well, I will not delve further into the Socialist record, but I suggest that the noble Viscount might remember that one of the best known Commonwealth inventions is the boomerang.
Of course the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, does not like the Common Market. I am not saying he is wrong; he is perfectly entitled to that view. He would have been perfectly entitled to use this Motion as a
74
stick to beat the Government, just because he dislikes the Common Market, and I thought one or two of his colleagues were in danger of doing the same thing. That is all right, but I am not going to fall for that device. I am not going to discuss the merits of the Common Market or the merits of the immigration policy on a Motion which is about Commonwealth consultation. If we are going to discuss those things there must be Motions put down to that effect.
Let me make clear what we are doing and the limits within which we are operating. We are negotiating with the Six. This country, and this country only, is negotiating with the Six; and we are negotiating to see whether we can achieve membership consistent with our obligations both to our E.F.T.A. partners and Commonwealth friends. I defy anybody who reads the Lord Privy Seal's speech to sustain the charge that we did not put Commonwealth interests right into the forefront of the speech which he made in Brussels on that day; passage after passage was as explicit in this respect as any speech that has beep given to Parliament in the last few months.
Why did he then not circulate the speech to the Commonwealth in its entirety before he made it to the conference in Brussels? Of course he could have done so, but if he had then what took place in Brussels would not have been a conference. It would have been a public debate. But it was a conference, and his speech was a conference document. So, observing the proprieties of the conference, he kept the speech in its entirety in the conference; and he told the Commonwealth every single thing which interested the Commonwealth in the speech which he made. I want really to ask your Lordships, because a good deal has been made of this, how you can carry on a conference if every document is to be public property? The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, are experienced negotiators. Did the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, circulate all the documents of the Potsdam Conference to the Commonwealth countries? Of course not. They were conference documents. And so it is that I am going into a conference on Berlin—
LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, may I put this point? I do not think

75
that the Potsdam Conference is parallel to this particular conference, because the complaint was that the document, the full speech, after it had been delivered, was not sent to all the Commonwealth countries. Surely you are not going to compare sending a document to a Commonwealth country with sending a document to a foreign country. We talk about the family of the Commonwealth, and I should have thought that if you circulate a full speech to the Commonwealth, as a private document, it would satisfy everything said by the Foreign Secretary.
THE EARL OF HOME: You must, I think, if you are going into a conference, protect the documents of the conference as conference documents. You may extract as much as you like from them, but the actual documents must be conference documents. I am going into conference, I hope, on Berlin, which vitally affects Commonwealth countries; but is anybody going to say that the documents in that conference must be circulated verbatim? Of course not. That proposition has only to be stated to be seen to be absurd. Therefore one must adopt the procedure, so far as the Commonwealth is concerned, that you maintain the conference documents as conference documents and you tell the Commonwealth everything which concerns them in another document, which you circulate in confidence to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers or Governments as the case may be.
I must say I am very much concerned about this business of publicity surrounding conferences. There is now a highly organised and intense hunt for publicity which is in grave danger of prejudicing the chances of negotiations, for instance over Berlin, ever starting at all. All negotiations involve concessions. Concessions in this and every case have a very high political content. How can a deal be made if each item of the bargain is publicly paraded out of context, out of time, and emotion deliberately fanned? This fever for publicity at any price is a most serious obstacle to international understanding and agreement and therefore to peace. Therefore, I hope that everybody in the country will give most serious consideration to the danger involved in what I
76
think is a feverish, almost hysterical, hunt for publicity at any price. It can do grave damage.
But I accept this Motion and the wording in it, and I accept nearly everything that has been said in this debate. I will give two absolute assurances on behalf of the Government: that the machinery of consultation within the Commonwealth will be used to the full, both in the letter and in the spirit; and that so far as the Common Market negotiations are concerned the Commonwealth will be informed of every issue which emerges and which affects them. If we cannot circulate the actual documents—and I have explained why we cannot do that—nevertheless the Lord Privy Seal and the Government will see to it that Commonwealth Governments, individually and collectively, are informed. These negotiations are very complicated; they affect great industries in this country and British agriculture. There are certain things one Commonwealth Government does not want another one to know at a particular time, although it may be agreeable later on. So there must be a certain amount of discretion used. But I can tell the House that it is the intention of the Government to use Commonwealth consultation, both in this case and all others, wherever opportunity offers.
6.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank all the Members of your Lordships' House who have helped to make this discussion so interesting to-day, and I shall convey very carefully the expressions of sympathy which have been expressed to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. I am very much obliged to the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary for the detail in which he has answered the debate. I am not going to argue with him all over again; I am rather tempted to make another speech, but I really must not do that. But I want to say this to him on his final point about the danger of over-publicising matters of this kind which are going to be the subject of a conference: I have never sought in this matter any such publicity. That is not the object of this Motion; it is not from that point of view that we have asked for the debate.

77
What we have asked for is to have consideration of the general theme of this Motion, because statesmen of every member of the Commonwealth have grumbled about the limited extent to which their Governments have been informed or consulted. In fact one of the real troubles of to-day is that before even Foreign Secretaries can get together to discuss, there is such publicity upon television and by radio and cable communications in the Press that very often the issues are rather spoiled before they meet to consider what decisions should be made. That is not what I am asking at all. What I am asking is that when you are going, as the prominent member of the Commonwealth that you are, to make a final decision on something of vast importance, there should be adequate information and consultation—both information and consultation. I think the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, seized upon a particular point along this line when he put it to us this afternoon.
I would say, if you want to raise my hackles a hit about either the Colombo
78
Conference or China, that I think you have on the whole agreed at least with the political decisions made, because you have never cancelled the recognition of China de jure and you have at times done your best to see that the Colombo resolutions were implemented. So I am not going to wear sackcloth and ashes about those two decisions. Nevertheless, Mr. Bevin did consult people who were concerned in the Commonwealth about it—I know because I was in it with him—and we had the advantage of the support of the principle by certain Ministers within the Commonwealth; people who would support it to-day if the mattes came up again.
I am very much obliged for the answer. I shall read the speech of the noble Earl, the Foreign Secretary, with very great interest, and I am quite sure that if we are still not satisfied on any point about the details we shall come back to it again I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  PURCHASING POWER OF THE POUND
  PURCHASING POWER OF THE POUND