Sitting of 16 June 1971

PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL (By Order)
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Bill to be read a Third time upon Wednesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Temple Meads Railway Station (Historic Buildings)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will place a preservation order on those parts of Temple Meads Railway Station, in particular the first engine shed, which date from the Brunel era.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): These buildings are already statutorily listed as of special architectural or historic interest, and therefore have to the full the protection formerly given by preservation orders.
    Mr. Palmer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Does he agree that this will now put temptation beyond the reach of British Railways?
    Mr. Page: Bristol Corporation has refused to grant listed building consent for demolition. In view of the possibility of this matter coming before my right hon.
    416
    Friend on appeal, I should not say any more. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to say that the Government have already completed the listing for the whole of England. We are now revising all the lists and many more buildings are being added to the list than previously.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that there is real anxiety, both in Bristol and elsewhere, about this building and that certain parts of the station, although perhaps not as historic or interesting as those mentioned in the Question, have been demolished and there is great fear that future development will wipe out the remains of the buildings?
    Mr. Page: We are well aware of that. The main portions are the Brunei fore-building with the facade to Temple Gate and the Brunei engine shed. The former are the parts in relation to which demolition permission has been refused.

    Caravan Sites (Fire Regulations)
    Mrs. Sally Oppenheimasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to improve, and make mandatory, the fire regulations contained in the model standards appertaining to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act, 1960.
    Mr. Graham Page: The primary need, I think, is to ensure that fire-fighting conditions attached to caravan site licences are effectively enforced. I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about this in view of his general responsibility for fire matters.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: Would my hon. Friend not agree that these standards which are 10 years old, are out of date and inadequate and require the local authority to impose only such conditions as it believes to be desirable, and that subsequent Ministry circulars have actually advised local authorities not to apply these standards rigidly or automatically even where they are appropriate? Could he say how many deaths and serious injuries have occurred as a result of caravan fires over the past two years?
    Mr. Page: On the last part of my hon. Friend's question, I cannot estimate how many deaths there have been, but the

    417
    increase in the number of fires on caravan sites is serious and somewhat frightening. The important thing is for the regulations to be enforced and I can assure her that the model regulations could be effective if properly enforced. On the particular occasion which I think she has in mind, the facts were that some of the buckets and hand pumps had disappeared and the equipment was all out of order.
    Mrs. Oppenheim: In view of the seriousness with which I view this matter, I give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

    Housing
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he can now state the total number of houses started during the first four months of 1971 and how this compares with the number of starts for the corresponding period of 1970.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Julian Amery): The number is 101,700 in the first four months of 1971 against 88,000 in the same period of 1970, an increase of 15·6 per cent.
    Mr. Rost: I congratulate the Minister on this further evidence of the acceleration of the house building programme, after years of disgraceful neglect by the previous Administration. Would the Minister bear in mind that if the momentum is to be kept up, he will now have to concentrate his efforts on stabilising the price of housing and keeping availability of finance at a reasonable rate so that people can afford to purchase their own homes?
    Mr. Amery: Yes, I am aware of the problems mentioned by my hon. Friend, and they are not the only ones. I was in Birmingham yesterday and discovered that there is now a shortage of bricks.
    Mr. Lipton: After 12 months of Tory rule!
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that the number of council houses started this year has fallen in comparison with the number for last year?
    Mr. Amery: I think not. The number in the first four months of this year compares quite well with that in the first four months of last year. The April
    418
    figures show a sizeable increase on the March figures, and the February figures were, as the hon. Gentleman knows, quite good.
    Mr. Freeson: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the figures and also give an indication to the House about the prospective number of housing starts estimated by his Department for 1971? Will they reach 350,000, go beyond that figure or be below it?
    Mr. Amery: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions not related to the Question on the Order Paper. If he cares to put down Questions I shall be glad to answer them. The number of starts which we shall reach is considerably better than the number reached under the Labour Government.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will seek to make additional funds available to encourage a crash programme for providing new homes by local housing authorities in areas of acute housing shortage.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Walker): The Governments proposals for the reform of housing finance will enable local authorities with the worst housing problems to deal with them more effectively than is now possible.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give special consideration to Willesden? Is he aware that homeless-ness has now reached heartbreak proportions? We have never had anything quite like this before. A number of families being put out into the street are having to be put into guesthouse accommodation by the local authority. In the light of the Labour Government's approach to the urban aid programme, particularly in areas of high immigration such as Willesden, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in addition to what he has promised, to consider making a special extension of extra finance for housing for such areas?
    Mr. Walker: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction is calling a conference of all London boroughs. I hope that this is one topic which it will tackle and try to do something about.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as part of the general immigration policy of the Government considerably more help for those urban areas with large immigrant populations would be extremely valuable and would do much to allay the fears which have arisen in some quarters about the Immigration Bill?
    Mr. Walker: I recognise that there is a serious housing aspect to the problem. I am anxious that, both in the general proposals for housing finance and in the specific details being discussed by my right hon. Friend, we should give aid in that area.
    Mr. Crosland: This is not solely a matter of housing finance. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is also a matter of the structure of local government, the character of the urban aid programme, and many other factors? Since we have recently had the Greve Report with its full analysis of the problems in these areas of acute stress, would it not be appropriate for the Government to make a special statement on their attitude to the conclusions in that report?
    Mr. Walker: I do not think a special statement is warranted. If there are any specific aspects about which hon. Members want to ask, I will do my best to answer them. We are trying to develop a total approach in the worst urban areas. We are discussing it with local authorities in the areas concerned, and I am anxious to find practical remedies.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is the Minister aware that I am delighted that extra houses are being built, whoever builds them? Will he look into the problem in Liverpool, where there has been a cutback on the programme on the assumption that there will be a surplus of houses in the next five years? At present 2,500 a year come back to be let because of people leaving, and so on. Does this still apply if the council's policy of selling off council houses takes full effect? Has this been taken into account in making the assessment?
    Mr. Walker: The sale of council houses gives added resources to local authorities in tackling their housing problems. Regarding the reform of housing finance, the worst areas for
    420
    housing are cities like Liverpool, Manchester and Greater London. I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that our proposals are specifically designed to help those areas.
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now make a statement on his discussions with the local authorities regarding housing policy.
    Mr. Amery: I expect that these consultations will be concluded shortly.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: After all these months, is it not time the House was at least given some information as to the broad lines of the policy? Months have passed since the initial statement was made.
    Mr. Amery: I am anxious to give the fullest report to the House but it should be a full report. I hope that I shall be able to do this shortly.
    Mr. Crosland: When the right hon. Gentleman gives the full report, will he include in it an explanation, first, of how the likely doubling of rents is consistent with what the Tory Party said about prices and the cost of living a year ago, and, second, how the fact that a particular rent policy will now be imposed on every local authority in the country is consistent with all that the Conservative Party has said about greater freedom for local authorities?
    Mr. Amery: I do not accept the assumptions in the right hon. Gentleman's question, but I will give the fullest possible information to the House.
    Mr. Kaufman: Will the Minister ensure that the outcome of these consultations will result in sufficient funds being available to Manchester City Council to make good the neglect of the Conservative Party during its four years in control of that council, so that the thousands of my constituents who are ill-housed can be rehoused quickly at rents which they can afford?
    Mr. Amery: I reject indignantly the allegations made against Manchester City Council. It was under Conservative tenure that a rebate for tenants in need was introduced. But I assure the hon. Gentleman that he will get the fullest possible information and that this will include

    421
    details of improved subsidies for areas of stress.

    Fire-Damaged Houses (Rebuilding)
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that planning consent is granted for the erection of a new country house in the place of another house which has been accidentally burnt down.
    Mr. Graham Page: I have nothing to add to the reply given to my hon. Friend on 11th November. As I then said, if he has evidence that planning authorities have not been exercising their powers with full regard to the circumstances of each case, I will be glad to examine it.—[Vol. 806, c. 180 1.]
    Mr. King: Can my hon. Friend imagine himself in the situation where a house has been burnt down and, following that shock, the owner is refused permission to rebuild? Planning authorities have dictatorial powers which are usually used in moderation, but on rare occasions when they do something uncivilised it is no part of my hon. Friend's function to support them.
    Mr. Page: If my hon. Friend will give me details of a case in which I can apply my imagination in that way, I shall certainly look into it. But there may in such cases be road improvements and public works pending which may make it reasonable to refuse planning permission for the reinstatement of a house. This procedure does not seem to have caused any hardship in its application. It is an important instrument for the preservation of the landscape of the countryside.

    Denton, Lancashire (A57 Relief Road)
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when construction of the proposed A57 relief road to bypass the Denton, Lancashire town centre will begin.
    Mr. Graham Page: Preparation has not yet reached the stage where a date for the start of construction can be given. My right hon. Friend hopes to publish proposals for the line of the relief road soon.
    Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that there have been repeated postponements
    422
    of this project over the past 15 years? While residents are grateful for the Department's attitude to the purchase and renting of houses which are blighted, these repeated postponements cause inconvenience and delay to heavy traffic and frustration of town development in the area.
    Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates when he says 15 years. This project went into the preparation pool in 1968 and the preliminary report was approved in May, 1971. I hope that proposals for the route of the relief road will be published a little later—in July or early August this year—and that it will go into the programme for the early part of 1972. It has been a very complex scheme with 500 properties to be demolished. We must get the road in the right position when a scheme is as important as that.

    Charity Walks
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the death of a woman engaged in an all-night charity walk from Croydon to Brighton at Redhill on 23rd May, 1971, which took place notwithstanding the advice of the police, and on the two other similar fatalities.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) on 9th June, 1971.—[Vol. 818, c. 1033–4.]
    Mr. Davis: Would it not be helpful if a conference could be convened, under the auspicies of the Department, to cover charity organisations which have embarked on fund raising of this character to acquaint them with the dangers and to discuss perhaps other more fruitful methods of raising money which would bring those who are desirous of participating in these philanthropic activities into more direct contact with human problems—for example, work involved with Task Force, and so on?
    Mr. Griffiths: My Department already makes fully known its advice on the matter, as do the police. Tragic as the matter is, I think that to persist in holding a charity walk on dangerous roads late

    423
    at night in defiance of the advice of my Department and of the police is literally asking for trouble.
    Mr. Harper: Would not the proper answer be for the Department to seek to introduce legislation to ban these walks unless they take place in country areas? The sponsors of the walks should, in their opinion, be sponsoring something positive, not negative.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman demand that the Government should take powers to ban pedestrians from the highway. Pedestrians have some responsibility to concern themselves with their own safety.
    Sir R. Cary: May I ask whether these charity walks have raised a considerable amount of money?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid that I cannot answer that question without notice.

    Buses (Mounting-platforms)
    Sir D. Rentonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he intends to take steps to ensure in future that the mounting-platform on all buses, which is some cases exceeds 16 inches from the ground, is made low enough for disabled and elderly people, people with shopping-bags and small children to board buses easily.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend has no proposals to change the law, but we shall be drawing the attention of public transport operators to the special needs of disabled travellers.
    Sir D. Renton: I appreciate that it might be a tremendous task to change all existing buses, but will my hon. Friend consider a change in the law, if necessary, to ensure that platforms are lower on all buses built in future?
    Mr. Griffiths: I note what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, but there is a difficulty here. If platforms were reduced in height there would be the possibility, with the springing of modern buses, of a collision between the platforms and objects on the road. There is also the fact that occasionally a bus is able to draw close to the kerb, thereby enabling a disabled person more easily to climb aboard. If platforms were reduced in height or contrivances were
    424
    added to them, there would be an additional problem of contact with the kerb.
    Mr. Pavitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for replying to my representations on this subject on behalf of the disabled people in my area. Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services with a view to establishing a working party consisting of doctors and transport people, not only from his Department but also from among those working in rehabilitation units of hospitals where the technical problems can be looked at thoroughly, and will he follow any advice that is given by further action by his Department?
    Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate the point, but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, in association with the Association for the Disabled, my Department is preparing a survey on this matter, which I hope will be sent to all operators and, no doubt, local authorities as well.

    Voluntary Housing Movement
    Mrs. Fennerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, what conclusions he has reached following his Department's review of the voluntary housing movement; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The report on housing associations was published as a contribution to public discussion on the future of voluntary housing. I wish to hear the views of associations and others concerned before coming to any final conclusions.
    Mrs. Fenner: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. May I ask him whether his Department's review will take into consideration a matter which is causing grave concern to housing associations; namely, the high interest rates for borrowing money? Is there any hope that housing associations will find themselves better placed in that respect in the near future?
    Mr. Walker: In the preparation of his paper on housing finance my right hon. Friend is looking at the whole problem of the financing of housing associations.
    Mr. Trew: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if housing associations are to

    425
    make a substantial contribution to relieving homelessness in great conurbations, there may be a case for local authorities making land available to them at something below the cost of acquisition and demolition? Has my right hon. Friend made a study of how that might be done, and, if so, has he come to any conclusions?
    Mr. Walker: That is one of the many aspects that we are considering in the preparation of our White Paper.

    M62, Balkholme
    Mr. Wallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the completion of the M62 east of Balkholme.
    Mr. Graham Page: We are still examining the form of improvements required east of Balkholme. There are a number of questions to be resolved, and we will announce our intentions just as soon as we can.
    Mr. Wall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that he hopes to continue the motorway standard from Balkholme to the City of Hull? Will he bear in mind that this motorway is likely to be completed at about the same time as the Humber Bridge, which will generate a great deal more traffic?
    Mr. Page: One of the problems that we are studying is whether this should be a motorway, and the effects of other planned improvements for traffic movements in the whole area have to be taken into account.
    Dr. Marshall: Can the Minister say by what date the M62 will be completed to the west of Balkholme?
    Mr. Page: By the mid-70s.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the Channel Tunnel.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I have nothing at present to add to the answer given to the hon. Member on 19th May.—[Vol. 817, c. 1225.]
    Mr. Sheldon: Will the international private group, with its bogus risk capital, be examining the possibility of a road tunnel?
    Mr. Griffiths: No, Sir. I reject entirely the slur which the hon. Gentleman has seen fit to throw across the Floor of the House. The group will be examining a rail tunnel. This is the only practical scheme that it can at present examine, because bridges are out, for navigational reasons, and road tunnels are out, not only because of ventilation difficulties, but because the economics do not add up.
    Mr. Deedes: I accept the need for a thorough examination of this questionable project, but will my hon. Friend bear in mind that while all this is going on a large area of the county suffers from blight? Those who want to know what to do next in the way of development are held up, and this looks like continuing indefinitely.
    Mr. Griffiths: I am aware of the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. I assure him that my right hon. Friend is making progress as rapidly as possible on this matter, that full information will be given to the House as soon as it can be, and that a decision will be reached as soon as all the factors are brought together and that Government can consider them.
    Mr. Sheldon: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that "bogus risk capital" are the words to use in this connection? If the group decides not to go ahead with this project, it will be reimbursed by the Government. What kind of risk capital is that? Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that this channel tunnel scheme has not been reinvestigated from the point of view of the possibility of a road tunnel since that out-of-date survey nine years ago? Engineering science has moved forward since then by comparison with the Department, which does not seem to have moved forward at all.
    Mr. Griffiths: The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that the private companies concerned are at risk.
    Mr. Griffiths: On the second part of the supplementary question, I assure the
    Mr. Sheldon: What is the risk?

    427
    hon. Gentleman that my Department is taking into account all the technical considerations that are relevant to this great and ambitious project.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. Friend aware of the tremendous implications which any Channel Tunnel could have, and not only for South-East England? Many people feel that the terms of reference will be vital, and they have in mind that in the case of Roskill and the Severnside Study they were not entirely satisfactory. Is my hon. Friend aware that if a Channel Tunnel comes about it will make the Avonmouth Docks the nearest overland docks in Europe to North America? Will he make sure that in any studies that are undertaken real care is taken of the national implications?
    Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate the dexterity with which my hon. Friend has managed to get a constituency question into matters relating to the Channel Tunnel. I wish to assure him that the Channel under which we are contemplating the construction of a tunnel is not the Bristol Channel but the English Channel.
    Mr. Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this tunnel has been talked about for more than 100 years? Is there any possibility of any action being taken in the next 100 years?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir. I think that the House will have an opportunity to debate this question as soon as all the information is to hand.

    New Towns (Private House Building)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to complete his discussions with the development corporations and the New Towns Commission concerning measures to encourage private house building in new towns; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: The discussions mentioned in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Bray) on 28th April have been completed and a circular was sent to the new towns on 18th May. In addition, a seminar is to be held at which all parties concerned will be able to discuss any outstanding problems. The Department will continue to hold discussions with the corporations
    428
    and the Commission in order to review progress.—[Vol. 816, c. 104.]
    Mr. McCrindle: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those steps, which are very much in the interests of balanced development within the new towns. Will he please assure me that, first, he will make a point of ensuring that adequate land is made available for private housing development within the new towns, and, second, that he will keep in touch with the corporations to make sure that they comply with the letter and the spirit of the new policy?
    Mr. Walker: We shall be in constant touch with the corporations on this topic. I know that they want to make progress in this matter.

    Dartford Diversion (Traffic Noise)
    Mr. Trewasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what reports he has had of nuisance from traffic noise on the newly-opened Dartford diversion; and what action he proposes.
    Mr. Graham Page: Complaints have been received from an association of residents in Wilmington and district and other private individuals mainly in this area. An investigation is being carried out, and I will write to my hon. Friend when this has been completed.
    Mr. Trew: While the new road is generally welcomed for the contribution that it will make to reducing accidents and road congestion, it is causing disturbance and distress to residents of Wilmington along a comparatively short stretch. As the wholly exceptional traffic noise is said to be due largely to the nature of the concrete surface, will the Minister give directions for the length to be tarmacadammed? Will he also consider providing sound baffles and restricting speed, and, if those measures fail, will he consider double-glazing grants for those most affected? Finally, will the Minister investigate the allegation, made in a letter from one of my constituents, that at the public inquiry it was indicated that the level of the road would be much lower than it is?
    Mr. Page: Those are the kinds of thing that are now under investigation. This is a concrete non-skid surface, which has been used elsewhere. I have enlisted

    429
    the aid of the Road Research Laboratory to try to find out why there is this noise. When we have its report, I shall see what can be done.

    Heavy Goods Vehicles
    Mr. Leslie Huckfieldasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he has given to amending the axle-loading requirements for heavy goods vehicles; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Expert advice is that the present plated limits are set at the maximum consistent with safety. I am ready to consider evidence to the contrary.
    Mr. Huckfield: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he content that there is no case for a possible reexamination of the margins of this legislation, particularly in view of some of the unnecessary difficulties which this is apparently causing to operators? Will he undertake to have a further look at the problem?
    Mr. Walker: I think there is a danger in having a tolerance level, as is suggested, because the maximum of the tolerance level tends to become the norm.
    Mr. Spriggs: I thank the Minister for his statement about the safety aspect of loading. Would he also take into consideration the damage which is being done to road surfaces by these heavier vehicles and loads?
    Mr. Walker: This is one of the reasons why the Government declined to agree to heavy lorries on our roads.

    Huddersfield and Dewsbury (Metropolitan District)
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultations he has had with elected local government representatives in connection with the proposed local government metropolitan district 6d, Huddersfield and Dewsbury area.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I am considering the written representations sent by local authorities in the area of the proposed metropolitan district.
    Mr. Clark: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Minister for Local
    430
    Government and Development is reparted in the Huddersfield Daily Examiner of 12th May as having had a meeting with the elected representatives of Huddersfield Borough Council, and that this has caused deep offence to some of the other urban district councils which would form the larger Huddersfield metropolitan district? Would he now assure us that he will meet other representatives from the metropolitan area to have further discussions on local Government reform?
    Mr. Walker: There is no need for anxieties here. Obviously, Ministers from my Department who are at present going to various parts of the country, when visiting a local authority for whatever reason, are willing to discuss with local authority members any topic which it wants to raise. This has occurred on a number of Ministerial visits. It would be impossible to start receiving delegations from all 1,200 local authorities.
    Mr. Crosland: In that case, how is it that I know nothing of any Ministerial visit to Grimsby?
    Mr. Walker: We have not been invited. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will arrange an invitation.

    Home Ownership
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that his policies to encourage home ownership are meeting with success; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Amery: There are already encouraging signs, and I am confident that we are moving along the right lines.
    Mr. Moate: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which I am sure we all wholeheartedly endorse. Has he also seen the figures from the Building Societies Association showing that in the first quarter of the year the number of advances was up by 25 per cent. over the last year of the Labour Government? Is this not a tribute to the success of the policy which he is pursuing so vigorously?
    Mr. Amery: I thank my hon. Friend for what he said. I would not disagree.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Although the Minister's hon. Friend may be satisfied with that reply, is he aware that no one on this side is at all satisfied with it?

    431
    Would he take some action in order to look after the position of young married couples who are finding it increasingly difficult to find anywhere to live, largely because of the increase in the cost of housing, which he has done nothing to bring down, and which has risen enormously since the Government have been in power?
    Mr. Amery: I am sorry for the implication in that question that the hon. Member regrets the improvement in the housing figures.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Does not the increase in home ownership depend largely on the amount of land released upon which to build and the price at which it is available? By what percentage has the amount of land available for building increased since the circular issued on the subject a few months ago?
    Mr. Amery: My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely right to say that land is a key to the success of our policies. Local authorities have been making considerable efforts to make more land available. I was up in the Midlands yesterday, and the figures I was given there were very encouraging. I do not have the percentage increase figures with me, but if my hon. Friend would care to put down a question, I will certainly answer it.
    Mr. Spearing: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the global totals given by the Building Societies Association for new mortgages and the global sum include a substantial proportion of those moving from one house to another? Would he consider asking the Association in future to divide the figures between those who are moving house and those who are taking up mortgages for the first time?
    Mr. Amery: I will examine this with the Department's statisticians. Even moving from one house to another often makes new housing opportunities available for those who are without houses at present.

    Cookham (Green Belt)
    Dr. Glynasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has in mind for ensuring that the proposed green belt within the Cookham
    432
    Rural District Council is not altered by the release of land for development.
    Mr. Graham Page: No special action is necessary. Green belt policies apply in proposed green belt areas until such time as final decisions are taken on them or on specific planning applications.
    Dr. Glyn: I thank my hon. Friend for his helpful reply. Would he agree that it would be better if these proposed green belts were confirmed, as it would remove a great deal of speculation by builders? Is he aware that Cookham R.D.C. has made available what it considers a considerable amount of land, particularly for council housing, and would he in any representations which the Council makes on appeals, consider its views very carefully before coming to a final decision? Finally, is he aware that if building continues, the towns of Windsor and Maidenhead will be joined together, and there will be no green belt at all?
    Mr. Page: The boundaries of green belts have to be settled with great care, but the policy of this Government, where they have approved proposed green belts, is to allow development only in a very special circumstance. We are well aware of the pressure in the area to which my hon. Friend refers in Cookham. The circular which was issued by my Department a little time ago emphasises the need to avoid harming green belts, and our general policy in relation to them remains unchanged.

    Housing Improvement Grants
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the total number of improvement grants approved during the first quarter of 1971; and how this compares with the figure for the comparable period of 1970.
    Mr. Amery: It was 40,950; this figure is 42 per cent. more than in the first quarter of 1970.
    Mr. Tebbit: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his Department's success in getting a much higher take-up of these grants than has ever been achieved before. Would he also remember that many authorities are now back in Labour hands—hands that had a dreadful reputation for bulldozing areas of sound housing, whose residents had deep roots in the

    433
    places in which they had lived for years, and replacing them with the potential slums of the next century? Would he continue to put great emphasis on the improvement of these good old houses?
    Mr. Amery: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his endorsement of our policies, for which he has always consistently pressed. I take his second point very much to heart. It is, of course, far better to improve houses where this can be done than to tear them down, because of all the human implications. People like living in the community to which they are attached, where they have their friends.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Under what legislation did these improvement grants come about? Would the Minister confirm that they are agreed, passed and decided upon under the provisions of the Labour Government's 1969 Housing Act?
    Mr. Amery: I am glad to pay wholehearted tribute to Lord Greenwood for his work in this matter. We are building on the foundations that he laid, which he was not able to exploit or develop as much as he might have, just as we are looking forward very much to building on the foundations of fair rents bequeathed to us by the right hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).
    Mr. Freeson: In view of his very welcome congratulations to the last Labour Administration for the introduction of the Act in question, would the Minister reject the insulting observations of the reactionary Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit)? Coming to the specific point about the operation of the Act and the take-up—here I put a non-polemical point—would the Minister accept that it is important for the future monitoring of the success of this Act in improvements that we do not just register the statistics and the grants which are approved but find some way of registering the actual take-up of the approvals to get an accurate picture of what is happening down in the districts? Would the Minister consider this point seriously in the Department?
    Mr. Amery: On what the hon. Gentleman calls the non-polemical side, I will discuss this with our statisticians. We have so far simply been following in the footsteps of our predecessors. On his polemical point, my answer would be in the negative. I understood my hon. Friend to be taking the Labour Party to task for
    434
    not having made the best use of the legislative opportunity which it had achieved in 1969.

    A57 Road, Rather Valley
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many projects are planned, and how much it is proposed to spend, in making improvements to the A57 in the Rother Valley constituency during the next three years.
    Mr. Graham Page: Three, totalling some £33,000.
    Mr. Hardy: I thank the Minister for that information, inadequate though it may be, and for the modest improvement which he recently promised to have carried out at the Todwick cross roads on that road. Will he take a much more urgent look at the situation in the growing parish of Aston, where the conditions, as a result of the heavy traffic on the A57, are most unsatisfactory? It seems to me and many others in the area that something will have to be done to provide a bypass at an early date.
    Mr. Page: Yes. I am very conscious of the difficulties of Aston. It is Government policy to favour bypasses when other factors are equal, and we are looking very seriously at this problem there. This is, of course, all mixed up with the question of the Mosborough expressway and with a comprehensive development area. The whole matter is rather complex.

    Motorway Safety Barriers
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress being made on the installing of safety barriers on motorways; and if He will make a statement.
    Mr. Graham Page: As the central reserve safety barrier programme is now under way and installation is proceeding on time, I am well satisfied with progress.
    Mr. Cox: While noting that answer, may I ask the Minister to agree that the installing of safety reservation barriers on existing motorways has unfortunately been slow, with less than 100 miles of such barriers having so far been provided? In view of the continuing number of accidents and the loss of life when

    435
    vehicles cross the central reservation, is it not time for the Department to give greater priority to this provision?
    Mr. Page: The work is up to the programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries last year, when he gave the figure of 242 miles by the end of April, 1972, with a 1,000-mile programme by 1975. We are working on the basis of the busiest first and are trying to make this provision where the danger occurs.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: While welcoming the creation of physical barriers, may I ask my hon. Friend to agree that an additional hazard is the light danger and that a considerable risk and danger still exists after dark because none of these barriers goes up to the light level?
    Mr. Page: That is another problem with which I would be pleased to deal if my hon. Friend would table a Question on the subject.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend bearing in mind the fact that the central reservation is sometimes needed by a driver who has had a puncture and wishes to move off the road to effect a repair? When a central barrier is placed in position it is impossible for the driver to pull in to the central reservation. Is my hon. Friend aware that the driver must try to get across to the near-side parking lane, often with attendant risk to vehicles?
    Mr. Page: It is really a matter of choice between safety provisions. We have chosen barriers as being the provision which will give most safety.

    Heavy Lorries (Goods Distribution)
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to investigate the distribution of goods in towns by heavy lorries, in the light of the work being carried out by his working party.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: My right hon. Friend is considering with the road haulage industry the whole question of lorries and the environment.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that one of the most serious problems is the indiscriminate parking of
    436
    lorries in town centres? May we be assured that when these discussions take place, provision will be made for street parking for lorries to try to get rid of some of the traffic chaos that exists?
    Mr. Griffiths: I take note of and agree very much with my hon. Friend's remarks. The report of my Department's working party on lorry parking has now been received and is being studied. Arrangements are being made for its publication.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: I was interested to hear the Minister's comments about an investigation having been made into lorry parking. Is he aware that people living in poorer parts of the country, and particularly the East End of London, feel that these lorries are being allowed to park in their streets all day and every day, all night and every night, often right outside their front doors, making it difficult for them to get in and out, when in the more salubrious and wealthy areas such as Berkeley Square and the Mall the police move on these lorries as soon as they attempt to park? Why cannot we in the poorer parts of London have the same treatment as those living in Smith Square, Berkeley Square and similar salubrious areas?
    Mr. Griffiths: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the police operate a discriminatory means test in the enforcement of the law.
    Mr. Fernyhough: He is.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: They do.
    Mr. Griffiths: If he is, then I reject it totally.
    Mr. Kinsey: Will my hon. Friend get the working party to look into the results of the "Operation Moondrop" experiment which was done into the delivery of goods to see whether we can get less congestion during the daytime, and possibly the cheaper delivery of goods, which will perhaps be reflected in the housewife's shopping purse?
    Mr. Griffiths: I appreciate that some advantages are to be won from making deliveries by night. However, my hon. Friend will be aware that not everyone is anxious to have noise and fumes during the night, when most people are trying to sleep.

    Development Areas (Roads)
    Mr. Michael Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the adequacy of roads for which he is responsible in the development areas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Graham Page: The plans for inter-urban trunk roads in England which my right hon. Friend hopes to announce very shortly will fully reflect the Government's pledge to improve roads in the development areas.
    Mr. Roberts: May I inform my hon. Friend that that answer will be welcomed by most hon. Members who represent, and the people living in, development areas?

    Concessionary Fares
    Mr. Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will circulate details of a general formula relating to concessionary fares.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir. Proposals for a formula were circulated last year but attracted little support.
    Mr. Fox: Is my hon. Friend aware that hon. Members who have more than one local authority in their constituencies are placed in great difficulty when one authority is giving these concessions and the others are not, and that it is extremely difficult to explain to elderly citizens how this system can be fair?
    Mr. Griffiths: I agree that there are many things about local government which are difficult to explain to constituents. As long as we have such a large number of local authorities this problem is likely to be with us.
    Mr. Mulley: Is the Minister aware not only that this system affects one local authority as opposed to another, but that the matter is of great concern to the traffic commissioners when requests for fares increases are before them? Is he aware that if many local authorities could make arrangements where only marginal extra costs are involved for old people and in those cases the marginal difference could be borne by the ratepayers, it would provide a more satisfactory system and result in more concessionary schemes coming into operation compared with
    438
    the present arrangement, which attempts to secure an average charge? Will his Department give real guidance to local authorities on this matter?
    Mr. Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman is right but, as I say, we consulted local authorities and the bus associations a year or so ago and there was very little support indeed for this proposal. I can only tell the right hon. Gentleman that if there is evidence of general need, and I accept that there might be, we shall be very willing to reopen discussions with the associations concerned.

    Disabled Persons (Car Parking)
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to assist drivers of vehicles carrying disabled passengers in finding parking spaces in towns.
    Mr. Graham Page: The question of helping such drivers to find parking space is a local matter. My right hon. Friend hopes shortly to make regulations which will make it possible for drivers of disabled passengers, once they have found space where parking is permitted, to stay there longer than the designated period.
    Mr. Farr: I am delighted to hear that. Lest there be delay before his intended legislation comes about, may I ask my hon. Friend to draw the attention of local authorities to the very grave difficulties in which drivers of disabled passengers find themselves when trying to wait for disabled passengers to finish then shopping, and that often such drivers are moved along by unsympathetic traffic wardens?
    Mr. Page: I hope that this problem will be solved as a result of the regulations. I regret that there has been some delay, but it has been necessary to consult fully the local authorities, the G.L.C. and the disabled persons' associations. The important point to bear in mind is that when these regulations come out, which I hope will be shortly, they will for the first time cover disabled passengers and institutions caring for the disabled as well as the drivers themselves.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will the Minister consider the cost of parking for disabled people, many of whom live on low incomes and find it difficult to find

    439
    the money for this purpose? Is he aware that in many instances they must park considerable distances from shopping centres, when they should be entitled to park as near the shops as possible?
    Mr. Page: The regulations will mean that once they have parked, there will not be a parking fee for the length of time they stay at that parking place, and they will be able to stay there the whole day without a further fee.

    Transport Holding Company
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation for the winding up of the Transport Holding Company and for the disposal of its subsidiaries.
    Mr. Peter Walker: I hope to do so early next Session.
    Mr. Osborn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision is welcomed in view of the fact that the financial results this year have been very disappointing indeed? Will he confirm that they have been a disappointment to him?
    Mr. Walker: It is always a disappointment to see a fall in profits take place with a concern such as this, but I am sure that the decision is right.
    Mr. Mulley: While deploring the decision to dispose of public assets such as Thomas Cook, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to ensure, if he intends to persist with this policy, which I hope he does not, that a proper price is obtained? Will the public tender procedure apply? If the right hon. Gentleman approves of this procedure, will he explain why he did not adopt it in the case of Lunn-Poly recently, and how did it happen that these assets were disposed of ahead of the legislation which I understand is necessary?
    Mr. Walker: I must say that the prospectus for a public tender on Lunn-Poly would have been rather a sad document. It was announced that this was to be disposed of on 27th January. I am sure that the chairman carefully examined every potentially serious offer. Regarding Thomas Cook, we will certainly ensure that we get the maximum possible price for it.

    Capital Programme (Circular 2/70)
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether, in the light of experience of its operation, he will amend Circular 2/70, Capital Programme, under which certain costs for key services such as education are charged to the locally determined schemes pool to the detriment of the latter.
    Mr. Graham Page: I am considering this matter as part of the review of the circular which is now in progress but if any service is taken out of the pool the size of the pool would be correspondingly reduced.
    Miss Fookes: May I point out that it causes considerable embarrassment if the locally-determined schemes pool is somewhat small and a local authority such as the London Borough of Merton has to dip into it, in effect financing capital projects? This is a serious problem.
    Mr. Page: We are looking at the circular again and the rules for next year, but the intention of the new system was that instead of the Government deciding what authorities should spend on furnishing and equipping a school, the discretion would be left to them within the total of their allocation. I notice that the London Borough of Merton was given an extra allocation of £200,000, following its representations on this subject, to meet its commitments in the matter of furnishing schools in its area.

    Rail and Waterway Traffic
    Mr. Raphael Tuckasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether in view of the fact that in absolute terms every railway and waterway administration which makes returns to the Economic Commission for Europe shows an increase of ton-miles in the period 1950 to 1969, except for Great Britain, which shows a reduction, he will take steps to redress this imbalance.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: No, Sir.
    Mr. Tuck: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, parallel with the difficulties with rail and waterways, we are carrying an ever-increasing load of goods by road—the figure is three times that of rail—with all the attendant environmental consequences? Incentives to encourage the

    441
    carriage of goods by rail will not only help the environment but will do away with the need for ever-increasing expenditure on more roads.
    Mr. Griffiths: I assure the hon. Gentleman that proper account of environmental considerations is now taken in approving all new road schemes. It is no part of my right hon. Friend's policy artificially to interfere between a customer and his choice of the best mode of transport, bearing in mind speed, reliability and cost.
    Mr. Tebbit: Would my hon. Friend say whether he read this Question as a conversion to the Treaty of Rome on the part of the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck)?
    Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman can speak for himself.

    British Road Services (General Haulage Section)
    Mr. Skeetasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give a general direction to British Transport Holdings gradually to reduce and phase out the general haulage section of British Road Services.
    Mr. Peter Walker: No, Sir.
    Mr. Skeet: The Minister will realise that the private firm does this job much more economically than the State. Would not this make a very distinctive contribution to the reduction of costs which the Government seek? Would my right hon. Friend look into the problem of the long-distance haulier and remove the restrictions applying under the 1968 Transport Act?
    Mr. Walker: On the latter point, we have announced that we intend completely to do away with any form of quantity licensing. On the former point, I am satisfied that the new chairman appointed at the beginning of the year will see that this undertaking is carried out on a sound financial basis.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Is the Minister aware that these loaded and inspired Questions attacking the Transport Holding Company are causing a gasp of dismay and uncertainty in the minds of both management and staff? Is he further aware that the staffs of British Road
    442
    Services, National Carriers and Freight-liners are doing their utmost to make a success of their business and that this continued attack is having a demoralising effect upon everybody?
    Mr. Walker: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman should have been satisfied, therefore, by my clear remarks. The answer to the Question was "No, Sir", and I followed that by stating my confidence in the chairman.

    Sports Council
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he hopes to make a statement on the future of the Sports Council.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10th June to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison).—[Vol. 818, c. 365–7.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Are the Government aware that some of us, sitting in Room 10 on the Committee stage of a Bill and listening to these dobs being given to surtax payers, think that some of the cash should be given to the Sports Council for a sports building programme, which would take up some of the employment in the country?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is, perhaps, characteristic of the hon. Gentleman that when the Government have raised the status, increased the power and widened the responsibilities of the Sports Council, and given it a good deal more money, he should welcome it in that intemperate fashion.
    Mr. Money: May I tell my hon. Friend how welcome is the Sports Council that he has set up, especially in East Anglia, where this sort of facility is so much needed?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am obliged to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Has the Minister consulted the C.C.P.R. and all the governing bodies of sport? If so, would he say what they advised? Have they advised against the policy changes now being implemented? If so, why was this announcement of very important policy change given by means of a Written

    443
    Answer and not a statement? I welcome the appointment of Dr. Bannister to his new position, but would the Minister say how much time Dr. Bannister will be able to give to the new position and the salary which he will be paid?
    Mr. Griffiths: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I saw all concerned and took into account fully, as did my right hon. Friend, the representations made. I have since seen representatives of the C.C.P.R. and governing bodies of sports, and they have welcomed the Government's decisions. On the Written Answer, there was that day an Oral Question in another place and I thought it right that the House should not hear any later than the other place what the Government intended.
    On the hon. Gentleman's final point, I have every confidence that Dr. Bannister will lead this Council well. His term of appointment will be for five years and his remuneration will be at a level not less than that of other chairmen of comparable bodies.

    Car Safety Standards
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to the British motor industry in connection with improving the safety standards of British cars, following certain proposals made by Mr. Ralph Nader, a copy of which is in his possession.
    Mr. Peter Walker: Safety standards in Britain are dealt with in the Construction and Use Regulations. Standards for exported cars are a matter for the authorities of the importing country.
    Mr. Edelman: Could the right hon. Gentleman now repudiate the dismissive attitude of his right hon. Friend towards Mr. Nader's proposals, as thanks to Mr.
    444
    Nader's persistence the number of deaths in the United States per 100,000 vehicle miles fell last year to a record low of 4·9 compared with 5·6 in the United Kingdom? In those circumstances, will not the right hon. Gentleman now give careful consideration to Mr. Nader's proposals for improving the safety of British cars and investigate the question whether there are double standards, in terms of safety, for British cars made for export and those made for the domestic market?
    Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is almost suggesting that we should automatically follow whatever any other country lays down as a safety regulation. I disagree with that, as did the previous Government. We have never been in line with all other countries in imposing safety regulations. On the figures, the death rate per hundred million vehicle miles for people in cars in the United States is 4 as compared with 2·8 here. On this basis we can claim that in certain spheres we have higher safety standards. But I am anxious to examine, as is my right hon. Friend, any sensible suggestion for improving safety in cars, and as soon as it is approved we should be only too anxious to implement it.
    Mr. J. H. Osborn: Is there not an urgent need to improve the safety of vehicles and to obtain much better agreement internationally, especially within Europe, as to what those standards should be?
    Mr. Walker: We are already discussing this question in Europe. I am this year introducing new regulations bringing in a number of new safety features for British cars. I am very anxious to examine any possible method of improving safety in cars. There is no dragging of feet.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  IMMIGRATION BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
Clause 2

  STATEMENT OF RIGHT OF ABODE, AND RELATED AMENDMENTS AS TO CITIZENSHIP BY REGISTRATION
  3.30 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 14, leave out from 'has' to 'that' in line 15.
  Mr. Speaker: I think it will be for the convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment Government Amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 8; Amendment No. 108, in page 2, line 26, leave out from 'above' to end of line 29; Government Amendment No. 10; and Amendment No. 71, in page 28, line 45, at end insert:
  'child' in relation to a person of illegitimate birth means, where the Secretary of State certifies that he is satisfied of such relationship, the child of his mother and of his putative father and 'parent', 'grandchild' and 'grandparent' shall be construed accordingly.
  Mr. Maudling: The purpose of the group of Amendments standing in my name is to fulfil certain undertaking I gave in Committee. The effect of the Amendments will be threefold, referring to the circumstance where patriality is acquired by descent.
  The first point is to provide that, where patriality is acquired by descent, it will be so only where the parent or grandparent concerned at the time of the birth or adoption of the claimant held citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The second and ancillary point is that, where a child is born after the death of his father, it shall suffice for the purposes of partiality that the father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at death. The third point is that patriality shall descend to or through an illegitimate child from his mother but not from his father.
  These were matters that arose in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Member
  446
  for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) asked whether it was right that patriality should descend from a parent who had renounced or lost his United Kingdom citizenship. I agree with my right hon. Friend to a considerable extent, but not to the full extent. If before the birth of the child citizenship had been renounced, clearly patriality should not lie. If citizenship was lost after the birth of the child, it would seem wrong retrospectively to take away from the child citizenship which it had acquired at the time of its birth.
  Therefore, the test of these Amendments as to acquiring patriality by descent is the holding of United Kingdom citizenship by the parent at the time of the birth of the child.
  The third point was as regards illegitimate children. The Bill as originally drafted provided that the rights of patriality should descend only through legitimate descent which, on the face of it, was a reasonable provision, because where there is a legal right it should probably be derived from some legal relationship.
  I was persuaded by the arguments in Committee that an Amendment should be made. Therefore, we are providing that patriality can derive in the case of an illegitimate child from the mother. I do not think that it is practicable to extend this to the father. In sheer practical terms, as was said in Committee, it is perfectly simple to prove the birth from a mother because of the birth certificate. However, in the case of the father of an illegitimate child it would be exceedingly difficult to do this in practice; and as in the vast majority of cases custody of an illegitimate child rests with the mother I believe that what we are doing will meet this problem.
  I was grateful for the advice of the Committee in these matters. I hope the House will accept the Amendments which have been put forward in that spirit.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Our real complaint about these Amendments is with the situation which has given rise to them. That may be small comfort to the Secretary of State, as it is a situation of his own making.
  Traditionally, immigration law when it is at its most rational should take

  447
  account of two categories—those who are citizens or nationals—that is, those who belong to the community, those who are entitled to the protection of the Government, those who owe allegiance, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, aliens.
  The Bill seeks to make a different distinction between those who, apparently on quite different grounds, are thought to be entitled to call the United Kingdom their home and those who are not. So the Government have had to introduce this odious concept of patriality. Then there are these hair-splitting distinctions which these Amendments are about.
  Why is not the right to live here co-terminus with citizenship? The answer presumably lies in our history. As I said in Committee, our grandfathers asserted a right to reside in other people's countries without producing work permits or certificates of patriality; and in consequence the history of those countries and their present-day situation are very much intertwined with our own.
  That is why the British Nationality Act, 1948, had to define British nationality as something other than United Kingdom citizenship. What is required at this stage, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said in Committee, is a Bill to sort out the resulting anomalies in our citizenship law. Then there would be no need for the subtleties and perplexities involved in the concept of patriality and no need for the kind of hair-splitting entailed in the Amendments.
  However, this is how the Government have chosen to tackle the problem, so we must examine the Amendments which are proposed. Granted the scheme of this Bill, we have no quarrel with Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 10. We are much less happy about Amendment No. 8. The necessity for this Amendment arises, as the Secretary of State has said, from a discussion in Committee when one hon. Member on the Government side moved to leave out illegitimate children from those enjoying the benefits of patriality.
  I do not need to repeat the details of that dismal debate, but the Committee was shattered to hear that in the Government's view the Amendment was unnecessary because already the word "children" in the Bill excluded illegitimate children. So the misfortune with which they were
  448
  already visited was to deprive them, over and above all else, of the opportunity of asserting patriality.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and myself took leave to doubt whether the meaning was so unambiguous as the Government asserted. We went on to say that, if it was, the sooner the Bill was amended the better. We sought to introduce an appropriate Amendment in Committee to Clause 33, the definition section. In that debate the Under-Secretary undertook to examine whether this Amendment might be made. As the Secretary of State has just told the House, Amendment No. 8 results from that consideration.
  We are grateful for the concession so far as it goes, but, as the Home Secretary has just said, it still seeks to restrict the relationship of an illegitimate child to its mother. We still wonder why an illegitimate child is not related to its father. This is the purpose of our Amendment No. 71. It was said in Committee, as a reason for not extending the concept to include a relationship with the father, that in many countries from where immigrants come there is not any readily available documentation so that it is not easy to prove this kind of relationship.
  In so far as that is the problem, one would have thought that the kind of relationship which it would be difficult to establish would be that of marriage. So this would appear to be a reason, if it is right, for not distinguishing between legitimate and illegitimate children.
  We do not see it as a problem at all, because the burden of proving patriality is upon the applicant. If he fails to prove it, no one complains. That he will find it difficult to prove it seems to me a poor reason to deprive him of the prospect of proving it at all, to say that one will not even listen to him when he seeks to prove it.
  The other argument put forward in Committee was that an applicant is more likely to have an upbringing and cultural affinity with his mother's people than with his father's. I am not sure that that is always true, but, if it is, it must apply equally forcefully to a legitimate child. The distinction on which would be entailed here is not between children whose parents are married and

  449
  those whose parents are not but between children whose parents live together and those whose parents do not. We find that the reasons which have been asserted for this odious distinction are completely unconvincing when we give them a moment's thought.
  The whole law has moved towards a recognition of real relationships in the course of this century, away from persecution of the innocent and towards compassion. We are left wondering whether there is any reason why it is necessary to be less compassionate in the Bill.
  It may be that at the end of the debate the Opposition will not divide the House on the matter. The Government have made a move towards what we asked, and we are duly grateful. It is half a loaf. But it seems a pity to arouse so much disappointment and so many misunderstandings in the future for the sake of the other half.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The Clause, as it will be amended if the House accepts the Amendments of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, is a considerable improvement on the Clause as it first met the eyes of the House on First Reading. This is partly attributable to the activities of the Standing Committee, but I think it right to recognise that the response of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to a number of points put to him in Committee has also contributed.
  On the two points with which this group of Amendments deals, my right hon. Friend, although his decision is in the nature of a compromise, has probably hit off the best compromise available. He recognises—and I am obliged to him for doing so—that it was unreasonable that the citizenship of the parent at any time, irrespective of what happened after that time, should determine the patriality of the child and in some cases of the grandchild. He has probably made the right compromise by saying that it should be the nationality or status at the time of the relevant birth.
  Of course, we can envisage circumstances in which the parent's decision to change his nationality in effect carries
  450
  with it the nationality of the child, but if we are to have general law—and we must have—then I do not think that it would be proper for the Secretary of State to be in the position of looking into individual cases. I therefore accept my right hon. Friend's definition of the relevant time as the best available.
  I think that the same applies to my right hon. Friend's response to the debate in Committee upon the question of illegitimate descent. This has been emphasised by the Amendment which the Opposition have tabled to which the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) has just referred. If we were to go further than my right hon. Friend has gone, we should bring in a discretion in the matter of paternity which would have to be exercised by the Secretary of State in every individual case. I do not think that it would be regarded as appropriate that within the ambit of an immigration or citizenship Act that jurisdiction should devolve on the Home Secretary.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight), owing to duties elsewhere, is not here today. We were indebted to her in Committee for ensuring that the whole question of legitimacy and illegitimacy in this context was ventilated. I cannot speak for my hon. Friend, but I believe that my right hon. Friend has met the general feeling of the Committee up to the point of practicability, and that the essential compromise which his Amendments offer is the right one.
  I have no intention of raising again the issue of immigration law versus citizenship law, which has been necessarily so persistent a feature of our debates, and which was touched upon by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Until we have a citizenship of the United Kingdom, which this country has not hitherto known but with which sooner or later we must provide ourselves, we shall be driven to the relatively unsatisfactory expedients embodied in the Clause. But I do not think that that matter of principle can be pursued further upon these Amendments. I welcome them, such as they are.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 4, in page 2, line 17, at end insert:
  (b) he is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies born to or legally adopted by a parent who had that citizenship at the time of the birth or adoption, and the parent either—

  (i) then had that citizenship by his birth, adoption, naturalisation or registration in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands; or

  (ii) had been born to or legally adopted by a parent who at the time of that birth or adoption so had it; or—[Mr. Maudling.]

  3.45 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 2, line 19, leave out from 'been' to second 'or' in line 21 and insert:
  'ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands for a continuous period of five years or more and is settled therein; ',
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House also to take Amendment No. 7, in page 2, line 25, at end insert:
  '; or
  (d) she has at any time been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands for a continuous period of five years or more and is or during any part of such period has been the wife of a person having the right of abode in the United Kingdom'.
  and Amendment No. 105, in page 2, line 22, leave out 'a Commonwealth citizen' and insert:
  'not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies'.
  Mr. Silkin: Amendments Nos. 5 and 7, tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself, are intended to broaden and liberalise the rights of people admitted to this country in future to come and go as they please. Under the existing legislation, a Commonwealth citizen, once here, has, broadly speaking, the right to stay. That is the general position, subject to qualifications. For those who are already here or will be here in July of this year, the Bill recognises that vested right, and, again subject to qualifications, does not remove it. But those entering in the future will have no such automatic right under the Bill. They will come here on probation, as it were, by virtue of the patriality concept. That concept is widely disliked, particularly amongst those who are concerned with community relations.
  It is therefore our duty to scrutinise the rules with care and to ensure that
  452
  they are not more restrictive than is essential. We have excellent authority for that approach, because the Home Secretary at the very outset of his speech on Second Reading said:
  "… as a matter of general principle I believe that the most important problem that any Government have to face in this whole context is the problem of community relations, and that the question of immigration policy in a sense is secondary or ancillary to that basic problem."
  We entirely agree with that. On Second Reading the House certainly accepted that general principle.
  The Government used their majority, that dwindling asset, to force the concept of patriality through the House. But that concept has already been eroded in Committee and we note that the Government have felt constrained to accept that erosion, although in which direction they are looking over their shoulders we are not altogether sure.
  We believe that the Bill will not ease but will exacerbate the problem of community relations. Our Amendments are intended not to cure—because we cannot do that—but to mitigate that exacerbation. When the Bill was published, I think that it was generally thought that Commonwealth citizens coming here in the future—
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I apologise for interrupting the hon. and learned Gentleman at this early stage, but I think that he is discussing Amendments Nos. 5 and 7. Amendment No. 5 refers to subsection (1)(b), concerning citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, not Commonwealth citizens.
  Mr. SilkinI am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware of that. I shall be coming to the concept of the Amendments in a moment.
  I was saying that it was generally believed that Commonwealth citizens coming here in the future would earn the right to come and go as they wished by five years' residence here. The right hon. Gentleman, no doubt unintentionally, encouraged that belief by an observation he made on Second Reading, when he said:
  "For example, those who come here as Commonwealth citizens and who are free of conditions after five years are free to remain here unconditionally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March, 1971; Vol. 813, c. 42–51.]

  453
  Whatever the meaning of that may have been, what emerged in Committee was that what the Government intend is that five years' residence here will not be enough, that there must be five years' unconditional residence here before a person has the freedom to remain here unconditionally. It is a rather curious phraseology, as the Bill now stands, that the freedom to live in this country without let or hindrance, which is referred to in Clause 1, is not achieved by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies under Clause 2(1)(b) which, as the Minis-ster of State rightly says, we are discussing, until for a continuous period of five years he has been ordinarily resident here without, to quote from subsection (2)(c)
  "being subject … to any restriction on the period for which he may remain."
  We might have supposed that if a United Kingdom citizen was ordinarily resident here without being subject to any restrictions on the period of his remaining, that in itself would involve the freedom to live here without let or hindrance. But the tortuous concept of patriality has destroyed the meaning of words. The right hon. Gentleman, by later Amendments, proposes to alter some of those words, but as far as I can tell the effect remains the same from this point of view. Since we were told in Committee that the period of restriction will normally be the first four years of residence, and that only after that will the immigrant begin his unrestricted stay, a citizen of this country will normally not enjoy the right of freedom to live here and to come and go as he pleases until he has lived here not for five years, as we imagined, but for at least nine years.
  That, we believe, is contrary to what was widely understood and to what the right hon. Gentleman at any rate appeared to have been saying—he may not have meant it—and is certainly unnecessarily restrictive. Five years should surely be ample time to enable us to decide whether one of our own fellow citizens who has joined us here has settled as one of us.
  The effect of Amendment No. 5 would be that if after five years of ordinary residence here such a person is here free from restriction, that freedom from restriction would become a reality by the
  454
  grant to him of the right of abode. We do not accept that this new concept of patriality is a necessary or desirable erosion of citizenship. But, if we must have it, we have no doubt that our Amendment will mitigate its harshness and will enable those who come to settle among us to do so with an easier mind than the Bill permits.
  Amendment No. 7 has a similar object concerning the rights of wives. Our nationality laws give the wives of citizens automatic citizenship. But under the Bill the wife of a patrial is not automatically a patrial. Her husband may have or acquire the right to remain here freely, and yet she may not. One of the consequences of patriality which arose again and again in Committee—and which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) graphically illustrated last night on new Clause No. 4, when he talked about the hijacker who is patrial and the hijacker who is not—is that a family may be hopelessly split between patriais and non-patrials with results which are not merely illogical but often cause hardship.
  Amendment No. 7 does not deal with all those cases, but it seeks to deal with the case of a wife in as near as possible a way which assimilates her position in patriality with her position in citizenship. In other words, it seeks as nearly as reasonably practicable to place her on terms of equality with her husband. It stops short of giving the automatic patriality which would entirely follow the citizenship principle, because that would create fresh anomalies which we seek to avoid. For that reason, we have proposed a period of five years ordinary residence here as a qualification for the wife just as we have done in Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 7 would go some way towards avoiding the splitting of families which the Prime Minister condemned in the General Election campaign and which we know from experience produces unhappiness, the breakdown of marriages and delinquency.
  I commend both Amendments to the House.
  Mr. Sharples: Amendment No. 5 refers to people covered by Clause 2(1)(b)—citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The vast majority of them are already

  455
  covered, such as United Kingdom passport holders with work permits coming from East Africa who are admitted free of conditions from the outset and who, when they have been here for five years, acquire the right of patriality. The Commonwealth citizen who comes here with a work permit is able to count the first four years since he arrived and then the additional one year towards the acquisition of patriality. Therefore, the number of people covered by the Amendment is comparatively small. It consists, in the main, of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with a work permit coming here from the dependent territories.
  4.0 p.m.
  There is some force in the arguments of the hon. and learned Member for Dul-wich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). There are, however, considerable drafting difficulties and I should not like to under-estimate them. I cannot recommend the House to accept his Amendment. However, with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I will give it careful consideration and, if possible, within the limitations of drafting, see whether we can meet the point when the Bill is considered in another place.
  Amendment No. 7 also affects a very small number of people. In the great majority of cases, the husband of a woman married to a person having the right of abode will be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and in such circumstances, under Section 6(2) of the British Nationality Act, 1948, the wife has an absolute right to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and so to acquire patriality and a right of abode. She is able to exercise this right to be registered even if her marriage has been dissolved or has come to an end in some other way since the entitlement under Section 6(2) of the 1948 Act applies when a woman "has been married to a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".
  Accordingly, in the great majority of cases, Section 6(2), which is not to be amended by the Bill, already provides the solution aimed at by the Amendment. The only people affected who are not already provided for are the wives of men, being Commonwealth citizens, with a father or mother born in the United Kingdom, who acquire their patriality under Clause 2(1)(c). But even here the
  456
  number concerned is extremely few. If the husband's father was born in the United Kingdom, the husband will be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and so his wife will have an automatic right to register unless that citizenship was renounced.
  Therefore, the only people affected are wives of men whose mothers, but not whose fathers, were born in the United Kingdom and who are not therefore citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies unless and until they acquire citizenship by registration. The wife of such a person would not become a patrial notwithstanding the fact that her husband was a patrial. The effect of the Amendment would be to give a very limited class of people patriality.
  I have carefully considered the point since the Amendment was tabled. Although the numbers concerned are very few, there is some force in the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. I have had very little time to consider the matter, and I cannot give an absolute assurance, but, again with my right hon. Friend, I should like to consider it to see whether the point can be met by an Amendment introduced in another place. I shall do my best.
  Mr. James Callaghan: We are grateful to the Minister of State for the way in which he has answered the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). The House is indebted to my hon. and learned Friend's vigilance in discovering this extremely technical point. It is a small point, but it throws out the balance of the Bill. Given the principles upon which the Bill is based, it would have meant that a group of people would have been outside the normal range of those principles. In the light of what the Minister of State has said, I would not advise my hon. Friends to press the Amendment, although we intended to do so if we had had the rather dusty answer which we anticipated.
  I should like the Minister to give an assurance, because I did not follow the last part of his reply. He read it very well, but it did not penetrate. If he can deal with the two groups covered by Amendments Nos. 5 and 7, will there be any small groups left outside the general principle upon which the Bill is based,

  457
  namely, that, once the conditions have been removed, the period during which the conditions were in operation will apply towards the five-year requirement for permanent settlement before registration can be secured? In other words, are there any other pockets of people which even the vigilance and eagle eye of my hon. and learned Friend has not been able to spot? If so, and if they are of the numbers indicated by the Minister, we would ask for his guidance. If there were any, we would hope that he would deal with them. If there were not, we would not need to pursue the point. I hope that I have given the Minister sufficient time to give an authoritative answer.
  Mr. Sharples: May I say, with leave, that so far as I have been able to discover in the time I can give the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) the assurance for which he asks. I think that we have covered all the points.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: I wish to comment on the second part of the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister of State. I am sure that he will not be deterred from trying to find the right form of words by the fact that so few women are involved. In cases like this, not merely hardship but anguish could result if a defect in drafting should prevent a solution from being discovered.
  Mr. David Steel: I had hoped that the Minister of State would refer to my Amendment No. 106. In Committee, I moved a similar Amendment which has been reworded in the hope of making it narrower and acceptable to the Government. Its object is to try to ensure the maintenance of family unity. If a woman has a right of abode here, her husband should have a similar right. Would the Minister comment on that point?
  Mr. Sharples: If I may have leave to speak for the third time, I could not advise the House to accept Amendment No. 106. Its effect would be to give a right of abode to the husbands of women who are patrial. It would open the door to enormous abuse. The House has never accepted the principle that people should acquire patriality or rights of abode in this way. I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: In view of the undertaking of the Minister of State, and on the understanding that he will ensure that no small pockets of people are left outside the ambit of the concession which, I take it, he will arrange to be embodied in an Amendment in another place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 105, in page 2, line 22, leave out "a Commonwealth citizen" and insert:
  "not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".
  Mr. Speaker: It would be convenient if we discuss with this Amendment No. 123 leave out paragraph (c).
  Mr. Steel: The question of the rights of entry and abode in this country through descent is a complicated one and I would remind the House of the present situation and how we arrive at it. A person has always held the right to enter this country and to stay here if his father was born here. In other words, the person abroad whose father had perhaps moved abroad, held dual citizenship—the citizenship of the country where he was born and also the citizenship of this country through his father.
  In 1968 at the time of our difficulties with the Kenya-Asian population, when the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was brought in by the previous Government, they proposed a limitation on the free entry of United Kingdom citizens to this country, limiting it to those whose father or grandfather had been born here as well as those who were born here. During the passage of the Bill through this House an Amendment was proposed by myself and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Sir Robin Turton) to amend the Bill and give the right to enter this country by descent not only from the father and grandfather but also from the mother or grandmother. The Government of the day accepted that Amendment. Therefore in 1968, when the Measure became law the control for the entry of United Kingdom citizens exempted those who were the child or grandchild of a person born in this country. When their Bill was published the Government proposed to apply the

  459
  same principle—the "grandparental qualification"—to Commonwealth citizens and the Bill as originally drafted and approved on Second Reading contained the qualification in Clause 2(1)(c) that a Commonwealth citizen would have the right of abode in this country if he was the child or the grandchild of a person who had United Kingdom citizenship by birth in this country.
  In Committee we removed the grand-parental qualification and the words "or grandchild" were deleted. So the Bill as reported to the House, and as it now stands, simply reads that a person may have a right of abode if he is a Commonwealth citizen and as the child of a person having had United Kingdom citizenship.
  The Government have apparently accepted the verdict of the Committee and no attempt is to be made to reinstate the grandchild qualification. We have reached a situation where, if a person is a Commonwealth citizen, he may enter this country and have a right of abode here by virtue of tracing his descent from either his father or his mother. If he is not a Commonwealth citizen he can only enter this country and have a right of abode by virtue of his descent from his father. I do not know whether that is a distinction which the Government intend to maintain or whether it is a purely artificial one which has arisen as a result of the Amendment in Committee and been left in the Bill. The purpose of my Amendment is to find out whether this is so.
  If the Government did not intend to maintain such a distinction—a marginal and illogical distinction—this Amendment provides the opportunity for the House to put it right simply by saying that if a person holds any other citizenship he may have the right of abode in this country by virtue of being the child of a United Kingdom citizen. If, on the other hand, the Government intend to maintain this distinction I invite them to consider whether they would be right to do so.
  The Bill, if passed into law in its present form, would result in a ludicrous and unjustifiable anomaly. If a person's mother who had been born in this country and was a United Kingdom citizen chose to go and live in say Tanzania, then
  460
  under the Bill that person would have the right of abode. If on the other hand his mother, having been born here, decided to go and live in France—and this would apply even if we become associated with France through the Common Market—he would not qualify for a right of abode in this country. If he had been born in France, he would be an alien and not qualify under Clause 2(1)(c). The anomaly is further aggravated if we go back to the example I gave a moment ago. Supposing the mother had been born in Tanzania and political steps were taken by the Government of Tanzania to leave the Commonwealth and I mean this in no political sense, it is merely a random choice—
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As in the case of South Africa, for instance?
  Mr. Steel: Yes, indeed. South Africa would be a case in point, if the position were antedated. If a country chose to leave the Commonwealth that person's right of abode would be removed not by any action of this Government, but by the action of a foreign Government if he was depending on his mother's connection with this country for entry. This is a nonsense and this House, having accepted in 1968 the principle of equality of descent between father and mother and grandfather and grandmother ought to clear up this matter and decide whether we accept that a person should be able to claim descent and right of abode through the descent from the mother or the father. That is the purpose of my Amendment and I hope that it will be acceptable to the Government.
  4.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My Amendment No. 123, raises a much wider issue of patriality. I see from the observations this afternoon that there appears to be tacit agreement between both sides that the matter should not be raised at length on Report. I find this regrettable because it prevents those of us who were not in the Committee and could not get into the Second Reading debate from discussing the question.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Am I not right in saying that you decide what can and what cannot be said, whatever the Front Benches may or may not have decided and my hon. Friend can

  461
  raise what he wishes, subject to your ruling?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite correct.
  Mr. Callaghan: As we are getting a mountain of superstructure built on a very inadequate hypothesis, let me say that there is no tacit agreement, expressed, implied or in any other sense about any discussions.
  Mr. Lyon: The position about patriality was raised by two Amendments which I tabled. One of these would have limited the right of abode completely to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and that has not been called. This Amendment would cut out Clause 2(1)(c), namely, that part of the patrial section which allows right of abode to those who claim it by descent as Commonwealth citizens from their parents.
  The descent from grandparents, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) pointed out, was cut out in Committee. I have read the speech of the Home Secretary in Committee in the course of the discussion of a similar Amendment in which he indicated how, in his view, the scope of the subsection, particularly as amended, was very restricted. It seems to have been accepted by the rest of the Committee after his intervention that the right of a child to enter this country where the father was born in this country is in any case unlimited and always has been unlimited under any legislation. If the Clause as now amended widens the situation at all, it simply widens it to the children of mothers who were United Kingdom citizens. Therefore, this is a very limited extension.
  I said I would try to keep my speech short and not widen the debate. What really concerned me was the effect of the 1968 Act, and, for reasons which are completely different from those of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South - West (Mr. Powell), I took the view that if we were to introduce at this stage a new law of immigration it was appropriate that we should deal with it in terms of citizenship and not in terms of belonging and for that reason I wanted to create what would be a completely new type of
  462
  citizenship restricted only to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
  I wanted to do so out of compassion for both the present Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the former Home Secretary, becuse no one in the discussions in the Committee, so far as I can see, raised the question of what will happen if the case pending before the European Commission on Human Rights goes against this country, and whether, if the matter which has in that case been raised, namely, whether the 1968 Act violates the Convention on Human Rights and is, therefore, illegal under the Convention, that will mean that there will have to be an amendment of this legislation in order to repeal the 1968 Act. If that is so, clearly it is a work of supererogation to pass this legislation in its present form, and there will have to be wider legislation to grant right of abode to all citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with passports. For that reason, therefore, the widening would also include this extension which is contained in Clause 2(1)(c) even if it is as limited as the Home Secretary has suggested. It is for that reason that I raise this matter now in order that we can have a statement from the Government about what is their attitude towards this case pending before the Commission.
  If I am right, the application means that this legislation we are proposing is a continuation of the violation of the Convention which was perpetrated by the 1968 Act, and if therefore that has to be amended, we shall have to go back to square one in any case, but we shall have to go back to square one having also widened the right of certain Commonwealth citizens by this Clause 2(1)(c). They would then have rights of entry which could not be taken away, because that would be a violation of the European Convention. It seems to me that we are in real danger of perpetrating another situation such as occurred in relation to the 1948 Act. We are going to give to certain people rights which, by reason of the European Convention, we shall not be able to take away, and then we shall And that the 1968 Act has to be repealed and this legislation completely altered, and in that situation we shall find that, instead of limiting—which was the original intention of the legislation—we shall have widened, whether slightly or wider than

  463
  slightly, the ambit of those who are eligible to come in. It is for that reason that I raise this question despite the assurances of the Home Secretary that Clause 2(1)(c) has a very narrow ambit.
  I would briefly raise the point about patriality which does really concern me. Throughout, there has been the assumption that belonging has something to do with physical ties of family, or part of the family, with whether one of one's ancestors was born in this country. I would suggest—and it is a matter on which we shall agree to differ—that the real concept of belonging is the kind of feelings in the hearts and minds of those who wish to be regarded as citizens of this country, who have consciously continued to accept rights as United Kingdom citizens or, even more consciously, have taken on the rights by registration or naturalisation. In those circumstances a person belongs to this country in a way which someone who is merely the child or grandchild of someone who was born in this country earlier in our history does not. This is a much nearer belonging than that which someone in the light of the birth of one of his ancestors claims.
  In a number of international conferences in recent months when I have met people from Australia or New Zealand I have put to them this idea that because their fathers or grandfathers were born in this country they somehow belonged to the United Kingdom. They found this totally implausible. Yet we are cutting out by the 1968 legislation and to some extent by this legislation people who want to belong to this country, who conceive it as their mother country, who want to come here because we have this very old-fashioned concept of who does and who does not belong.
  It is for that reason I should like either that we should keep to the old concept of British nationality, which was part of the Commonwealth tradition and which has gradually been whittled away, or that we should start out afresh with a concept of British citizenship which depends upon either birth here and continuation of allegiance to this country or conscious acceptance of some connection with this country acquired by birth or registration or naturalisation.
  464
  For that reason I would share much of the thinking of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, though, as I said, for entirely different reasons, but it is because of that concern that I have come to the conclusion that we ought to raise this matter yet again on this Clause in order that we shall see that we do not perpetrate another mistake which would take us before the European Convention on Human Rights.
  Mr. Sharples: I refer first to the remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon). I think very few of us would disagree with him that it is the person who is naturalised here, who is registered here, who has acquired his citizenship in the normal way most of us have, who lives here, who has the prior claim in this matter, but when one comes to define these elements to which he referred I am sure he will appreciate the difficulty of drafting them in law.
  I turn to the point he raised about the case before the European Human Rights Commission. Of course that case may be decided one way or another, but it is our contention that there has been no violation of the Convention; we have committed no violation of it at all and it is our intention that the case should be defended. Of course, laws can be found to need alteration in the light of decisions of the courts. This is something which happens all the time. As our contention is that there has been no violation, we see no reason why the Commission should come to a decision contrary to our views.
  4.30 p.m.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly said that the number of people now affected by Clause 2(1)(c) is very small. They are those citizens of the Commonwealth whose mothers were born in this country. Those whose fathers were born here, whether or not they are Commonwealth citizens, have the right of patriality.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) asked whether it was intentional that there should be discrimination in favour of Commonwealth citizens. The answer is a clear "Yes". It is the Government's intention that there should be a discrimination in favour of the Commonwealth, and that those people whose mothers are

  465
  Commonwealth citizens should have this additional right. The effect of Amendment No. 105 would be to extend the right of abode to anyone, including aliens, whose father or mother was born here. We do not believe that is right. There would be a considerable number of such people who, in the main, would be living in the United States, Continental Europe and South Africa. We do not believe it is right that this privilege should be extended to people living outside the Commonwealth deriving their patriality through their mothers.
  There is always the problem, when a country decides to leave the Commonwealth, that the rights of certain people deriving patriality in this way will be abrogated. It is one of the considerations which any country has to bear in mind in deciding whether or not to remain a member of the Commonwealth. I advise the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. Callaghan: I should like to put one question to the Minister which has occurred to me only since the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) raised this point. In my constituency, in 1954, there were a number of people who were related to people in Somalia, which became a republic. My recollection is that people living in Somalia, because it became a republic, lost their close affinity and their right to enter this country, and I had difficult correspondence with the Foreign Office about this.
  The Minister says that it is for the country concerned to take this into account when it is deciding whether or not to become a republic, but the individual citizen is frequently not in a position to influence the decision. At that time a number of citizens of Somalia were desperately anxious about this. In the words of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) they felt they belonged because they had direct connections either through service in the Royal Navy or in some other way, and they wanted to keep this arrangement, but our laws did not permit them to do so.
  Will the Minister consider the possibility of giving to citizens of a Commonwealth country that decides to become independent—and we should have to invent a way of doing it—the
  466
  same privileges as they would have under Clause 2(1)(c) as drafted? These are people who may not be able to influence their own Government in reaching a decision on independence, which may be taken on much wider considerations, yet who nevertheless feel that they would like to retain the connection.
  I do not expect the Minister to give an affirmative answer straight away, but will he consider the point between now and when the Bill goes to the other place?
  Mr. Powell: Before my hon. Friend responds, I think he will find when he looks into this that, if not invariably, at least in many cases where a country has left the allegiance, as it used to be, pro vision has been made for those who wish to retain their allegiance and not be carried into alienhood to do so by an overt act—
  Mr. Callaghan: Not invariably.
  Mr. Powell: Not invariably, but there are precedents for this and it is something for which the House has often wished to provide.
  Mr. Sharples: With the leave of the House—one certainly has sympathy with the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), but I should not like him or the House to be under any illusion about the difficulties of what he is suggesting, certainly in respect of Clause 2(1)(c). The Clause confers a privilege on a very limited number of people simply on the grounds that they happen to be citizens of the Commonwealth and derive their patriality through their mothers. So long as that privilege is derived from citizenship of a Commonwealth country, it would be extremely difficult to devise a scheme which would safeguard that privilege when that citizenship ceases. I will certainly look at the point, but I should be deceiving the House and the right hon. Gentleman if I suggested that there was much possibility of a solution.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I rise in a genuine attempt to seek knowledge. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and I ate and slept with citizenship for what seemed like 40 days and 40 nights. The reason why we seem to be unable to deal with this matter now is that we have exhausted the subject.

  467
  The Minister is at liberty to agree on this point with his right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and I would rather he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman than with me on the technical points. But I feel that even the right hon. Gentleman, with his great knowledge, had it wrong. We all learned in Committee that one could be wrong even if one had the greatest expertise in citizenship.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) raised on Clause 2(1)(c) the question of people who have moved not to the Commonwealth but to a foreign country. We had a long session on this in Committee, when the Secretary of State, in col. 179, said that somebody whose parents or grandparents had gone to a foreign country could, two generations later, enter the United Kingdom. My question is: does this apply only where the laws of that country provide for dual citizenship? For example, if the parents or grandparents had gone to Germany, to take the country mentioned by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in col. 183, a descendant would have a right, two generations later, to enter this country.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Common Market.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Common Market is relevant to this. Questions of citizenship may be involved.
  All I can do at this point is to quote the Home Secretary in Committee:
  "The basic point is that, wherever he is born, he is free to come if he draws his position from the father born here."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 30th March, 1971; c. 179.]
  That leads me once again to the question: is it correct to say just "father", or, now, because of this Bill, is it father and mother as well? It seems to me that the point which the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles has raised is one which we discussed earlier and, if we are still not clear at this stage, it would be valuable to go into it further.
  Mr. Sharples: If I may have leave to speak again, the answer to that question is: if he is not a Commonwealth citizen, only from the father, and if he is a
  468
  Commonwealth citizen, from the father or the mother. If I may say so, I think that the point to which the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) refers related to a number of people in South American countries among whom each generation registered as British citizens, and that is the way British citizenship was acquired.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is the hon. Gentleman sure of his reply there? I read the Home Secretary's observations in Committee, and I had the same question mark against that point as did my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). Is it right that, if I am the child of a United Kingdom citizen who was born here, I am then entitled, under the British Nationality Act, to be a United Kingdom citizen if the citizenship laws of the country in which I am born and where I am a citizen by birth preclude me from dual citizenship? I can see that if I am entitled to dual citizenship and I am born in Germany or Tanzania and I am the son of a United Kingdom citizen I can have both United Kingdom citizenship and German or Tanzanian citizenship. On the other hand, if the country in which I am born has laws against dual citizenship—and many do—was not the Home Secretary's advice to the Committee wrong in regard to those circumstances, since I should be deprived of taking up my United Kingdom citizenship here? Or am I wrong about that?
  Mr. Sharples: I am sorry to intervene again. My right hon. Friend's answer was absolutely right. It is derived from the father in respect of other than Commonwealth countries, and in respect of Commonwealth countries from the father and mother. If it is derived from the father, irrespective of the situation in the country concerned as to whether dual citizenship is allowed, the right is there.
  Mr. David Steel: The House ought to pause at this point and be clear about what it is doing. I think that the Minister is right in what he has just said and, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was a little confused.
  I am anxious to be clear, so I shall repeat my point. I am not talking about

  469
  people who hold citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Under our present law—Amendment No. 123 in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) would establish or continue the present situation—someone whose father was born here and was a United Kingdom citizen is entitled to come to this country regardless of where he himself was born. I understand that to be the position throughout the world.
  If we take out paragraph (c) of Clause 2(1), that still remains the position because he would hold it under the British Nationality Act. By paragraph (c) it is proposed to extend that principle to those people who, by virtue of their birth, are Commonwealth citizens and whose mothers were born in this country.
  4.45 p.m.
  I return now to the Minister's earlier reply. He said that this was a distinction which the Government intended. I can see that, originally, when the Bill was presented to the House, the Government intended a whole series of distinctions between Commonwealth citizens and non-Commonwealth citizens, for instance, that Commonwealth citizens, if they had mother, grandmother or grandfather born here, would have the right of abode. In Committee, we took out the grandfather and grandmother. We are, therefore, left with this: the Government are deliberately maintaining a distinction between the qualification to come here through descent from the mother for those who happen to be born in a Commonwealth country and the qualification for those who happen not to be born in a Commonwealth country.
  Mr. Sharples indicated assent.
  Mr. Steel: The Minister agrees. That is what Clause 2(1)(c) is all about. I say that that is a nonsense. Either we should adopt the view of the hon. Member for York and retain the existing position under which everybody qualifies for entry and right of abode because his father was born here or we should say that everybody should qualify because his father or his mother was born here. What is illogical is to say that some people may qualify because their fathers were born here or others because they happened to be born in the right country at the right time and because their fathers or mothers were born here.
  470
  That is the illogical state of this proposed legislation. It was justified in the context of the Government's original thinking when they were creating a whole series of distinctions between Commonwealth citizens and aliens, but, since the Committee chose to remove the main part of those distinctions, the one distinction which is left, though relatively unimportant, creates an entirely unnecessary anomaly. I hope, therefore, that I shall have the sympathy of the House in, perhaps, pressing this matter to a Division. I certainly do not wish at this stage to seek leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I have leave to speak again? This is a valuable discussion to clear the ground because it will enable us to have a clearer debate on a subsequent Clause. First, may I make this observation and see whether it meets the Minister's approval? Clause 2 is not a citizenship Clause; it is a statement of right of abode. It is an immigration concept which enables immigration officers to decide whether someone may come in. The Government have firmly set their face against a citizen ship Act.
  Therefore, when one is looking back to either paragraph (a) or paragraph (c) of Clause 2 and considering the concept of citizenship, one needs to refer to Section 5 of the British Nationality Act, 1948:
  "… a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of his birth"—
  and it does not matter, in the context of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks in Committee, whether he is living in Germany or Timbuctoo. But citizenship is one thing. This Bill is an Immigration Bill, not a citizenship Bill.
  I put it to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), therefore, that, in terms of voting or not voting, the point which we have reached on this side is that what is required is not further confusion of the issue as between patriality or right of abode and citizenship. This will never be put right until we have a citizenship Act. Therefore, in our view, voting would be dangerous because it would

  471
  serve only to complicate the issue even more.
  The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) about Commonwealth citizens is more logical, but it deals with another aspect which at some time or other we have to decide in the context of Section 5 of the 1948 Act. How far back should one go in the context of citizenship? There are arguments for saying only to the person born here or to one generation, but that to go to two generations is stretching it too far. What we are trying to do is to get the climate of opinion right. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has played his part in that, as my hon. Friend the Member for York said. For heaven's sake, let us get citizenship right. This question of right of abode will only confuse the situation still further.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would it not further complicate the issue at this stage to give a right to a Commonwealth citizen which he does not have at present and which we might have to take from him in the future, if we clarify our law of citizenship, when taking it away could be a further breach of the Convention on Human Rights? That is the point I was making.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In Committee, the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles pursued this question at some length, and we had sympathy with his approach. All I am saying now is that my hon. Friend's approach is more logical, but it is not the matter to be put to the vote now. Indeed, it is a matter which we discussed and voted on in Committee, and we lost. I am not replying to my hon. Friend, though I think that he has logic on his side. I am replying to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and I am saying that we on this side think that it would not be appropriate to vote on this question. It is citizenship which we want to get right.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendments made: No. 6, in page 2, line 22, leave out "and is the child of a person having at any time" and insert "born to or legally adopted by a parent
  472
  who at the time of the birth or adoption".
  No. 8, in page 2, leave out lines 26 to 2 and insert:
  (2) In relation to the father of a child born after the father's death, references in subsection (1) above to the time of the child's birth shall be replaced by references to the time of the father's death; and for purposes of that subsection—
  (a) "parent" includes the mother of an illegitimate child; and—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in line 42, leave out from "there" to "without" in line 1 on page 3. I believe that we are taking at the same time Amendments Nos. 72 to 77.
  The purpose of these Amendments is to clarify the law on the meaning of ordinary residence in this country and to lay down in the interpretation Clause, Clause 33, what is meant by ordinary residence. The effect will be that, except in the context of Clause 7, which safe guards the position of those already here and ensures that people who are already here will still be able to claim ordinary residence, even though they may be over staying their time—
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It may be that this has already been said sotto voce. We were trying to follow the Amendment Paper in relation to this group of Amendments, but we could not be sure about their order. One presumes that they are Government Amendments.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I should have said that, with Amendment No. 9, we are taking for debate Amendments Nos. 72 to 77.
  Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although it is understood that Government Amendments are automatically selected, I suggest that when the Chair in its wisdom has decided to group a number of them together it would be for the convenience of the House if in future that were shown to be the case.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman said, but it is not always possible to do that. If this information does not appear on the Amendment Paper, it should be shown on the list which is to be found at the entrance to the Chamber. If that is not

  473
  the case, perhaps some arrangement has been reached since Mr. Speaker made his selection. I note what the right hon. Gentleman said and I will endeavour to see that that course is adhered to.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I assure the House that no arrangement has been reached with the Opposition on this matter. It has taken us by surprise that Amendments Nos. 72 to 77 are to be discussed at this stage.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let me make this matter quite clear. There is no obligation on the House or a Standing Committee to take all these selections together if they do not wish to do so. Therefore, if hon. Members demur at the selection which has been made they are entitled to do so. The Chair hopes that it is for the general convenience of the House to put these Amendments together, but if strong representations are made to the contrary the Chair must take note of them.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Further to that point of order. There has been every co-operation on this stage of the Bill and the Chair has been extremely helpful. We are in some difficulty on this matter, but we feel that we can accept the situation as it is. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman, with his usual lucidity, will explain what it is all about and we hope that we shall be able to proceed.
  Mr. Maudling: I am flattered by the hon. Member's confidence in me. I am sorry if there has been any confusion. I understood that this group of Amendments might be taken together since they are all on the same point. Amendments Nos. 73 to 77 are consequential Amendments to Schedule 1; Amendment No. 72 relates to Clause 33, the interpretation Clause. Amendments Nos. 9 and 72, which are the effective Amendments, define somebody who is "ordinarily resident" for the purpose of the Bill.
  As the House is aware, ordinary residence for a certain specified number of years is the test for certain rights under the Bill. This defines the matter of ordinary residence. The Amendments provide that a person is not to be treated as ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom while he is here in breach of the immigration laws. In other words, if he
  474
  is here in breach he cannot claim that period as residence for the purpose of acquiring a right.
  There is a special exception that arises under Clause 7, relating to Amendment 37, which is designed to safeguard the position of those who are already here to ensure that we are not taking away from anybody already here a right which they possess. People already here can count time they spend here overstaying their leave towards ordinary residence. We shall continue that illogical arrangement because of the undertaking I have given that we do not intend to take away a right which such people possess.
  For the future it is sufficient to say that if people want to claim a right by virtue of residence here they must be lawfully residing here. They must not have residence here in breach of the immigration laws. That will be the effect of Amendments Nos. 9 and 72. The substantive Amendment is No. 72. The other Amendments are consequential to Schedule 1. They are required because the new Amendment to Clause 33 setting the matter out in general means that one does not have to set the matter out in the same way when one comes to the Schedule. These Amendments could be termed consequential. We are simply saying that when a man claims a right because of ordinary residence, it must be ordinary residence not in breach of the immigration laws.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Archer: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for both the clarity of his exposition and his concession on Clause 7. We do not complain about the principle of what he is seeking to do. When I first read Amendment No. 9 I thought that the Home Secretary was overcome by a fit of conscience about the whole Bill.
  Mr. Maudling indicated dissent.
  Mr. Archer: The right hon. Gentleman has quickly disabused me of that. I thought that he was indulging in a paroxysm of generosity which would have gone even further than I should have been inclined to go in his position. He seemed to be deleting the requirement that to qualify for patriality an immigrant had to be here lawfully in the first instance. Alas, all that was

  475
  taken away by Amendment No. 72. I content myself with commenting that, not for the first time, the promise of better things given by this Government when presented for payment turns out not to be intended seriously.
  Mr. R. T. Paget: I am not altogether happy about this matter. The basis of our law has always been a deep respect for possession, whether legal or not. If people are in possession of property and no one interferes with that possession for a certain time, it is taken as legal and can be asserted against everybody.
  Surely when somebody has been here for a very long time and has established residence—by "a very long time" I do not necessarily mean within the short limits of the Bill—we do not say that 20 or 30 years back he had no title. I think that there ought to be a limit. We may say that illegal residence shall not qualify for anything in the initial stages, but at a certain point I think that, as with land, title ought to be acquired by virtue of having been here a long time, whether lawfully or not.
  I give a simple illustration of a man who, having been slipped across the Channel, has been residing here for 20 years and has bred his family here. If, after those 20 years, somebody spots that he arrived here by mistake, does that illegitimise his position and that of his children? I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary's view on that.
  Mr. David Steel: I seek to raise almost the same point as that of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The Home Secretary will recall that in Committee the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) raised an interesting point which he has so far chosen not to pursue on Report. Nevertheless, I think that it is worthy of serious consideration. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would be the position, after the Bill became law, of those who at some point in the past had entered this country illegally. We had a debate on the numbers. Without going into how many there may be, it is surely unsatisfactory that there should be people who, having been ordinarily resident here
  476
  for a very long time in any ordinary meaning of the words "ordinarily resident", under the Bill, and particularly in view of the Amendment now proposed, could never be ordinarily resident, however ordinarily resident they might appear to be, because at some stage in the past they had been, and presumably still are, in breach of a former immigration law.
  This is an important matter. The right hon. Member for Ashford suggested that there might be some kind of amnesty for these people at the time that the Bill was going through Parliament. I should be interested to hear the Home Secretary's view.
  Mr. Maudling: With the leave of the House. This is a matter of discretion. If a man has been here for a very long time, it is within our discretion to say that he can stay. However, the Amendment is concerned with a different point—the acquisition of a legal right to stay or of a legal right against deportation. We are saying that, as a matter of interpretation, the acquisition of a legal right to stay must be a period of legal residence. After that, if a man claims, "I have no legal right, but it would be unfair to throw me out because I have been here for a very long time", it would be a matter for the fair exercise of discretion.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the Home Secretary respond to the remarks made in Committee by his right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) about the possibility at some stage—I do not know whether Third Reading would be appropriate—of offering some general amnesty to people who have been here for a very long time, but who initially entered illegally or overstayed their term, and so on? This is an important point. In Committee many hon. Members were seized of the point made by the right hon. Member for Ashford. I hear a whisper that this point will arise later. Perhaps the Home Secretary will inform me about the position.
  Mr. Peter Archer: It might assist my hon. Friend if he looks at Amendment No. 37.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment made: No. 10, in page 3, line 4, leave out 'the' and insert 'any'.—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 3, line 11, at end insert
  'and by the next following subsection.
  (5) Any Commonwealth citizen having the right of abode in the United Kingdom and being a person of full age and capacity shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and the provisions of section 9 of the British Nationality Act, 1948 (as set out in Appendix C to Schedule 1 to this Act) shall apply to any person so registered'.
  Under the terms of the British Nationality Act, 1948, as amended by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, a right was given to Commonwealth citizens to register as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies after five years. I emphasise that it was a right; it was not discretion. I understand that this right was not much exercised over the years, but it was part of the concept of the 1948 Act and of the subsequent change when it was recognised that the Empire was turning into the Commonwealth.
  We have gone over the question of citizenship on many occasions, so by this stage we have learned a great deal about it. Citizenship was of different types. There was citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, citizenship of each Commonwealth country, and British subjects without citizenship, all of whom were Commonwealth citizens. I always found it surprising that British subjects without citizenship were Commonwealth subjects. Nevertheless, this is so. British protected persons were outside this group of Commonwealth citizens.
  As part of the move by the Government to reform and change immigration control—the right hon. Gentleman has been careful on all occasions to say that, despite the Long Title, this is not a citizenship Bill but an Immigration Bill—we have the concept of the right of abode. That is an immigration concept, not a citizenship concept, although the two are related to some degree. We have seen in earlier discussions today how the two can diverge.
  The right of abode, which is relevant to my argument, is an important part of Clause 2. Indeed, the whole of Clause 2 is a statement about the right of abode. Clause 1 contains the general principles
  478
  underlying this concept. In both Clauses the Government have fought shy of citizenship but have dreamt up the concept of right of abode and patriality.
  I remind the House that the right of abode gives freedom to live in, to come into, and go from the United Kingdom, without let or hindrance. That is how the right of abode is defined. I also remind the House that Commonwealth citizenship brings certain rights. A Commonwealth citizen coming to this country, whether he comes here to settle, or for a short period, has all the rights of citizenship that are enjoyed in this country. For example, he has the right to vote. The new temporary work permit holders, too, will have these rights, and we know at election time all the political parties have their pamphlets translated into the languages of many Commonwealth countries, in order to appeal to Commonwealth citizens, and recently one has heard of the Conservative Party publishing such documents between elections.
  I should like to relate those two concepts of citizenship and the right of abode to the question of registration, which used to be a right, but which is now at the discretion of the Home Secretary. What we seek to do by our Amendment is to say that
  Any Commonwealth citizen having the right of abode in the United Kingdom and being a person of full age and capacity shall be entitled, on making application therefor to the Secretary of State in the prescribed manner, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and the provisions of section 9 of the British Nationality Act, 1948 (as set out in Appendix C to Schedule 1 to this Act) shall apply to any person so registered.
  What that adds up to is that a Commonwealth citizen who has a right of abode shall have a right of registration as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Government have seen fit to give a right of abode in the way in which I have defined it. What it adds up to basically in immigration terms is that such a person cannot be deported, but there are some people who not only have that right, but also have all the rights of citizenship of this country. Surely, therefore, citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies should go with the right of abode?
  The Bill has many inconsistencies, arising from the grafting of immigration

  479
  control concepts, patriality, and right of abode, on to the existing law, without attending to citizenship. The view of this side of the House is that if a Commonwealth citizen is good enough to be patrial, if he is good enough to have the right of abode—which is receiving the accolade of the Bill—he should have all the rights of citizenship. Is it not illogical that, after five years, such a person has to go through all the paraphernalia of applying for citizenship when he has what is required already? We regard this as an anomaly, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to deal with it in the way suggested in our Amendment.
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman raised an interesting point, and I listened with care to what he said. The Amendment proposes that
  "Any Commonwealth citizen having the right of abode in the United Kingdom"
  shall have the right to be registered. Commonwealth citizens having the right of abode are those who are children of a United Kingdom-born father, or a United Kingdom-born mother. Those who are children of a United Kingdom-born father are citizens. The only people affected are those who are children of, and have the right of abode through, United Kingdom-born mothers. The number will not be large. There is an anomaly here. I cannot accept the Amendment without a chance of looking more closely at the drafting, but I undertake to introduce an Amendment in this vein at a later stage.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.15 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 3, line 29, leave out ' statements of the rules ' and insert:
  'for approval drafts of the rules proposed to be'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With that Amendment it will be convenient if we take the following: No. 16, in page 3, line 29, after 'rules', insert:
  ', or of any changes in the rules,'.
  No. 111, in line 29, after 'rules', insert:
  ', which shall require the positive affirmation of both Houses of Parliament.'
  No. 112, in line 29, after 'rules', insert:
  'which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament,'.
  No. 17, in line 39, at end insert:
  If a statement laid before either House of Parliament under this subsection is disapproved by a resolution of that House passed within the period of forty days beginning with the date of laying (and exclusive of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days), then the Secretary of State shall as soon as may be make such changes or further changes in the rules as appear to him to be required in the circumstances and lay a further statement before Parliment accordingly.
  No. 18, in line 39, at end insert:
  (Rules referred to in subsection (2) above shall be of no effect until a draft thereof has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
  Mr. Silkin: The Amendment—and those being taken with it—raise the point about how the rules, the drafts of which are to be laid by the Secretary of State, should be approved by the House. The Amendments tabled by the Secretary of State, and adumbrated in Committee, provide for the negative procedure, whereas the Opposition propose that the affirmative procedure should be employed.
  This is a matter which invariably comes up for debate. The Government of the day most frequently seek to provide that the rules, regulations, or whatever they may be, shall be subject to the negative procedure, while the Opposition very often take the opposite view. That is true irrespective of which party is the Government.
  In this case there are two factors that one has to bear in mind in relation to the rules. The rules are described as dealing with administration and control, but the draft rules that we have seen go a great deal further than that. They give substantive rights. Throughout the debates in Committee the Government relied upon the rules. Whenever we sought to introduce certain provisions into the Bill to give specific rights by means of legislation, the Government said that

  481
  it was not necessary because all that we wanted was provided for in the rules.
  It follows that it may be necessary to amend the rules from time to time, and to legislate not merely in respect of immigration control but in respect of the rights of people coming into this country, or the rights of those who are already here. Where that is done we shall be dealing with rules, and not merely with administration, and it seems to us inadequate that the matter should be dealt with by way of negative control, which means having to take a chance on the ability to put down a Prayer and debate it. Our view is that instead of adopting that procedure, the Government ought to bring their proposals before the House formally and ask for approval for them.
  The second point certainly applies today and is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Of course, with alterations of our procedure, this matter may be cured, but at the moment it is extremely difficult to find time to debate matters which are subject to the negative procedure.
  The right hon. Gentleman has gone some way towards dealing with that difficulty in Amendment No. 17, but even that allows a considerable risk that these important matters, arising over the original rules and in respect of amendments, may slip through without the House being able to debate them. It was said in Committee that the non-party Statutory Instruments Committee had expressed particularly grave concern about this matter.
  Whatever may be said about the many sets of rules and regulations which are subject to that procedure, these particular rules are so closely akin to legislation that they must be regarded as of very great moment and much more important than many of the matters at present dealt with by the negative procedure.
  Although we must accept with some gratitude the right hon. Gentleman's concession in an Amendment to provide that the House shall have some say during the passage of these rules into law—the Bill originally gave the Home Secretary complete discretion apart from having to lay the rules before Parliament—it is inadequate. He should go the whole way and enable Parliament to approve the rules affirmatively.
  Mr. David Steel: If the Opposition divide on this Amendment, we shall support them. Our Amendment No. 111 is designed to achieve precisely the same purpose. With respect to the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), it is not just a question of the conventional arguments between Opposition and Government about parliamentary time. There is an important additional argument. We shall no longer be able to have our annual full day's debate on immigration in November under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. This will be the new legislation and will not be subject to that control.
  The Government should weigh this consideration and, when the Home Secretary drafts rules, he should have to seek the positive approval of the House, because there will be very few occasions on which we can debate our immigration legislation. That seems a fair compensation for giving up this opportunity for an annual debate. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this reasonable point.
  Mr. Maudling: I had hoped that I had gone a good way towards meeting the views of the House. I do not think that I can go further, for good reasons. If there is to be a system of immigration rules, it must be continuous and flexible, and should have no gaps. If there is a loophole, it may be necessary to act very quickly. After all, if people exploit a loophole, others waiting patiently in the queue will rightly resent it. So it has been recognised that the Government should act quickly in amending the rules.
  It was generally accepted in 1962 that the rules should be not subject to Parliamentary control but merely laid before Parliament. That was the position, satisfactorily, for aliens before this Bill. But it was argued strongly in Committee that, because we were taking from Commonwealth citizens a statutory right and incorporating them in the rules, there was a case for making them subject to Parliamentary control. I accept that argument, and that is why I am proposing the Amendments that any new immigration rules or amendments should be subject to parliamentary control.
  It must be by the negative procedure, because otherwise there might be considerable periods when Parliament was not sitting, when we had to act quickly

  483
  and could not. That would not be reasonable. We must have this power of flexibility as well as the power of a continuous set of rules. That is why we have drafted the Amendments as we have, providing for a statement to be made about any new rules and that, if it is annulled, we shall have to return with a proposal which is more likely to meet the wishes of the House.
  I accept that important points could arise, but I feel confidence in the procedure of the House to the extent that I am sure that, if we introduced new rules or amendments of rules which raised important matters, the House could arrange to debate them urgently on a negative resolution. But I see how right hon. Members are to stress these important matters. However, I must rest on the argument that the rules should be both continuous and flexible. Since I have met the legitimate arguments made in Committee, I hope that the House will be prepared to give me these Amendments.
  Mr. Peter Archer: The Secretary of State believes that Parliament can normally rise to the kind of situation which has troubled some of us. Can it not equally rise to the kind of situation which troubles the right hon. Gentleman? He seems to believe that there may be a requirement to act quickly. One would have thought that that does not necessarily mean that the Government will be acting in a vacuum. There will already be rules within the framework of which the Government can act. The right hon. Gentleman has been straightforward enough to publish the rules which he proposes to make if and when the Bill becomes law. If there is a sudden and completely unforeseen emergency—an emergency of a kind so uncontemplated that no provision has been made for it within the draft rules-one wonders what will prevent the right hon. Gentleman coming to the House and explaining the position.
  Mr. Maudling: The House must be sitting for that to happen.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Archer: By exercising one's ingenuity one can envisage anything, even an invasion from outer space, to create an unforeseen emergency. As far as I am aware, there has been no such
  484
  difficulty in the past. The House has always been understanding in these matters. There have been occasions when it has been reconvened during the long recess. Hon. Members have returned from their holidays when a completely unforeseen event has occurred. It would not be the first time—if something happened which necessitated the rules being changed quickly—that the House had been recalled. I will not develop this point. Hon. Members will easily recall precedents.
  If the law were to require to be changed so quickly, before the public had had time to assimilate and understand the situation which had arisen, it would be all the more important for that change in the law to be discussed in Parliament. If such an unforeseen event had occurred which necessitated the rules being changed, the House should be taken into the Government's confidence and, in those circumstances, the Government could expect the sympathy of the House in securing the rapid change in the law that was required.
  We are discussing serious matters. The Amendment is of a procedural character and normally that is sufficient to empty the Chamber. However, it will affect the daily lives of many people as closely as any provision in the Bill.
  Let us not overlook the fact that the Bill is about the power of the Home Secretary to control the residence here of non-patrials who are subject to such conditions as the right hon. Gentleman thinks fit. How that control is to operate is contained in the rules which are the subject of this Amendment. We are concerned with such matters as whether a non-patrial will be permitted to work and change his job; whether he has been here long enough to obtain a mortgage or to make it worthwhile for him to bring over his family; what his relationship with the authorities will be; whether one group of non-patrials is to be discriminated against; and equally important matters, all of which will be contained in the rules. The extent of the right hon. Gentleman's power to make, unmake and alter the rules is the degree of his power over the lives of individuals.
  The power of the Government over people as contained in delegated legislation is a subject which has exercised

  485
  the minds of politicians, political scientists and lawyers for more than a generation. In fairness, I must say that it is a subject which has exercised the mind of the Conservative Party, though perhaps, and understandably, more when hon. Gentlemen opposite have been in opposition than when they have been in Government. Whether, and, if so, how, those who make the rules are to be answerable to Parliament occupies a large proportion of the balance sheet which is, as it were, an index of people's freedom in Britain.
  When this matter was first raised in Committee my hon. Friends embarked on an expedition into this fascinating sphere. It began with an exchange at the first sitting of the Standing Committee, when the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State sought to assure hon. Members in these terms:
  "It would not be possible"—
  and he was speaking of the Bill as originally drafted—
  "for my right hon. Friend, or any successor, to alter the directions given to immigration officers without informing Parliament that he was doing so".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 6th May, 1971; c. 558.]
  That was perfectly right, but what worried us was the fact that while that was the most comforting assurance that the hon. Gentleman could give, we felt that we had not been elected to the House merely to be informed of what the Government were proposing to do. We therefore embarked on what transpired to be an expedition through a veritable jungle and we began by looking at the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946.
  It seems that the rules as contemplated, even by the Amendment, will not be Statutory Instruments and will not fall within the ambit of that Act. We are fortified in this view by the fact that in Clause 33(2) the draftsman goes out of his way to refer to certain rules intended to be Statutory Instruments, and it seems to follow that where he does not say that, they are not contemplated as being Statutory Instruments. As drafted, it seems that the power of the Home Secretary is subject to no control whatever, save the necessity to tell us what he proposes to do.
  486
  I understand that if the rules were Statutory Instruments and nothing were said as to the method of control, the remedy of an hon. Member who wished to annul the rules would be to table an Early Day Motion. That might have been a satisfactory solution in the days when it was the practice to find time to debate Early Day Motions. I make no complaint about the fact that that practice has changed; the proliferation of Early Day Motions may have had something to do with it.
  When an Early Day Motion is set down nowadays it may be taken up by the Press, discussed off the Floor of the House and canvassed among those who are seeking to mount a lobby, but normally it does not get discussed on the Floor of the House. Indeed, in this respect the power of hon. Members over what happens to an Early Day Motion seems no greater than the power of any individual who is not an hon. Member.
  Reference has been made to the Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. It said—and this went even further in relation to Instruments which are the subject of the negative procedure—in this connection:
  "Your Committee do not consider that the present practice of the House regarding instruments subject to negative procedure and general instruments is satisfactory. Until fairly recent Sessions, it was the practice of the House that time was found for a debate in the House on all motions praying that statutory instruments be annulled; if for any reason time could not be found within the forty days' praying time, it was the convention that time would be found for a motion in similar terms to be debated (these motions are called ' out-of-time ' prayers). In recent Sessions the practice of the House has changed. It is now not uncommon for prayers to remain undebated either 'in-time' or 'out-of-time'."
  There may come an occasion when the House will consider how it proposes to deal with a situation which could be serious, not only for hon. Members but for our constituents.
  Whether that is still the remedy of hon. Members and whether the rules which we are discussing are not Statutory Instruments is, I confess, something which I have not been able to trace. The rules of order which are the tools of our trade are becoming the tools of very much a specialist trade in this House. When I discussed these matters with my constituents I find that they are puzzled by our processes. I am coming to feel that

  487
  my chief qualification for representing them is that I can understand their bewilderment.
  We debated this issue in Standing Committee, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and he undertook to move an Amendment on Report. He has perfectly properly fulfilled that undertaking in the form of Amendment 17. The proposal, as I understand it, is that rules are to be made subject to a form of negative control. I understand, although the right hon. Gentleman did not say this, that the effect will be that an hon. Member seeking to annul could set down a Prayer for debate on a particular day; and we must therefore consider whether the right hon. Gentleman's proposal is sufficient to satisfy us.
  Two matters concern us. First, as I understand it, if a Prayer to annul is set down, the prospects of its being debated and voted upon depend on two factors. First, it has to be reached before 11.30 p.m. That is the effect of Standing Order No. 4. If the other business of the House continues beyond that time, it is not debated or voted upon. Second, its prospects depend upon the Government's decision to set it down on the Order Paper above the line. I know little of the mysterious processes by which these matters are decided but they govern the fate of individuals to which these rules apply. So the power which the Amendment appears to give hon. Members is one which they may well find, when the time arises, they are unable to exercise.
  Next, what troubles us is that the Amendments seek to provide that if the House passes a resolution disapproving a proposed rule, the Home Secretary may make changes
  "… as soon as may be …"
  and the changes which he may make are those which appear to him to be required. What worries us is whether this means that meanwhile the rules continue in force, even though they have been expressly disapproved by a Resolution of the House, and whether, in the meantime, authorities will continue to act on them and people's lives will continue to be governed by them.
  Does it mean that the Home Secretary need not make the specific changes for which the House has called during
  488
  the debate but only such changes as seem to him to be required, so that he then lays a further draft of the amended rules before the House and the House may again disapprove of them and again the alterations continue in force? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could enlighten us as to how this will work out. From the terms of the Amendment, it appears that this will be the effect. The control which he seems to offer the House, if our understanding is correct, is all too shadowy. We have a responsibility to safeguard the liberties of the British people. With these tools we cannot discharge it.
  Perhaps because in connection with aliens we have been a little more cavalier than we would have been normally in connection with Commonwealth citizens, in the past there has been what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) called earlier a tacit agreement not to go too deeply into the tools provided to hon. Members to safeguard those who are most concerned. Certainly the Home Secretary sought to argue in Standing Committee that parliamentary control was not so slight as is sometimes argued. He said that if Members were ingenious enough, they could find a way to provide a debate. He quoted one of his illustrious predecessors, Mr. Chuter Ede, speaking on 13th February, 1962, as saying that one might, for example, question the salary of the Minister concerned, using the time on a Supply Day. If we are seeking to bring the Government under the control of the House in these matters, that is not good enough. An hon. Member seeking to raise the matters which he was elected to watch should not need to display his ingenuity in seeking an opportunity. Parliamentary procedure is not intended as an obstacle course to test ingenuity but as an aid to Members in carrying out their functions.
  One is left wondering why we should erect fences and dig ditches and then discuss ways of evading them when we can provide the necessary opportunities in a straightforward way. If the problem is only as stated by the right hon. Gentleman today, that we may have a situation so entirely unexpected and unforeseeable that we need to change the law very quickly, one would have thought that this was just the situation

  489
  in which he ought to take the House into his confidence and in which the House would understand his difficulty.
  We seek to provide, in plain English, that hon. Members may have the opportunity of fulfilling their duty to their constituents. Unless we receive a more convincing reply than we have had so far, we shall divide on the Amendments.
  5.45 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Fidler: I rise to make a special appeal to my right hon. Friend on these Amendments due to my concern regarding two especial principles which exist at present in the rules alone.
  My right hon. Friend was good enough to give us advance notice of his proposed draft rules, both before and after entry—67 before entry and 51 after entry. It may well be that many of them, if not most of them, are susceptible to the procedure now proposed in Amendment No. 17. But there are two vital principles in those rules which are not adequately safeguarded under the proposed Amendment.
  I refer first to the principle of no discrimination on grounds of race, creed or colour in dealing with immigrants on their arrival. I need not deal with them after entry, because the principle of no discrimination is enshrined in Statute in the Race Relations Act. But, more especially, I refer to the principle of the right to political asylum. Both of those principles are in the rules. My concern is that we should in some way guarantee those principles in a far firmer fashion than is apparently possible in the proposed amendment.
  In my constituency there are a number of different ethnic groups—for example, a group of Pakistanis, and a group of Ukrainians who were formerly refugees. I am aware of their problems, fears and anxieties.
  In another incarnation I am the President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and thereby, as lay leader of British Jewry, I know their views and it is my responsibility to give expression to their experience. The Board of Deputies of British Jews was established in 1760, some 211 years ago, and several
  490
  of my distinguished predecessors have served in the House. For over two centuries it was a community of very small numbers, but it is one of over 400,000 now. For the last 70 years, a large number of Jewish refugees, those who have fled from persecution in the land of their origin, have come to this country. What I say is based on their experience. They and the Board are happy to know that the traditional practice of political asylum is enshrined in the history of the procedure of this great country. But we have to remember that to give an assurance to those people that they will not be harried in the future—not only Jewish people but all refugees coming to this country—we need a procedure by which the House can maintain a great deal of vigilance over those two principles.
  My right hon. Friend was good enough to receive a deputation from the Board of Deputies. The deputation made that very point and asked that these two principles be written into the Act. At that time, and in Standing Committee, we were given to understand that some alternative would be brought forward whereby, since they are enshrined in the rules, the rules would be made as watertight and as safe as possible.
  I was looking forward to the proposed Amendment which my right hon. Friend would be bringing forward today. I welcomed his clear statement in Committee. When dealing with points made by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), he referred to assurances given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and said:
  "He said, in the clearest possible terms, that nothing in the Bill affects in any way the hallowed traditions, policies, and practices of this country as pursued by succeeding Governments, as far as political refugees are concerned. He said that quite clearly and categorically. He also pointed out that, under the Draft Rules, it is stated specifically that deportation is not to take place if it meant that a man would go to a country where he would be at risk of persecution."
  My right hon. Friend went on to say:
  "Therefore, it is quite misleading for the hon. and learned Gentleman to talk about a dilemma. I would not be in any dilemma. If a man can only be deported to a country where he would be persecuted, I would have no right to deport him. I would not contemplate deporting him. This is the position as it always has been. The only point of dispute on the Amendment is whether this

  491
  provision should be in the rules or in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, Standing Committee B, 11th May, 1971; c. 653–4.]
  My right hon. Friend went on to suggest that he would be producing an Amendment which would safeguard the position to which I have referred.
  My deep concern now is whether the Amendment goes far enough in connection with those two principles. I am not so deeply concerned about the other items, including the rules applying before and after entry, but these two principles are sacred and inviolable.
  Perhaps my right hon. Friend can tell me whether the right to political asylum exists already in some overriding Statute which is not repealed or affected by the Bill. If that is so, my objection will fall. If those rights do not exist, either my right hon. Friend should be a little more generous in considering the other Amendments which have been tabled and make the rules placed before the House subject to an easier procedure for hon. Members to debate, or, if he believes that a negative procedure is appropriate in respect of most of the other rules, he should think again about the possibility of taking out of the rules the question of the right of political asylum and writing it into the Bill so that it will be part of a Statute.
  I pay a special tribute to the humanitarian reputation which my right hon. Friend deservedly enjoys and to the very generous way in which he has interpreted his powers in this and other instances. Nobody's reputation stands higher. Indeed, I pay tribute to all of my right hon. Friend's predecessors for the ready way in which they have dealt with what I have already described as hallowed traditions in Britain.
  My deep concern, which I hope that my right hon. Friend can satisfy, is that we should take steps in dealing with the Bill to make it beyond the power of some illiberally-minded person or persons in the House in future to find some easy way of affecting these two vital principles.
  Mr. Sydney Bidwell: As with last night's debate on an earlier part of the Bill, on this Amendment there has been an obvious expression of anxiety and disquiet on both sides. The hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) has strongly expressed the anxiety about the distinction of what is to be in rules and what is to be in Statutes.
  492
  There is a curious illogicality in the Secretary of State's attitude in providing for certain regulations to be in Statute form, namely, on the question of arrangements for virtual repatriation but which do not appear in the Acts of 1962 and 1968 which are repealed by the Bill. It is illogical that the right hon. Gentleman should think then in terms of rules which can be challenged only under the negative procedure rather than under the positive procedure.
  I am a veteran of debates on the expiring laws, having taken part in such debates annually since I entered the House five years ago. The Secretary of State is right to point out that in those debates it has been argued from both Front Benches that it would be very valuable if we could get our race relations conditions to such a degree of correctness that we no longer needed this annual ritual.
  We have not got the position right in the Bill. Both sides agree that it will be necessary to come forward with extra Statute law to overcome the problems which will arise with regard to immigration. Both sides have said that this is not a citizens' law. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has logically argued that sooner or later we shall have to come to it and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has emphasised it several times. This is why we had that curious alliance in removing the wider aspect of patriality, because of the inexorable logic of the argument, no matter who was presenting it. We do not go right to the end of the road with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—that is, if we all know exactly where he wants to go.
  There is a new ingredient now in our considerations on the question of changing rules when Parliament is not sitting, or changing rules even when it is sitting, and when any hon. Member who wishes to challenge the rules must rely on his guile. One very important fact in our minds is the possibility of extending the common travel area. In Committee, the Secretary of State said that he thinks that he can overcome the situation on possible entry to the E.E.C. without changing the Statutes, simply by writing a rule saying that the common travel area, which now embraces the whole of the British Isles,

  493
  including the southern state of Ireland, should be extended.
  I do not know whom the Secretary of State thought he was kidding when he said that. It is obvious that accession to the Treaty of Rome will need new Statutes if our laws are to accord with the Treaty, because our accession will considerably enlarge the numbers of people who will have the right to enter Britain, not on claims of patriality, but under the laws and progress of the Treaty of Rome as it has so far advanced.
  I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will press this matter to a Division so that our anxieties are clearly spelled out. This is not a finished set of laws for our immigration problem. The matter will have to be continually discussed. The more discussion the better. The greater the facility for discussion the better. This is why I support the Amendment.
  Mr. Maudling: May I with the leave of the House reply to some points which have arisen?
  I thought that some of the arguments which were advanced by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) were directed not to my Amendments, but to the text of the Bill before my Amendments were proposed. The hon. and learned Gentleman correctly stated that I had quoted Mr. Chuter Ede's comment that hon. Members had to use their ingenuity on certain occasions. I did indeed refer to that, but I expressly moved away from the Chuter Ede position in the direction desired by hon. Members opposite; because I am for the first time in the history of our legislation introducing parliamentary control over the rules.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt entitled to say that, but does he not remember that many of the subjects which he is putting into the rules were formerly put into the Statute? I have in mind the express provision of Section 2 of the 1962 Act governing the right of wives and children under the age of 16 to enter. Such matters of substance are now in the rules, thus creating an entirely different situation.
  Mr. Maudling: I said that in my earlier speech. I said that it was precisely because statutory rights were being taken
  494
  away and put into the rules and not into the Statute that I accepted the argument that the rules made under these conditions should be made subject to Parliamentary control.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that the burden of our difficulty is that his Amendment does not provide hon. Members with a way of controlling his use of the rule-making power, because such weapons as he is putting into our hands are not effective?
  Mr. Maudling: I will come to that point in a moment, because that is the basis on which it is probable that we shall be having a Division on this matter.
  In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler), may I say that I made a deliberate statement in Committee about the rights of political asylum which are not and will not be disturbed. Apart from the rules, it is an international obligation by which this country is bound. The right of political asylum rests on that. Anything I did to take away that right would be in breach of international treaties. That is the other safeguard.
  The issue is fairly simple. I have proposed that there should be Parliamentary control through a negative procedure. On the whole, Labour hon. Members think that it should be an affirmative procedure. They argue that in such an important matter the Home Secretary should not be able to take action until the House had approved it. But I think that it is very important to be able to act immediately, even when the House is not sitting.
  That is the argument of both sides. One can take one's choice. I think that the matter is fairly evenly balanced. I must adhere to my point of view. If the Opposition feel that they must press the Amendment to a Division, I am sorry, but I shall have to resist it.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: With the leave of the House—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not require leave of the House to speak again; he is the proposer of the Amendment. Nor does anyone in charge of the Bill require the leave

  495
  of the House to speak again, even though there be six in charge of the Bill.
  Mr. Silkin: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that even if I do not require leave I still have it.
  The Opposition are not satisfied with the Home Secretary's reply. I do not know how many hon. Members have had the rules in front of them whilst we have been discussing these matters. The draft rules on control of entry are 67 in number, and those in relation to control after entry number 51. A number of them are very detailed. In some cases they are matters which have been dealt with by Statute, and when they are dealt with by Statute, as the right hon. Gentleman is only too well aware, a Committee of the House and the House on Report can examine the provisions line by line and see whether they are adequate.
  That right of the House is being wholly removed in relation to matters of considerable substance—not merely questions of how the procedure should work but the rights of people coming into this country and people who are already in the country. Those rights are being affected, and they are being provided for by the rules with no opportunity for hon. Members to debate line by line whether the right rules are being provided.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe (Mr. Fidler) that, whatever may be the position in international law, when we come to a question of immigration control which raises so tangibly and in such an important way the question of what the rights of political asylum and so on should be, it is highly desirable that those matters should be clearly ex-pessed in a Statute dealing with the matter rather than being tucked away in rules dealing with questions of procedure and practice, in some cases merely repeating what the Act says and in others dealing with substantial matters affecting people's
  rights. It is not sufficient for the Home Secretary to say, "A situation may arise which needs to be dealt with quickly, and therefore we want to be able to deal with the matter so that our amendments come into force immediately and do not have to wait to be approved by the House, because it may be in Recess." What the right hon. Gentleman is there talking about are procedural matters, when someone may have found a dodge which enables him to get in, or something like that which may not have been thought of before.
  The fault is the right hon. Gentleman's. I should have a great deal more sympathy with his point of view if he put that kind of matter into a separate document dealt with by the negative procedure, and put the substantive matters about which the hon. Member for Bury and Radcliffe talked—the matters that were the subject of the 1962 Act and really affect the rights of citizens—into a totally different document which, if it cannot be part of the Bill, can at least be made subject to the affirmative procedure. To lump them all together into two documents, one dealing with control of entry and the other with control after entry, and, because some parts of those matters might be matters of practice which would need to be dealt with in a hurry, to say that the whole lot should be subject to negative procedure, despite the changes in people's rights that may result, is entirely wrong.
  Unless the Home Secretary can modify his reply, the House should divide on the Amendment. It is a matter of principle, and I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will follow me into the Division Lobby.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 195.

  Division No. 377.]

  AYES

  [6.6 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Booth, Albert

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Buchan, Norman

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Ashton, Joe

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bannett, Joel

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davits, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Beaney, Alan

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cohen, Stanley

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Deakins, Eric

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Penttand, Norman

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Doig, Peter

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Prescott, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Lamond, James

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Latham, Arthur

  Rankin, John

  Dunn, James A.

  Lawson, George

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Leonard, Dick

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  English, Michael

  Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Evans, Fred

  Lewis, Ron (Carliste)

  Roper, John

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lipton, Marcus

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McBride, Neil

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Foley, Maurice

  McElhone, Frank

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Ford, Ben

  McGuire, Michael

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Sillars, James

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Silverman, Julius

  Ginsburg, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Simon (Beotle)

  Small, William

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Spearing, Nigel

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsden, F.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Stallard, A. W.

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Steel, David

  Hamling, William

  Meacher, Michael

  Strang, Gavin

  Hardy, Peter

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Swain, Thomas

  Harper, Joseph

  Millan, Bruce

  Taverne, Dick

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tomney, Frank

  Horam, John

  Murray, Ronald King

  Tuck, Raphael

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Ogden, Eric

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orme, Stanley

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Janner, Greville

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Woof, Robert

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  John, Brynmor

  Pardoe, John

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Mr. John Golding.

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Pendry, Tom

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Cormack, Patrick

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Costain, A. P.

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Alfason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Critchley, Julian

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Astor, John

  Crouch, David

  Hastings, Stephen

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Dean, Paul

  Hawkins, Paul

  Awdry, Daniel

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Hicks, Robert

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Dixon, Piers

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Balniel, Lord

  Dykes, Hugh

  Hiley, Joseph

  Batsford, Brian

  Eden, Sir John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Holland, Philip

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'stle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Biffen, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Blaker, Peter

  Farr, John

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Body, Richard

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fidler, Michael

  Hunt, John

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Bray, Ronald

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  James, David

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Foster, Sir John

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fowler, Norman

  Jessely, Toby

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Fox, Marcus

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gardner, Edward

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Burden, F. A.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Clyn, Dr. Alan

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Nairn)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Knox, David

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gorst, John

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Channon, Paul

  Cower, Raymond

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Chapman, Sydney

  Gray, Hamish

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Green, Alan

  Loveridge, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Luce, R. N.

  Churchill, W. S.

  Grylls, Michael

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Clegg, Walter

  Gummer, Selwyn

  MacArthur, Ian

  Cooke, Robert

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  McCrindle, R. A.

  McLanen, Martin

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  McMaster, Stanley

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Stokes, John

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Percival, Ian

  Sutcliffe, John

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Pounder, Rafton

  Tapsell, Peter

  Madel, David

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Mather, Carol

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Maude, Angus

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Tebbit, Norman

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Temple, John M.

  Mawby, Ray

  Raison, Timothy

  Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Redmond, Robert

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Moate, Roger

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Molyneaux, James

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Money, Ernie

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Waddington, David

  Monro, Hector

  Royle, Anthony

  Walder, David (Clithero)

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  More, Jasper

  Scott, Nicholas

  Wall, Patrick

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Sharples, Richard

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Wilkinson, John

  Mudd, David

  Simeons, Charles

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Murton, Oscar

  Skett, T. H. H.

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Neave, Airey

  Soref, Harold

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Spence, John

  Younger, Hn. George

  Normanton, Tom

  Sproat, Iain

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Stainton, Keith

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Osborn, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and Mr. Keith Speed.

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Further Amendment made: No. 16, in page 3, line 29, after "rules", insert:
  ", or of any changes in the rules,".—[Mr. Maudling.]
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 109, in page 3, line 35, leave out 'not'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to take at the same time Amendment No. 110, page 3, line 37, leave out from '1(4)' to end of line 39.
  Mr. Steel: The Amendment was tabled in Committee, but because it was bracketed with many others we did not get a chance to consider it. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity to question the wording of subsection (2) which, after requiring the Secretary of State from time to time to
  "lay before Parliament statements of the rules",
  goes on to say:
  "… section 1(4) above shall not be taken to require uniform provision to be made by the rules as regards admission of persons for a purpose or in a capacity specified in section 1(4) (and in particular, for this as well as other purposes of this Act, account may be taken of citizenship or nationality)."
  There may well be arguments about why the Government should discriminate between non-citizens or different nationalities. But this is a very wide power and
  500
  it is potentially extremely discriminatory and unpleasant. If there is a good reason for the power being in the Bill, I should like to hear it. In the absence of hearing it, it would be preferable not to permit the Home Secretary to have power to make discrimination rules of the kind envisaged in the Clause.
  This is a genuinely probing Amendment, and I hope that the Minister of State will be able to explain the purpose of subsection (2).
  Mr. Sharples: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) for explaining the purpose of the Amendment, because at first sight I was far from clear about its intent.
  The Amendment could have the effect, although I would not be certain about it, of ruling out differentiation in the rules as between different classes of people who come to this country. I am sure that the House accepts that there should be differences in the rules as between people who come here to work, visitors, students and dependants. But I do not think that that is the point which the hon. Gentleman had in mind. I think that his point is whether there should be differentiation in the rules between people of different nationalities and people holding a different citizenship.
  But differentiation already exists, and it is right that it should. For instance,

  501
  we admit Commonwealth citizens who come here as working holidaymakers. That privilege is not extended to aliens. Many young Australians and new Zealand people, in particular, avail themselves of this concession. It is absolutely right that this special privilege should be available to young people from the Commonwealth. It should be possible to discriminate in this way without being unfair, and that is the purpose of the Clause.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In the run-up to the General Election, when the Conservative Party was laying down its approach to the question of immigration, it was said that there would be uniformity in the immigration laws and that aliens and Commonwealth citizens would be treated in exactly the same way. The Minister of State offers as justification for writing the words "uniform provision" in to Statute law the fact that the Government want to provide for doing precisely the opposite of what they argued before the election.
  I wish to make a more prosaic point. The Minister of State has justified inclusion of the word "uniform" in the phrase "uniform provision" purely on the ground of being able to distinguish between Commonwealth citizens and aliens. He says that there is a distinction between the treatment of students from the Commonwealth and students from elsewhere. Could not the wording of the Bill be read in a completely different way? It seemed to us that the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) had a point in his Amendment even if the precise way in which he chose to deal with it might lead to the problems to which the Minister referred. Would the hon. Gentleman consider whether we require provision in a Statute to the effect that a Clause
  "shall not be taken to require uniform provision to be made"?
  What is the reason for this curious provision? This is a small point, but perhaps it can be considered before Report.
  Mr. Sharples: I should not like to give an assurance on this point. It is right that it should be made clear in the Bill that differentiation can be made. We are often criticised for not spelling things out in Bills. In this case we have spelt
  502
  out the matter. There can be differentiation and it is right that there should be differentiation. The Amendment would force the Government to bring about absolute uniformity, and I do not think the House would wish that to happen.
  Mr. David Steel: I accept what the Minister of State has said about the effect, in particular, of Amendment No. 109. On Amendment No. 110, what I said earlier about maintaining distinctions between people who come from certain countries as distinct from others—for example, people who come here on working holidays—underlines the basic flaw in the Bill. The Government are maintaining many of the illogicalities while proposing to introduce uniform provisions.
  These distinctions stem from the fact that we are not to have a citizenship Bill to treat all non-citizens alike. This flaw cannot be put right in the way that I propose in the Amendment. I maintain strong objection to the underlying philosophy of the Clause, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment made: No. 17, in page 3, line 39, at end insert:
  If a statement laid before either House of Parliament under this subsection is disapproved by a resolution of that House passed within the period of forty days beginning with the date of laying (and exclusive of any period during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days), then the Secretary of State shall as soon as may be make such changes or further changes in the rules as appear to him to be required in the circumstances and lay a further statement before Parliament accordingly.—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 24, leave out from 'good' to end of line 26.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss the following:
  Amendment No. 28, Clause 5, page 7, line 2, at end insert:
  Provided that that other person and his spouse (if any) so elect
  Amendment No. 29, Clause 5, page 7, line 4, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'sixteen'.
  Amendment No. 30, Clause 5, page 7, line 5, after 'her', insert 'husband and'.

  503
  Amendment No. 31, Clause 5, page 7, line 6, leave out 'eighteen' and insert 'sixteen'.
  Mr. Silkin: One of the more unpleasant features of this disreputable Bill, which has been most widely resented, is the power to deport members of the family of a person who is deported. It is distasteful, to say the least, to visit the sins of the father on the child or wife of the husband. It is distasteful to provide by law that because of the father's sins the child must not merely leave our shores but must never return—because that is the meaning of deportation—even though he may leave as a babe-in-arms and may wish to return as a responsible adult. It is distasteful to those who have committed no offence and broken no condition that they should be branded as deportees. It is distasteful that this should apply even to the separated wife or the wholly independent child.
  We pressed this argument in Committee, and, in later Amendments, the Home Secretary has moved a limping half step towards us. He has proposed that members of the family should avoid the stigma of deportation by having the opportunity to leave voluntarily before they are deported. We regard that concession—if that is the right word—as wholly inadequate.
  In Committee, the Opposition urged the Government to allow a right of appeal on the merits—a right which the Bill does not allow. We urged that the family should have the right to decide for themselves whether to leave with the deportee or to stay behind. We pressed the case of the wife and child who no longer had the slightest contact with or dependency on the deportee. But our proposals to deal with these cases fell on totally deaf ears.
  The philosophy of the Government and of the Home Secretary throughout our discussions on the Bill is not normally heard from the lips of members of the Conservative Party. The philosophy appears to be to trust the gentleman in Whitehall. That is the Government's only solution to the problem—indeed, it is their only solution to practically every problem which has arisen under the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have a pathological fear of letting people decide for themselves and of independent
  504
  tribunals, as we witnessed last night when we discussed new Clause No. 2.
  The Opposition's position about family deportation is clear. We put forward three specific choices. The first is to get rid of the concept of family deportation. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 19. The Government's fear that deportation will leave a trail of destitute families in this country is utterly unrealistic, and they have produced a distasteful remedy to deal with a miniscule problem.
  Our second proposed choice is to give the members of the family a right of election. That is dealt with in Amendment No. 28. When it is in the best interests of a family that all its members should go, the parents would elect whether they should all go. With the right of election there should be equality between the sexes. The Bill empowers the wife but not the husband of a deportee to be deported. If the right to elect is given we see no reason for the distinction. That is dealt with by our Amendment No. 30.
  Again, with the right of election, we see no reason whatever for including children over the age of 16. At present the Bill includes those up to 18 years of age, an age at which they will frequently be wholly independent of their parents, perhaps even married and living separate lives. Amendments 29 and 31 deal with that. That is our second policy on election. Our third policy is to provide a right of appeal and Amendment 97 deals with that. That Amendment is not being discussed now but will be discussed later.
  We put forward these proposals in Committee but up to now they have all been rejected. There has been no election, no appeal—the gentlemen in Whitehall are to decide. "We can safely leave it to them", say the Government. "If the deportee's family is not satisfied they can always complain to their Member of Parliament." The privilege of a Member of Parliament to take up his constituency problems is a valuable one and one from which I do not wish to derogate but it must not be used as a cloak for giving the gentlemen in Whitehall power to decide the future of the lives of people who have committed no other fault than to be the wife or child of one who is subject to deportation.

  505
  I invite the right hon. Gentleman to cast aside his phobias about appealing to independent tribunals and matters of that kind and to discard what we believe is the obnoxious power to regulate the lives of others. If he does that he will not lose in stature or in respect, in this House or in the country.
  6.30 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: I listened with great interest to what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) had to say. We debated this extremely difficult problem at some length in Committee. We are all aware of the problem which arises when a man is deported and abandons his family, leaving them here to be a charge on the country in circumstances which may be bad for them and the community. We therefore put forward this power, which is modelled on Canadian legislation.
  Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Machester, Ardwick): So what?
  Mr. Maudling: I thought the House would be interested, that is all. It is operated in Canada and we modelled the power on that. In Committee I said—and this is important—that I saw that deportation carried a stigma which as the hon. and learned Gentleman has said is permanent. I therefore said that we would certainly never deport anyone who was prepared to go of their own free will. I am willing to continue that undertaking. Deportation takes place only in circumstances where the people concerned say that they will not go and therefore it is decided that, unfortunately, we have to insist on their going.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman has put forward four points: one that we should abolish the provision altogether; secondly, that we should give a right of election; third was the point about the age of children, and fourth the point about the right of appeal. The first two are really the same thing. If we give people the power to elect we are taking away the power of deportation. I am afraid that, for reasons I have given, I do not feel that I could accept that.
  On the question of the age of children, 18 or 16, there are two reasons behind the age of 18. First, 18 is now accepted as the age of majority and 18 is the age
  506
  used for the purpose of allowing dependants to come into this country. Therefore it seems right to choose the age of 18 when dealing with this matter. There will only be a small number of cases of people living with a parent who has to be deported.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that this is a change which is in the Bill? Do I not recall that, under the 1962 Act, a statutory right was given to Commonwealth wives to enter as well as to children of 16 and under? It was a discretionary right above the age of 16 and on that occasion the Government of the day took 16 as being the age, not 18.
  Mr. Maudling: Eighteen is the age under the draft Immigration Rules (Cmnd. 64606).
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is a change?
  Mr. Maudling: It is, yes. It is under the draft rules. For these reasons I do not think that I can accept the proposals.
  I turn to the question of right of appeal—
  Mr. Powell: As my right hon. Friend is leaving that point, would he be good enough to confirm a matter raised by an expression which fell from him? He referred to the stigma of deportation under this power as being permanent. I wonder whether he would confirm and thus put on the record a point made to me by the Minister of State arising out of a debate in Committee, namely, that when a person who is deported under the age of 18 reaches the age of 18 the deportation order thereupon ceases to have effect and is void in relation to that person. I thought that this might be an appropriate point for him to put that on the record if I have correctly apprehended him.
  Mr. Maudling: I think that my right hon. Friend is correct on that, but if there is any chance that he is incorrect I will let him know later. I was following what the hon. and learned Member had said about the serious nature of deportation and contrasting that with people leaving voluntarily.
  I turn now to appeals. This was discussed in great detail in Committee, the point being that these are individual

  507
  cases of family circumstances where decisions are hard to make and where different circumstances have to be taken into account and judged. I used the argument then, and I think that it was a good one, that on the whole the sort of administration we get from the Home Department is and has been over many years, humane and enlightened. The Home Department is well equipped to take such decisions.
  I have been thinking further about this, however, and I recognise the strength of feeling. It is not a matter on which I want to have a division of opinion in the House if it can be avoided.
  I have decided that what I would like to do is to introduce at a later stage—I am afraid that it will have to be in another place—the right of appeal. I will have to draft the wording. It will be a right of appeal in cases of family deportation, direct to the appeal tribunal. I am sorry that I cannot put an Amendment down today but it will take some drafting. I am willing to give that undertaking, to introduce a right of appeal in these cases at a later stage.
  Mr. Bidwell: Those of us who are experienced in these affairs because of our deep involvement will be—not delighted, because we are not delighted about the Bill or anything arising from it—but at any rate we feel a sense of gratitude to the Home Secretary because of what he has just said. I cannot better the general moral argument put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dul-wich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), but I would like to draw the attention of the House to difficulties that can arise and which I am sure will be sorted out under the appeals machinery.
  There is this new concept of patrialty whereby part of a family will be deportable and part of the family non-deport-able. We could have a situation where there were six children in a family, half of whom, or an even greater number, were born in this country and therefore have automatically acquired the status of patrialty. The Home Secretary has no statutory rights to deport those children.
  It may happen that circumstances will arise when it would be preferable, if the breadwinner is leaving the country, that
  508
  his patrial and non-patrial children should go with him. If there was a sense of family unity, if the children were young enough, no doubt that is what would happen. It is precisely because of that that I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has promised some appeals machinery. It would be specifically that kind of entanglement which could become disentangled in the process of an appeals procedure.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), I, too, if not delighted, am exceptionally pleased—I do not know which is the better or the worse—that the Home Secretary has announced today that he is considering a right of appeal in family deportation cases. If he has done nothing else he has ensured that speeches from this side of the House will be considerably shorter than otherwise they would have been, and I am sure that it will be a merciful relief for him not to have to listen to such lengthy speeches as were made in Committee on this point.
  The whole concept of family deportation is by its very nature an objectionable one, because we would be deporting from this country, and acting in an arbitrary way against, people who themselves had committed no offence at all, who themselves had not offended in any way against this country and whose only offence is that they happen to be members of the same family as that of the deportee who himself, presumably, committed some sort of offence.
  I have never understood why the Home Secretary stood so rigidly and firmly against appeal in this sort of case. Even the lullaby, low-temperature style of the Home Secretary was not able to convince hon. Members that what is basically an inhumane measure is somehow humane. When he was talking about family deportation and no stigma attached to it he made it seem so attractive that I was positively aching to be supported by the Home Secretary and feeling that it was some sort of advancement of my career. I am sorry that that will no longer take place and that the appeal procedure which he proposes will prevent that from taking its natural course! However, all of us on this side of the House are most grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way on this point,

  509
  and I do not think it right to detain the House any longer.
  Mr. Kaufman: My hon. Friends can thank the Home Secretary for pausing to take breath while beating his wife. I contend that he ought not to be beating his wife at all and that this Clause ought not to be in the Bill at all, and that some of the Amendments which my hon. Friends have proposed are still very important, because anomalies arise and those anomalies will not otherwise be dealt with at this present stage.
  The Home Secretary appeared slightly puzzled when he said that this age limit was based upon Canadian law and some of us said "So what?" He said that he thought that we might be interested to know. If he is to be so informative as that, one would hope that at an appropriate moment during this stage of the Bill he will tell us what parts of the Bill are based on the laws of Nazi Germany—as the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) pointed out on Second Reading—and which parts of the Bill are based on those of South Africa.
  Mr. Maudling: As I am sure the hon. Member is genuinely seeking information, let me tell him that no part of this Bill has anything to do with the laws of Nazi Germany.
  Mr. Kaufman: I refer the Home Secretary to his right hon. Friend's exceptionally powerful speech on Second Reading, a speech which convinced me if not him.
  There are anomalies with regard to this subsection and the subsection which follows, and I trust the Home Secretary will clear them up if he is really to allay our fears. The age limit is a very important one, because if it is not lower than 18 we could be placed in a situation of exceptional anomaly. Subsection (6) says:
  "Without prejudice to the operation of subsection (5) above, a person who is not patrial shall also be liable to deportation from the United Kingdom if, after he has attained the age of seventeen, he is convicted of an offence …"
  That means that a 17-year-old person is liable to be deported; but he is regarded as a member of a family till he is 18. Therefore, as I understand it, and interpret
  510
  it—and I shall be very grateful to be corrected if I am wrong—it will be possible, if someone aged between 17 and 18 has committed a deportable offence, for his brothers and sisters and parents to be deported along with him. I shall be grateful to the Home Secretary if he can tell me that this is not so. I cannot find that it is not so. If it is so, it is clearly intolerable, and verbal assurances in this House would make it no more tolerable. I hope that, for that reason alone, we will vote on it.
  Then there is a second thing. In answer to my hon. Friend for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short)—and this has been referred to again today by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall—it has been said that it is possible for a non-patrial parent to have a patrial child. It has been confirmed in this House, in answer to a Question by my hon. Friend, that a non-patrial woman who has a child here has a child which becomes automatically patrial. I think that the significance of this has not been fully understood. In the normal biological course of events it is possible for a non-patrial to come into this country on a one-year ticket of leave and, during that one year, for his wife to give birth to a child who is a patrial and who will be a patrial if he is sent home at the end of that year.
  6.45 p.m.
  We could have a situation in which we could have a non-patrial father and a non-patrial mother who are deported or who are ordered to be deported and who have here in this country a child, an infant child, a babe in arms, only months old, unable to speak, who is patrial and not liable to deportation.
  Dame Patricia Hornsby-Smith: Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that this is a problem we have had to deal with throughout immigration control and, with refugees who came here and whose children were born here? Some have been naturalised. It is not a new problem.
  Mr. Kaufman: Of course, the right hon. Lady is perfectly right about that, but the right hon. Lady does not, perhaps, remember that there were refugees who fled from oppression in their countries, were liable to deportation, and

  511
  that, and in any case, we are not dealing with a refugee Clause but a deportation Clause. That is why I am concerned about it.
  We could have that situation—of an infant child, only several months old, not liable to deportation. Would it be possible for the parents of that child, prior to their deportation, to say, "We are not going to have our child deported. We are not going to take our child with us. The child has a right to be here. Since it cannot speak for itself we are speaking for it, and we are going to leave it here"? The Home Secretary spoke about the horrors of children being a charge on the State. Here is a child who would be a charge on the State—a child left here under this ludicrous and anomalous provision. I should like an explanation of what would happen. Who would care for the child if his parents left him here, as they have a right to do?
  Although the Home Secretary has made a concession and we are grateful for his concession, I trust that it will be agreed, in the context of the total unacceptability of the Bill and of the Clause, that, even in the light of the concession, the Home Secretary ought to tell us, when he replies to this debate, just how he will deal with the two particular anomalies which I have spoken about.
  Mr. Clinton Davis: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has made a point of great force. I suppose that we are expected to be eternally grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession which he has made, but the fact remains that this is an odious concept which should never have appeared in the Bill in the first place. Hardly anything has caused more disquiet amongst those who are actively concerned with community relations than family deportation. The fact that there will be a right of appeal against the decision to someone more independent than the Home Secretary is useful but, nevertheless, the concept of family deportation is still one which will cause grave disquiet amongst the immigrant community.
  In Committee, the Home Secretary referred to "supervised departure" instead of deportation, but this euphemism does
  512
  not carry much weight. It does not cure the evil. If a person does not want to go, he will be made to go. Whether it is called deportation or supervised departure does not matter, the effect is the same, although to some extent the stigma is reduced.
  Is it intended that the right of appeal should apply to all persons, whether they are here at the time the Bill comes into force, or whether they enter the country later? The Secretary of State drew distinctions of that character in respect of other matters where concessions were made in Committee. I hope that it is to be a right of appeal to all persons who fall into this category.
  The proposition advanced by the Home Secretary this afternoon runs completely counter to everything he has said in this regard in Committee, and no doubt about other matters relating to appeals. He said that certain matters were not justiciable. Perhaps he will now reconsider the whole argument. If this is now to be a justiciable matter, whereas it was not justiciable before, perhaps the other matters to which he referred in Committee will now become justiciable. That was always a patently nonsensical argument, and it took us hours of pummelling away at the Home Secretary to make him see reason—eventually with some degree of success.
  I am not quite so carried away as my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who was delighted and elated by the concession. I do not think that it is anything to be elated about. It should have been granted in the first instance in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman should have seen the force of the argument but, much more importantly, I hope that he will see the force of the argument about the whole evil design of family deportation, which has nothing to recommend it and should be no part of the Bill.
  Mr. Bidwell: I am horrified at the concept of family deportation, but I suggest to my hon. Friend that this is a way by which people can be made aware of this horrific concept. So it is a matter of some pleasure to me if my hon. Friend does not feel so elated about the concession as I do.
  Mr. Davis: I did not understand precisely how the concession

  513
  affected my hon. Friend's thinking on this. I am not elated or delighted, and I do not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman. He does not deserve congratulations. He has just happened, perhaps by chance, to listen to some degree of reason from this side of the House, but the horrific concept of family deportation is not cured.
  Mrs. Doris Fisher: I follow the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). Family deportation is a serious matter, especially in a forward-looking country like Great Britain where facilities are available to enable women to pursue in their own right trades and professions and to be successful in them. The original decision of the Home Secretary, that a woman who was able to maintain her children would have to leave the country if her husband were deported for a misdemeanour, even though husband and wife might have parted many months ago, was a hard one. At last the Home Secretary has seen reason on this.
  Many children have to be taken into the care of the local authority for a variety of reasons. One reason is that the parent is not a fit person to care for the child. The law provides that these children should be taken care of through child welfare associations and other organisations. Similarly, there are immigrants who are not good parents and whose children are taken from them and put into the care of the local authority. Does the Home Secretary envisage that a local authority will be able to make an appeal on behalf of such a child who is taken into care? I fully understand that the child is a charge upon the State, but on grounds of humanity, it having been decided that the parent is not a fit person to look after the child, is it desirable that the child should be deported with the father?
  Mr. Maudling: If I may briefly reply to the debate, the tone of the hon. Members for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) almost tempts me to say that I am not encouraged to make what are called concessions to the other side of the House. But I do not regard myself as making a concession. That is not the right way of going about these things, nor do I propose changes to the Bill to
  514
  earn the congratulations of hon. Members. I propose changes to the Bill if I am persuaded by the arguments, and if, as in this case, I am persuaded to act as much as possible in the interests of the people concerned. That is why I have agreed to introduce a provision for appeal.
  The hon. Member for Ardwick spoke about the brother of someone committing an offence being deported. The answer is in Clause 5(4) and (5).
  Mr. Kaufman: I am sorry, but I do not find the answer there. I found my question there. I should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would elaborate on this.
  Mr. Maudling: Family deportation is for people who belong to a family. A family consists of a man, his wife and his children. There is nothing about brothers there. If the hon. Gentleman studies those subsections, he will find that what I say is right.
  7.0 p.m.
  I come next to the important question raised by the hon. Member for Hackney, Central: does this apply only to people already here or to everyone? It will apply to everyone. There is no distinction between people here now and those coming later.
  I turn to the question of individual cases raised today by the hon. Members for Hackney, Central, and for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) and by the hon. Lady the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mrs. Doris Fisher). There will be individual cases in which, clearly, it would be wrong to think of deporting people, for example, the case of a small baby who might be left behind if the parents were sent back or the case of the wife who can stay and support herself and her children; in those cases, certainly not.
  We discussed this difficulty in Committee. There will be cases in which it will be right to insist upon people going and there will be others in which it will not. The argument was about who should make the decision. I said in Committee that I thought that it should be for the Home Secretary of the day, and I still think that there is a respectable argument for that. However, in view of the weight of opinion on these matters, I am prepared to say that these decisions,

  515
  which must be made—when a man is deported, family problems do arise, and one must do the right thing—should go to the tribunal. No doubt, when the tribunal is considering such questions, anything which a local authority might have to say would very much weigh with it.
  I think that that is the right way to deal with the difficult cases which will arise, as far as we can, in the interests of all the individuals concerned.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: In Committee, we argued that this method of dealing with families arose because of the change from employment vouchers to work permits, since under employment vouchers families had a stautory right of entry. As the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, I reached my own past experience and I must say that I cannot recall much precisely on this point. Are there many aliens who leave their families behind if they are deported? There is no stautory right for aliens under the existing law. Are there many examples, or is it that the Home Secretary is not so much concerned with what happens in regard to a small number of aliens but is expecting a larger problem with Commonwealth citizens?
  There is deportation of Commonwealth citizens now. Is there a large number of Commonwealth citizens going home and leaving their families here? One imagines that among Asians, who have a powerful sense of family group, the families would go with them anyway. Is there any evidence on which the Home Secretary is working?
  Mr. Maudling: This is not a new problem arising out of the Bill. There are cases of aliens and Irish and Commonwealth people at present. This is to deal with a problem of which we have knowledge and experience, not a problem which arises because of the new immigration system under the Bill.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: We welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has done. He says that he is not making a concession, and I accept that, but he has acceded to the substantial arguments which we put in Committee to the effect that there ought to be an independent right of appeal in matters of this kind if one is to have the concept of family deportation at all.
  516
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) pointed out, in informing us of his decision the right hon. Gentleman is resiling from the powerful arguments which he advanced in Committee when he took the view that these matters were not, as he put it, justiciable matters but were matters for the Executive, matters to be raised by Members of Parliament, and that the system which he then upheld was perfectly sound.
  Speaking for myself, having heard what the right hon. Gentleman had to say today in announcing his decision, I wondered why we had to have an argument for an hour and a half last night when the right hon. Gentleman did not have a single friend in the House, being surrounded by those who took a view entirely different from his on this very question in relation to the political side of
  "conducive to the public good".
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: It was a good point, but it was quite different from the point on which we are now.
  Mr. Silkin: The hon. and learned Gentleman was not here when I opened this debate and spoke about the right hon. Gentleman's phobia about tribunals. I am glad that he has now resiled a little from it, and I am led to hope that, perhaps, he may succumb to the eloquence of his hon. and learned Friend last night when he has had time to think about it, just as he succumbed to our eloquence in Committee after he had time to think about that.
  However, having heard the right hon. Gentleman's reply and the whole of this debate, I remain unconvinced that the power of family deportation is a necessary power for one to have, bearing in mind how distasteful it is and how many people both inside and outside the House regard it as utterly objectionable.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) raised again the point which was made very forcibly in Committee about the anomalies which will result—for example, the patrial child who will not be liable to deportation—heaven knows what may happen to him—while his non-patrial brother will be liable to deportation. If

  517
  there are these families about which the right hon. Gentleman spoke in which a person to be deported decamps and leaves his family as a charge on the community, we shall, apparently, if the Clause remains, have a situation in which the patrial child will stay here to be a charge on the community and his elder or younger bother who is non-patrial will be deported. What greater nonsense could one have than that?
  The right hon. Gentleman said that the number of cases was small. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), he said, as I understood him, that it was not expected that there would be any special new problem arising out of the Bill; it was a problem which had always existed. As far as our knowledge on this side of the House goes of the number of cases in which this problem has arisen in the past, my hon. Friend can think of none at all. No doubt, there will be the occasional marginal case, but in the vast majority people who are to be deported will want
  to take their families with them. They will not want to leave them behind unless those families are already independent, separated from them, or earning their own living—the very sort of case in which, under the appeal procedure which the right hon. Gentleman has now announced, they will probably make good their case for remaining here in any event.
  So what is the purpose of this new provision introduced by the right hon. Gentleman in his Bill? What is there that is so important that it outweighs the distasteful nature of this provision which has caused so much offence both in the House and outside? The right hon. Gentleman has not explained that either here or in Committee. In the circumstances, I cannot but invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide on the Amendment.
  Question put. That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 186.

  Division No. 378.]

  AYES

  [7.8 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Faulds, Andrew

  Kenneth

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Lyon. Alexander W. (York)

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  McBride, Neil

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Ashton, Joe

  Foley, Maurice

  McElhone, Frank

  Barnett, Joel

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McGuire, Michael

  Beaney, Alan

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Ginsburg, David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Marquand, David

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marsden, F.

  Booth, Albert

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marshall Dr. Edmund

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Buchan, Norman

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Meacher, Michael

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Millan, Bruce

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Hamling, William

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, w.)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Hardy, Peter

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Harper, Joseph

  Murray, Ronald King

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Horam, John

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Cohen, Stanley

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  O'Malley, Brian

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Orme, Stanley

  Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Janner, Greville

  Pendry, Tom

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Pentland, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur

  John, Brynmor

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Davies, Derail (Llanelly)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Prescott, John

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Hani, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Rankin, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Dempsey, James

  Lamond, James

  Roderick, Cacrwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Doig, Peter

  Latham, Arthur

  Roper, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lawson, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leonard, Dick

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Evans, Fred

  Lipton, Marcus

  Sillars, James

  Silverman, Julius

  Swain, Thomas

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Skinner, Dennis

  Taverne, Dick

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Small, William

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tomney, Frank

  Woof, Robert

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Tomey, Tom

  Stallard, A. W.

  Urwin, T. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Steel, David

  Weitzman, David

  Mr. John Golding and

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Mr. James Dunn.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Goodhart, Philip

  Neave, Airey

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Normanton, Tom

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gower, Raymond

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Astor, John

  Gray, Hamish

  Osborn, John

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Green, Alan

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Awdry, Daniel

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Percival, Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Harrison, Brian (Madlon)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Biffen, John

  Hastings, Stephen

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Blaker, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Raison, Timothy

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Redmond, Robert

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Holland, Philip

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hornby, Richard

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Bray, Ronald

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bruce-Cardyne, J.

  Howell, David (Cuildford)

  Rost, Peter

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Royle, Anthony

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Hunt, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Burden, F. A.

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Sharples, Richard

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray & Narm)

  James, David

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Channon, Paul

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Simeons, Charles

  Chapman, Sydney

  Jessel, Toby

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Soref, Harold

  Churchill, W. S.

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Speed, Keith

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Knox, David

  Spence, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Sproat, Iain

  Cooke, Robert

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stainton, Keith

  Cooper, A. E.

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Loveridge, John

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Costain, A. P.

  Luce, R. N.

  Tapsell, Peter

  Critchley, Julian

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Crouch, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Dean, Paul

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  McLaren, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Dixon, Piers

  McMaster, Stanley

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Dykes, Hugh

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Maginnis, John E.

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Mather, Carol

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tlie-upon-Tyne. N.)

  Maude, Angus

  Waddington, David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Farr, John

  Mawby, Ray

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Fell, Anthony

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wall, Patrick

  Fermer, Mrs. Peggy

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fidler, Michael

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Moate, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Molyneaux, James

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Money, Ernie

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Fortescue, Tim

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Fowler, Norman

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Younger, Hn. George

  Fox, Marcus

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Fraser. Rt. Hn. HughCSt'lTord & Stone)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gardner, Edward

  Mudd, David

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Murton, Oscar

  Mr. Paul Hawkins.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mr. Mandling: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in line 25 after 'is', insert 'or has been'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): I hope that with this Amendment it will be convenient to take also Amendments Nos. 27, 93 and 51.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: This small group of Amendments is necessary to carry out the undertaking I gave in Committee that families would always be given the option of voluntary departure. Clause 5(3) says:
  "Where a person is to be deported as belonging to the family of another person, the deportation order made against him shall be included in the same instrument as that made against the other person …".
  That is not consistent with giving people the option of going in their own time and of their own volition. It will no longer be the case that there will have to be a deportation order against all members of the family. The provision will now be omitted, in accordance with the undertaking I gave in Committee. I thought it reasonable to put in a time limit so that people should not be left in doubt indefinitely. So if, after eight weeks, the Home Secretary has not decided to make an order, the power will lapse.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I thought when I read this group of Amendments that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind carrying out the undertaking which he gave in Committee. But I confess that the wording of Amendment No. 27 has rather foxed me. I should have expected not a maximum but a minimum time if that had been the intention.
  I was never greatly enamoured about the concept of supervised departure for those whose only guilt lay in their association with relations. In Committee the Home Secretary explained that he wanted, if possible, to avoid the stigma of deportation. We must accept that, so far as it goes, supervised departure is an improvement on deportation. However, it seems less than hospitable to say to someone who, by definition, has not in any way offended, "We do not want to deport you, but we think that you ought to go. You may go voluntarily, but, if you do not, you will go anyway." I ventured to ask in Committee whether there was a social distinction between being bounced from the Royal Enclosure and being politely asked to leave. We must at this stage accept what the right hon. Gentleman offers. Perhaps we should be duly grateful for miniscule mercies.
  I should like to know more about the way that it is proposed to operate this procedure. For example, is it proposed
  522
  that the family will be approached by letter, or will it be approached by an official who will explain these matters? It may be that we shall be dealing with people who are unable to read. Will their departure be financed? If so, from where will the money come?
  Our main problem has been to understand the purpose of the time limit in this respect. We accept that there ought to be a time limit after which members of families are not liable to deportation. They should not have this possibility hanging over their heads indefinitely. The problem seems to arise in marrying this concept with the purpose which the right hon. Gentleman explained to the House. If it is proposed that these people shall be given this option, then in practice time must be permitted to approach them, to explain the situation, to give them time to make their election and to make arrangements for the financial provision. These matters cannot be dealt with quickly.
  The purpose of Opposition Amendment No. 93 is to achieve both results. We have sought to provide a minimum period so that time is given for a supervised departure, and we are also seeking to provide a maximum period, which is what the right hon. Gentleman now has in mind. Admittedly, our maximum period is longer than his. If we accept the necessity for a minimum period, clearly there has to be a longer maximum period.
  The issue between the two Amendments is simple and I shall not take up time elaborating it. It may be that, on reflection, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the distinction between the Amendments is not so great and that in practice we have a good point. If he does not agree, I suspect that the time may come when some of his harassed officials, not to mention those who advise immigrants, will be asking why he did not accept our Amendment while there was still time. I shall be glad to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say about this matter, and on that the House will decide accordingly.
  Mr. Maudling: First, on finance. If people are deported there is provision for the payment of their fares. If they depart under voluntary supervision, I

  523
  think that finance could be arranged under Clause 29.
  Secondly, on notification, we shall have to ensure that people are properly notified that they will or are likely to be deported. The fact that there is to be a right of appeal is the answer to the point about a minimum time limit. I have undertaken that all will be given the opportunity of going voluntarily if they are prepared to do so. Also, now that there is to be a right of appeal in each case there can be no question of hustling them out of the country.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, on reflection, the giving of the right of appeal may alter the whole concept of the timetable which he has proposed? Does he not therefore think it desirable that he should think again about that matter in the context of the right of appeal?
  Mr. Maudling: I am prepared to do that. At a later stage I shall be proposing an Amendment on the right of appeal, but I will consider that point. Now that there is to be a right of appeal there is less need for a minimum time, but we must have a maximum time. People must not be kept in uncertainty for an indefinite period. I am trying to help people in this situation by saying that if the Home Secretary does not act in a certain time then it is all right.
  I hope that I have persuaded the hon. and learned Gentleman that, with the background of a right of appeal, I am carrying out my undertaking that no one will in any circumstances be forced to leave without the option of going in his own right and that he will be able to claim financial assistance.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 5, line 14, at end insert:
  (10) Subject to the following provisions of this section the power under this Act to refuse leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom shall not be exercised in the case of any person who satisfies an immigration officer or the Secretary of State, as the case may be—

  (a) that he or she is the husband, wife or child under 16 years of age of another person who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a Commonwealth citizen in this section referred to as "the other person'); and

  524

  (b) either—

  (i) that the other person is a person then lawfully resident in the United Kingdom or Islands; or

  (ii) that the other person is a person (not being one who is on that occasion refused leave to enter the United Kingdom) with whom he or she enters or seeks to enter the United Kingdom.

  (11) Where the other person has been or is given limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, any person who by virtue of subsection (10) above is given leave to enter or remain therein shall be given leave similarly limited; and any limitation on that person's leave shall be varied if and to the extent that the limitation on the other person's leave is varied; and that person's leave shall lapse if the other person's leave shall lapse.
  (12) Nothing in subsections (10) and (II) above shall operate to prevent the giving otherwise than by virtue of those subsections of leave to any person to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, whether for a limited or for an indefinite period, or to prevent any person from entering or remaining therein without leave if he is entitled so to do; and nothing in those subsections shall derogate from subsections (5) and (6) of this section or from subsection (5) of section 13 of this Act.
  There have already been two debates which, in a sense, were connected with the subject matter of the Amendment. In the first debate we discussed the right of a wife to patriality. We were informed, and were glad to hear, that the Government were thinking again in terms similar to those which we put forward. The purpose of giving a wife the right of patriality through her husband was to enable her to stay in this country on the same terms as her husband.
  The second debate which impinged on this matter concerned the rules and how they should be authenticated by this House. On that occasion the right hon. Gentleman's view, that it was sufficient that the rules should be subject to the negative procedure, prevailed in the Division Lobbies.
  The Amendment seeks to deal with a problem rather wider than the patriality of a wife. It deals with the position of people holding either United Kingdom or Commonwealth passports who are already in this country or are allowed to enter. I pointed out in an intervention in the earlier debate about the rules that, under the 1962 Act, specific statutory provisions deal with these rights. However, there are no similar provisions in the Bill; they are all in the draft rules. It seems as though Government have a phobia about

  525
  incorporating substantitive rights in legislation—just as they appeared at one time to have, but now to a diminishing extent, a phobia about giving responsibility to independent tribunals—certainly insofar as it relates to some of the major issues of fact and discretion.
  7.30 p.m.
  We are dealing with a major issue. During the election campaign the Prime Minister recognised that the right of a family to be with the breadwinner was an issue of great moment. Keeping the family together is the whole purpose of taking every reasonable measure that one can to provide against the break-up of the family as a result of a separation. When the Conservative Party was in Government before it accepted, in the 1962 Act, the principle that a spouse—husband or wife—and the children should have a right to come in and join an immigrant here but, for reasons which have never been apparent to me, they shrink from inserting that right in the Bill.
  We appreciate that the situation is not identical to that under the 1962 Act. The provisions of the Bill are different, and therefore one has to provide for things in a different way. Taking all that into account, we have taken the language used by the Conservative Party in the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962, and adapted it, as far as is consistent with the provisions of this Bill, so that the two Measures are married, one with the other.
  In doing that we have followed what the Conservative Party did in the 1962 Act in giving a statutory right to a husband, a wife, or a child under 16, to join, or come in with, a person who was given leave to enter this country, to be with him during the period of his stay here if it is a temporary leave, and to go when he goes, subject, always, to the right of someone, having come here, to apply to be considered separately from the person with whom he came, and to be given leave to stay in his own right. That is an obvious qualification that one has to make.
  Subject to that kind of qualification, we have sought to provide that where a breadwinner comes for a year, and then leaves, his family will come for a year, and leave with him. If the breadwinner's leave is extended for a further period of three years, we say that his family's
  526
  leave shall be similarly extended. If the breadwinner is allowed to remain after the four-year period—and we are told that that will be the normal and natural thing when someone has been allowed to stay for that long on a work permit—we say that his family should be allowed to stay permanently with him.
  If the breadwinner's leave lapses by virtue of the provisions of the Bill, or if his leave is varied—there is provision in the Bill to vary it—then, similarly, the leave of his family will lapse or be varied, except in the case that I have mentioned of a child, for example, having a right to say that he shall be treated independently because he has a job and is independent of his parents. That is the kind of case that we were dealing with under the deportation provisions, where a right to appeal is apparently to be given in similar circumstances.
  It may be that we shall be told, as we were told in Committee, that the principle behind our Amendment is one to which the Government have every intention of giving effect under the rules. The point to bear in mind is that what we are doing here affects the rights of individuals. The whole matter is to be dealt with by the negative procedure, which means that we shall not necessarily have an opportunity to debate what is being done. Indeed, even if the affirmative procedure were adopted it would be extremely difficult to debate the rules in detail, because one cannot table Amendments to them.
  I do not suggest that in following the provisions of the 1962 Act and seeking them to adapt them to the provisions of this Bill the draftsmanship of the 25 lines of the Amendment is perfect but, if this kind of provision is in the Bill, it can be amended. If the Government do not like this provision in its present form, they can put down a suitable Amendment in another place. That cannot be done with the rules, and it seems to me right and proper that a right of this importance should remain a statutory right. It is a right upon which will depend the happiness and unity of many families.
  It seems to me that if the Prime Minister is to give effect to what he was saying about these matters during the General Election campaign it would be wrong to leave this matter to be dealt

  527
  with by rules. This right should be enshrined in the Bill. That is what the Amendment seeks to do, and I hope that the Government will accept the principle that what they did in the 1962 Act should properly be done in this Bill.
  Mr. Sharples: Perhaps I might refer, first, to the common ground between us. I think it is common ground between the two sides of the House that a person coming to this country should, wherever possible, be able to be accompanied by his wife and dependent children. The difference between the two sides of the House lies in whether that right should be enshrined in the Bill, or contained in the rules which, as a result of Amendments moved by my right hon. Friend, are to be subject to the negative procedure.
  Before coming to the substance of the matter, there are two points that I should like to make on the drafting of the Amendment. I make nothing of the first but I do make something of the second. I am sure that the first is simply an error in the drafting, in that it benefits a wife and children who are themselves aliens, provided that the husband or parent is a Commonwealth citizen. There are very few such people, and I do not suppose that it was the intention of the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin), who probably drafted the Amendment, to include them.
  Much more important—and this illustrates the difficulty about putting a provision of this kind into legislation—is the fact that the Amendment would entitle a child under 16 to enter with, or join, only one parent. The 1968 Act, which was passed by the Labour Party when in Government, was designed to remedy that situation, and I shall have something more to say about that in a few moments.
  This illustrates in some respects the difficulties and dangers of putting this in statutory form. As I said, there is nothing between us on the desire that, when a person comes here for settlement or even for a much more limited time, he should be joined by his wife and dependent children. We both believe that families should be kept together.
  I made it clear in Committee that it was the policy of the Government to allow people lawfully entering the
  528
  country to be accompanied by or to be joined by their wives and young children, that the immigration rules would give effect to this policy and that, in their final form, the rules would not require immigrants already settled here to show that they could support their wives and children without recourse to public funds.
  The argument between us is simply whether this should be in the rules or in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich referred to the precedent in the 1962 Act, and said that he had adapted those provisions to the present situation. One of the difficulties in that Act and one of the reasons for the change in our policy was that it was very easy for people seeking to come here to find loopholes in the law which could be exploited.
  Section 2(2) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act ensured the interests of family unity. It gave, as does the Amendment, a child under 16 the right to join either parent. This was exploited by boys, particularly, just under the age of 16, who came here to join their fathers, while their mothers and the remainder of their families remained in the country of origin.
  One of the difficulties of inscribing this provision in statute was illustrated when this situation came to light. An International Social Service report on its London Airport project revealed the abuse in June, 1967, but it was not until nine months later that, with the cooperation of both sides of the House, it was possible to introduce legislation in order to put right a situation which was being deliberately exploited by large numbers of people, and which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), when Home Secretary, rightly thought had to be put right.
  But even so, only because it was possible in the parliamentary time-table to introduce a Bill to deal with much wider issues was it possible to legislate to deal with this abuse. It was nine months before the amending legislation could be introduced, and in that time a very large number of the families of these youths were able to exploit the provisions of the Act.
  It is largely for that reason—because the Government must have the right to make alterations in rules at short notice

  529
  to meet cases of exploitation similar to this—that we have tought it right that provisions which are, none the less, important, should be contained in the rules rather than in the Bill. That is why I must advise the House to reject the Amendment.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: The Minister's case is not founded upon the importance of the subject, which he recognises, or upon any difference between us on the merits of the matter, because he recognises the great desirability of enabling people who come here, even for a relatively short time, to have their families with them or to be joined by them. He pointed to certain defects in the drafting, which I accept. Indeed, I probably accepted these in advance. What I sought to do was to put down a provision which raised the principle whether a matter as important as this should be left to the rules, or whether it should, as was the case in the 1962 and 1968 Acts, be incorporated in the legislation.
  That is the nub of the issue between us. As I understand the Minister's answer, his justification for putting this matter in rules which are intended to be simply administrative and which are not described in the Bill as providing substantive rights, is that, in the past, matters have arisen which it would have been desirable for Parliament to be able to deal with more quickly than it was able to do.
  But it is now nearly a decade since the introduction of immigration control. We have had a vast amount of experience of it and we have found it necessary to make certain changes because of loopholes. The Minister mentioned a particular loophole which it was desirable to close. But surely, by now, the experience that we have gained must have resulted in our having sufficient knowledge to be able to say that the possible loopholes have been filled and that a Clause could be inserted in the Bill which would cover all the cases which one could reasonably expect to happen—including the case which had to be dealt with by the 1968 Act.
  The Minister is saying that this matter is so open-ended that one should enable the Government to have a perpetual discretion to make new law, without any more parliamentary control than the nega
  530
  tive procedure. If one applied that principle generally, for example to taxation law, where one has the most glaring examples of loopholes—where people are employed for large sums of money for the express purpose of finding loopholes—one would soon find that virtually everything of importance in which a loophole was possible was being dealt with by rules and that the authority of Parliament and its power to improve legislation was diminishing and being eroded. That argument does not satisfy me that this is a matter which should not be within the Bill.
  I accept that one must balance the convenience to the Executive of being able to make rapid changes against the importance of the subject matter with which one is dealing in the legislation. This is a matter of great importance, as the Minister recognises. It is a matter which up to now, both in the 1962 and 1968 Acts, it was thought right to deal with by way of legislation.
  Even when the loophole was found which gave rise to the provision in the 1968 Act to which the Minister referred, the Government of the day did not deal with it by saying, in effect, "We will not have statutory provisions any longer. We will go over to a system of rules which will enable us to deal with any future loopholes as they arise". They did it by way of amendment to the 1962 Act, and they were perfectly right to do it that way.
  The hon. Gentleman is putting too much weight in the scales in favour of the facility of the Executive and far too little in that which sustains the essential principle that when people have and are given rights, those rights should be enshrined in legislation that is capable of amendment and control directly by this House.
  In these circumstances, if the Minister is not prepared to concede the principle of what we are seeking—I said we were not asking him to swallow the entirety of the drafting of the Amendment—and enshrine it in the Statute, I must ask my hon. Friends to support this principle by voting for it in the Lobby.
  Mr. David Weitzman (Stoke Newington and Hackney, North): This is such an important point that although I had

  531
  the privilege of serving on the Committee, I must comment on it. I hope that the Government will think again on this issue, for, as the Minister said, there is no real difference between us. The only difference is that the Government say that this should be in the rules while we say that it is a principle of such strength that it should be enshrined in the Bill.
  The reasoning of the Minister is that because it will be in the rules and because certain things occurred in the past, all will be well because the rules can be altered quickly. This is an important reason why the principle should be enshrined in the Bill, because we do not want it to be dealt with quickly. We want the principle established in the Bill so that if a query arises it will be dealt with by way of legislation and not simply by an alteration of the rules. I hope that the Minister will appreciate the importance of placing this principle within the Statute in view of the important rights of the individual that are involved.
  Mr. Bidwell: At the outset of the Committee stage my hon. Friends tried to introduce what one might call a set of declared principles. They were basically designed to ensure that the provisions would be non-discriminatory on grounds of ethnic origin or colour.
  At that stage it was argued by hon. Gentlemen opposite that there was no need for our proposal because what we had in mind was already laid down in statutory form in the Race Relations Act, 1968. On that score hon. Gentlemen opposite had a point, but in the case we are now discussing the same cannot be said. It is common knowledge in this case that there are pressures the other way, so to speak. Parts of the Bill are of a probationary character in their effect on Commonwealth citizens coming to work in this country. There is the provision for one year's probation, with a
  second bite of three years' probation before permanent settlement can be achieved.
  They are already under these pressures, and while there would not be a derogation of rights under certain rules concerning the bringing in of dependent relatives, there would at any rate be a considerable reduction in the incentive to bring in dependent relatives and so on until permanent settlement had been achieved. We have already pointed out the enormous difficulty involved at that early stage in obtaining credit and arranging mortgages.
  A considerable body of opinion is growing over what I have previously described as the possible growth, as a result of the facility provided by the Bill, of coolie labour, and certainly virtually directed labour, mainly coloured. For this reason my hon. Friends are saying that it is not good enough to, as it were, stand this matter aside in rules. It is imperative that the principle be enshrined in the Bill so that it becomes a concept and aim.
  If the Minister is prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) pointed out, he would be asserting a position which I am sure he holds. He would be saying that he will have no truck with the sort of developments which could arise from the actions of certain employers, and perhaps certain members of his party.
  We are here debating a declaration of principle which will be enshrined in any future legislation on this subject which a Labour Government introduce, for that legislation will be based on sound Socialist principles.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 155, Noes 185.

  Division No. 379.]

  AYES

  [7.57 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Booth, Albert

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Dalyell, Tam

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)

  Ashton, Joe

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Beaney, Alan

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Bishop, E. S.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Dempsey, James

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Doig, Peter

  Kinnock, Neil

  Rankin, John

  Dormand, J. D.

  Lamond, James

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Latham, Arthur

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lawson, George

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Dunn, James A.

  Leonard, Dick

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Roper, John

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmamock)

  Evans, Fred

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lipton, Marcus

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McBride, Neil

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Foley, Maurice

  McCartney, Hugh

  Sillars, James

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McElhone, Frank

  Silverman, Julius

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McGuire, Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ginsburg, David

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Small, William

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Spearing, Nigel

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsden, F.

  Steel, David

  Crimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Hamilton, William (Fife, E.)

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Hamling, William

  Meacher, Michael

  Swain, Thomas

  Hardy, Peter

  Millan, Bruce

  Taverne, Dick

  Harper, Joseph

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morgan, Etystan (Cardiganshire)

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Tomney, Frank

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Torney, Tom

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Ogden, Eric

  Urwin, T. W.

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Weitzman, David

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Janner, Greville

  Orme, Stanley

  Whitehead, Philip

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  John, Brynmor

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HuII, W.)

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Woof, Robert

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Pentland, Norman

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Prescott, John

  Mr. James Hamilton and

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Mr. John Golding.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Critchley, Julian

  Hiley, Joseph

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Crouch, David

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Dean, Paul

  Holland, Philip

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Awdry, Daniel

  Dixon, Piers

  Hornby, Richard

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Hornsby-Smithy, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Batsford, Brian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Biffen, John

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Hunt, John

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Eyre, Reginald

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Blaker, Peter

  Farr, John

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Fell, Anthony

  James, David

  Boscawen, Robert

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Fidler, Michael

  Jennings, J. c. (Burton)

  Bowden, Andrew

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Bray, Ronald

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Fortescue, Tim

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Fowler, Norman

  Knox, David

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Fox, Marcus

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'ffom & Stone)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gardner, Edward

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Burden, F. A.

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Loveridge, John

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Luce, R. N.

  Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)

  Gower, Raymond

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Carlisle, Mark

  Gray, Hamish

  MacArthur, Ian

  Channon, Paul

  Green, Alan

  McCrindle, R. A,

  Chapman, Sydney

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  McLaren, Martin

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Gummer, Selwyn

  McMaster, Stanley

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Clegg, Walter

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maginnis, John E.

  Costain, A. P.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Mather, Carol

  Cooke, Robert

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maude, Angus

  Cooper, A. E.

  Hicks, Robert

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Cormack, Patrick

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Mawby, Ray

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Raison, Timothy

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Moate, Roger

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Tebbit, Norman

  Molyneaux, James

  Redmond, Robert

  Temple, John M.

  Money, Ernle

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  More, Jasper

  Rost, Peter

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Royle, Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Waddington, David

  Mudd, David

  Scott, Nicholas

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Murton, Oscar

  Sharples Richard

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Neave, Airey

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Wall, Patrick

  Normanton, Tom

  Simeons, Charles

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Onslow, Cranley

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Osborn, John

  Soref, Harold

  Wilkinson, John

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  Speed, Keith

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Spence, John

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Sproat, Iain

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Percival, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Younger, Hn. George

  Pounder, Rafton

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Victor Goodhew.

Clause 5

  PROCEDURE FOR, AND FURTHER PROVISIONS AS TO, DEPORTATION
  Amendment made: No. 27, in page 6, line 39, leave out from beginning to 'and' in line 42, and insert:
  (3) A deportation order shall not be made against a person as belonging to the family of another person if more than eight weeks have elapsed since the other person left the United Kingdom after the making of the deportation order against him.—[Mr. Sharples.]
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Sharples: I beg to move, Amendment No. 32, in page 7, line 13, leave out subsection (5).
  In Standing Committee we discussed the meaning of subsection (5) and I remember having to explain its provisions, which were not completely obvious to the members of the Committee or to myself without the benefit of the brief which I had.
  The intention of the subsection was to ensure that when for any reason a deportation order ceased to have effect, there would be no risk of the person previously subject to it challenging the legality of any action taken under it. This followed a provision contained in Section 9(3) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962.
  There was quite a lot of criticism of the wording by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden), the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr.
  536
  David Steel) and the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin). I undertook to have another look at the wording and that led us to question whether the subsection was necessary, and we came to the conclusion that it was not. The effect of the Amendment is to remove it from the Bill.
  As the subsection was universally criticised, I hope that the Amendment will be universally supported.
  Mr. Peter Archer: For the Opposition, I can implement the hon. Gentleman's hope. We are duly grateful for the way in which he has met us. If the Government would be as frank and forthcoming on every matter, we should make much quicker progress.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6

  RECOMMENDATIONS BY COURT FOR DEPORTATION
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 8, line 12, leave out from 'person' to end of subsection (3) and insert:
  'convicted of an offence may be recommended for deportation notwithstanding that no other penalty is imposed upon such conviction'
  The Amendment arises from a discussion in Committee between the Secretary of State and myself principally, although other hon. Members took part in the discussion. At the end of the day we found that there was nothing between us in principle and the question

  537
  was simply as to the best way of giving effect to the principle which was agreed.
  The provisions of the Bill at present are such that a person may be ordered to be deported by a court
  "notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary and notwithstanding that the court does not proceed to conviction".
  In those circumstances, he is to be regarded as a person convicted of the offence.
  The difficulty we had with that form of wording was that the effect of it is that people who are absolutely or conditionally discharged—the difficulty arises in particular in the case of absolute discharge—are none the less to be regarded for these purposes as persons convicted of the offence, although the whole object of the provision in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948 which brings into existence the absolute discharge is that a person shall not be regarded as having been convicted.
  I suggested in Committee that the form of wording used in many cases in breach of probation cases—that a person be sentenced to one day's imprisonment, which in effect means that he does not go to prison—might be an appropriate way of avoiding what seems to be the dilution of the principle of absolute discharge not amounting to a conviction. The Secretary of State thought that even to have a day's imprisonment on one's record was a matter of moment which he regarded, apparently, as a matter of greater moment than to have on his record an order for deportation; and the right hon. Gentleman wanted to avoid that at all costs.
  We ended by the Secretary of State understanding my objection to the dilution of the principle of absolute discharge and by my understanding the Secretary of State's objection to the alternative method.
  In those circumstances we have considered whether there is not a third method of dealing with the matter which would solve both difficulties. The third method which we think might be appropriate is embodied in the Amendment, which provides simply that a person who is
  "convicted of an offence may be recommended for deportation notwithstanding that no other penalty is imposed upon such conviction".
  538
  That would avoid the necessity for an absolute discharge in such cases and, therefore, the dilution of the principle of the absolute discharge, and would avoid the necessity for sentencing a person to even a day's imprisonment.
  The word "penalty" in relation to a recommendation for deportation is an appropriate term, because it is a part of the sentence for the purposes of appeal. One can appeal against a recommendation for deportation. Even though the Secretary of State and I were in agreement that there might well be cases where the recommendation is made not so much for the penalty purpose as because the court considers it to be in the interest of the defendant himself that he should be returned to conditions of stability in the country of his origin, none the less the term "penalty" is perfectly appropriate and, indeed, is in accordance with the provision of the clause as it stands.
  This is not a matter of the widest possible significance, although I am delighted to see that, if I anticipate aright, the Solicitor-General has taken the matter under his ample wing, and no doubt he will tell us whether this form of wording is a possible one and, if so, whether it is a form of wording which would commend itself to the Government as solving what I admit is a quite narrow problem but none the less a real one.
  8.15 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe): The hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) was kind enough to suggest that this matter was under my "ample wing". That is to exaggerate my rôle in connection with the Amendment.
  The point the hon. and learned Gentleman made in Committee has received the consideration of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Home Office as well as of my right lion, and learned Friend the Lord Advocate and myself. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right in saying that there is common ground here in the sense of wanting to ensure that in the appropriate case, be it a penalty or not, the deportation order can be made without the necessity for a sentence of one day's imprisonment.
  The approach adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman's form of words does

  539
  not seem to be either necessary or right to achieve that; because in England and Wales, and in Scotland save in courts of summary jurisdiction, where a court makes an order for an absolute or a conditional discharge it does so, and can do so only, where the person concerned has been convicted of an offence. It is only the conviction which lays the foundation for making such an order. Thereafter, for other purposes the conviction no longer counts as a conviction; but only when the court has recorded a conviction can it make an order for an absolute or a conditional discharge.
  However, in courts of summary jurisdiction in Scotland, for reasons which derive from the different formulation of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, a court of summary jurisdiction does not proceed to conviction. If a Scottish court of summary jurisdiction makes an order for absolute discharge—I understand that there is no conditional discharge in Scotland—it does so without proceeding to a conviction.
  So, if the formulation adopted by the hon. and learned Gentleman's words were to be adopted, a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland would not be able to make a recommendation for a deportation order. That is one of the substantial reasons why the original wording of the Bill is that
  "notwithstanding that the Court does not proceed to conviction"
  the person shall
  "be regarded as a person convicted of the offence".
  A person in respect of whom a Scottish court makes an order for an absolute discharge would not be and could not be regarded as a person qualifying for a recommendation for deportation without the words
  "be regarded as a person convicted of the offence".
  The effect of this form of words is expressed as "for purposes of deportation" at line 12 on page 8. Therefore, it does not alter the basic quality of the conviction recorded in England and Wales or the finding of guilt that is recorded without a conviction in a court of summary jurisdiction in Scotland. It merely describes the condition which must be fulfilled in order to lay the foundation for a deportation recommendation to be
  540
  made. If the words in the Amendment were to be adopted, there is that anomaly in respect of courts of summary jurisdiction in Scotland.
  If I wanted to be tendentious, I could argue that the hon. and learned Gentleman in adopting the words "no other penalty" is implying perhaps further than can be implied that a recommendation for deportation is a penalty. He acknowledged that there was some force in that argument, which perhaps it is unnecessary to make here.
  The point is that this form of words is necessary to lay the foundations for the making of an order or recommendation for deportation. I do not see that it can alter the quality of the associated "penalty" of absolute or conditional discharge if such should be imposed in conjunction with a deportation order. Certainly, what both sides of the House are anxious to avoid is avoided by this formulation. It is not necessary to impose the one day's formal order of imprisonment.
  I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be persuaded to accept that at the least his own form of words would make for some difficulty and that the present form of words is one with which he can continue to live with tolerable equanimity in the years ahead.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The position as the Solicitor-General has outlined it is obviously correct in law. I would hesitate to cross swords with the hon. and learned Gentleman on points of law.
  I am concerned that, with the desire of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) to get the phraseology of the Clause right, the concept of expressing deportation as a penalty in itself has been introduced. We had a considerable discussion in Committee as to how far deportation was a penalty. As we all understand the Bill as it stands, deportation from this country means, in all but very rare cases, that the opportunity for the person deported to return is completely taken away. Therefore, there was also a considerable discussion in Committee about the deportation of first offenders. We thought that no one should be deprived of the life and facilities available in this country simply on a first offence, especially as in a later part of the Bill

  541
  there is reference to sentences of six months or more.
  People outside the House, and even inside it, who read the legislation will not follow its precise meaning. On a perhaps cursory reading of the Clause as drafted, certainly by someone who is not au fait with the intricacies of the law, one could be led to believe that someone could be deported from this country even if not guilty of an offence. Whilst the wording suggested by my hon. and learned Friend perhaps carries with it a meaning that he did not intend, there is need to tidy up this mumbo-jumbo, perhaps in another place.
  If there must be special provision in the Bill to take care of the courts of summary jurisdiction in Scotland, the way to do it would be to spell it out more clearly in a separate subsection. Otherwise, people outside the House who are extremely hostile and suspicious—in many cases with very good cause—will find in the Bill things which are not there. We should remove unfounded suspicions as far as we can. It is one thing to have suspicions about a Bill that we all dislike, to have suspicions about the real meaning and intention of a Government in introducing a Measure, but that is totally different from allowing legislation to pass which would give a completely misleading impression of its intention.
  In a later Amendment we shall see the difficulties involved in trying to accommodate both the law of Scotland and law of England and Wales in one subsection. Will the Solicitor-General be prepared to consider fresh wording to make the matter completely clear both in law and for people outside the House who must understand it?
  The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may intervene here. The hon. Gentleman may be talking beside this particular point. I have read what he said in Standing Committee about the general undesirability of its being thought around the world that a deportation order of whatever kind, imposed for whatever reason, is equivalent to a conviction. As I read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee, hon. Members on both sides accepted that it would not be desirable that any deportation order should be regarded as flowing from, and therefore amounting to, a conviction.
  542
  The provision in subsection (3) is related only to Clause 3(6). Subsection 3 says:
  "For purposes of section 3(6) above—".
  It therefore arises only in the context of a situation where a court has in fact found someone guilty of an offence and has therefore made a recommendation for his deportation. All that this subsection does is to say how the court is to proceed and how the Act is to work in a situation where a person is found to have committed an offence. In that situation it is inescapable, if anyone can analyse it and work back to the source, that the person was deported as a result of a recommendation by a court which can have been made only after he had been found guilty.
  There is nothing I can suggest in the context of this subsection or of Clause 3(6) to avoid the conclusion that a deportation order made after a recommendation following a finding of guilt does indeed spring from a finding of guilt.
  The wider argument that the hon. Gentleman advances arises outside the context of this subsection, important though it may be.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: I do not think that what I have said is outside the Clause, though I accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's view that in a sense it is slightly to the side of the Clause.
  Race relations is a very sensitive matter. Despite the qualifications made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should look at the wording, because it can be totally misconstrued. Perhaps it is not Parliament's job to worry about how legislation is construed. Some hon. Members may hold that view, but I believe that legislation must not only be legally correct, open to legal interpretation and subject to the kind of detailed analysis which someone following it through Clause by Clause can give it, but should also be clear to the layman, certainly in the case of this Bill. It seems to me that laymen could misconstrue the purpose of the Clause.
  I accept that perhaps this is not a major point, but I hope that on reflection the Solicitor-General will follow the example of the Home Secretary, who has once or twice today accepted our arguments, despite the fact that in Standing

  543
  Committee he was adamant that certain things were not to happen, that there were certain rights of appeal which were not justiciable, that he could not possibly give way. In the relatively short space of time since Committee he has realised that there was force in our arguments. All I am asking of the Solicitor-General is that he should bear in mind what I have said and agree that in another place, after consultation with the Lord Advocate, it may be clearer to spell the matter out in a different way.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Weitzman: Someone who commits an offence and is given an absolute or conditional discharge has still committed the offence. If the Solicitor-General omitted the words
  "… it shall, notwithstanding any enactment to the contrary and notwithstanding that the court does not proceed to conviction, …"
  he would still serve his purpose. The subsection would then read:
  "… a person who on being charged with an offence is found to have committed it shall be regarded as a person convicted of the offence, and references to conviction shall be construed accordingly."
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: The point is that, whereas the absolute discharge is a sign that the court regards the offence as so trivial as not to warrant a penalty, the recommendation for deportation may be regarded as a sign that the offence is so grave that the person should be deported. That is the contradiction which we tried to correct in Committee and by our Amendment tonight.
  The Solicitor-General—and I am glad to say that I was able to understand his Scottish accent—has persuaded me that, for reasons peculiar to Scotland, my proposed method of dealing with the matter is not very satisfactory; and those sitting behind me who are more expert in the subject than I have confirmed this view. Nonetheless, the problem remains, even though it may be a minor problem compared with many other problems with which we have dealt.
  In the light of what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) and myself, I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will have another look at the wording of the Clause and see whether there is an alternative method
  544
  appropriate to England and Wales as well as to Scotland which will solve the difficulty. I do not ask him to produce a solution on the spot. In the confident belief that he will not go away and forget about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray,: I beg to move Amendment No. 131, in page 8, line 40, leave out from 'appeal' to end of line 41.
  The Amendment arises out of a difference between Scots law and the law of England and Wales on appeals procedure. Although the Scottish point is rather technical, it raises a point of principle of general application which may be of wider interest to the House.
  The point was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) in Committee at cols. 908–9 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 18th May. The Home Secretary in reply said:
  "In general, the purpose of the Clause as drafted—which, I believe, follows precedence in all these respects—is to ensure that the procedures in Scotland are as similar as possible to the procedures in England, taking into account the different law which applies in the two countries. I will certainly look again at the drafting with the help of the Lord Advocate; but the principle of keeping the two countries in line and following precedent is one which I am sure will be accepted by the Committee."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 18th May, 1971; c. 934.]
  I notice that the Lord Advocate is present. No doubt he has given the Home Secretary the benefit of his advice. Just as the Home Secretary suggested that both sides of the Committee would accept the view that the two countries should be in line as much as possible, I think that both sides of the House would accept it.
  The point of Clause 6 is to give a right of appeal, and a statutory opportunity to appeal, to persons convicted of an offence who are recommended by the court for deportation. I use the term "convicted of an offence" with the gloss which was used in the debate on the last Amendment. The right of appeal is given for Scotland in subsection (5)(b) and for the rest of the United Kingdom in subsection (5)(a). In each case the right is

  545
  assimilated to an existing form of criminal appeal, and for Scotland the phrase
  "without prejudice to any other form of appeal under any rule of law"
  saves the very useful Scottish form of common law appeal by what is called "bill of suspension" against gross irregularity or harsh and oppressive treatment by the court. The Government are to be commended for doing that.
  May I say in parenthesis that the point which exercised the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North superficially arises here to some extent, because he will have noted that in Scotland the appeal is assimiliated to an appeal against conviction, whereas in England and Wales it is assimilated to an appeal against sentence. I assure my hon. Friend that there is nothing sinister in that. It gives a Scottish appellant greater rights than he otherwise would have. He can appeal as of right on a question of law and, on other questions, he has the right to apply for leave to appeal. The Scottish appellant has perhaps a better opportunity for appeal than his counterpart in England and Wales.
  This form of appeal given by the Bill, unlike the statutory appeal which the Clause has primarily in mind, involves no time limit—and here I am referring to the Scottish common law procedure by way of bill of suspension. That is one of its merits: it is not hidebound by a time limit. If a person complains of gross irregularity or harsh and oppressive treatment by the court, it is obvious that it may not emerge within the time limit for appeal. When it does, it vitiates what has gone before finally and decisively.
  In contrast with a common law appeal, the Scottish appeal against conviction to which the deportation appeal is assimilated in Scotland must be made within 10 days of the court's determination of the case. If the House gave effect to Amendment No. 131, there would be no doubt that the time in Scotland for treating an appeal as pending would expire at the end of 10 days, as provided for ordinary criminal appeals, and there would be no possibility of encroachment on the common law remedy of suspension.
  But the Bill as drafted expressly provides for a period of 14 instead of 10
  546
  days during which a deportation appeal will be deemed to be pending. This extension is made in general terms, so that if the Bill is enacted a court may conceivably construe it as applying to the procedure by bill of suspension also, and the court may reach the view that an appeal by suspension could not be brought in respect of a deportation recommendation, even though a gross irregularity lay behind it or harsh and oppressive treatement was involved, after the expiry of 14 days, despite the saving words in the previous subsection.
  I press the Government to say whether this is what they intend and, if it is, how they can reconcile it with the splendid words in the previous subsection about there being no prejudice to the existing common law appeal.
  I pass from the technical point to the point of wider interest. Why should the time during which an appeal against a deportation order is deemed to be pending be 14 days in Scotland but be left to the ordinary rules governing appeals elsewhere? Presumably it was in an attempt to achieve a degree of uniformity that this drafting was adopted. I doubt whether it does this because if I am right, and I venture with great diffidence into the law that prevails south of the Border, the time for deportation appeals in England and Wales will vary from 14 days to 28 days, depending on the status of the court of first instance wsich is appealed against.
  If that is right we are not getting unanimity under the Clause, so that the principle which was put forward by the Home Secretary in Committee—which would have been acceptable to both sides—will not be effective because there will be different times, during which a deportation appeal is deemed to be pending in the two countries, and indeed quite different courts. If it is unanimity which is sought so that there is substantially the same right of appeal throughout the United Kingdom, would it not be fairer and more logical to make it the same for all and to fix the term of the longest period in any court, namely 28 days. This could be achieved by redrafting subsection (6) so as to provide for a fixed, uniform period for deportation appeals and for the time during which appeals would

  547
  be deemed to be pending—a period uniform for the whole of the United Kingdom. Quite frankly, for the life of me I cannot see why, if in certain circumstances an appellant is entitled to 28 days in England and Wales, it should not apply to all appeals in all parts of the United Kingdom. I would press the Government to look at this suggestion most seriously to see whether they would be prepared to come forward with an Amendment at some later stage.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Norman Wylie): I take the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) as a probing Amendment.
  What I can do unequivocally is to assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that nothing in this subsection affects the common law right of appeal by way of Bill of Suspension. What these provisions are designe dto do is to govern the circumstances in which the Home Secretary can exercise the powers which the legislation give to him. It does not in any way prejudice—and indeed the qualification in subsection (5)(b) is in these terms—the right of an individual to appeal in Scotland by Bill of Suspension.
  The other point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman, on the 14 days, has a degree of validity. As he is aware, the appeal provisions in Scotland are governed by the Criminal Appeal (Scotland) Act 1926 which provides under Section 4, a period of 10 days within which an appeal can be lodged. In summary cases under the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1954, as amended, Section 63 equally gives a period of 10 days.
  As I understand it, the position in England and Wales—and I take the words from what the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) said, as reported in column 916 in Committee—is 14 days on appeal from the magistrates' court and 28 days, under fairly recent legislation, from the superior courts.
  Accordingly, so far as England and Wales are concerned, it was perfectly adequate to relate the provisions here to the ordinary appeal provisions. In Scotland, because of the existence of the common law right of appeal by Bill of Suspension, there had to be some time
  548
  limit written into the legislation. This is something which arose in the 1962 Act and the provisions of this subsection are closely related to the provisions of Section 9 of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962.
  I cannot put it better than the way it was put by the hon. and learned Gentleman in column 916, when he said,
  "Obviously, I do not suggest that the period should be unlimited,"
  —of course the period with regard to a Bill of Suspension is not limited—
  "because then a deportation order could never be made. But I do not understand why the 28-day period should not be allowed for Scotland, which would be much more in conformity with the position of the higher courts in England and near the position in relation to an appeal under the common law procedure in Scotland."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 18th May, 1971; c. 916.]
  It is a question of judgment. The 14 days was selected. It more than covered the appeal provisions in Scotland which would have restricted the period to 10 days. Since 1962 these changes have been made in England and Wales. I have a certain sympathy with the argument and I think I can say that we shall consider the question of writing 28 days into this legislation. I can see certain administrative advantages from the Home Secretary's point of view. We will consider this and with that assurance perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be disposed to withdraw his Amendment.
  8.45 p.m.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Before the Lord Advocate sits down may I use him, as it were, as a vehicle to put a question to the Home Secretary and Minister of State? I wonder whether consideration could be given to what I thought was the valid point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), that there is a case for having a common period throughout the length and breadth of the land irrespective of the court. I think it may be a particularly valid point where one is dealing with a recommendation for deportation as distinct from ordinary penalties of fine or imprisonment, because of the nature of the problems to which it gives rise, problems rather more complex than problems with which one deals in other

  549
  cases. I wonder whether he would consider, therefore, saying that he will consult his right hon. and hon. Friends on the possibility of a common period.
  The Lord Advocate: I would say that my right hon. Friend has listened with care to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I have no doubt that he will take it very much into account.
  Mr. Ronald King Murray: In the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7

  EXEMPTION FROM DEPORTATION FOR CERTAIN EXISTING RESIDENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): The next Amendment is No. 34 and with it there is a list of other Amendments which I think it better not to try to describe. It appears as some sort of potpourri to me.
  No. 94, in page 9, line 7, after '(c)', insert:
  'if at the time of the decision of the Secretary of State he had at all times since the end of July 1971 been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands; and
  (b) shall not be liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a)';
  No. 99, in line 8, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten';
  No. 35, in line 8, leave out 'been settled' and insert:
  'or, if more than five years have elapsed since the end of July 1971, at all times since the end of that month been ordinarily resident';
  As an Amendment to Amendment No. 35, in line 1, leave out 'five' and insert ' ten ';
  No. 100, in line 12, leave out 'five' and insert ' ten ';
  No. 36, in line 12, leave out 'been settled' and insert:
  'or, if more than five years have elapsed since the end of July 1971, at all times since the end of that month been ordinarily resident';
  As an Amendment to Amendment No. 36, in line 1, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten';
  No. 37, in line 13, at end insert:
  ( ) A person who has at any time become ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands shall not be treated for
  550
  the purposes of this section as having ceased to be so by reason only of his having remained there in breach of the immigration laws.
  No. 37, in line 13, at end insert:
  ( ) A person who has at any time become ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands shall not be treated for the purposes of this section as having ceased to be so by reason only of his having remained there in breach of the immigration laws.
  No. 38, in line 14, leave out from beginning to 'was' in line 16 and insert:
  "(2) The 'last five years' before the material time under subsection (1)(b) or (c) above is to be taken as a period amounting in total to five years exclusive of any time during which the person claiming exemption under this section".
  As Amendments to Amendment No. 38, in line 1, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'; in line 2, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.
  No. 39, in line 19, leave out 'if'.
  Mr. Maudling: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 9, line 6, at end insert:
  'if at the time of the Secretary of State's decision he had at all times since the end of July 1971 been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and Islands; and
  (b) shall not be liable to deportation under section 3(5)(a)'.
  My Amendments, that is, Nos. 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39, have a limited purpose. Clause 7 to which these Amendments relate deals with the particular question of people already resident here when the Bill comes into force. I said at an earlier stage that I did not intend in any way to prejudice the position of people already here. It has been pointed out to me that there are one or two points where there is a difference between that and the Bill as it stands at the moment and, therefore, I want to change it by these Amendments.
  The first point is, people who under the existing law are Commonwealth citizens and not liable to deportation on ordinary non-conducive grounds. I am ensuring that those already here will not become liable, as they would as the Bill originally was drafted, to deportation on non-conducive grounds.
  Secondly, there is a rather complicated point about whether people, in order to achieve five years' residence within the meaning of the Bill, have been settled here without any restriction, or whether they are ordinary residents. The effect of

  551
  these Amendments is to make these changes.
  First of all, Commonwealth and Irish citizens ordinarily resident here at the end of July, 1971, are not to be liable to deportation on non-conducive grounds provided they are ordinarily resident and their residence has been continuous up to the time deportation becomes an issue. This is carrying out an undertaking I gave.
  Commonwealth citizens ordinarily resident here at the end of July, 1971, are not to be liable to deportation on conviction and recommendation by a court if at the relevant time they have been ordinarily resident here for five years and residence has been continuous since the end of July, 1971.
  In other words, those ordinarily resident here will get the benefit first of all of not being liable to deportation on non-conducive grounds, and secondly, of the immunity from ordinary criminal grounds, after five years' residence here.
  The other point which arose in Committee and which I am making quite clear is what happens when a person unfortunately is in prison during this period. The time during which he is in prison will not count towards the five years. It will not be a break in the five years. Therefore, if he spends six or nine months in jail, he will have to add another six or nine months to the end of his five years. This is what the Committee wanted, and I put forward these Amendments as carrying out my undertaking to ensure that the people already here will not be deleteriously affected by the Bill.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you described this group of Amendments as a pot-pourri. It is certainly a complicated series which may affect the lives of many unsuspecting families and, possibly, pose problems for many unsuspecting judges.
  As the right hon. Gentleman has explained, the background to all the Amendments lies in his undertaking both in Committee and on Second Reading that immigrants who were already living in the United Kingdom, although they may not be patrial under the Bill, will not be in a worse position in consequence than they are at present. That is a wholly
  552
  commendable purpose, and in so far as that purpose is fulfilled by this group of Amendments, we welcome them.
  Amendment No. 34, as the right hon. Gentleman says, seeks to implement that undertaking in relation to deportation on non-conducive grounds. As originally drafted, non-patrials would be liable to deportation on this ground in the first five years under the Bill, whereas under the present law they are not. The Amendment seeks to restore their existing position, provided they continue to reside here. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to claim that latter provision as a concession. It is, of course, a restriction on the concession which he is making, but it is a restriction of which we do not complain.
  Amendment No. 34 also provides, separately, that non-patrials will not be liable to deportation even if they are in breach of condition or have overstayed their leave, provided they have been here for five years. We are not entirely happy about that last provision. I am not sure why the right hon. Gentleman felt it necessary to introduce the five-year restriction period and why he did not apply the concession to all immigrants who are already here.
  Subject to that, and to what I propose to say later in relation to our Amendment No. 94, we have no quarrel with Amendment No. 34. We shall merely invite the House, and possibly the right hon. Gentleman, to consider, having heard the argument, whether our Amendment may not be preferable to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to do this. It may be for the convenience of the House if, before I come to our Amendment, I indicate the view of the Opposition on each of the other Amendments which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced.
  Amendment No. 35 provides that those who are now living here will receive the benefit of the Government's promise only if they continue to live here. We have no complaint about that in general but we are a little worried about the way in which it will operate in practice. A person who is now living here and who goes and lives elsewhere for three years can hardly complain if he is not permitted to return on the conditions he would have enjoyed had he lived here all through that period. But supposing he

  553
  has qualified under Clause 7, has resided here for five years and wishes to go abroad for a holiday, to visit his family or in the event of a family crisis. I am told that there is anxiety among the immigrant community about how this provision will operate in practice in that situation. When this man returns from abroad he will be confronted by an immigration officer. He is not a patrial, so presumably he will not go through the queue which, after the Bill becomes law, will be marked "Patrial". The immigration officer will, presumably, be a somewhat suspicious individual. That is the function of immigration officers, and we do not complain about that. But how is he now to convince the immigration officer that he is not subject to control under the Bill, that he is not liable to deportation if in breach of condition and, therefore, that he need not be interrogated to show whether he is in breach of condition? Is there a document which he can show to the immigration officer? If so, what kind of document, and how does he go about getting it?
  If I may digress a moment while, I hope, still remaining in order, this question has been put to me in relation to Clause 34 (4), which, as I understand its purpose, carries a little further the protection which the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to afford in these Amendments. It is not enough in that situation to say, "It is easy. All he does when he returns is to explain to the immigration officer the circumstances of his case". Immigration officers are not as gullible as that, and we should have reason to complain if they did no more than accept explanations, even if they were given as articulately as, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman might give them.
  The situation is all the more difficult when the people with whom immigration officers will be dealing are not articulate and not clearly aware of the provisions under which they are required to satisfy the immigration officer on certain matters. Sometimes people can make elaborate provision in advance, but sometimes they have to leave the country so quickly, perhaps because of a death in the family, that they cannot make such provision. In many situations of that kind, there is not much that they can do. When they return, therefore, they must run the risk of being in the sort of situation which I have described.
  554
  When there is all the time in the world, however, and all they want to do is to know how to set about smoothing their path when they return, what can they do? I am sure that the immigrant community would welcome such guidance as the right hon. Gentleman can give.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: It occurs to me that such a person returning would have documents. For instance, if he had been here continuously over a period he would have National Insurance papers, tax returns and all sorts of things. The immigration officer would not have to rely on his word. There would be ample evidence that he had been here for a long time and been away for just a few weeks.
  Mr. Archer: If the answer is—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will tell us—that when such a person goes abroad in those circumstances he should take with him his driving licence, his National Insurance card and all his other personal papers, that at least will be known to the immigrant community and they can act accordingly. But I venture the hope that, when someone goes abroad on a trip of this kind, he does not have to take with him all those documents which most of us know we should lose if we took them with us and which we always leave at home. I hope, therefore, that there is a more simple answer.
  I was confronted with an example of this sort of situation only a fortnight ago. A student was coming to visit his brother who is a doctor practising in my constituency. My constituent was anxious that, when his brother arrived, there would be no difficulty at the airport, it being a perfectly bona fide visit. He wrote, therefore, to the Home Office, asking what he should do, and he wrote to the British consul at the place where his brother was staying to make the same inquiry. In each case, he received the same answer, that there was really nothing he could do about it. The student was entitled to come here to visit his brother, and he must merely explain the purpose of his visit to the immigration officer when he arrived.
  The doctor wrote to me saying that he was not happy about it and asking whether I could do anything to make sure that his brother would be able to enter without difficulty. I telephoned to the

  555
  Minister of State's private office. I received a most willing response, but I was told that there was really no procedure prescribed for such a case. When he arrives, I was told, he will simply have to explain the circumstances, the consul who had already been consulted would, no doubt, make known to the immigration officer the purpose of the visit, and there would be no difficulty. I had to be content with that, and I informed the doctor accordingly.
  In fact, when the brother arrived, he was detained all night. He was subjected to a long cross-examination. The doctor himself, who attempted to intervene, was subjected to a long cross-examination. The result was frustration and anger and a general mix-up of a kind which one hopes need not normally occur.
  Admittedly, the student in that case was not in the sort of category with which the right hon. Gentleman is dealing in these Amendments, but his case raises the same sort of problem. We want to ensure that people should not get into a situation where they are subjected to that kind of treatment. It would not be difficult to provide them with some kind of document which they could show to the immigration officer
  Mr. Anthony Fell: The hon. and learned Gentleman said a moment ago that most of us lose documents anyway, so what is the point of presenting the person with another one?
  9.0 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I was saying that it would be a pity if every immigrant when abroad were required to carry with him his National Insurance card, driving licence and all the kinds of personal papers which, if we lose, we feel we have gone out of existence. I was proposing that there should be one simple document which somebody going abroad could carry with him. Of course he might lose it and that could apply to any document. The possibility is that there could be a stamp in a person's passport. If the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) wants to pursue his objection, the person might also lose his passport. We should provide one simple procedure that would not impose too great a burden.
  Sir George Sinclair: Is not a re-entry document the sort of thing that is required? A great deal has been done to eliminate trouble at the port of entry, which has been beneficial both to the immigrant and to the immigration officers. It would be of particular help if we were to provide a simple re-entry certificate with a time period contained in it.
  Mr. Archer: Not for the first time the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and I are proceeding along the same lines. I would be happy if the Home Secretary could consider some such suggestion.
  Mr. Maudling: If the immigrant wants to go abroad all he does is take his passport with him and have it with him when he returns. There would be no change in that situation.
  Mr. Archer: The Home Secretary says that they should take their passports. It does not follow that anybody entitled to a United Kingdom passport who was nevertheless a non-patrial would find that all the questions put to him by the immigration officer would be answered by the production of a passport. Our complaint is that the Bill does not equate citizenship with patriality. What is required is a certificate to say that a non-patrial is entitled to enter and leave the United Kingdom. This is all we are saying. If this suggestion puzzles the Home Secretary, I have no doubt that some of his hon. Friends behind him who have grasped the point will explain it to him.
  Amendment No. 35, subject to what I have just said, does not occasion us any difficulty, and I will say no more about it, nor do we have any quarrel with Amendment No. 36, which affects the new proposal in relation to deportation on the recommendation of a court.
  Clause 37 seems to be the right hon. Gentleman's response to an invitation made to him by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deeds) to offer some kind of amnesty to those already in this country. If that is so, then again it is welcome so far as it goes. Amendment No. 38 is in fulfilment of the right hon. Gentleman's undertakings to ensure that, for the purposes of deportation on the recommendation of a court, the period of five years would not be interrupted

  557
  by a sentence of imprisonment so that the period would have to begin again. Again we would welcome that. Finally, Amendment No. 39 is consequential.
  I hope that I have indicated the Opposition's attitude to the object of the Home Secretary's Amendments.
  I turn to our Amendment No. 94 which, in effect, is a sub-Amendment to Government Amendment No. 34. The difference between our respective proposals is that the Home Secretary wants non-patrials already residing here to be liable to deportation under the family provision unless they have resided here for five years. That would be the effect of the non-event, of what he has not done.
  We say that they should not be liable to be deported under that provision even if they have not resided here for five years. If they are liable to be deported under that provision, they are in a worse position than had the Bill not taken effect. I understand that that is contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's declared intention. If his intention is that those who were residing here should be no worse off, it is not fulfilled while they are liable to deportation under this provision for their first five years of residence.
  It has not been made clear to me what dire threat hangs over us which requires this self-afforded dispensation from the Government's declared intention. I ventured to point this out in Committee at col. 965, and the right hon. Gentleman undertook to look into it. So far we have not been told the consequences of what he saw when he looked in. I hoped that he might have mentioned it when introducing the Amendments. We shall certainly listen to anything that he says on the matter, but, as at present advised, we take the view that our Amendment should commend itself not only to my hon. Friends, but to the Government, because its purpose is to give effect to their declared intention.
  Mr. Powell: I wish to refer to the group of Amendments which is my contribution to the amalgam on the Order Paper, which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, rather kindly referred to as the pot-pourri. It seeks to increase from five to ten years the time after which those already settled and resident here are not liable to deportation. I could have wished that I had had the
  558
  opportunity in Committee of putting my point on this and on two succeeding groups of Amendments to my right hon. Friend. I am sorry that I was prevented from doing so by circumstances not in my control.
  The Bill alters the position for the future. For all future immigrants, whether aliens or Commonwealth citizens, liability to deportation will be permanent unless and until they become patrial. Unless or until they become patrial, whether an alien or a Commonwealth immigrant has been here, five, ten, 15 or 20 years, he will still be liable to deportation—I should add that I am solely concerned with this type of deportation—following a conviction by a court and upon the recommendation of the court. It is to that class of deportation that I am solely referring. It is therefore thought right as a principle by hon. Members on both sides that there should be no limitation of time upon liability to deportation.
  We are passing a completely new dispensation of the immigration law and, without dissent from any quarter, we declare that there ought not to be a limitation of time upon the liability of non-patrials to deportation. It must be taken, therefore, that the House regards as just and proper that, however long a non-patrial settler has been here, if circumstances warrant it he should be liable to be returned to the country of his origin for the good of this country and, in many cases, in his own interests.
  I contend that we should take this opportunity to alter the provisions which are carried forward by the Bill relating to persons already settled here at the time when it becomes law. I face, immediately, the objection that to do that would, in some sense, be retrospective, or that it would be in breach of the general principle which my right hon. Friend has maintained throughout—and in the interests of which he has moved the Amendment technically under discussion by the House—namely, not to prejudice the position of persons already here. But I would observe that all legislation on citizenship and immigration, by its very nature, alters existing rights, whether or not they are actually being exercised.
  When the five-year deportation rule, if I may so briefly describe it, was written

  559
  into the 1962 Act, that itself created a liability which did not previously exist. There was no liability to deportation for Commonwealth citizens up to that time. That Act created it at a stroke, and yet it was not thought wrong on that account to do so. Indeed, the 1962 Act, the 1968 Act, and any legislation which alters the law on citizenship, or the law on immigration, necessarily alters the rights of persons which they are enjoying up to the time of the legislation. So I do not think that that objection in principle can be urged against the House looking again at the five-year rule in relation to existing immigrants in this country.
  But, more narrowly, can it be said that to look at, and to alter, that rule would prejudice the position of those already here? The argument against prejudicing anyone's position is that one alters what he was taking into account in deciding how to behave, that one changes the conditions on which he was taking his decisions.
  Let us apply that proposition to the matter under consideration. If it is true that the potentially delinquent immigrant jealously counts the time—five years—from his first residence in this country, and then, on five years plus one day, says, "Now come on, let us go and beat it up, because at least I cannot be deported" then, indeed, on that assumption we would be changing his position if we were to reconsider the five-year rule. But I cannot seriously think that the House either envisages that that is a factor which is, or ought to be, taken into consideration by those resident in this country, or that that is a condition of their personal decisions which this House ought to be jealous to preserve.
  I conclude, therefore, that we are not estopped by any consideration of fairness or reasonableness or, indeed, by the principle laid down by my right hon. Friend, from reconsidering, on this occasion, the five-year rule, and reconsidering it in the light of the fact that for the future there is to be no limitation on time whatsoever, by common and general consent.
  Of course, as the years go on the new rule will apply to an increasing proportion of the immigrant population here—alien or Commonwealth—but for the present, and for many years to come, the
  560
  old rule, the rule being carried forward by the Clause, will be that which will apply to the vast majority of cases which may come within the purview of a decision of the court to recommend, and of the Home Secretary to confirm, deportation.
  I believe that many hon. Members whose constituencies know these problems will agree with me that they have been confronted with instances where, flagrantly, but for the five-year rule, such-and-such a person ought, in the interests of all concerned, to have been deported. Certainly, as the years have gone by, I have seen more and more instances in which the five-year rule seemed to me to be an irrational and objectionable limitation. I have publicly said, in the light of this experience, that it was a rule which I believe should be altered and a period which should be extended. In the Amendments which I have put on the Order Paper, I have simply suggested the doubling of the period. That would certainly greatly reduce the degree of the present mischief, but I will not quibble about the period.
  Of course, an argument could be made for any particular length of years. But circumstances today are very different from those when the figure five was first chosen in 1961. When that Bill was framed, much the greater part of the then immigrant population fell within the period of the previous five years, and in some years following that, the five-year rule brought within its ambit the large majority of the then immigrant population. It is a term of years which has become increasingly anachronistic as the years have gone by. If anyone were to argue that today a period of 10 years is too short a limitation, if limitation there has to be, I would not be disposed to disagree with him.
  But I believe that the time has now come when the five-year rule should either be abolished, as we are abolishing it for the future, or revised by an increase in the period.
  Mr. Gower: In view of his comments on this five-year rule, does my right hon. Friend find a similar objection to the longstanding rule that an alien who comes here for five years is able to apply, in normal circumstances, to be a naturalised citizen—which is applied not only here

  561
  but in many other countries? Is there not a relationship between that kind of rule and the rule of five years which came into the earlier legislation?
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Powell: There may be, but then that, too, is modified in the new circum stances. As my hon. Friend knows, under this Bill there is a discretion now on the Home Secretary after five years to con sider whether he will or will not accord patriality. Of course my hon. Friend appreciates that, as soon as an immigrant becomes patrial, the liability to deporta tion does not apply to him. Therefore, if one were considering the deportation of someone who had been in this country 9½ years, he would be a person who, during the last 4½ of those 9½ years, had not exercised his right hitherto to be patrial. We are, in other words, considering a person who, by his own decision, had not made this country—
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Mr. Powell: May I just—
  Mr. Hughes: It is an important point.
  Mr. Powell: Yes, but it cannot be so important as to justify the interruption of a single sentence. I will willingly give way to the hon. Member when I have completed my observation, that, if there were a 10-year rule today, it would include five years during which those to whom it applied had deliberately chosen not to become what is now patrial, or citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by registration, but to remain either aliens or Commonwealth citizens whose home was elsewhere.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman says that such a person deliberately for 4½ years had not exercised his right to apply for patriality or citizenship. He might well have applied but, because of the discretion of the Home Secretary, have been refused such a right.
  Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. That discretion is for the first time introduced by this Measure in the case to which I am referring; namely, of those immigrants who are already here. They have had the automatic right, after five years' continuous residence in this country, to be registered as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and
  562
  therefore those to whom one would extend this liability are people who, by their own choice, have decided that this country is not their home. That, I believe, is a further justification for taking this opportunity to review what I have briefly called the five-year rule.
  I do not believe that either my right hon. Friend or any other hon. Member can justify circumstances in which immigrants who have been in this country for six, seven or eight years and who are guilty of serious offences for which a court would not hesitate to recommend, and the Home Secretary would not hesitate to confirm, deportation, should be free of that possibility simply because of a figure written into a Measure of 10 years ago.
  This is ripe for revision now. I do not know whether the Government, at this stage or subsequently, are prepared to consider doing so. But as time goes on, if it is allowed to elapse, the urgency and necessity of this revision will become ever clearer.
  Mr. Bidwell: In Committee the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) tabled a number of Amendments—I believe that he suffered from an abcess which made him retire from the Committee temporarily—and I tabled some which would have reduced the qualifying period to three years instead of 10 years.
  I had in mind that as we were moving towards the concept of twinning the intake of alien and Commonwealth workers into this country, it would be right to afford them the facility of citizenship rights after three years and that the five-year period should not apply. If we were progressing in a logical and decent British way, that would be the direction in which we would be heading.
  However, we are not heading in that direction by this Measure, and because of the illogicalities both in regard to patriality and the fact that we are not twinning, the situation confronting alien and Commonwealth workers coming here is such that the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is able to play ducks and drakes with the Bill, which is what he proceeded to do when he joined the Standing Committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, trying to put the engines in reverse and

  563
  to place in jeopardy a number of people who came to this country at our invitation to earn a livelihood and exercise their rights under the 1962 Act, as amended by the 1968 Act. They want their families around them, and it is to be regretted that the Home Secretary, over the appeals system, has taken a step backwards.
  One cannot overlook the sinister purposes of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, particularly in his desire to put these people in jeopardy. It is wicked for the right hon. Gentleman to make such proposals, particularly when one has regard to his responsibilities as, in a sense, an employer, as a former Minister of the Crown and as the right hon. Gentleman who, in 1962, when responsible for health matters, urged the recruitment of coloured people from overseas into the British hospital services. That has been exposed to us in more glaring form in remarks made by the Common Market negotiator, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), in saying that during the right hon. Gentleman's period as Minister of Health he had said that there was no need to raise British nurses' pay because he could recruit labour in the markets overseas for the hospital services.
  Mr. Powell rose—
  Mr. Bidwell: I will give way in a moment. It therefore makes his situation all that much more despicable in my view.
  Mr. Powell: Since the hon. Member has sought to place on the record of the House the same falsehood as he sought to place upon the record of the Committee, I will again state that my right hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Hexham admitted that he had no foundation whatsoever for the statement which he attributed to me in that interview.
  Mr. Bidwell: The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham did no such thing. If the exchanges of letters which the right hon. Gentleman had with his right hon. and learned Friend on this matter were supposed to amount to a retraction on the part of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, I invite any Member of the House to look very carefully at the wording used by
  564
  the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham. In effect, what he was doing in those exchanges was inviting the right hon. Gentleman to prove further the exact words but not withdrawing the substance; the words he used meant that he was not making a retraction.
  Mr. Powell: The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham attributed words to me and attributed a statement to me. I asked him to refer me to the circumstances or occasion on which I made that statement, and he admitted that he was unable to do so.
  Mr. Bidwell: What he was admitting in that exchange of correspondence is that he—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]—was not recollecting the exact words. I am not withdrawing—I do not believe that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham would withdraw either—and I make a public statement to that effect. I put it on the record deliberately in the Committee proceedings and deliberately in this debate, because it is about time that in this respect the phoniness of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was completely exposed, in the way in which it has been successfully exposed since he has entered debates in this Parliament, which he did in a very belated way.
  Returning to the substance of the Amendments, I welcome the promise made by the Home Secretary in Committee. I will not say that I am highly delighted, because that might upset my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis). On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that the Bill did not worsen the situation for immigrants in Britain at present. But he subsequently found out that that was not the case. Therefore, I am pleased that he sought to set this right by this series of Amendments. He does not quite succeed, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) has pointed out by his further observations, but I know that that is his solemn intention. We can deduce that from the speech he made.
  On the question of the span of time, we have customarily looked at people as "belonging", and that is what the argument about the five years is all about.

  565
  Historically, as the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) suggested, we have become attached to the concept that when someone from overseas has been here over a five-year period, when he may opt for citizenship, that is a fair amount of time.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton has voiced the anxieties felt by members of the immigrant community who do not feel able to take advantage of Commonwealth citizenship rights under the British Nationality Act, 1948, and therefore take naturalisation or British citizenship. One reason for my hon. and learned Friend raising this question was conversations I have had with him. I want the Secretary of State to take full cognisance of all the Commonwealth considerations. Half the population of the Commonwealth are Indians—550 million. I am told by immigrant constituents of mine that only a small proportion of them take advantage of the British Nationality Act, 1948. When the right hon. Gentleman understands the reason for that he will better understand the fears of a person who has lived in this country for, say, 20 years and who has, perhaps, built up a business here. I have in mind a factory owner here who is also a property owner in India.
  9.30 p.m.
  The difficulty about Commonwealth citizens who have the necessary five-year residence qualification taking up citizenship is that the Indian Government, for example, do not recognise dual citizenship. The taking of British nationality by an Indian immigrant affects property interests in India. People who have been in Britain for as long as 10 years are afraid when they leave Britain, because the Bill and the regulations arising from it will impose upon immigration control officers a degree of diligence which will involve interrogation. The Home Secretary should not underestimate this point or the difficulties which will arise for immigration control officers.
  People cannot carry a collection of Indian passports. When a passport is renewed at the High Commission office here the old passport must be relinquished. The certificate of departure matching the certificate of entry has a more significant meaning than the Secre
  566
  tary of State was disposed to think that it might have.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of a reluctance among immigrants in his constituency to assume British citizenship. Should not those who settle here have an undivided allegiance instead of trying to have the best of two countries?
  Mr. Bidwell: Life is not as simple as that. The hon. Member, who has a fairly wide international experience, would be able to approach these matters with more competence than he customarily does if he understood them better.
  Immigrants coming to work here do not know what the country is like, except by hearsay from relatives. They do not always have any firm idea of how long they will stay. I am sure that when relatives of mine emigrated to Australia they could not have had any firm idea of the length of time which would pass before they would feel sufficiently at home there to want to acquire Australian citizenship. There are always divided loyalties; there is always the thought that one might wish to go back, and we have the additional complication of property rights and so on.
  But property factors can be of some advantage. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in using overseas aid in a most intelligent way. When I was in India I found that as a result of earnings in this country certain things were blossoming in the Punjab, in the Jalandhar city area, which could be highly commended. It seems that certain property rights have been established both in that country and here, by virtue of settlement.
  Children of Indian parents who were brought here as babies or were born here are now pure patrials under the Bill. If one asks them whether they are Indian or British, they will sometimes reply that they regard themselves as a bit of both. They look Indian, with their dark skin and dark hair, but they do not always dress as Indians. They speak like Cockneys, and do not like curry. That is the reality of the immigration situation, and the sooner hon. Members like the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and the nation as a whole understand these matters, the more intelligently will they be able to go

  567
  about their business of having a decent immigration control system and a decent race relations system, free of colour and ethnic discrimination. We are going some way towards that. The more we talk about it, the more we are likely to achieve it.
  I have spoken for longer than I intended, but I have been provoked by interruptions, especially from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest. He calls me his sparring partner, and I did not want to let him down this evening.
  I hope that the Home Secretary will take seriously into account the difficulty—it may be only transitional, as we are having a new Bill—experienced by many immigrants having popped back to their land of origin to a funeral or wedding. More and more of them are becoming affluent in this country. In my constituency we have a branch of Air India which has facilitated travel to India. It has quite a personable office, which is a credit to the neighbourhood, and in it there is a beautiful girl wearing a sari. There will be more and more of such return trips by many people who have not taken British nationality and who want to come back again. They feel that they are as much British as they are Indian, yet they believe that because of the Bill they are having to suffer a far more thorough interrogation at Heathrow Airport now.
  Mr. Maudling: The debate has gone a little wide of the Amendments—
  Mr. Bidwell: I tabled a probing Amendment to get off my chest what I have just got off it. Therefore, I shall not seek to move that Amendment, and shall thus be saving time.
  Mr. Maudling: I do not know whether it is a question of fair exchange being no robbery, because I have not seen the other Amendment. The Clause deals only with exemption from deportation for certain existing residents. The purpose of my Amendments is solely to change the Clause in two particular regards, in order to carry out the undertaking that I would not change the situation of people already here. That is all that the discussion is about.
  The proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South
  568
  west (Mr. Powell) is to extend the five-year term to 10 years, though, as he pointed out, 10 was an arbitrary figure and he was not particularly insistent on it. What he sought was a longer period. I am not persuaded that that would be wise. The five-year period is a term used in many ways in this type of legislation, and I do not see the justification for changing it now. People coming in future, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, will obtain exemptions from deportation, which we are talking about, not by the effluxion of time but by registration. In discussing the Amendments, we are talking about those who are already here. I cannot see the justification for using this occasion to extend from five to 10 or any other number the period of years which they have to go through to earn exemption.
  It is very important to try to carry out the principle that in the Bill we are not taking action against people already here. I may be slightly out of order in referring to people coming in the future, but perhaps you will be indulgent, Mr. Speaker. As I have said, for them we are not extending the period of years, but are introducing a different system, of registration. To extend the period of years would not be consistent with what we are doing with people coming in future, and certainly not with the undertaking I have given about not doing harm to those already here. For those reasons, I cannot accept my right hon. Friend's Amendment to my Amendments or to the Clause.
  I hope that the House will accept that what I am doing in the Amendments is to carry out the undertakings I gave in Committee. The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) referred to Amendment No. 37, which says that a person ordinarily resident here already shall not, for the purpose of counting his time here, lose any time that he overstays his leave. The reason is simply to bring the provision into line with existing legislation. Section 7(2) of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act, 1962 makes that provision. If I did not make it, I should be worsening the position of people already here.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman was clear that I was not complaining about what he was doing.
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that the purpose of Amendment No. 37 was connected with the suggestion of an amnesty. It is not. But that question might well be considered on Third Reading. I am not sure, but it seems to me that it is not a matter arising on this Amendment.
  I do not find very valid the hon. and learned Gntleman's other point on my Amendment which was whether in practice people who go on holiday and so on can come back to this country again without great difficulty. This is a matter of administration, not of law. The Amendments are concerned solely to continue the existing situation.
  I confirm that the phrase "ordinarily resident" is interpreted in common sense terms. If a man goes on holiday or makes a short visit home, he does not break his period of ordinary residence. If he went for a year or so, that might be another matter. A holiday does not break the period of ordinary residence, but a longer stay would.
  The position about evidence of how long a person has been abroad will be the same after acceptance of the Amendment as it is now and as it has been for several years. Immigrants already here often go on holiday and have to present documents to show, when they come back, how long they have been out of the country. This is a matter of administration, not of law.
  I will look at the current administration to see whether there are any difficulties in practice arising about people who have been on holiday and, on return, being unable to prove that they are "ordinarily resident". I will look at the question of administration, but it is nothing to do with the Amendment.
  Mr. Peter Archer: Under the existing law, it is possible for a person to be away for two years, or up to two years. I have had representations on this matter. We should be clear about what a "short period" is.
  9.45 p.m.
  Mr. Maudling: I will look at that point. It is a question of interpretation rather than of statute.
  The point raised by Amendment No. 94 would arise only in a small number
  570
  of circumstances when the question of family deportation arises. It would arise in the case of the head of family who is liable to deportation—in other words, when he has been here for less than five years. If the members of the family concerned have been here for five years, it would not arise because they would have gained exemption in their own right. Therefore, this point could arise only when both the head of the family and other members of the family had been here for less than five years. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that the head of the family but not the other members of it would be liable to deportation. That would create a considerable anomaly. I do not think that acceptance of Amendment No. 94 would produce a sensible result. It would arise only in the case of someone who had not earned, by the period that he had been here, exemption from deportation. It would not apply to people exempted in their own right.
  Mr. Peter Archer: What about the position of someone to be deported under Clause 3(5)(b)? According to the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he would not be liable to deportation, even if he had not been here five years.
  Mr. Maudling: People would be liable to be removed under the "conducive to public good" provision as the Bill stands. But I propose that Commonwealth citizens already here should be in the same situation as they are now—in other words, not liable to be deported on non-conducive grounds.
  The Government's Amendments are designed to carry out the undertaking that we shall not detract from the position of people who are already here. I cannot accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West as I do not think that it would be in keeping with the spirit or general principles of the Bill.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: No. 35, in page 9, line 8, leave out 'been settled' and insert:
  'or, if more than five years have elapsed since the end of July, 1971, at all times since the end of that month been ordinarily resident'.
  No. 36, in line 12, leave out been settled 'and insert:
  'or, if more than five years have elapsed since the end of July, 1971, at all times since the end of that month been ordinarily resident'.
  No. 37, in line 13, at end insert:
  ( ) A person who has at any time become ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom or in any of the Islands shall not be treated for the purposes of this section as having ceased to be so by reason only of his having remained there in breach of the immigration laws.
  No. 38, in line 14, leave out from beginning to 'was' in line 16 and insert:
  (2) The 'last five years' before the material time under subsection (1)(b) or (c) above is to be taken as a period amounting in total to five years exclusive of any time during which the person claiming exemption under this section'.—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 101, in page 9, line 18, leave out from 'Islands' to end of line 20.
  This Amendment and Amendment No. 102—page 9, line 24, leave out paragraph (b)—hang together.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has just explained the effect of subsection (2), namely, that if a person who can claim the five-year rule has been or is during any part of the five years which he would like to count imprisoned or detained for six months or more, the six months is added on to the five years, so that he has to do five years six months. It is illogical to select a minimum period of six months for this purpose.
  Earlier today, the House agreed that deportation was often right and justified when the conviction carried a much lesser penalty than imprisonment for six months. There could easily be a case in which a person seeking to claim exemption had been imprisoned not once but two or three times during the five years but in each case for shorter periods than six months. It would be absurd and scandalous that he should still be able to claim a clean sheet during the five-year period for exemption.
  I do not feel that this limitation is justified. It would be much more logical that any period during which the person had been imprisoned or detained should be added to the five-year period as that which must have elapsed before the immunity was gained.
  Mr. Sharples: The effect of the Amendment would be to withdraw from the Irish or Commonwealth citizen who had been accepted for settlement by the end of July, 1971, the exemption from deportation that he is to obtain under the Bill on completion of five years' residence here free of conditions if he was at any time during the previous five years sentenced to imprisonment or detention.
  I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest (Mr. Powell) will be surprised when I advise the House not to accept the Amendment.
  Mr. Powell: I accept, and I hope that my hon. Friend will treat me as accepting, the effect of my right hon. Friend's Amendment to the subsection which the House has just made, so that, given that Amendment, the effect of my Amendment would simply be to add to the five-year period which has to be worked shorter periods than six months, if necessary.
  Mr. Sharples: But my right hon. Friend appreciates, I am sure, that the loss of rights which derive from the six months period is in the existing law.
  The effect of the Amendment would be to remove from a Commonwealth or Irish citizen who had received a sentence of less than six months, or had been sentence to be detained for even one day, the exemption from deportation which he already has. It worsens the position of those already here. My right hon. Friend will have heard the debate we had on the last group of Amendments. It is the firm intention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the position of those already here should not be worsened. The Amendment would worsen the position of those already here.
  It may well be said that this lies within the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. None the less, there are people already here who may have suffered a very short period of detention during the previous five years and it would add to their anxieties unnecessarily. It would be wrong to accept the Amendment. I therefore advise the House to reject it.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment made: No. 39, in page 9, line 19, leave out 'if'.—[Mr. Maudling.]

Clause 8

  EXCEPTIONS FOR SEAMEN, AIRCREWS AND OTHER SPECIAL CASES
  Mr. Callaghan: I beg to move Amendment No. 40, in page 10, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
  The provision which the Amendment seeks to delete reads as follows:
  "The Secretary of State may by order exempt any person or class of persons, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as may be imposed by or under the order, from all or any of the provisions of this Act relating to those who are not patrial."
  The rubric says:
  "Exceptions for seamen, aircrews and other special cases".
  I think the intention of the Clause is certainly to deal with these limited groups of people, such as the crew of a ship or the crew of an aircraft, but, as my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) pointed out in Committee, there is in the Clause, whatever may be the intention of the Clause, nothing which prevents the Home Secretary from using this subsection to modify the whole purpose of the Bill in relation to, for example, immigrants coming from the European Economic Community if we decide that we should enter into the arrangements with the other countries at the end of the negotiations. The purpose of this discussion is to try to secure some information from the Government as to what effect our entry into the E.E.C. would have, what impact it would have, on the Bill.
  I would try to draw up a model, as it were, of future immigration into this country—clearly, it must be a model susceptible to a lot of refinements—once we have the pattern which will emerge eventually when the Bill becomes an Act; that is to say, assuming, if I may, for the purpose of the model, that the question of the Kenyan Asians, and of those affected in some way, who have been admitted over a period, is not a permanent problem, and that we have met the temporary phenomenon. I am referring to the large number of dependants who have been coming here in recent years in order to join workers who arrived some years earlier. We have seen, those of us who have studied the statistics, that the figure of dependants is now taking a
  574
  steep dive or curve, and over a period of two or three years there will probably be a substantial restriction in the number of the vouchers which have been issued. This has dwindled even more substantially. Let us push the, as it were, temporary factors, on one side for the purpose of my rough and ready model.
  I would put it to the House, as a sort of working hypothesis, that the number of immigrants we are likely to get from the Commonwealth each year—and the House will accept that this is a rough and ready estimate—will be possibly about 8,000; say, 2,000 workers and, say, three dependants each; about 8,000 people altogether. Then there would be, from countries outside the E.E.C, of which the largest are Spain and the United States, perhaps another 15,000. Then, finally, from the E.E.C, as enlarged, there might be a total of, say, 12,000 to 15,000. Add all these three together and the permanent pattern of immigration might be of, say, 35,000 to 40,000 in a year—round about that.
  Mr. Powell: At approximately what date, very roughly, does the right hon. Gentleman expect this pattern to be established?
  Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. For dependants, I think it would come within five or six years, probably not much longer, although my opinion is worth very little on this. The downward curve has been so steep, although it has decelerated, that I think it will flatten out fairly quickly. With the Kenya Asians, this will depend on the policy of the Government—which I cannot foretell, and I do not suppose the Home Secretary can—on the rate of entry, although he has recently doubled the number of vouchers. I cannot put a useful term on that.
  Assuming that this will become a permanent Act, it is reasonable to try to exclude the temporary phenomena when one wants to get a permanent picture. I have tried to do this, although no doubt what I am saying will be modified substantially by pressures over the years. This is the kind of working model which I would expect. If I am right in saying, taking everybody coming into the country, black, white, brown or yellow, from the E.E.C., the Commonwealth or

  575
  anywhere else, the figure might settle down at 35,000 to 40,000. Then the E.E.C. immigrants might on that basis, if they do not come in in larger numbers—
  It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Immigration Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Clegg.]
  Bill, as amended (in the Standing Commitee), further considered.
  Mr. Callaghan: I make the large assumption that the number of people coming from the E.E.C. will be no greater than it is at present. That, again, is an assumption which will probably be falsified. If I am allowed to make that assumption, my first point is that we are considering a Bill which, if we enter the E.E.C, will be substantially and drastically modified in its basic principles literally within months.
  Mr. Bidwell: We cannot have an adequate picture without thinking also of the likely exodus from this country of workers who go to work in Western Europe.
  Mr. Callaghan: That would give the overall picture of the net inflow of immigrants and the outflow of those leaving, but it would not affect the principles upon which the Bill is based.
  The point which I have been rather long in getting round to is this. The Government have placed before us a Bill whose purpose is to assimilate the principles of immigration for Commonwealth entrants and for aliens, and to amalgamate the best of both into one simple set of principles. I am saying—and this is an argument I have had many times in discussions on the Bill—that the Bill was introduced at the wrong time, if, within a matter of months, possibly 30 per cent. of the number of permanent immigrants coming into the country could be exempt from the provisions. It would have been far better if the Home Secretary had waited a little to see what the consequences were at the end of the negotiations.
  We understand that the Government are not seeking to modify the provisions
  576
  of the Treaty of Rome or the directives that arise under it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster about this, and the reply was:
  "We accept the Community's policy on freedom of movement of labour. We are clarifying in discussion with the Community certain details which affect the implementation of this policy in regard to this country but these were not discussed at the Ministerial negotiating conference on 11th and 12th May."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1971; Vol. 817, c. 342.]
  Will the Home Secretary or the Minister of State tell us whether the details which affect the implementation are of such a character that the Home Secretary will use Clause 8(2) to make any exemptions that he has in mind? Will he give us details of what the changes in the implementation will amount to?
  I emphasise again that the question of free movement runs entirely counter to the principles upon which the Bill is based, as I shall seek to demonstrate. I have drawn up seven important differences between the principles on which the Bill is based and the principles which now apply within the Community itself. I shall trouble the House, if I may, by reading some of them.
  I take, first, Regulation No. 1612/68 on the freedom of movement of workers within the Community, and here I draw particular attention to the preamble and to Articles 1, 3, 10 and 11. The preamble provides that,
  "… equality of treatment shall be ensured in respect of everything relating to the actual carrying out of a wage-paid occupation and of access to housing, and also that obstacles to the mobility of the workers shall be eliminated, in particular as regards the worker's right to be joined by his family and the conditions for the integration of that family….
  Article 1:
  "Any national of a Member State, irrespective of his place of permanent residence, shall be entitled to take up and carry on a wage-paid occupation in the territory of another Member State in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State imposed by law, regulation or administrative action."
  I shall not dilate on these; I shall just read them to the House because I think that the House should know, as we have not had the information before, what the major provisions are.

  577
  Article 3(1):
  "… provisions imposed by law … of a Member State shall not apply if they restrict the right of non-nationals to apply for, offer, engage in or carry on employment or make it subject to conditions not prescribed in respect of nationals"—
  and it goes on—
  "or if, while applicable irrespective of nationality, their exclusive of principal aim is to keep nationals of other Member States away from the employment offered".
  That is pretty clear. I come now to Article 10, although there are others which, I suggest, are worthy of attention. Article 10 runs contrary to the principles on which the Bill is based—
  "(1) The following shall have the right to take up residence with a worker who is a national of one Member State employed in the territory of another Member State, whatever their nationality:—
  (a) his spouse and their children under the age of 21 years, or dependent on him".
  That is directly contrary to most of the things which we have been discusing in the past few months. It goes on—
  "(b) dependent relatives in the ascending line of the worker and his spouse".
  There are other provisions in that Article with which I shall not trouble the House as I am just picking out the principle.
  Article 11 flies in the face of what we have been trying to do in the Bill—
  "The spouse and children under the age of 21 years or dependent on a national of a Member State engaged in a wage-paid occupation or self-employed in the territory of another Member State shall have the right to engage in any wage-paid employment throughout the territory of that Member State …".
  Without further detail, that is sufficient, I think, to show that the principles upon which we shall be operating and which will apply in respect of a considerable proportion of the people who would otherwise be affected by the Bill will in the event be abrogated.
  I draw attention to just one other Regulation, No. 1251/70 of 29th June last. This is concerned with the rights of a worker to remain in the territory of a member State when he ceases to be employed there:
  "… it is important … to guarantee the worker residing in the territory of a Member State the right to remain in that territory when he ceases to be employed thereby reason of the fact that he has reached retirement age or by reason of permanent incapacity to work …".
  578
  When the worker
  "has arrived at the end of his working life he should have a sufficient period to decide where he wishes to establish his definitive residence; … the exercise by the worker of the right to remain implies that this right shall be extended to members of his family; … in the case of the decease of the worker during his working life, the right of the members of his family to remain must also be recognised and be the subject of special conditions."
  Anyone who has listened to our debates or who has studied our proceedings in Committee will know that, time after time, we have been seeking to restrict the rights of Commonwealth citizens to do exactly that.
  We have been indulging in a process that I always understood was not liked by the Conservative Party, namely, a process of levelling down. We have been levelling down rights of Commonwealth workers to equate with those of alien workers. Having done that, we find within a matter of months—it will obviously take some time to implement—that we shall be faced with a drastic alteration in the whole principles on which the Bill is based in relation to a large number of people.
  I draw attention to seven important differences. First of all, Regulation 7 of the Draft Immigration (Control on Entry) Rules provides that leave to enter will normally be given for a limited period. As I understand the directives, that cannot apply except in special cases to those who come from E.E.C. countries. Articles 7 and 24 of our proposed draft regulations place a restriction on a foreign national or alien—or a "non-patrial" as I suppose I must refer to him—not only in regard to a specific employment, but also in regard to a specific post inside that employment. I find nothing in the E.E.C. regulations which would lead to that conclusion in respect of those nationals.
  Draft Regulation 11 says that a passenger is not to be admitted for settlement as the wife, child or other dependant of a resident unless he holds a current entry certificate. That again runs directly contrary to the directive. I take a particular instance in the draft regulation 22 dealing with au pair girls. A girl admitted under an au pair arrangement has no claim to stay on in the United Kingdom in some other capacity. I do not think that would be true in

  579
  the event of our entry into the E.E.C. in regard to an E.E.C. national. Regulation 24 says that if a person coming to the United Kingdom has no work permit, leave to enter is refused. This is probably reconcilable, but it is not clear from reading the regulations.
  Regulation 35—and I remind the House that these are regulations which Parliament will shortly be asked to agree—provides that the wife, and children under 18, of a person who has been admitted or is on the same occasion being admitted to the United Kingdom to take up his employment should be admitted for the period of his authorised stay with a condition restricting freedom to take employment. The E.E.C. regulations, as I read them, make it clear that no such restriction can be placed on the wife or dependant of someone who has a permit to come here from the E.E.C, but these regulations are proposing to implement them.
  Regulation 37 provides that the resident must be able and willing to support and accommodate his dependants without recourse to public funds. These are essential requirements for the grant of admission. There is nothing in the E.E.C. which gives the Government authority to impose that particular regulation.
  Finally, I turn to the aspect of the regulations which deals with control after entry. Regulation 35 provides power to deport such people and their dependants. Again the E.E.C. regulations make no such provision.
  I have made my criticism that these provisions are ill-timed. In this particular regard it appears that, as in many other instances, they are particularly ill-timed and should have been left over until the negotiations were completed.
  Will the Home Secretary be using Clause 8(2) to make the exemptions which will be required to conform to the E.E.C, assuming that we enter? Alternatively, does he intend to introduce a new Bill? If he intends to do neither of those things, is he satisfied that it is sufficient to use the rule-making power which he has, subject to submission to Parliament in due course for approval, to effect these changes? Those are the machinery questions.
  580
  10.15 p.m.
  Finally, I should like to ask an important question of substance. Has the Home Office made a detailed study of this matter? If so, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us at this late stage what I have sought to secure from the Home Office consistently during the debates on the Bill: namely, whether my interpretation and understanding is right or wrong, accurate or inaccurate? Will he give us a clear picture of what the situation will be, assuming that the negotiations are successful? If he can do that, we shall at least know as much about the impact of the E.E.C. upon the Bill as we are likely to know. As it stands, I can only tell the House that I believe that we have been engaged in an exercise over two or three months now assimilating principles on this matter, or purporting to assimilate principles on this particular matter, when we are now going to hit a mine which will rip a hole in the bottom of this craft. I do not say that it will sink it; I think that there will be sufficient buoyancy in the tanks to keep it afloat. However, there is no doubt that it will substantially impair the efficiency of the Bill.
  I think that we are entitled at this late stage in the negotiations with the E.E.C. and also at this late stage in the proceedings on the Bill to have a clear and full statement from the Government, which we have not had so far, about the impact of the negotiations, if successful, upon the provisions which we have been considering.
  Mr. Maudling: The effect of the Amendment, which has been the peg on which the argument has been hung, would be to eliminate the power to exempt from immigration control classes of individuals. This power has been used in the past to give exemption, for example, to members and officials of other Governments, consular officials and officials of international organisations. These obligations to give exemption from immigration control to people in these categories shift and change with changing international obligations. Therefore, we must have the flexibility to exempt from immigration control certain classes of people.
  In Committee we accepted an Amendment to the effect that no order exempting any class of people can be made without

  581
  going through the negative Resolution procedure. So there will be in future what there was not in the past—a parliamentary check on its use. The right hon. Gentleman was not challenging this, apart from a desire to discuss the European Economic Community and its effect on the Bill.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked whether we would use Clause 8 (2), if we join the Common Market, to deal with its free movement of labour provisions. The answer is: certainly not; it has nothing to do with it. Clause 8(2) gives exemption from immigration control. There is no question, under the rules of the E.E.C., of giving anyone exemption from immigration control.
  The change will be made in the regulations which will be made under the Act. No amendment is necessary to the Bill. The necessary changes can and will be made, if the House approves our entry to the E.E.C., through amendments in the regulations which will now be subject to the negative Resolution procedure. It is therefore probably outside the scope of the Bill to go into the merits of the E.E.C. negotiations and the provisions regarding the free movement of labour.
  The situation will change remarkably if we join the E.E.C, because we shall be joining a community, and it will make a fundamental difference. There will be this free movement of labour in and out, as the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) said, and it will be easier for people to come here from the E.E.C. countries to take up work, and for our people to go to the E.E.C. countries.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: The right hon. Gentleman referred to our people being able to go to the E.E.C. countries. There have been recent reports that some of the E.E.C. countries would object to coloured British citizens from Commonwealth countries going into the E.E.C. Has that matter been discussed? As with the question of work permits, and so on, the British people have been given no information about that.
  Mr. Maudling: That is part of the negotiations—
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman should know about it.
  Mr. Maudling: I have taken the precaution of finding out about it.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is important to know where we stand, especially on the question of the associated status of the E.E.C. What is the position about immigration control over persons in the associated States of the E.E.C. coming into Europe? That is vital to the consideration of Commonwealth immigration, and it behoves my right hon. Friend to tell us how the matter stands.
  The West Indies, if we are successful, have been offered associated status. Similarly, some of the African States will be given associated status. That will mean that the citizens of the Côte d'Ivoire and Senegal will have associated status. It behoves the Government to explain how the matter stands.
  Mr. Maudling: The time for the House to decide whether the consequences, in this respect, or any other, of the negotiations are acceptable in the national interest is not now, but when the results of the negotiations are laid before the House in the form of a White Paper. As I understand it, the provision for the free movement of labour refers to nationals of the Community members, and therefore would refer to United Kingdom nationals, but detailed discussions are going on about the definition of national for this purpose, because there are complicated points about that. There is no question of discrimination on the basis of colour. The time to discuss this is when the negotiations are complete, and when the White Paper is here and we have these detailed matters before us.
  The basic principle of the Community is freedom of movement of labour, for the purpose of taking employment, of nationals of the member States of the Community, and that is capable of being contained within the Bill by necessary amendments to the regulations which the Bill will give us power to bring into effect, and which will be subject to Parliamentary control when they are made.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: My right hon. Friend referred to the White Paper in this context. Are we to understand that when the White Paper is produced within a matter of a few

  583
  weeks it will deal fully and exhaustively with this question of nationals, and who is covered by that term? I ask that because my right hon. Friend will appreciate that the word "nationals", which is the key word in the Treaty of Rome, and in the regulations of the Community—which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has read—is not a word which we have been accustomed to apply.
  We refer to certain types of citizenship, and the concept of nationals in that sense is a new one in English law. We have reached this stage in the negotiations, and so far as the House knows nothing has been done to interpret these phrases and correlate our position and our law to the requirements of the Community. Is this all going to be spelled out in the White Paper?
  I am sorry to have been so long, but this is my last question. My right hon. Friend referred to parliamentary control over the Statutory Instruments and Regulations, but surely Parliament will not be able, by the negative Resolution procedure, to annul an Instrument which is necessary to give effect to the requirements of the Treaty of Rome? My right hon. and learned Friend is tempting me into wider fields of argument about the pros and cons of membership of the Community, which inevitably gives preferential treatment to the other members of the Community. It means nothing unless it does. I take the point about national and United Kingdom citizens. That is why we are having detailed discussions about the interpretation. I would expect that there would be broader alignment between the two concepts, but discussions are proceeding on this matter as on others, and the House cannot take a decision until the necessary information is laid before the House when the time comes for a decision. As much as we enjoy the many debates, I think that we shall enjoy them better on a relevant Motion than we will tonight when this debate is not relevant.
  Clause 8(2) is not relevant here because there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome which would oblige us to exempt people from immigration control. It will certainly oblige us to give preferential position to Community members. This is part of being a Community. I am a
  584
  little surprised by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East who has a good deal to say these days about the Common Market, who seemed to think that there was something very wrong in the idea, if we join, of people from other Community countries having preference over the rest of the world.
  But that is surely the basis on which his Government conducted their negotiations. It has always been accepted—it always must have been—that if they accepted the free movement of labour—I have no reason to believe that the Labour Government were against these provisions of the Treaty of Rome; they certainly did not say so—they could either give the rest of the Community the preference over the rest of the world, including the Commonwealth, or they could give complete freedom of movement for the rest of the world and the whole of the Commonwealth.
  This is the dilemma of the right hon. Gentleman. If he is going to make a great point that it would be wrong to give this preference, he must explain how he and his Government negotiated for some time on precisely that basis.
  Mr. Callaghan: What I have asked for and failed to get throughout this debate is information. That is what I am asking for. I have expressed no particular view—I was careful not to do so this evening—on this matter. What I want to know is how far the Bill is consistent with the Treaty. I pointed out—so far, the Home Secretary has done nothing to remove my doubts—that there are at least seven important provisions in which the Bill is inconsistent. I was not proposing to introduce such a Bill as he has introduced, and I doubt whether he would have introduced it if he had not been saddled with it as the result of a foolish election pledge.
  Mr. Maudling: I repeat that joining the European Economic Community would not call for any amendment of this Bill. That seems to be a pretty adequate answer to the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Miss Joan Lestor: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, would he clarify two things for me arising out of what my right hon. Friend

  585
  the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said? First, the Bill is supposed to be bringing together the entry of Commonwealth people and aliens. But he has already said that, if we enter the E.E.C, this will not apply, because preference will be given to members of the E.E.C. over the Commonwealth. Therefore, the basis of the Bill is clearly in doubt if we enter.
  I should like the right hon. Gentleman to try to answer a question which several of us have put over a long period and to which we cannot get an answer. Would Commonwealth people working in this country who are not citizens of this country have to take out citizenship before they would be acceptable as Community workers? Many of them are not citizens but are permanent residents. I cannot understand the reluctance of the Government to give an answer. As I read the Treaty of Rome this is crystal clear; they must be citizens.
  Second, surely the Bill is applicable to, and must be seen in conjunction with, what may happen if we enter the E.E.C. That is, that, while there will be free
  586
  movement of labour for those people in E.E.C. countries, this will surely not apply to the restrictions which the right hon. Gentleman is imposing in the Bill, when he says that he is bringing both sides together, because Commonwealth people will come here for a year, which can be renewed at the will of the Home Secretary, but aliens who are members of E.E.C. will not be so restricted.
  Mr. Maudling: I will explain the position again. Joining the Community means the free movement of labour. It means that people living in other countries of the Community will be able to come here free of restriction to seek work. At present, under the legislation of the Labour Government, there is a restriction on Commonwealth entrants. Thus, one cannot reconcile the position of the Community with the legislation enacted by the Labour Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—unless one took the sort of view to which I referred in relation to Commonwealth citizens compared with citizens of the Community, and I have never heard hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest that course.
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman gave some interesting information when he referred to discussions going on in the E.E.C. about the definition of "nationals". He did not allay our fears and suspicions about the objections being raised by some member countries of the Community about coloured immigrants in Britain perhaps seeking work in those countries.
  Why cannot we have a clear answer to our questions? We are worried because there is good reason to think that some E.E.C. countries—leaving aside France, which makes special arrangements for Algerians—are taking their white policies seriously. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to speak of the free movement of labour in the Community, but what about the special associate membership which the West Indies have been offered? How will that fit in? I trust that all these matters will be covered in the White Paper.
  I am raising these points in an anti-racial sense. There are others in Britain who raise them in a racial sense.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does the hon. Gentleman think it would help towards racial understanding in Britain if he would be willing not just to say that he is suspicious but to say which countries he suspects, because I suspect that he is mentioning a suspicion simply to stir up worries about the Community. Is he aware that under the Treaty of Rome the arrangement for the free movement of labour apply to all Community members in a totally reciprocal way, but not to those with associate status?
  Mr. Orme: There is more to it than the free movement of labour. For example, why are discussions going on about nationality?
  Our doubts and suspicions are based on informed reports, though we do not get information from the Government or the E.E.C. We must rely on Press reports, and it is clear that considerable discussion is going on in the Six about the free movement of Commonwealth labour at present in this country. Because we are having such difficulty in getting information on this subject, we are having to raise this issue at every possible opportunity.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The debate is a rather amusing one.
  Mr. Orme: It is now that my hon. Friend has risen to speak.
  Mr. Lyon: It started in Committee when a query was put to the Under-Secretary about the meaning of Clause 8(2). Unfortunately, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) then intervened to say that the terms might cover the regulations that would be introduced affecting the E.E.C, whereupon my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said that he had not realised that before and began to make a speech about the E.E.C. He did the same tonight. Curiously enough, we have a goodly audience, mostly of anti-marketeers.
  Mr. Orme: There are a lot in the House. We are the majority.
  Mr. Lyon: It would have been, perhaps a little more appropriate if we had had a balanced discussion about the movement of labour within the E.E.C. upon a resolution particularly apt for that point. We could have had a proper reply from the Government about the discussions taking place with the E.E.C. on the matter. But since some of my hon. Friends have raised the question of the E.E.C. and its movement of labour policies, to try to redress the balance a little one ought, perhaps, to indicate, as has already been indicated to some extent, that the fears which have been aroused may not be as substantial in fact as they are in psychology.
  There is a free movement of labour in the E.E.C. But it is accorded only to nationals of the Community. The difficulty about nationality, which is the subject of discussion between Britain and the E.E.C, arises not out of any antipathy of the E.E.C. to anybody coming from abroad but out of the nature of nationality as we in Britain understand it.
  As the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has repeatedly pointed out during the Bill's passage, we have no workable definition of nationality. Therefore, we are in difficulties in defining who are nationals when it comes to the E.E.C Under the British

  589
  Nationality Act, we accord the claim of citizenship to two different types of people, namely, United Kingdom citizens—that is, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies—and Commonwealth citizens. "Commonwealth citizens" includes everybody in the designated territories, which is practically the whole of the Commonwealth. If we are to say that those are nationals, clearly there would be the possibility of an influx into the E.E.C. countries about which they would be very concerned—and so should we.
  Mr. Orme: Oh.
  Mr. Lyon: We must remember that the preceding Conservative Government, the Labour Government and now this Government have all introduced legislation to restrict the right of Commonwealth citizens to enter Britain. It is not a question of the Community but of who we ourselves say are nationals and, therefore, whom the E.E.C. should regard as nationals. Under the terms of the Bill, the obvious solution would be to say that patrials were nationals, and that patrials, therefore, would have the right of free movement. To discover whether that is the solution that will emerge we will have to wait for the famous White Paper which the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and everyone else is waiting for.
  As for the real size of the problem, may I say this to allay the fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). The position has been that although there was a considerable movement of labour, particularly from Southern Italy in the early years of the Community, that movement has been declining, even in geometric terms, over the period that the Community has been in existence. The more that Southern Italy in particular has shared in the common economic growth of the Community the more that flow has been staunched.
  The position in the Community now is that there is an increasing demand for labour from outside of the Community. The influx of immigrants from outside the Community has been growing apace. In 1970 it was four times what it was in 1965. The rate of immigration will allow easily for the kind of flows in
  590
  from the Commonwealth which we are contemplating in the light of the Bill.
  It is my great hope that it will require considerably more and that all the efforts of successive Governments to try to get over this problem by restricting the flow will be negated by the demand for labour, if, as I expect, the Community grows apace when we enter and it is enlarged. The demand for labour will have to be satisfied from somewhere and if it is to be satisfied in this country it is highly likely that it will be satisfied from Commonwealth countries. Far from being an anti-black move, it seems that entering the Community will lead to much more liberal legislation than our own.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) put his finger on the reason why in Committee, after many hours of discussion of an immigration policy, we thought that we had the right to know what the Government's thinking was on entry to the Common Market. We do not say that we should have known whether they were for or against entry, but we believe that it was wrong to make a major change in immigration policy before knowing the entry terms in the context of immigration rules and citizenship. This is a Bill based on new principles. Patriality is not citizenship, it is right of abode, it is purely a method of immigration. Our whole argument was that a government introducing such a Bill ought to tell us their thinking on a number of points.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that it was simple—if we go into the Community, procedurally it is not a matter of 8(2), it is not a matter of the Bill as a whole; it comes under the rules under Clause 1 dealing with the general principles, which say that rules may be made by the Government of the day and it is these which matter.
  The rules on immigration can only be implemented because of this Bill and we felt that we had every right to know what Government thinking was. We tried to use this opportunity, because we have failed on every other, to find out what it was that the Government were saying. It is not only a question of the rules. Eventually the Government will have to tell the House and country what their policy

  591
  will be on work permits. Under the 1962 Act work permits and employment vouchers were swept aside. This is the key to entry to this country. Until we know Government thinking on this we will not know the rate, scope and type of entry to this country. Maybe we will not know this until the Government have learned whether we are to enter Europe. It is relevant for us to discuss this, for Members to know whether they are for or against. It is one of the factors about which a large number of people in between the anti-marketeers and the pro-marketeers want more information one way or the other. It is apparently thought right to probe on sugar and fishing, but when anyone asks questions about labour movement we get no answer. Yet there are over a million foreign workers in Germany, and a million foreign workers in France. About 40 per cent. of the people living in Switzerland are foreign workers. We have done exactly the same thing by a different method, by absorbing into our working system large numbers of people from the Commonwealth. The same thing is happening all over Europe. All we are asking is that a Government who see fit at this time to introduce a new Immigration Bill with an effect on the movement of labour should give us the benefit of their thinking.
  10.45 p.m.
  I understand that there are special provisions in the E.E.C. for the entry of workers from the overseas territories. Are we to apply for similar rules for our workers from overseas territories? What will happen to Commonwealth citizens coming into this country on work permits when E.E.C. workers have to have priority for jobs? I am not arguing the merits of that, but just saying that the Government should tell us the position.
  This is not a citizenship Bill, although citizenship is mentioned in the Long Title. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) revealed that apparently one of the problems for the Europeans is our curious laws of citizenship. They can say that again! Those laws, which were first laid down in curious fashion in 1948, are at the very least illogical, and it might well be that the logical European mind boggles at the illogicality of what we did then.
  592
  There are two aspects of that on which we should know the Government's thinking. We have debates about Kenyan Asians, who, under the 1968 Act, are non-belonging citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I bet that at Brussels they boggle at that, when we tell them about British subjects without citizenship. I wonder how that translates into French. There are belongers as well, who are people formerly living in the British Protectorates, British-protected persons. Where do we stand on them?
  Before the large number of us who are not at the extremes of the Common Market issue to have to make up our minds, we have every right to know on labour movement, just as on sugar or fishing, what the Government think. It might well be that labour movement is the much more important factor in the changes to come, whether we are in or out of the E.E.C. Certainly it seems to be important both in Europe and here, and even the United States is now absorbing surplus population of the West Indies.
  All that we are asking is that we should know the Government's thinking. All we have been told is that this does not come under subsection (2) and that we shall find out one day. We have tried and failed.
  Mr. Maudling: The question of whether subsection (2) should or should not be in the Bill is totally irrelevant to the discussion about the Common Market and the free movement of labour. I do not think that the vote on the Amendment would be capable of an interpretation on that basis.
  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that when the House takes its decision about the result of the negotiations, on whether we go in on certain terms or not, all relevant factors in joining the Community, including the consequences to the movement of labour, will then fall to be discussed and judged, as part of the general decision whether or not the whole negotiation package is acceptable.
  The Bill will be equally apposite and appropriate whether the House decides to go in or stay out.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: May I ask a simple question? If we are to go into the

  593
  Common Market, does the Home Secretary agree that there will have to be harmonisation of the laws regarding these matters between ourselves and the Common Market? Clearly there is no possibility of harmonisation with this series of new laws.
  Will my right hon. Friend explain how he will get round this. He would have to reproduce this after consultation with the Common Market and there will have to be redefinition of citizenship and patriality and all these things and, therefore, if we go in the House will have wasted a good deal of time.
  Mr. Maudling: I have explained many times that if we were to accept the Treaty of Rome with all its regulations in their entirety this Bill would not call for amendment.
  Mr. Callaghan: I agree that Clause 8(2) is not a convenient vehicle and is not a matter of substance, but we have had the same difficulties wherever we have chosen to alight to try to extract information. We have been told that this is not the appropriate place.
  The Home Secretary has a habit of sliding out of a difficulty by pointing to what seems to be a debating point. It is not sufficient for him in substance to say that the Bill will not need to be amended because he knows this is a machinery Bill and that it is the regulations and rules made under it which will have to be amended.
  It is clear, and I do not think the Home Secretary would deny it, that the principle on which the Bill is based will be completely eroded. The principle of attempting to assimilate these two conditions will be destroyed and we shall have to come back to the question of citizenship.
  It may be that as a matter of machinery he will not need to come before us with a new Bill, but it is clear he will have to come before us with new regulations and rules, which will be subject to negative procedure and we shall have to accept them holus bolus or reject them. [Interruption.] If that is wrong I am glad to hear it. The Home Secretary tries to assuage the House by saying that entry would not have this
  594
  effect, but he knows there will have to be modifications and his right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) was right, as was his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), on this matter.
  There will have to be modifications of the principle on which the Bill is based and of the practice followed at the ports by those operating the principles of the Bill.
  Amendment negatived.
  Mr. Powell: I beg to move Amendment No. 103, in page 10, line 28, leave out from '1964)' to second 'a' in line 29.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): It would also be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 104, in page 10, line 31, at end insert
  'or a person who is a member of the family and forms part of the household of such a member or person'.
  Mr. Powell: I am afraid this is extreme anticlimax. This Amendment is concerned with a very small point. Subsection (3) describes three classes of persons exempted from the provisions of the Act. The first are members of the diplomatic missions; the second are those who belong to the families or households of such members, and the third are those who have similar immunity to that of members of diplomatic missions.
  The simple question I want to put is why it is right to exclude the households and families of persons who have like immunity with members of diplomatic missions. There may be some secret which explains this apparent anomaly. Perhaps I should explain that I am not a lover of diplomatic immunity or its extension. Indeed, in the early 1920s I opposed most of the measures brought before the House for an extension of it. But if we have it, and in so far as we have it, we should apply it consistently in the Bill. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to clear up the apparent difficulty.
  Mr. Sharples: The provisions in the Bill following the existing provisions in the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act, 1919, as amended by the Diplomatic

  595
  Privileges Act, 1964, which gives exemption to certain people but which does not afford the same immunity to heads of certain missions and other international bodies the personnel of which are entitled to the same diplomatic immunity as diplomatic agents. The majority of these people are officials of international organisations and we are obliged to give the personnel immunity by agreements with other member states. In a certain number of cases we are obliged, also by agreement, to give immunity to the families of such people.
  It has never been the intention of successive Governments to extend such immunity generally to the families of personnel in international organisations of this kind. The provision in the Bill follows the precedent which has existed for very many years, and we feel that the existing situation should be maintained. To accept the Amendment would give immunity to a larger number of people in this country not entitled to it now.
  Mr. S. C. Silkin: Would the same answer be given if the same question were asked on Amendment No. 41?
  Mr. Sharples: I will deal with Amendment No. 41 when we reach it.
  Mr. Powell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for his reply.
  I take it that the general principle is that a mission is regarded as a whole and that the diplomatic immunity is given to the mission as such and that the family and household have also traditionally been included; whereas in the third category the immunity applies to individuals as individuals and not as members of a mission and that there is not, therefore, a similar ground for bringing in the family and household. If I have correctly apprehended my hon. Friend's point, I am grateful to him for elucidating the matter.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 10, line 44, at end insert:
  'or as a member of an international headquarters or defence organisation designated for
  596
  the time being by an Order in Council under section 1 of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act 1964'.
  The exemption from immigration control which is given by Clause 8(4)(c) to members of visiting forces is extended by this Amendment to members of international headquarters or defence organisations which are within the scope of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisations Act, 1964.
  It was the intention of Parliament in 1964 that members of such bodies should in general be treated in the same way as members of visiting forces. The 1964 Act applied the Visiting Forces Act, 1952, to them with certain modifications. It is therefore appropriate that they should have the same degree of exemption from immigration control as members of visiting forces will have.
  In answer to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) on the last Amendment, I think that only when there are specific international agreements does the exemption apply to the families of such people.
  Amendment agreed to.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Sharples: I beg to move Amendment No. 42, in page 11, line 5, after '(4)' insert '(b) or (c)'
  The Amendment is in exactly the same terms as one moved by the hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) in Committee. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs undertook to consider the point. My hon. Friend has considered the point and thinks that the Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. and learned Gentleman was exactly right.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14

  APPEALS AGAINST CONDITIONS
  Amendment proposed: No. 46, in page 15, line 20, after 'good', insert:
  'as being in the interests of national security or of the relations between the United Kingdom and any other country or for other reasons of a political nature'.—[Mr. Sharples.]
  Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 158.

  Division No. 380.]

  AYES

  [11.1 p.m.

  Adley, Robert

  Grylls, Michael

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gummer, Selwyn

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

  Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

  Astor, John

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Percival, Ian

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Awdry, Daniel

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Baker, Kenneth (St. Marytebone)

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hastings, Stephen

  Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Proudfoot, Wilfred

  Biffen, John

  Hicks, Robert

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

  Raison, Timothy

  Blaker, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

  Holt, Miss Mary

  Redmond, Robert

  Boscawen, Robert

  Hornby, Richard

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Bowden, Andrew

  Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

  Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Bray, Ronald

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Rost, Peter

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hunt, John

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Scott, Nicholas

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  James, David

  Sharples, Richard

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Buck, Antony

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Simeons, Charles

  Burden, F. A.

  Jessel, Toby

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kimball, Marcus

  Soref, Harold

  Channon, Paul

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Spence, John

  Chapman, Sydney

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Sproat, Iain

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Kinsey, J. R.

  Stainton, Keith

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Knox, David

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Churchill, W. S.

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Clegg, Walter

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Stokes, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Loveridge, John

  Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

  Coombs, Derek

  Luce, R. N.

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Cooper, A. E.

  McAdden, Sir Stephen

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Cormack, Patrick

  MacArthur, Ian

  Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)

  Costain, A. P.

  McCrindle, R. A.

  Tebbit, Norman

  Critchley, Julian

  McLaren, Martin

  Temple, John M.

  Crouch, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)

  Curran, Charles

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

  Dean, Paul

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

  Madel, David

  Trafford, Dr. Anthony

  Dixon, Piers

  Mather, Carol

  Tugendhat, Christopher

  Dykes, Hugh

  Maude, Angus

  Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

  Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)

  Mayer, Sir Anthony

  Waddington, David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Moate, Roger

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Farr, John

  Motyrteaux, James

  Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

  Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

  Money, Ernle

  Wall, Patrick

  Fidler, Michael

  Monks, Mrs. Connie

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Monro, Hector

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Fowler, Norman

  More, Jasper

  White, Roger (Gravesend)

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wilkinson, John

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Glyn, Dr. Alan

  Mudd, David

  Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Goodhart, Philip

  Murton, Oscar

  Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neave, Airey

  Younger, Hn. George

  Gorst, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Gower, Raymond

  Onslow, Cranley

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gray, Hamish

  Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally

  Mr. Tim Fortescue and

  Green, Alan

  Osborn, John

  Mr. Keith Speed.

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)

  NOES

  Albu, Austen

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

  Booth, Albert

  Concannon, J. D.

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Ashton, Joe

  Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

  Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Barnett, Joel

  Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington, S. W.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Bishop, E. S.

  Clark, David (Colne Valley)

  Davies, Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  John, Brynmor

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-HulI, W.)

  Pendry, Tom

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)

  Pentland, Norman

  Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Perry, Ernest G.

  Dempsey, James

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Prescott, John

  Doig, Peter

  Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Dormantd, J. D.

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Kerr, Russell

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Kinnock, Neil

  Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lamond, James

  Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Latham, Arthur

  Roper, John

  Edelman, Maurice

  Lawson, George

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

  Ellis, Tom

  Leonard, Dick

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Evans, Fred

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

  Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Sillars, James

  Foley, Maurice

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Silverman, Julius

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Skinner, Dennis

  Gilbert, Dr. John

  McElhone, Frank

  Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

  Ginsburg, David

  McGuire, Michael

  Spearing, Nigel

  Golding, John

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Steel, David

  Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

  Marquand, David

  Strang, Gavin

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Marsden, F.

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Marshall, Dr. Edmund

  Swain, Thomas

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Meacher, Michael

  Taverne, Dick

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Thomas. Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hamling, William

  Mendelson, John

  Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

  Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)

  Millan, Bruce

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)

  Hardy, Peter

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

  Torney, Tom

  Hattersley, Roy

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Horam, John

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Weitzman, David

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Ogden, Eric

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Woof, Robert

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

  Orme, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Janner, Greville

  Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)

  Mr. Joseph Harper.

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Ordered, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Maudling.]
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

HOUSING (WILLESDEN)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. More.]
11.12 p.m.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: The Adjournment debate provides an opportunity to raise matters which are of deep concern to constituents and which very often involve criticism of the Government. The matter I wish to raise this evening is one of profound and deep concern. However, I wish to begin by asking the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to convey to his Department and his officials the gratitude of a number of the people from my area on the way in
600
which over the last three years they have shown far more understanding of housing problems in Willesden than perhaps has the town hall. I have been most grateful for the help which I have received in this matter. When departmental officials deal with real problems and facts, one can often get from them a greater appreciation of practical solutions than one could hope to get when dealing with the matter in purely political terms.
I wish tonight to raise a problem that affects some 614 families in Willesden, West, who live in an area that was built up in the 1930s which is known as Curzon Crescent, involving several blocks of flats and some houses.
I will try to put the problem into context. My borough probably has the most appalling housing problem in the whole of London. In March 1969, I made a plea in this House in a similar kind of debate dealing with the policy of the Conservative Administration in the town hall at that time. I shall give

601
the House a number of facts and figures. At that time the number of people on the waiting list for accommodation was 6,943. Now, two years later, despite the pressure that was then applied, because the policy at the town hall did not change, the waiting list in my area is now 9,495, over 2,000 more than it was at that time. We operate a points scheme of allocation. In that waiting list there are 2,250 with points for medical disability; 350 are broken families, with children in one place and parents in another; 1,393 are illegally overcrowded. On 27th January, 1970, in answer to a Question from me, the Minister said that the number of designated slums was 554. In answer to another Question on 25th November, 1969, about housing starts, I was told:
"There is likely to be a shortfall of 1,954 housing starts on Brent's original 1969 programme which was for 1,978 dwellings … I understand that it will be 24 only."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1969; Vol. 792, c. 56.]
It is that policy which has led to the present devastating situation.
An entirely new phenomenon, because of its size, is the heartbreak of homeless-ness. A few years ago, the country was disturbed by the television play "Cathy Come Home". There are 149 Cathys who cannot come home in my area—112 homeless families have been accommodated by the Department of Social Services and 37 by voluntary associations. Now, for the first time, because the problem is becoming unmanageable, 10 families have been boarded out in a guest house at the ratepayers' expense because there is no room at the inn.
There is nothing wrong with these families. They are normal families who have run into a bad patch and have no roof over their heads. The problem is aggravated because more than 100 houses have been cleared out to make way for a bypass, and in less than three weeks the remaining 17 homeless families who will be then displaced will have to be found homes. Tragedy after tragedy: broken home after broken home. My Friday night surgeries are one mass of marital problems and others arising from the fact that many families are sharing too little accommodation.
On the front page of my local paper, The Willesden Chronicle, last week was an attractive picture of two young child
602
ren who were left at the council's office at Brent House on Monday:
"… council officials have been unable to find their mother … The younger child is aged about six months and was dressed in pink nylon rompers with a yellow woollen coat. The other child, who is aged 18 months to two years, was wearing red and white check rompers, a matching dress and yellow anarak."
Thanks to Mr. Eamonn Andrews and his television programme, we were able to trace the mother, but the family is still in need of a home. I pay tribute to Mr. H. Whalley, the Director of Social Services, who must be working day and night on the problem of the homeless.
It is the whole problem of housing to which I direct the Minister's attention, and particularly the rehabilitation of the council estate of Curzon Crescent. Curzon Crescent was a housing development of the 1930s, but for a variety of reasons it has sunk to the bottom of the heap of housing in my area. It has a predominant number, 47 per cent., of very large families. There are inadequate amenities and the area is unpopular and unloved. At the last survey, 71 per cent. of the residents wanted to get out.
I saw the Minister in 1969, and after negotiations with the local authority the Ministry gave the go-ahead for a solution to this problem which meant refurbishing block by block and bringing the whole thing up to modern standards at a cost of £2·3 million. The crux of the scheme was to bring this run-down area back to being part of the community. We wanted not just modern homes but proper amenities, neighbourhood facilities for children, sports facilities for young people and leisure facilities for the elderly. Most important of all, if we succeed in doing doing this this large area catering for 614 families could become part of the general housing provision of the area and not the end of the road for so many people, a cul de sac that no one wanted to get into in case they could not get out again.
The tragedy is that, having received support from the Ministry, there has been a lag in getting the scheme implemented. We have a situation where, because we cannot decant families elsewhere, the builders cannot move in. We had the Chalkhill Estate to which we could have decanted people from Curzon Crescent, but, with rents at £13 a week, it was impossible. The whole of the housing

603
programme in my area, including this refurbishing arrangement, has been put back five years. Because we had nowhere for people to go, the slum clearance, redevelopment and general improvement which is so necessary could not proceed.
I should like to quote one of the new councillors, Mrs. Mary Goudie, who has done a marvellous job and is heart and soul behind my constituents in her efforts to transform Curzon Crescent into a place worthy of them. Speaking of the present situation, she said:
"There is still one family left in Dudley Court. The whole of the top end is like a ghost town, and those who are left are miserable. The children are breaking into the empty flats, and the parents are worried about fires and accidents."
This is typical of many areas which we want to redevelop in Willesden. For instance, I was in Melville Road on Sunday and found four houses out of a whole road in which people were still living. This means that we cannot get on with the necessary rebuilding for which sanction has been given. The delay is costly to the ratepayers and it is a bad thing for housing in Willesden.
I do not blame the Minister. I indict the previous council. If it had treated this project with proper backing from the start with contingent support work, Dudley Court would have been started months ago. The present timetable means that Dudley Court will now start in July, 1971, Dover Court in January, 1972, Pendennis Court in July, 1972, and Lul-worth Court in January, 1973. The whole of this timetable should have been brought forward so that we should have been seeing the area transformed into a delightful place 18 months from now.
Despite the many deserving areas to which the Minister has to give consideration, I ask him to give high priority to speeding up what we are trying to do in the Curzon Crescent project, to ensure that there is no delay in the Department in reaching decisions on matters put to him by the new Borough Council, which is anxious to solve the problem as quickly as possible, and to confirm that loan sanction on the present projection of costs is assured and that it will be eligible for a grant of 50 per cent.
If we could get 100 new houses taken over by the council capable of housing
604
large families with up to six children, it would be possible to decant people from the area and enable us to get on with the programme so much quicker and get rid of the boarded up derelict places which are a danger to the community.
The borough now has to make up for lost time. The previous council put the programme back at least five years. We need to weld into a neighbourhood entity a community which has been sharply divided into the "haves" of Wembley and the "have nots" of Willesden by the last council.
The symbol of success in our endeavours would be for people to be able to walk into Curzon Crescent with pride and say that it was a pleasure to live there. That has not been possible for a long time. That symbol of success is what I am seeking tonight. It is a matter to which the borough council is pledged. I wish it well in its endeavours.
I am grateful to the Minister for the understanding which he has shown in the past. I hope that he will translate his sympathy into some practical help.
11.25 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Paul Channon): The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Pavitt) is perfectly entitled to raise this matter in the House, and I shall do what I can to answer the points which he has made. He was kind enough, first, to pay a tribute to the officials in the Department, which I shall ensure is passed on and which, I am sure will be much appreciated.
What I shall not do—and I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman will expect me to do so—is enter into the somewhat highly coloured and rather one-sided description, if I may say so, which the hon. Gentleman gave of events which took place in the London Borough of Brent over the past few years. The local elections in Brent are now over, and I do not think that it would be sensible for me to try to enter into local arguments which are entirely a matter for the London Borough of Brent. Neither will the hon. Gentleman expect me to accept all he said in criticism of the last Borough Council of Brent or go into the other troubled and deep waters upon which he embarked.

605
I come now to that part of the hon. Gentleman's speech in which he dealt with the general housing problem in London and in his own borough. I entirely accept that the Borough of Brent has some of the worst housing problems in London. Whether it be right to say that they are the worst in London I do not know. There are lots of places with really ghastly problems. Both my right hon. Friend and I have time and again urged a vigorous programme of both public authority housing and private housing in London, and of improvements, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, we are reviewing all the housing subsidies in order to direct assistance to those areas and those people in the greatest need.
I believe that our new measures will be of great benefit to London, and I look forward to having the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support for them when they are announced to the House in due course. That will be the test of whether he is prepared to support a policy which will be of extreme benefit to London and his own borough, and I am sure that no hint of political dogma will prevent his giving the Government enthusiastic support when the reform of housing subsidies comes into operation.
My right hon. Friend announced his intention, also, to discuss with all the London boroughs and the Greater London Council the whole problem of London housing. The hon. Gentleman may wish to know, in regard to his own borough, that next week the leader of the council is to come to see me to discuss housing problems in Brent. I shall certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said in his general points about housing problems there, and, no doubt, the leader of the council will wish to add to that and put his view to me.
I am only too anxious to do what I can in a difficult housing situation, regardless of who is in power—Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Communist or whatever it might be—and I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that the Government are determined to help those areas and those people who are in the greatest need. I look forward to constructive discussions with London councils about these problems.
606
I come now to the specific problem of Curzon Crescent. One of the features of the Housing Act, 1969, which my right hon. Friends very much support, is that it places responsibilities for deciding a whole range of matters, including improvement schemes such as Curzon Crescent, on the local housing authority, with which it rightly belongs. In the case of applications for improvement grants from private owners and occupiers, the authority is given a virtually unrestricted right to decide whether, in a particular case, it is justifiable to spend public money in order to bring a building up to the 12-point standard, with which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar.
In the case of improvements which local authorities wish to carry out to their own property—Curzon Street is in this category—there is not quite the same measure of freedom. The authority has to obtain formal approval to any scheme before it is carried out, and the purpose here—which, I think, has been supported by both sides of the House—is to ensure that proper value for money is obtained for work to be financed entirely out of public funds, some part from central and some part from local government funds.
The factors which my Department takes into account are the standard to which the property should be improved, having regard to its potential life after improvement, and the extent and cost of the work proposed, and of course special attention is paid to repairs and replacement for which a Government contribution is being claimed. Local authorities are encouraged, in a circular issued by the Department, to discuss informally with its officers any projects under consideration, or at a very early stage in their planning, so that agreement is reached on the essential points, before formal approval is sought.
I wish to stress that this is the full extent of the control exercised by the Department. Once a scheme is formally approved, the timing is entirely a matter for the authority, and no special financial authority or loan sanction is needed. So provided that there has been adequate informal consultation at an early stage, no scheme need be held up by the need to obtain the Department's approval, which can be given very quickly.

607
Greater Exchequer assistance is given to local authorities and housing associations in the Greater London area because of the abundant evidence of past improvements and conversions carried out by these bodies. Although the Act provides normal maxima of £1,000 grant paid for improvement works, and £1,250 paid when acquisition and conversion is involved, these figures are doubled in London when the new dwellings have a life of at least 30 years.
In the case of Curzon Crescent, Brent Council followed the advice given in the circular. In the middle of 1968 the borough architect talked quite informally with officers of the Department, as he is in the habit of doing on many occasions about numerous housing matters. A full discussion ensued about the scheme and the Department's officers visited the estate. They even went back and had a look at it on a Sunday because they were told that the conditions of car parking in particular were very different at the weekend than they were in the middle of a working day.
It is no part of my brief to defend the decisions of the Labour Government, but I must point out that the worrying feature of the scheme at that time was the very heavy expenditure which it was proposed to incur on 536 dwellings which, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, had been completed only just before the Second World War and which were providing much better accommodation than many other people were enjoying both in public and privately owned dwellings in this part of the borough.
The cost was going to come out at something like £4,000 per unit and there was going to be no increase in the number of units. There was going to be a lot of expensively planned car parking and there would have been lifts in all the blocks of flats, although they were only four storeys high. What had to be decided was whether this sort of expenditure was justified, bearing in mind both the situation in this particular estate and, indeed, housing conditions generally in that part of the borough.
The council was, therefore, quickly told of the Department's misgivings and was asked to think again, particularly about its original proposals for 100 per cent. car parking provision, much of
608
which was to be in semi-sunk garages costing a quarter of a million pounds, and about the necessity for all the lifts that were being ordered at a cost of something like £125,000. I understand it was the Department's view that these dwellings could be brought up to a good modern standard for a more modest expenditure. The Department set out in considerable detail the sort of items which it thought were reasonable and which could be supported by grant aid.
At this stage the council interpreted this advice as a formal rejection of the application and a deputation from the council discussed the matter with the then Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). The upshot of this was that there were further informal discussions at officer level and in January, 1970, the council came forward with substantial changes in its proposals. The semi-sunk car parking had been omitted and there was a more moderate provision for car parking and the number of lifts had been drastically reduced. The effect of this was to reduce the unit cost of the scheme from £4,000 to £1,858, and at this stage the Department felt able to give it formal approval.
Despite these considerable economies, the revised scheme produced very much improved dwellings. The kitchens were to be enlarged, with new fitments and windows, the solid fuel grates were to be removed and gas or electric heaters provided in the living rooms, with many other changes which I will not delay the House by detailing. In other words, these rather dilapidated and old-fashioned flats were being made into comfortable, serviceable units. The situation at this stage was, therefore, that the council was free to go ahead with its proposals. All that was needed was for it to obtain tenders and to provide vacant possession for the successful contractor to make a start.
For a number of reasons, perhaps not now worth going into, there was some delay in starting the work. My impression has always been that both the previous administration at Brent and, I believe, the present new administration are anxious to get ahead with this job. Where they have sought help from the Department, every effort has been made

609
to supply it. In particular, when it seemed that the result of the delay would be to increase the cost of the scheme over the contract price, my officers quickly and readily agreed to meet the Council's officers to see what could be done. A meeting was held on 26th May. The cost implications were examined and the council was told that formal approval would be given to a revised application based on a higher unit cost, and consequently eligible for a higher grant. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the way is once more open to Brent to press on with the scheme. Formal approval will be given to a revised application based on the matters I have outlined. It is not for me to defend the previous Administration in their attitude to this scheme. I understand the reasons for the attitude which prevailed at the time. Whether that decision was right or wrong is now past history. I now believe—much more important for the future—that no difficulties still remain.
I join with the hon. Member in expressing the hope that there will be no further delays. I hope that the Council will find ways and means of overcoming rehousing problems which exist in this particular area. As the council will know, Government help is available for this in the shape of loan sanction for the purchase of properties on the open market. This may be one method of providing accommodation for those displaced from Curzon Crescent. It is for the Borough of Brent to decide what it does about this, and how and when it does it. It is not for me to say how Brent should do it. It is a matter for the local authoriy to decide what it considers to be the best way of dealing with the problem now.
I am sure that everyone wishes that the work which has gone into this exercise will result as quickly as possible in the provision of new and better homes for some 500-odd tenants. After all, this is the object of the policy of improving housing which the Government are pursuing energetically and which all political parties support, and about which the hon. Member is keenly enthusiastic.
610
There is no reason whatsoever why there should now be delay in this matter. I hope that all concerned will do their utmost to press ahead. I think that there are no difficulties. If there are any, I hope that the hon. Member will be in touch with me about them.
In conclusion, my right hon. Friends have asked the London authorities to increase both their new building and improvement programmes, to encourage private enterprise and housing associations to play their part in dealing both with the overall shortage of dwellings in London and the need to improve much of the existing stock.
As I have told the hon. Member, we are to have a conference on London later this year, and I am to see the leader of his borough very shortly. We are determined to do what lies within our power to help tackle the very serious difficulty existing in London and which exists certainly in the hon. Member's borough.
I am very sorry to hear of the increased he mentioned in his opening remarks. This is a very serious matter indeed, and it will be one of the matters that my right hon. Friend will wish to discuss with the boroughs when the conference is held. As the hon. Member will know, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services set up a working party to consider this matter, and its first report has been published. Consultations are now taking place on the contents of the report.
I assure the hon. Member that the Government are only too anxious to tackle these problems. They are exceedingly difficult and will not be solved lightly by people of any political persuasion. They can only be solved by a real exercise of will by all those involved. The Government are determined to play their part. I hope that the Borough of Brent will play its part. I am sure that the hon. Member will act as gadfly to both parties to ensure that they do.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Motor Vehicles (Emission of Fumes)
  Motor Vehicles (Emission of Fumes)
  South West of Scotland
  South West of Scotland
  Heavy Loads (Accidents)
  Heavy Loads (Accidents)
  Road Programme (Port Links)
  Road Programme (Port Links)
  Beverley (Road Improvements)
  Beverley (Road Improvements)
  Property Demolition (Owners' Rights)
  Property Demolition (Owners' Rights)
  Derelict Railway Land
  Derelict Railway Land
  Non-Returnable Containers
  Non-Returnable Containers
  Transport Act, 1968 (Repeals)
  Transport Act, 1968 (Repeals)
  Land Prices
  Land Prices
  High Street, Waltham Cross (Public Inquiry)
  High Street, Waltham Cross (Public Inquiry)
  Royal Parks (Car Parking)
  Royal Parks (Car Parking)
  Tyne (Sewage Disposal)
  Tyne (Sewage Disposal)
  Commercial Motor Vehicle Testing
  Commercial Motor Vehicle Testing
  Archway Bridge, N.19 (Accidents)
  Archway Bridge, N.19 (Accidents)
  Fit Houses (Demolition)
  Fit Houses (Demolition)
  Long Eaton (Local Government Reorganisation)
  Long Eaton (Local Government Reorganisation)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Road Traffic Statistics
  Road Traffic Statistics
  Refuse Disposal (Report)
  Refuse Disposal (Report)
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Lunn-Poly
  Lunn-Poly
  Amusement Arcades
  Amusement Arcades
  Car Safety Standards
  Car Safety Standards
  Bishop's Stortford Bypass
  Bishop's Stortford Bypass
  Tank Farms (Gas Escape)
  Tank Farms (Gas Escape)
  House Building
  House Building
  Commercial Vehicles (Weight Restrictions)
  Commercial Vehicles (Weight Restrictions)
  Unleaded Gasoline (Cost)
  Unleaded Gasoline (Cost)
  Traffic Signs Manual
  Traffic Signs Manual
  Long Vehicles
  Long Vehicles
  Parking of Heavy Vehicles (London)
  Parking of Heavy Vehicles (London)
  Open Space Development (Hackney)
  Open Space Development (Hackney)
  Fleet Line
  Fleet Line
  Motorway Contracts
  Motorway Contracts
  Brick Production (Smoke)
  Brick Production (Smoke)
  Pollution (Council of Europe Resolution)
  Pollution (Council of Europe Resolution)
  Buildings of Architectural and Historical Interest (Closing Orders)
  Buildings of Architectural and Historical Interest (Closing Orders)
  Car-Oriented Shopping Centres
  Car-Oriented Shopping Centres
  Alkali &c. Works Order
  Alkali &c. Works Order
  M5 Bridge (River Avon)
  M5 Bridge (River Avon)
SCOTLAND
  Abbotsinch Airport
  Abbotsinch Airport
  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Prison Officers (Assaults)
  Abortion and Sterilisation
  Abortion and Sterilisation
  Free Milk (Local Authority Representations)
  Free Milk (Local Authority Representations)
  House Building
  House Building
  Rheumatic Diseases
  Rheumatic Diseases
  Revaluation (Lanarkshire)
  Revaluation (Lanarkshire)
  Special Clinics for the Elderly
  Special Clinics for the Elderly
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Foulness Airport
  Foulness Airport
  Play Groups (Electricity Charges)
  Play Groups (Electricity Charges)
  Motor Insurance
  Motor Insurance
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Imported Coal)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Imported Coal)
  Development Areas (Publicity)
  Development Areas (Publicity)
  Easington
  Easington
  Origin Marking
  Origin Marking
EMPLOYMENT
  Building Industry
  Building Industry
  Psychological Factors in Industrial Accidents
  Psychological Factors in Industrial Accidents
  Epilepsy
  Epilepsy
  Young People (Unemployment)
  Young People (Unemployment)
  Male Workers' Pay (Northern Region)
  Male Workers' Pay (Northern Region)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bull and Boar Licensing Scheme
  Bull and Boar Licensing Scheme
  International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies
  International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Fertility Pills
  Fertility Pills
CIVIL SERVICE
  Industrial Workers (Pay)
  Industrial Workers (Pay)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  India and East Pakistan (Refugees)
  India and East Pakistan (Refugees)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Death Certification and Coroners (Report)
  Death Certification and Coroners (Report)
  Local Government Elections (Poll Cards)
  Local Government Elections (Poll Cards)
  Charity Organisations (Expenses)
  Charity Organisations (Expenses)
  Racial Discrimination (Council of Europe Resolution)
  Racial Discrimination (Council of Europe Resolution)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Land Rovers (Tax)
  Land Rovers (Tax)
  Company Shares (Government Holdings)
  Company Shares (Government Holdings)
  Tax Assessments
  Tax Assessments
  Stamp Duties
  Stamp Duties
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Interest (Tax Relief)
  Interest (Tax Relief)
  Value-Added Tax
  Value-Added Tax
  Northern Ireland Border Control (Motor Vehicles)
  Northern Ireland Border Control (Motor Vehicles)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Primary Education (Expenditure)
  Primary Education (Expenditure)
  Cultural Co-operation (Council of Europe Resolution)
  Cultural Co-operation (Council of Europe Resolution)
  Experiments on Live Animals (Council of Europe Recommendation)
  Experiments on Live Animals (Council of Europe Recommendation)
WALES
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  European Economic Community (Migration)
  European Economic Community (Migration)
  MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (ADMISSION CHARGES)
  MUSEUMS AND ART GALLERIES (ADMISSION CHARGES)

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

BARONESS YOUNG
Janet Mary Young, wife of Geoffrey Tyndale Young, of Farnworth in the County Palatine of Lancaster, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Brooke of Ystradfellte and the Lord Brooke of Cumnor.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT AND SALE PRICES
2.47 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will introduce legislation to amend Section 11 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 in such a way as to place on a shop the burden of proving that goods on sale at a reduced price were in fact on sale at a higher price for a continuous period of at least 28 days in the preceding six months.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): No, my Lords. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that such a reversal of the burden of proof is necessary for adequate enforcement of the section or that it would in this context be right in principle.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, I would again ask him whether he is aware that this decision has caused some alarm among those interested in consumer protection, as when we were considering the Act this was not the way in which we envisaged that it would operate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, this is a criminal offence, and in criminal offences it is normal for the prosecution to have to prove its case. If I remember aright, this point was never questioned during the passage of the Bill.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that if this suggestion were adopted it would be quite unenforceable, because an inspector would have to visit the same shop every day for six months?
LORD BROWN: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the only person who has knowledge of pricing practice over a period of six months in respect of a shop is the shopkeeper himself? Would the noble Lord therefore agree that it is quite impracticable to place the burden of proof on the weights and measures inspector?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Section 24 of the Act gives weights and measures inspectors power to require the production of books and documents where he has reason to suspect that an offence has been committed.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that, while certain powers are invested in the inspectors of weights and measures, the general public are not aware of the conditions under which the Act operates in regard to sales of this type? Would it therefore be out of place for the Government by some means to bring to the notice of the general public the steps they can take in regard to this issue?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, a good deal of information and advice was given by the then Government when the Act first came out. This is really a matter of a normal offence. If it is a matter as between the person who is supplying the goods and the consumer, who has the right to make a complaint, enforcement lies in the normal way with the weights and measures inspector, but anybody else can prosecute if he wants to do so.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that although the weights and measures inspectors have powers to obtain documentary proof, very

581
often the proof does not exist in writing but only in the mind of the shopkeeper?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first of all may I say that I referred to Section 24: I should have referred to Section 28. There have been over 700 convictions under Section 11 of the Act, so that in itself does not suggest that it has been wholly inoperative.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if the Government accepted the burden of this Question it would stop the public from being kidded that they were getting something cheaper?
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, underlying the purely technical side of this Question, would the Government consider whether there is any means of meeting the very real worry of many housewives over the constant rise in prices, many of which are hidden under subtle changes in size of a package or the weight contained in it? These are changes of prices which do not match those differences.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in this particular Question we arc dealing not with rises in price but with claims that the price has been reduced.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, does the Minister feel that it is not a very good thing and not very flattering to the British public, the British woman or the consumer, to assume that they are quite incapable of judging what they are buying? And does not the old rule of caveat emptor apply? is it not wise to encourage that, rather than try to help people by other means?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Trade Descriptions Act was designed to prevent people from telling lies in this sphere, and I am bound to say that I think it has had some success in this respect. It is perhaps worth while to mention the case of a woman who often went shopping to the sales and said that in the old days she used to get good bargains, but nowadays everything is either rejects or seconds. Surely that shows that things are now being properly described and are not being represented as sold at a reduced price.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, may I put my question again to the Minister? Is he aware that if he accepted the burden of this Question it would stop the public from being kidded that they were getting something cheaper in the sales?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think that the trade does recognise this system, and, by and large, as I have said, the evidence is that things have improved quite a good deal in respect of pricing. As noble Lords will know, I have had some evidence myself on these lines since the Act was passed; but I think one must adhere to the principle, which is that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove their case.

N.A.T.O. AND FRANCE
2.53 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any representations have been made to the French Government on a resumption of association of the French Government with NATO.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE. FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, no such representations have been made to the French Government. While I am certain that the other Members of NATO, like Her Majesty's Government, would warmly welcome the return of France, this is entirely a matter for the French Government to decide.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. But how is it possible to promote an effective deterrent against the possibility of aggression—and there always is the possibility which is recognised by the very existence of NATO—if France contracts out, not only regarding troops on the ground and in the air, but also so far as Naval Forces in the Mediterranean are concerned? Are not the Government somewhat concerned about this anomalous position?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as I said, we should very much welcome the return of France to NATO, as would other Members of the Alliance. I am sure that representations and sentiments such as those which the noble Lord has expressed will be echoed in this country. It is our hope that the French will take notice of them.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, surely this is the appropriate occasion for making such representations, when there is so much talk of promoting unity in Europe? Surely, when the Prime Minister engaged in conversation with M. Pompidou it was desirable to raise this very important consideration, which affects the whole future not only of Europe but of this country.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords. I think, as the noble Lord will realise, that the discussions between the Prime Minister and M. Pompidou were confidential. They were almost entirely concerned with the progress of negotiations over the E.E.C.; and defence matters, I can tell the noble Lord, took up very little time in those discussions because it was felt that these were questions for the future once the matter of our joining the E.E.C. or not had been decided.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, if the talks between the Prime Minister and M. Pompidou were confidential, could the noble Lord say what talks, if any, have taken place with the Foreign Secretary in regard to this issue? After all, there is the Western European Union, which consists of the Six.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords. I think I should require notice of that question: but I will take notice of what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I give notice to the Government, through the noble Marquess, that before the Summer Recess I shall take the oppor-
584
tunity of putting down an Unstarred Question, because in my judgment and, I believe, in the judgment of noble Lords on both sides, this is a matter which deserves consideration.

N.A.T.O. AND BRITISH POLARIS SUBMARINES
2.55 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any of the British Polaris submarines have been assigned to NATO and under whose command, if necessary, they will become operational.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, the British Polaris submarines and missiles were committed to NATO as they became operational. The terms of the commitment have been agreed with NATO, but it would not be in the public interest to publish the detailed arrangements.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for that Answer. Without seeking to impinge on security (because I am aware of the protocol in connection with matters of this kind), may I ask: is it not desirable that, so far as the possibility of the Polaris submarines becoming operational is concerned, we should be assured that nothing will happen without the full consent of this country and of the United States, and that there should be no question of a command under the control of either West Germany or France?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance now. The submarines are under British command. and although they will be allocated to NATO they cannot be used without the specific permission of the British Government.

HIGHER EDUCATION: STUDY ON ECONOMIC RETURN
2.59 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: 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 who authorised the financing and publication in Economic Trends of a study on "the economic return on investment in higher education" which gives a grossly distorted, if not completely false, view of the social value of education and is bound to exacerbate the cost inflationary tendency by inciting organised professional bodies to press for increases in salaries and fees.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, this study was put in hand within the Department of Education and Science in 1967 under the previous Administration. As the pre-fatory note to the article in Economic Trends indicates, the study drew on material provided by a survey which the Department commissioned from the Genera] Register Office. The article was accepted by the editorial board of Economic Trends and its publication in that journal was authorised by the Department of Education and Science.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask whether he realises, first, that the calculations were based on an unrepresentative small sample, as is shown by the excessive fluctuation of the income figures; secondly, that present income, if it reflects anything at all, reflects past patterns in costs and not the present pattern in costs of education; and thirdly, that differences in income in this country reflect factors other than education? Indeed, one might think that the reverse is the truth—that education is according to income and not income according to education.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question, the Department started from the 1966 Census, and through the good offices of the General Register
586
Office sent out letters to a sample survey of 15,000 people who were qualified in higher education in the 1966 Census, and another 5,000 letters to people who had not received higher educational qualifications but were in occupations where there was a balance of the two sorts of people. That was the sample. I would accept what the noble Lord implies in his second supplementary question. To the noble Lord's third supplementary, about differences in income, I think it might be fair to point out to the House that the preparatory note that is in the article on page xx offered the article
" as a contribution to current discussions ".
And then at the end of the article, on page xxviii, it said:
"These purely economic aspects of education arc not necessarily the most important."
I am sure that the noble Lord would wish to be fair to the article, and that this balance should be put to the House.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, while again thanking the noble Lord, may I ask whether he does not agree (I am the last person who would want to stand between an author and publishing an article of a scientific character) that these articles should be published in a scientific journal and not in a Government publication, even if these precautionary tales are told, because obviously wrong conclusions were drawn by The Times and by various other papers from the publication? As to the size of the sample, would the noble Lord think that, for instance, a sample of 5 doctorates of 65 and over is a typical sample of the British population—even of the doctorates?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's three further supplementary questions, it is perfectly true that this article was published in a Government publication. It is also true, as I have already said in answer to the noble Lord's first set of supplementary questions, that the authors asked for informed comment. No one would be better informed than the noble Lord who is asking the questions to-day. I think that everybody, and not least the Department, would welcome it if the noble Lord would care to put his own thoughts into scientific journals so that there could he informed discussion.

587
Secondly, the noble Lord referred to wrong conclusions in general terms. The noble Lord's original Question referred to
" the cost inflationary tendency by inciting organised professional bodies to press for increases in salaries and fees."
Any noble Lord who looks at the article will see that although it has treated earnings as related to productivity in a general way, it recognised that this relationship is associated with a competitive market and is not valid for single buyer and single seller conditions. It was for this very reason that soldiers, doctors and teachers, for instance, were excluded from the analysis. I would submit to the noble Lord that therefore it precisely does not incite professional bodies to force up salaries and fees for their members. As regards the noble Lord's third supplementary question, on the size of the sample, I have tacitly agreed that the noble Lord has a point here.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, if the noble Lord were asked if the article had any significance, would he not answer: "Scarcely"?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords; I should not. The Department's own planning paper, which was published some two and a half to three months ago, referred to the need for informed discussion, which of course the Government very much welcome from noble Lords with special expertise, like the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and I think referred to three limbs on which there might be discussion: the private demand discussion, which of course emanates from Lord Robbins's Report; the return of education expense, which is dealt with in this paper; and manpower planning. Those are three limbs, and I should have thought three important limbs, when looking to the future of higher education.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that some of us who share some, although not all, of the noble Lord's scepticism as regards the conclusions of this paper, nevertheless welcome the appearance in an official publication like Economic Trends of a paper which evokes an exchange of views similar to those which we have had this afternoon?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is not this survey an example of the way in which the previous Administration wasted the taxpayers' money?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords. I am bound to say that as result of my answer to the second lot of supplementary questions I cannot agree with my noble friend.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, since the noble Lord seems to be anxious to engage in discussion—not that I object to long answers, any more than I object to long questions—can he define what is meant by "higher education"? Does it mean that it concerns only people who have been educated at Eton, Harrow or Haileybury, and that all others, including many Members of your Lordships' House, are excluded?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, this was defined in the Department's higher education planning paper, to which I referred earlier, published two and a half months ago, and I should like to refer the noble Lord to the definition in that paper.
VISCOUNT MONCK: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that, in order that these questions should at least end on an uncontroversial note, we should take the opportunity of wishing my noble friend Lord Aberdare many happy returns of the day?

INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES: RELATIONS WITH STATES
3.7 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET rose to call attention to the growing importance of international companies, and to their relations with States; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I heartily associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Monck. This Motion comes before your Lordships in a week when the United States Secretary of Commerce has drawn to the attention of a commercial audience in that country the results of a recent private public opinion poll—that is, a public opinion poll taken not by the Government—which were as follows. When the American people were asked whether or not too much power was concentrated

589
in too few companies, 61 per cent. said that they thought it was; and when they were asked whether recent critical attacks on American industry had done more good than harm, 53 per cent. said that they thought they had done more good than harm, and 9 per cent. said that they had done more harm than good. Of course, we do not know what the attacks were. But the point of this story, with which I thought I would open my remarks to the House to-day, is that in the United States they are worried about the bigness of companies. I would not presume to judge, and none of us would, between the American people and America's industrial companies, let alone between the American Federal Government and its people, because Mr. Secretary Stuns took up a position towards his own industry that they had better look out and improve their public image; that if the public did not like what they were doing, it was something to be taken seriously in the long run.
My Motion to-day is to draw attention to the increasing importance of international companies and to their relations with States. I mention those American figures by way of contrast, because I believe that if you were to ask the British people what they thought about big industry in this country you would not get the same opinion. But it is a noticeable tact that trends and opinions which hold the day in the United States very often come, after a small number of years, to hold the day in this country, too: what happens there is often repeated here on a smaller scale. I have been lucky enough to be allowed to bring this subject before your Lordships' House, therefore, in the wish, not to correct what is wrong, and still less to castigate any evil-doers, but to improve what might conceivably he improved and, above all, to avoid that going wrong which might conceivably go wrong in the future.
I do not propose to start with a definition. It is well known to be impossible to define an international company. I will make one point in definition only: that I do not mean simply a company which manufactures in this country and sells abroad through retained sales agents. That is not an international company in the sense that I shall be using the phrase. I mean really everything from thereon upwards, and typically the company
590
which has its financial and historic base in one nation, but forms subsidiaries to carry out its own operation in other nations. I mean not only manufacturing, but financial operations of one sort or another as well.
Governments in this country exist to do what people want and to exert democratic control. The nation-state government is the only device known to man for public participation and control in the shaping of society. Commercial enterprises, on the other hand, exist to make and to sell certain things to such people as happen to want those particular things. Financial enterprises exist, by and large, to help the commercial enterprises to do that. Governments see to most aspects of the lives of all people; firms see to one aspect of the lives of some people. Until recently I do not think any of our economies in Europe have found any difficulty about this. If it was felt that a firm appeared to affect too many aspects of the lives of some people, or began to affect the lives of too many people, the Government concerned could, and sometimes did, take power to stop it. In other words, as parts of the whole, developed and expanded, the Government's sovereign power over the whole developed and expanded in parallel and continued to regulate the whole.
The arrival on the scene in a big way over the past two decades of the international company has changed this. There has been an uncovenanted passage of sovereignty from national Governments to international corporations. Instead of being pooled, as it were upwards, into inter or supra-national reservoirs of a consciously political nature, as many people had hoped, sovereignty has been seeping away downwards into the invisible root system of politically irresponsible capital. I emphasise "politically irresponsible"—not financially irresponsible, not commercially irresponsible, not humanly irresponsible, but politically irresponsible.
International companies are able to evade or circumvent Government in certain respects and therefore to evade or circumvent democratic control. I do not say that they do these things, but they are in a position to do them. They can drain brain power away from one country to another within their own personnel

591
structure. They can concentrate the menial work of their organisation in one country and the high grade work in another. There was a resolution passed by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations only last month drawing attention to this fact and to its impact on the developing countries. International companies can frustrate the geographical planning of one country by threatening to invest in another, unless they are allowed to locate their development where they choose. They can deprive a Government, and its people, of the tax revenue due to them by arranging to pay tax on a great part of their operations in whichever country has the lowest tax rate, and weaken the effects of exchange control through various devices of internal financing within their own groups, particularly transfer pricing and leading and lagging. Their own decision-making processes are not subject to public scrutiny, nor are they publicly accountable in their investment or personnel policies.
That might sound a critical or formidable list. I am not contending that they all do this; I am not contending that any of them do it all the time. I believe it is a fact that some of them do it some of the time. They are free to do it, and this in itself constitutes a problem which should be looked at by the Governments of the world. The fact that some of them do it some of the time would not matter too much but for the fact that the sway of the international company in the world is increasing. Measure it how you like, and define it in any plausible way, the international company is getting bigger and more effective. We have to look at it both from above and below since international companies of American origin increasingly invest in Britain, and international companies of British and other West European origin increasingly invest elsewhere down the line.
I think I am right in saying that the first effects of new investment from abroad in any country tend to be good but, in the long run, the things that I listed just now can take away from that initial benefit. There are, above all, two tendencies which ought to worry the peoples of the world: the sovereignty leak, which I have just described, and the inbuilt tendency to reinforce world
592
economic stratification, which is already bad enough without that. The sovereignty leak is well-established. If we take a couple of household names among British-based industrial giants, B.P. and R.T.Z., we find that R.T.Z. pays 2 per cent. of its tax bill to the British Exchequer. B.P., in which the Government are a majority shareholder, pays none at all, although no less than 37 per cent. of its employees work in this country. The familiar idea of the tax haven has now also to be joined in a conceptual parallel with it by the new idea of the dirt haven. Certain Japanese-based international companies are already setting up factories in East Africa in order to profit from the absence of anti-pollution laws there. This trend is likely to spread and will tempt investment-hungry Governments in developing countries to avoid controlling pollution, to the great detriment not only of themselves, but of the whole world.
It was within my own experience, when I was helping to look after the planning system at the Ministry of Housing, how international companies can play Governments off against one another in the field of regional and land use planning. During the period of office of the last Government we had the case of two international oil companies, one Italian-based and one American-based, which wanted to build refineries on one of the very few parts of the Thames Estuary which still contains some green fields. The South-East region, with one-third of our population, was receiving more than half of American investment into Britain, and the development areas in Britain, also with one-third of the population, were receiving only 27 per cent. of American investment. The local people on Thameside wanted to keep their green fields. We invited the companies concerned to build their refineries in a development area—incidentally, profiting thereby from rather handsome subsidies that were then envisaged. They said they had to be close to their markets—the people of South-East England, the Low Countries and Picardy. They said that if they could not have their Thames green fields, they would go to Belgium instead, where the Government are not so rigid.
The situation kept chopping and changing; applications were withdrawn; the Italian company vanished from the picture. The United States company now

593
has two applications in for contiguous sites, and refineries having a throughput per year respectively of four million tons and six million tons. No decision has been reached, and anybody interested in this aspect of the proceedings of international companies should watch with the greatest interest and see what decision comes out of the present Government.
International companies are more successful than others, not only because they are bigger and more clever, and are based on know-how already paid for in the United States. I emphasise this point because the international company is the particular means of exploiting American innovation; American innovation moves on and each wave of industrial technological discoveries spreads through the world by means of American-based international companies. These companies are bigger and cleverer than the others, not only for those reasons but also because they can and do, in the way I have been outlining, play Governments off one against another. This is in the very nature of their superiority, and that superiority, and this ability to play Governments off against one another, is a factor which can only tend to stratify the world.
When a rich foreign company arrives in a poor country it creates wealth. It helps the people there, or some of them, up the first step towards a decent prosperity. But it does not always help them up the second step. These companies get their edge in the first place because of American innovation, as I have just described. They tend to continue concentrating on the innovation in America, or indeed in Britain if they are British-based companies, and then the middle-range jobs get concentrated in. for instance, Western Europe, including sometimes Britain, and the bottom jobs in the developing countries. No doubt many international companies try to avoid doing this, and succeed to some extent. But the logic of things—both economically of the growth of the international companies; and geographically, of the production and consumption of raw materials—pushes the situation in that direction. When raw materials from the seabed become available—and it is
594
the international companies which are developing the technologies for that—the Third World will find the market even for its raw materials being depressed yet further.
There are those among the leaders,and philosophers of the international corporation, particularly Mr. George Ball in the United States, who see the first appearance of a supra-national world order in which the conflicts of nationalism would be superseded by an international organisation for production regulated by the impersonal motive of profit, which he conceives to he a much safer thing than the others. There are even those who will believe it possible for this new profit-dominated world order to stretch beyond the Iron Curtain, and envisage hook-ups between the American-based international corporations and Soviet State industry. This view assumes that economic efficiency and sound profits could entitle an organisation to political power over people's lives in general; and it indeed accords rather well with the new Five-Year Plan recently announced for the Soviet Union by Mr. Brezhnev, which adumbrates a society devoted exclusively to the maximising of production under rigid central State control hacked by the massive application of computers. It is not only impossible for any of us on this side of the House to accept economic production as the sole political criterion; I believe it is impossible for any Democrat to do so, and therefore for noble Lords on the other side of the House equally.
It is striking also how closely the views of Mr. Brezhnev and Mr. Henry Ford agree on the role of trade unions. Internationally, the trade unions are now working towards a situation of what they call "countervailing power". Capital. they argue, has internationalised far and fast, and organised labour must now internationalise to keep up with it. There is a very interesting meeting in Frankfurt this very week—I believe it is going on at the moment—between the trade unions of the Six, plus the candidate countries for admission to the European Economic Community, plus Sweden, Austria and Finland. The attempts of the second great nexus of power in the modern world—if we call capital the first great nexus of power, we can call organized

595
labour the second great nexus of power —to internationalise to keep pace with international capital, are an intensely dramatic saga which is going on these very weeks. They are not very much publicised in the general Press; and noble Lords on this side certainly wish the trade union organisers of all countries the best possible success in their attempts to do this.
If labour were to succeed in organising internationally to meet international capital, and if that were all that were to be done, this would simply repeat on an international scale the raw conflict between labour and capital which existed in individual nations a hundred years ago and which itself led to the setting up of modern regulatory State mechanisms. It follows, therefore, that if we are to prevent a mere internationalisation of unmitigated conflict, the nation State Government—the third great centre of power in the modern world—must also internationalise in order to mitigate the conflict which might arise and to ensure that the general will of their peoples is not frustrated by the perfectly natural operations of those who are properly concerned only with satisfying some of the needs of some of them.
So how can Governments combine to retrieve together the sovereignty that they have lost alone? I think that we on this side of the House have to realise that nationalisation is no use for an international company. By definition, it was the remedy when power became grossly maldistributed within a self-contained social entity; namely, the nation State. It may now have a marginal application in conjunction with other measures—I shall come back to this—but power is no longer grossly maldistributed within the nation State; it is grossly maldistributed across the boundaries of many social entities; and the entity within which it is maldistributed—namely, the whole world—has no self-contained Government which could use a remedy corresponding to nationalisation. So the only remedy we can think of would be a form of inter-governmental regulating and controlling power.
What then is the right group of nations, the right social entity, within which the power can be gathered in and operated? There are, I think, four forms of inter-
596
governmental regulating power which might be developed separately or in conjunction—four obvious ones, though no doubt others can be thought of and will be mentioned during the afternoon. First, Governments could combine to compel international companies to adopt a standard charter or document of incorporation which would include a duty to reveal information to the Governments, and would lay down certain types of behaviour and procedures. This is broadly the approach towards which the European Economic Community is already working—they have not got very far. Secondly, a group of Governments could set up an inter-governmental organisation for negotiation and adjustment among themselves in order to prevent international corporations from playing one Government off against another. This is broadly the approach which is being worked towards by the Latin-American countries in the Andean Pact.
Thirdly, Governments could combine to insist that no international corporation should be allowed to operate on their soil without the appointment of one director, or more, to the board of either the local or the parent firm by the relevant Government; or indeed such a director could be appointed by agreement between a group of Governments. This would be a sign that inter-governmentally co-ordinated measures, perhaps including partial public ownership, could be expected if conflict between the corporation and the Governments went unresolved. Fourthly, Governments could refuse to allow international corporations to operate on their soil unless they themselves had a holding in them, and a group of Governments might possibly develop a joint inter-governmental holding body for the purpose. This body could obviously be linked to the governmental or inter-governmental directors whom I have just mentioned, and it would grow naturally out of the State holding bodies which already exist in certain countries, the most famous of which is of course the Italian I.R.I.
Once one begins to think about it like this, the question immediately arises: what group of countries? An arrangement comprising all or some of these measures could be reached in a new international organisation, or it could be built into an existing one. Convenience,

597
and the fact that there is not an infinite number of good administrators in the world, even if nothing else, suggests strongly that it would be better to use an existing organisation. Should it be global or regional? In theory, the United Nations would be the place for the job, but in practice to give it to the United Nations would be to prolong the present situation almost indefinitely. There is so little common ground there that for many years the companies would continue to play Governments off against one another while negotiations were proceeding in an ah hoc sub-committee of the whole on the venue for a general conference in five years' time which might discuss possible general draft guidelines for the formulation of proposals—and so on. 0.E.C.D. would be attractive, in that it groups all the parent countries of international companies. But it has one disadvantage: it excludes the developing countries, and the problem is at least as much theirs as ours, and possibly more.
So let us turn to the regional organisations, perhaps aiming at a United Nations involvement later. E.C.E.—the Economic Commission for Europe— the United Nations regional body, is certainly something which ought to be strengthened by undertaking any job that it possibly can, but it is not the right organisation for this job, because the problem is, by definition, one which does not arise in Eastern Europe. One could say that the operations of Soviet State commerce and finance within the C.M.E.A. (that is, COMECON) are analogous to those of the great international companies in the West, and that smaller Eastern European countries might like to club together to avoid being played off against one another by Moscow State enterprise. That may be so, but the truer it is, the more certain it becomes that the Russians are not going to allow them to do it, and this rules out E.C.E. The Council of Europe is not equipped on the secretariat side, though otherwise it would do well. NATO is a military alliance and should be kept that way, since the more civilian jobs it takes on, the harder it will be to diminish its role in our lives if ever we are able to obtain a mutually balanced force reduction with the Warsaw Pact countries. In my view, because of that point, NATO is already doing dangerously much civilian work.
This leaves, of course, the enlarged Community. The Six are close to us geographically and economically; they already know that the problem exists, and are working towards a solution. The developing world is represented to a noticeable extent within that framework by way of the Associated States. The Commission of the E.E.C. is staffed to cope with the matter and there is a virtual identity of economic interest among the nations which, although we are all highly developed, are also out-innovated to about the same degree by the United States of America. The European Parliament is already well seized of the problem and only last week passed an interesting resolution about it. If the E.E.C. were to take charge of the international regulation of incoming international capital they could also find ways of disciplining the various Western Europe-based international companies in their behaviour towards the developing countries.
It is my view that the best grouping for Britain to look towards as a means of restoring democratic control over production, distribution and exchange in the age of international capital would be the enlarged European Economic Community. This is so of many other things, as well as control over international capital: it is so of control of pollution; it is so of a development of a maxi-technology, largely through the instrumentality of these very international companies; it is so of the development of communications satellites for putting TV anywhere on the world so that European countries will not have to hire air time from the Americans, and it is true of many other things. We could consort with the E.E.C. to these ends from outside, but if we did I guess that we should have to spend about half our diplomatic lives talking through the door to the people in the room. It would be very much easier to walk into the room.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I just put a point to the noble Lord?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me two more sentences, I am about to come to my peroration. I am not saying that we should walk through the door into the room: I am saying that we must still wait to see what the White Paper says; but in the view of one Member of this

599
House this particular matter of international companies is one of the reasons why we should hope that the White Paper will give us a package that we can accept.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I just put one point to him? He ended by suggesting that the E.E.C. should provide this organisation. Does he mean only for European international companies, or for American and other international companies, including the Japanese?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am glad the noble Lord has raised this point. My idea was that if the enlarged E.E.C. could take this job on it should do it both ways. It should regulate the deployment of non-European capital in European countries, and it should also regulate the deployment of European capital in non-European countries.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, what about the Americans?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, America is not in Europe.
LORD BYERS: No, my Lords; exactly.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to ask him one question. Is he advocating what has happened in Japan, that international companies shall not be allowed to have more than 49 per cent., of the equity in any particular company?
LORD KENNET: No, my Lords, that goes a good deal further than anything I was advocating. I beg to move for Papers.
3.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the subject of to-day's debate is indeed a wide one, and I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for initiating it, and indeed for the most interesting speech that he has just made. I think the importance of this debate is illustrated by the large number of speakers on the list. And perhaps I may say how much we are all looking forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw.
My Lords, the growth of international direct investment during the last twenty
600
years, which has led to the growth of international or, as they seem to-day to be more frequently called, multi-national companies, has indeed been remarkable. It has exceeded the growth rate of world trade, which has itself been remarkable during the same period. During the 1950s, the growth of multi-national companies attracted little attention, but in recent years the growth of books, articles, conferences and research studies on the subject has begun to exceed comfortably the growth rate of the phenomenon itself. This growth in interest is fully understandable, since the operations of multinational companies have implications for many different groups of people, ranging from economic theorists, to nationally based companies which have to compete with them and to trade unions which have to bargain with them. This growth is also in a number of ways of interest to Gov-ernments, not only in the United Kingdom but of most Western nations, whether developed or developing. Indeed Eastern bloc countries are increasingly becoming aware of the advantages they may derive from harnessing the massive technical and managerial skills of large companies, based in the West, to assist in their economic development.
In order to give perhaps a little more background to the debate I propose this afternoon in my speech to outline the growth of international industrial investment as it affects the United Kingdom, and to illustrate the benefits that the United Kingdom economy has derived from such an investment. I shall then briefly go on to give some examples of how various Government policies act to restrain or encourage the activities of international companies, and my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn will, I am sure, reply to the more specific issues and suggestions which may be raised during the debate and answer as many of the questions that are raised as he can. I should like also to take this opportunity of apologising to the House for the fact that I shall not myself be able to remain until the end of the debate because of a very long-standing commitment which I have been unable to alter.
Successive British Governments have encouraged the growth of investment in the United Kingdom by overseas-based companies, and I think the following figures—and I will try not to quote too

601
many statistics—show the extent to which this growth has occurred: the book value of foreign direct investment in industry, excluding oil, insurance and banking, in the United Kingdom nearly doubled between 1962 and 1968, from £1,430 million to £2,718 million. About two-thirds of this investment is by United States companies. To give some idea of the scale of this activity relative to that of the United Kingdom economy as a whole, it is estimated that in 1969 the United States-owned sector of United Kingdom industry accounted for between 12 and 13 per cent. of our manufacturing output and about 16 per cent. of our exports. A similar pattern of strong growth emerges if one looks at the figures for overseas investment by United Kingdom industry. Here, despite restrictions on capital outflow from the United Kingdom for much of the period, book values increased from £3,405 million in 1962 to £5,585 million in 1968; once again these figures exclude oil, insurance and banking.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Marquess? These figures are very interesting; they are, of course, available. What is not available is not the book values but the real values. I do not know whether the noble Marquess could help us on the up-dated values?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, perhaps I may take counsel with my noble friend on this point and see whether in his winding-up speech he can help the noble Lord.
The main point to note about the figures that I have just given, apart from their scale and fast rate of growth, is that the overseas assets controlled by British industry are twice the value of assets in the United Kingdom owned by foreign companies. Perhaps, too, I should make it quite clear that all these figures exclude portfolio investment, which is subject to different rules and which is outside the scope of this debate. The fact that in Britain we have a significant foreign-owned sector of our industry and at the same time United Kingdom companies own a greater amount of overseas assets enables the Government to take a balanced view of the activities of large multi-national companies.
602
The benefits to our invisible earnings from our overseas direct investments are considerable. In 1970 net profits after overseas tax on these investments amounted to £685 million, while earnings on a similar basis from foreign-owned investments in the United Kingdom were £329 million, representing a surplus of £356 million, or nearly £30 million a month, on our invisible account. In 1960 this surplus was only about £10 million a month. The House may be glad to know that I do not intend to quote very much more in the way of statistics. I do not apologise for giving these figures, for it is, I believe, essential to keep the scale and balance of international investment in mind when considering various aspects of the phenomenon during the debate, and also to be aware of the extent of the direct benefits to our balance of payments which we derive from this investment.
But the benefits from international investment go well beyond those that I have mentioned so far. Inward investment. that is, investment by overseas companies in the United Kingdom, besides bringing an inflow of capital, can also often bring in valuable technical and managerial know-how and may also improve the performance of United Kingdom based companies by sharpening competition. Foreign owned companies operating here also account for more than one-fifth of our exports; a higher share than the proportion of production or employment here. Just as exports per employee are on average greater for foreign owned companies than for United Kingdom owned, so is on average the value added per employee greater in foreign owned companies operating here.
There is one last benefit I should like to mention here. New investment from overseas is usually much more mobile than extensions of existing investment by United Kingdom based companies. Hence the incentives provided to attract industry to areas of high unemployment have resulted in a considerable number of foreign companies providing much-needed profitable employment in the assisted areas. Scotland has been particularly successful in attracting foreign, and especially American, subsidiaries: survey carried out last year showed that nearly half the new employment in Scotland provided by companies which

603
opened new manufacturing establishments in Scotland between 1945 and 1969, was provided by North American owned companies.
Active promotion of the attractions of the United Kingdom as a country in which North American industry can profitably invest has been carried out, since 1960, by a special office in New York. This office, the British Industrial Development Office, is jointly financed and staffed by the Northern Ireland Government and the United Kingdom Government. The staff of this office have put a great deal of worthwhile effort into making effective contact with nearly all major United States companies likely to be interested in investing in the United Kingdom. But with the growth of United States investment here there are well over 1,000 branches and subsidiaries of United States companies now established in this country, and the scope for a separate office concerned solely with investment promotion has diminished. I am able to announce to-day that, in accordance with a recommendation by the Duncan Committee, arrangements are being made for the work now being done by the British Industrial Development Office to be carried out in future by the Consulates General in the U.S.A. in association with their other commercial work. The staffs of the Consulates General will take an active role in encouraging new United States investment, especially in the assisted areas of the United Kingdom, and suitable staff training is being arranged. Because of the special need to attract new investment to the Province, the Northern Ireland Government has decided to maintain a separate promotional office in New York.
I should like now to return to the benefits which this country derives from overseas investment by British industry. In addition to the valuable contribution such investments make to our invisible earnings, which I mentioned earlier, overseas investment can lead to an increase in our exports, both directly from United Kingdom parent to overseas subsidiary or indirectly through the general strengthening of commercial links with overseas countries that direct investment brings. In addition there is a vital role to be played by overseas investment in improving the competitive strength of major
604
United Kingdom companies, which need a broader-operating base to compete more effectively with large United States, European or Japanese companies which are also likely to be operating on an international basis.
For these reasons, therefore, Her Majesty's Government welcome outward investment by British companies. The purpose of exchange controls, to which I shall return in a few minutes, is to protect our balance of payments from the strain of large capital outflows that can accompany overseas investment, not to prevent such investment from taking place. The Bank of England is always ready to discuss with a company or its advisers the means available for financing any direct investment project to enable the exchange control requirements to be met. For completeness I should also mention the Government's policies to encourage an increased flow of private industrial investment to the developing countries, which were outlined in a White Paper published in April and on which we had a discussion in your Lordships' House on April 28.
So far, I have spent most of the time elaborating the benefits which Britain derives from international investment, both outward and inward, and on those of the Government's policies which are aimed at encouraging such investment. I have done so, not because I believe that there are any serious differences among us as to the extent to which in general the growth of international investment has benefited our economy, but because I thought it right for the various facts, and for the present Government's general approach, to be put on record.
Concern has been expressed—and I have no doubt that it will be expressed again during the debate to-day—that the larger multi-national companies might, because of their size and the spread of their operations, have acquired such power and independence that they were, or might become, beyond the control of some or eventually all the nations in which they operate. This was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, touched on, and he made some most interesting suggestions, if I may say so. I should like, therefore, to say something about the different and several types of legislation which affect international companies operating in the United Kingdom.

605
First, there are the exchange control regulations, which I have already mentioned. Exchange controls directly affect capital movements, and to a lesser extent current account payments, between a United Kingdom company and its overseas parent or subsidiary company. Foreign-owned companies operating in the United Kingdom are required to bring into this country, and retain here, sufficient external funds to cover the value of their fixed capital assets. For companies already established here, reinvestment of past profits which would otherwise have been eligible for remittance abroad counts towards this requirement. Working capital for foreign-owned companies' operations here is usually allowed to be raised in the United Kingdom. Some relaxation of the rule governing the external financing of fixed assets is allowed for new investments which are export promoting, or which provide new employment in the development areas.
In general, foreign companies retain funds in the United Kingdom to a considerably greater extent than is required by exchange controls, to the benefit of the United Kingdom reserves. Overseas investment by United Kingdom-based companies in the non-sterling area is subject to controls to ensure that capital outflow from the United Kingdom to finance such investment does not in general occur before the benefits, in terms of increased exports or remittance of profits and other earnings, have occurred. A voluntary programme, concerned with investment in the developed countries of the Sterling Area, operates on similar principles. Exchange controls also require that two-thirds of the net profits from overseas operations are remitted to the United Kingdom. These controls have brought considerable benefit to the United Kingdom balance of payments, while at the same time overseas investment by United Kingdom companies has increased at a record rate.
There is a quite separate requirement in the Exchange Control Act to which it is appropriate to draw attention to-day; that is, that no United Kingdom-owned company may be transferred to the control of non-residents of the United Kingdom unless consent for such transfer has been given. This is one important safeguard which can be used, if necessary, in the event of a takeover of a large or
606
important British company by a foreign company. The other safeguard is the Monopolies and Mergers Act, which I shall mention in a moment or two.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, could the noble Marquess inform me in which legislation the provisions for the first safeguard he mentioned are to be found? I am very interested. I was not aware of the existence of the safeguard.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I understand that they are to be found in Treasury Regulations. I cannot at this moment give chapter and verse, but I will see that the noble Lord is given that information.
I said that I was going to mention the Monopolies and Mergers Act. Before I come to that, I should like to say that in practice no action is taken to prevent or discourage foreign takeovers in almost all cases, but there have been three occasions on which undertakings have been given to the Government by foreign companies when they have acquired the United Kingdom stake in major companies operating here. These cases are: Ford of the United States when, in 1960, it acquired the shares in Ford U.K. held in Britain; Philips of Holland when it acquired Pye in 1967; and Chrysler when it took control of Rootes, also in 1967. The undertakings obtained by the Government on each of these occasions were concerned in each case with the future development and expansion of the United Kingdom company, which would help to maintain and expand export markets. The details of the undertakings were published at the time they were given.
The second piece of legislation which can directly affect the operations of multinational companies is the monopolies and mergers legislation, which applies in exactly the same way to foreign-owned companies operating in Britain as it does to nationally based companies. A reference may be made of a monopoly situation wherever one firm has at least one-third of the market for a particular product or service. A number of important references to the Monopolies Commission have involved international or foreign-owned companies, either alone or alongside domestic companies. All the major oil companies were involved in the petrol reference. Proctor and Gamble and Unilever were the companies mainly

607
involved in the reference of household detergents. The firm most closely involved in the colour film inquiry was Kodak. Philips were involved alongside domestic companies in the electric lamp reference. In each of the two most recently announced monopoly references—that is, breakfast cereals and boot and shoe machinery—the leading firm is a subsidiary of an American company. This does not mean, of course, that this Government, or indeed our predecessors, have in any way discriminated against international companies. But it does, I think, demonstrate that there has been no need to avoid them in making references to the Commission. The experience both of the Commission and of the Government has been that international corn-panics are no less co-operative than national ones over these investigations.
The merger provisions also apply to acquisition by international companies in the same way as they apply to acquisitions by national companies. Any merger which creates or intensifies a monopoly situation, or involves the taking over of assets of more than £5 million in this country, can be referred to the Monopolies Commission, irrespective of the nationality of the acquiring firm.
The third area in which British legislation is of direct concern to multinational companies is that of the Companies Acts. The great majority of foreign-owned industry in this country is carried out by subsidiaries incorporated under our companies legislation. This means that such companies, in common with all companies incorporated in the United Kingdom, have to conduct their affairs in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Acts and to comply with the accounting and disclosure requirements of those Acts, which arc more stringent than the requirements of most other countries, apart from the United States of America. There are, of course, plenty of foreign organisations trading in this country who merely have branches here and have not set up subsidiary companies incorporated in the United Kingdom.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wonder whether I could just ask a question about these regulations before the noble Marquess proceeds. Is it correct that they
608
do not make it necessary to reveal the extent either of transfer of pricing or of leading and lagging in inter-group payments?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I should prefer not to answer that question directly, but I hope that my noble friend will be able to do so when he winds up. I should not like to mislead the noble Lord about that point. Provided that the company concerned has an established place of business in Great Britain, it must file returns and accounts with the Registrar of Companies under Part X of the Companies Act 1948. These requirements compel the organisation to provide almost as much information about itself as if it were a British company. There are some 3,000 companies filing returns under Part X at the moment, and these returns are available for public inspection. I have just outlined three areas in which international companies have to comply with the requirements of British law. There are of course many other requirements ranging from those of town and country planning to industrial training. In general, it can certainly be said that multi-national companies behave very responsibly in this matter, as do nationally based corn-panics. All the indications are that the Government's generally liberal policy towards the growth of international investment and to the growth of multinational companies has proved beneficial to our economy, and that there has been relatively little in the way of offsetting disadvantages. Nevertheless, the rapid growth of the phenomenon makes it essential for the Government to keep a watch on the situation, to make sure that we continue to benefit, and that some of the dangers to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. alluded in his opening remarks are avoided.
I am aware that some noble Lords may consider our attitude to be a little too sanguine, and they may bring forward instances where the actions of an international company may have been detrimental to this country. But in giving due weight to such examples, which I fully acknowledge exist, one needs to consider two things. First, one must consider whether the action in question was directly related to the international character of the company; that is to say, whether purely national companies

609
could not, and do not, take similarly,detrimental actions from time to time. Secondly, it is essential, as I have emphasised throughout, to take a broad view. In many ways, for Britain, the arguments in support of liberal policies towards international industrial investment are similar to those in favour of liberal trade policies. The lowering or abolition of trade barriers may adversely affect the production of certain goods in this country through increased competition from imports, yet, in general, liberal trade policies act greatly in favour of the United Kingdom economy as a whole. In the same way, the application of general controls to prevent occasional difficulties arising from the operations of multi-national companies might risk the diminution or loss of the very real benefits which, as I have indicated, we get from international investment.
4.3 p.m.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, it is not without considerable trepidation that I ask for your Lordships' attention on the subject of the growing importance of international companies and their relations with States, for, unlike my noble friends and the majority of this House. I have not had the benefit of a distinguished career in the other place on which I can hang my words. I can only speak on this subject from a merchant venturing background, combined with Liberal beliefs—perhaps even shared by the noble Marquess—in the freedom of trade as being of genera! benefit to the national economy. I therefore pray your Lordships' indulgence.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has already made the point that the United Kingdom sees the international corporation from both sides. I should like to speak, in support of him, with special emphasis on the relevance of the multinational company with regard to British exports. My limited experience working overseas—namely, in India for a British parent company—has led me to believe that such companies can fulfil an important role in the maintenance of export markets, while at the same time contributing to the economy of a developing country such as India. If your Lordships will allow, it may be worth while in this context to touch briefly on the historical development of such companies
610
in order to see how the present situation has come about in one small section of the range of multi-national companies which are being discussed this afternoon.
The House will recall that, before the Second World War, Commonwealth countries accounted for a large percentage of British exports. However, since 1945 most of these countries have been granted their independence and, over a period of time, developed and protected indigenous industries of their own, which had the effect of drying up these traditional export markets. British companies, which had in the past relied on these markets which were becoming closed to them through tariff barriers and total import restrictions, were faced with trying to explore new markets or seeing their products vanish from these areas altogether. If the latter occurred, their pro ducts were replaced by a competitor, usually a non-British one, who established a local manufacturing company to serve a ready-made market. An enlightened company wishing to continue in these markets, but one which had hitherto never considered overseas establishments, could find itself forming manufacturing units in a number of different countries with, before long, an international corporation being born. The parent company then becomes the holding company, and the original manufacturing unit keeps in business through diverting its labour force with a high wage structure into more sophisticated products.
The pattern that has been outlined must have been repeated in many different countries all over the world and, as described, can have no sinister overtones. The attitude of the host country in such instances must initially be one of welcome, as it provides a new source of employment and a new indigenous industry with growth prospects, plus a saving in foreign exchange. These points have already been made this afternoon. Once the new industries have been established and have become profit-making concerns, the parent company is in a position to decide—although some developing countries make it a statutory obligation—to offer shares to the general public and, in some cases, to local management and the work force through incentive schemes. Local participation of this kind further identifies the company with the economy of the host

611
country, but occasionally, if for technical reasons this is riot possible, some arrangements should be made for investment in the parent company by residents of the host country. This step would ensure that no misunderstanding arose about the ultimate intentions of the parent company regarding its overseas investment policies.
From my limited experience in working with companies similar to those described, I have every conviction that, if British exports are to be maintained in Commonwealth and developing territories, companies in this category should be encouraged by the Government to do so through the medium of a multinational corporation. Various learned reports have been written recently, which appear to show that British overseas investments do not greatly assist the economy. But Professor Dunning, in his paper on the multi-national enterprise, demonstrates that more than 30 per cent. of the profits of British-owned enterprises are derived from overseas operations, the total of which amount to more than 1 per cent, of the gross national product of this country. If these statistics are acceptable to your Lordships, it is to be hoped that at some not so future date consideration will be given to the easing of regulations that govern the export and return of capital for projects of this nature.
On the other side of the coin, the determining factor in the attitude of a host country towards the multi-national company must surely be the effect of the foreign capital investment on the gross national product. This can be very considerable. In. Britain, the Netherlands, France, Sweden and Germany, foreign multi-national corporations account for 25 per cent. of the manufacturing exports and thus play a major role in the economy of these countries. It is for this same reason that there is perhaps some cause for concern by Governments that sudden movements of capital during currency instabilities or the unexpected shutdown of a major plant could unbalance the national economy, simply because of the size of the foreign investment involved. Any action of this kind would amount to what could be described as
612
irresponsible corporate social behaviour, and as such would be a difficult target for legislation, thus increasing the dangers expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
Nevertheless, there is also a risk of Governments worrying prematurely about what have been, to date, mainly hypothetical problems that can be created by these so-called Juggernauts and in so doing overlooking the most important role they fulfil in providing new sources of employment for the work force of the host country. Untimely legislation made in anticipation of the worst fears of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, becoming a reality could have a detrimental effect on the national economy if it scared off potential foreign capital investment when it was most needed. I am thinking at this time particularly of Scotland, which has played the part of willing host to a number of these multi-national companies, and is presently in desperate need of new sources of employment. In view of this one factor alone, my Lords, I ask that consideration should not be given to national or international legislation as a means of dealing with corporate social behaviour. I should rather see, instead, the creation of an unwritten code of behaviour which should not affect the investment climate and which, one would hope, would touch the social conscience of these great organisations—that is, if they possess such things.
On this basis, it should not be impossible to build a framework of ground rules whereby corporate social behaviour could be identified in broad terms; and I see no reason why such a framework could not be worked out on an international basis with the co-operation of Governments, international representatives of organised labour and consumer councils. It would be hoped that a code of this nature would be able to cover many situations, including currency switching for speculation in times of international monetary crises, monopolies, cartel arrangements, transfer pricing as a means of tax avoidance and even such things as pollution. Laws are already in existence covering most of these points in one form or another, and Governments should therefore find it unnecessary to create more. However, if it were brought

613
to the attention of Governments, through consumer organisations, public opinion or even a Government Department, that this code of behaviour was being ignored to the detriment of the general public or the national economy, then fiscal action could be considered in the form of fines or tax penalties.
In general, it would be hoped that Governments as a whole might make it their aim to create an economic environment which enabled multi-national companies to contribute the maximum towards economic development, and intervene only when the market or employment became unstable through infringements of an agreed code of behaviour. The potential danger of misuse of the strength, influence and sheer weight of money which can be wielded by these great international corporations will always be with us. However, I would hope that this House, while continuing to remain alert to this danger, will also recognise the beneficial effects they have on the national economy, with special regard to the maintenance of British export markets and the creating of new sources of employment in this country.
4.14 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow and to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and to congratulate him on his maiden speech. It is always a great encouragement to me when another Scottish Lord joins the forces of this House. I congratulate him on his speech, and I hope we hear from him on many occasions to come.
I think that what we have heard so far in this debate has emphasised something which has certainly worried me, and that is that we are looking at a phenomenon which is comparatively new, and anyone who misunderstands it is, I think, going to be in great difficulties in considering what we can do about it. To identify the phenomenon, which has appeared almost entirely since the Second World War—and I will come back to why it is a Second World War product—and which is not yet properly recognised, we ought, in reference to it, to use the term (indeed, Lord Lothian used it) "multi-national corporation" rather than "international corporation". After all,
614
the British Empire originated as far back as the 16th century, as unilateral internationalism, through the operations of the mercantile companies seeking access to raw materials and creating markets. There were the great charter companies, like the East India Company, which with its trading operations, backed by its private armies, had its own empire until it was taken over by the Crown and Britain thus acquired India; or The Company of the Adventurers of England trading into Hudson's Bay, which opened up Canada for purely commercial reasons; or the later operations, when trade followed the Flag and Cecil Rhodes into Southern Africa; and, of course, our heyday in Latin America, when we opened up the pampas to our meat trade.
But the forbears, if any, of what is now happening arose probably in the 1920s, with the establishment of the complex managerial structures of Royal-Dutch Shell and Unilever. These were exceptional examples of companies which were bi-national, British and Dutch, and which, as producers or manufacturers, extended their operations to acquiring ownership of their raw materials and creating markets for their products in many different countries. Between the wars there were the international cartels, in which big national corporations came to terms with their competitors, like animal species defining their territories, through systems of investment, and licensing of their inventions. Some of us who had experience during the war of targeting in Germany, for example, were extremely conscious of the fact that we knew who had commercial interests in Germany. It was very difficult to sort them out if they had large cartel associations. These were international in the sense of national companies coming to mutual accommodation with other companies. The multi-national corporation, I suggest, followed the Second World War, and the term means any corporation which organises its operating divisions across national frontiers. This covers not only, in the historic pattern, trading, finance and insurance, but also, in modern terms, deployment across frontiers of manufacturing operations—the bringing in of not only finance but managerial experience and technological innovation, and the creation of subsidiaries or associates to carry on that work.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, since the noble Lord is assaying a definition, he would, I think. include extraction as well, although he did not mention it?
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: Yes, I am sorry; I should have included extraction as well as trading, and so on. Some of these subsidiaries or associates are recognisable, like British Ford's, and they are indentified with a product. In principle, such subsidiaries or associates have their own local boards, and to that extent can be classified as national. But the pattern of the multi-national corporation which we see developing is, I suggest, something different. There has, of course, been direct overseas investment, the setting up of wholly or partly-owned foreign subsidiaries by companies from the leading capitalist nations, or the acquisition of existing concerns in overseas countries. This began, I think I am right in saying. as a means of overcoming tariff restrictions, but in the post-war world as a means of employing blocked currencies and, later on, of attracting local financing for the extension of the parent company. In many cases the outflow on invisible account of profit, interest and royalties have exceeded the capital inflow. I do not want to elaborate, but I can give examples. And, with all deference to the commendable example which Lord Tan-law illustrated, I think there have been (and I could proceed to demonstrate) great burdens on the developing countries in which this kind of multi-national cor-poration operates in the outflow—and it does happen: see the World Economic Report of the United Nations—of charges on profit, such as interest and royalties, with the irony that the Governments of the developing countries have to borrow money from international funds to pay for the "cuckoo" industries, the industries which have nested in their midst, which will be factors of their ultimate development but which, frankly, can be at the moment demonstrably an embarrassment.
Though many books have been produced on the subject—and this was mentioned by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian—nobody knows how a multinational corporation itself works. It grows, like Topsy, largely by improvisation and for devious purposes like overcoming tariff obstacles or taxation difficulties. The
616
multi-national corporation has no internationally recognised legal status. The parent company is incorporated in its own country, or frequently in a country like Lichtenstein or some other accommodation address. The subsidiary companies are incorporated under company law in their host countries and are known only in terms of the national economy or of their effect upon it. Nobody knows the nature and extent of the global operations of multi-national corporations. The multi-national corporation is in many cases a global expression of what Doctor Neill Jacoby calls the conglomerate corporation ". This means a business corporation producing the products or services of several industries that are unrelated with respect to their raw material sources, product development, production technology or marketing channels. This is what is called diversification and its two factors are, one, managerial expertise and the other, money.
Whereas previously a corporation in the historical way expanded vertically—downwards by the acquisition of material resources and upwards through consumer outlets including marketing and sales—the movement since the middle 'sixties in the United States has been takeovers of companies producing unrelated products —and I think that that is also true elsewhere. And this means investment in both the swings and the roundabouts. The logical extension of this are the multi-national conglomerates in which, from one point of decision—whether it is the board of the parent corporation or (as is obviously happening) a diversification of people in the form of national nominees — operations are diversified within foreign countries. Thus a comparatively few people are controlling a great many industrial and commercial activities and are becoming a "Third Force", as Lord Kennet pointed out, and as severely curtailing the capacity of Governments to control their own economies or, since millions of employees are affected, from determining their own social systems.
Originally the multi-national corporation had the plausible appearance of federalism, in the sense that the national companies had a degree of local initiative and adaptation. I draw your Lordships' attention to the Financial Times of yesterday, June 15, in which Nigel Foulkes,

617
who resigned a year ago as managing director of Rank Xerox and who therefore has some experience of international companies, wrote:
" Big companies are getting bigger, more secure, slower to adapt and more prone to standardise. The computer has halted the trend towards federalism by making the leviathan more manageable and despite much talk of delegation the direction is hack towards centralisation."
This fulfils a prophecy that I made, of an industry automated in North Scotland being controlled by computer from Omaha. Again, I repeat, this direction of power, this "Third Force", is getting into the hands of fewer and fewer people. Some of them are completely faceless and impossible to identify. To whom are they answerable? Do we know where the stockholders' or shareholders' meetings of the multi-national corporations take place? Of the parent corporation, yes; of the subsidiaries. yes. But of the global operation, no. They are answerable, in the ultimate, to no Government and to no identifiable stockholders—except, as in the case of some notorious financial enterprises, when there is a public scandal and ruin. When things are going well, the international corporation has no corporate identity and its controllers—and, as Mr. Foulkes made plain in the Financial Times they are controllers and not stewards — are a self-reproducing oligarchy.
There are some who regard the multinational corporation as a method of breaking down obsolete barriers of sovereignty, of consolidating world peace on the basis of the self-interest of all peoples and of bringing reality into the methods of government. They extend their arguments to industrial relations with the workers far beyond the kind of thing which your Lordships have been discussing and far beyond what was discussed in the other place on the Industrial Relations Bill. They talk about multinational corporations coming to terms with multi-national unions—though what the multi-national shop stewards are going to say about this has not been discussed. As has been pointed out, the British unions and the unions of other countries have become aware of what faces them in this new development, and some of the best insights into the situation
618
have come from very sensible considerations by trade unions. They do not know the answer but they are aware of the problem.
There are spokesmen for the multinational corporations who speak in terms of the highest idealism. For example, as a result of an article in the magazine of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions a film was made of a discussion between Arnold Toynbee and three international business leaders, for all of whom I have personal respect: Eldridge Haines, founder and chairman of Business International Inc.; Orville Freeman. president of Business International and formerly Secretary of Agriculture in the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations and Dr. Aurelio Peccei, vice-chairman of Olivetti and of Fiat, and one of the founders of the Club of Rome, a sort of multi-national corporation Rotary Club. They came to the point of discussing practical steps and I want to quote a little of their discussion:
" PECCEI: I know of one step—one small step that seems to me may lead toward something; it is to give the multi-national corporation an international charter. It may be located in a real or symbolic territory, but it will give it a non-national identity.
" FREEMAN: Why not an island somewhere that could be the slats for the multi-national corporation?
" HAINES:… the Caribbean.
" FREEMAN: I'll buy that. This would he comparable to the situation in the United States in which most corporations are chartered by the State of Delaware. for pragmatic reasons. I think this is exciting because it would do two things: it would constantly remind multi-national corporate management that they really are world-wide, and that they should act and think so, even more than they do; it would remind the countries in which they do business and where most of their people come from, that they are international and must think and act in that fashion. And thirdly, it would tend to meet this religious fervour—the tension of the whole world—by dramatising the basic concept that here's a little island somewhere which these great corporations call their home. It might even be a member of the United Nations family, and it might even. in the long run, begin to provide independent revenues to the United Nations."
Haines suggested that it might go to Switzerland but Toynbee said:
"I prefer an island; there are some ex-colonial islands that have become independent and don't know what to do about it. I think one of them might be persuaded to lend itself as a kind of Vatican City as a seat for the world's multi-national corporations".

619
It seems to me that here you have a very good example of where some people think we have got to. That certainly applies to people like Signor Peccei.
One stage further, my Lords, and I shall have finished. You have a third force which is growing with leaders, with aspirations, albeit some of them, as in the case I have mentioned, well-intentioned and positively inspired. You have the prospect of syndicalism with national, if not international, corporations coming to terms with the trade unions if they can arrange it—if they can organise the trade unions to come to terms with them—and confronting Governments. This, my Lords, is the way to a corporate World State; and this, to me, is not acceptable. It may be that is what some people would want. Maybe it would produce the kind of stability that Peccei and others talk about. But I still want to know where, in this great network—this spreading of the net of the corporations, and all their aspirations—do we, the peoples, come in?
4.32 p.m.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, may I join my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on his maiden speech. His sagacity and wealth of expression will surely be heard many more times in this, our House.].t will probably sharpen the point of what I am going to say if I start by declaring my interest in, and my first-hand knowledge of, the operation of international or multi-national organisations. In the automobile field I formed and helped to get into production car and truck-making offshoots of a British-based parent company. These offshoots were in India, Australia and South America. In aviation, in the operation for nearly ten years of Britain's largest and nationalised airline, I watched over the development of what, in essence, are multi-national operations in the six Continents of the world where B.O.A.C. have local companies for the promotion of passenger and freight business. That was a fascinating experience. It allowed me to look at the world through a much wider window.
One of the most widely-ranging industries in the world is chemicals. I was chairman of the now wholly-owned British branch of one of America's largest
620
chemical businesses, owning a chain of internationally located subsidiary companies. This was a particularly mind-broadening experience. The chemical industry is perpetually hungry for capital in order to buy new plant to make new products that are discovered by arduous and expensive research; first, to benefit the public with improved medicinal and synthetic textile usages and concurrently to make a profit to finance more research and development.
Currently I chair the British board of an American company which is a leader in making machinery for food processing which results in products that are increasingly more palatable, nutritious, hygienic and stable. Against that background, spanning some 40 years or more, let me say right away that I think the development and expansion of multi-national companies is a benefit for mankind worldwide, and should not be discouraged or despised in this country. I strongly support the views so vividly projected by the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian.
Why I hold that firm view I propose to explain under two main headings. First, I think that the growth of multinational companies is a logical sequence of events. In the beginning there was the lone, individual worker, be it making implements, or in agriculture. Perhaps he was producing shelter for the human body in mud, or stone, or skin, or shoddy or whatever might be his task. That lone man soon found that if he took on a fellow worker the two of them could produce much more than twice what they each made singly. Thus the family business and the cottage industries were born. As those businesses progressed more money for materials and suchlike was needed; outside subscribers came in and became holders of shares in the enterprise, and thus corporate entities were evolved.
Somewhere about this stage, my Lords, maybe centuries later, the importance of local natural resources was recognised. Geophysical and geographical factors emerged; and so, all over the world, industries began to localise—wool in Yorkshire where the sheep grazed, coal and iron founding where availability prompted, and so forth. Thus industrial groups and combines came into existence. Factories in varying regions, but with

621
compatability of products, got together, making their joint headquarters in a metropolitan or provincial city, such as, say, Sheffield, Birmingham, Glasgow or London and policy-forming and financial control were thus centralised.
Such enterprises that developed wise managers and willing workers prospered. Those who did not enjoy those essentials fell out of the march forward. And in this forward march the barriers of ethnology were lowered. No longer, except maybe on the field of rival sport, did the White Rose clash with the Red, the Thistle with the Leek. World trade began in Britain—that was the Great Britain of our history book years. Britain began to take in raw materials and men from lands across the seas, and in turn to export, to our advantage, the proceeds of our brains and hands. We prospered. Now we come to the next phase, the one that we are debating to-day.
Outward-looking British industrialists saw that instead of importing a raw material, fashioning or processing it in these Islands and then re-exporting it from whence it came, it was more logical to export machinery, plant and know-how, to set up a factory and its supporting company structure overseas and begin processing on the spot more economically and probably in greater volume than heretofore. Instead of bringing iron ore or cotton fibre from abroad and wholly processing it in the United Kingdom, our businessmen saw virtue in getting through at least the refining or spinning stages near to its source of origin. From this system emerged an economy that prospered, and the international company complex was formed. Those acutely interested in employment in this country —and who is not?—may have asked whether, when the early stage of process work was done abroad, it took work from eager hands in this country. The answer, I suggest, is in the negative because instead we made machinery for export and that created skilled employment. Moreover, the profit made by the overseas company not only paid local wages and dividends but also returned interest on the capital invested in Britain.
Obviously, my Lords, this splendid pattern of trade could not continue without attracting notice, and so, naturally, Britain came to be looked on as a worthy
622
source of some basic materials and also as a rich market for the finished goods of other trading nations. So those other nations tentatively shipped in their finished goods—motor cars, cosmetics, plastics, fashion goods, electrics, calculators, earth-moving machinery—a whole trial spectrum of modern trade. Then they, too, found it beneficial to manufacture in Britain, and thus began the spate of internationally controlled companies operating in Britain.
This brings me to the second heading of why I think the growth of multinational companies should not be decried or discouraged by us. For one thing, they vigorously stimulate trade. It is all very well for critics to say that immigrant companies steal business away from our own establishments, but I do not accept their view. Multi-national organisations mostly make creative contributions to our range of consumer goods. generally bring in capital when new plants are laid down and certainly teach us lessons in the industrial sciences. To a large extent also they have of recent decades helped us with our development areas. In the Development Corporation for Wales, we went to great lengths to seek out and persuade companies from the other side of the Atlantic to set up factories in the work-starved valleys. to make components for domestic cookers, electrical gear, ball bearings and the like. And the same can be said so far as Scotland is concerned.
An interesting sidelight on the theme of our discussions to-day is that multinational companies almost always appoint a national of the country in which they are establishing an enterprise to head up the administration. They may take a likely looking executive and give him suitable indoctrination in the head factory, but seldom is an attempt made to superimpose someone foreign to the location of the plant. Certainly it is most unusual for any effort to be made to get into the political arena of the country involved. All the considerable experience that I have had leads me to believe that the guiding rule to the local executives of a multi-national branch is, "Keep right out of politics". And this is what invariably happens.
Foreign manufacturers realise, as well as we should, that the British worker is as good or better than any other source

623
of effort, provided that he is properly led. And by that I do not mean only good management leadership but the implantation and nourishment of the philosophy that prosperity and high spending-power ultimately only accrue by a steady outgiving of effort and not by withholding of effort in the ransom-seeking practice of sporadic strikes. The only really effective international currency is the degree of effort put out on average per capita of a nation, be it in brawn or in brain. And in my experience there has been a great benefit accruing to British industry in the cross-fertilisation of industrial systems and methods that have been imported inside our shores by multi-national companies.
Take, for example, the change in the method of payment in highly mechanised factories from the hated, old piecework system to the modern, imported, measured day rate. Under the old strive and drive piecework method, many men working on the line were ulcer-ridden wrecks before they were 45. That several of them had to be in effect pensioned off as highly-paid cleaners, sweepers or, yes, lavatory attendants, is no joke but a humanitarian reality. Measured day rate, already in operation for a few years now in this country, looks as though it should take many of the stresses and strains out of our industrial complex.
It is not only on the shop floor that benefit accrues by the intake of multinational companies. In many of our service industries, our standards have had to be raised to meet the needs of incoming international enterprises. One I well remember was an American synthetic textile organisation that simply refused to set up a factory over here unless it was guaranteed an absolutely steady non-fluctuating supply of electric current. It researched all over to find which area of the British Isles had the least variation in its voltage and cyclical conditions, and it smartened up our ideas a great deal when it finally found what it wanted in the Lowlands of Scotland.
Then comes the question of ultimate control. I have never seen that there is any fundamental difference between a steel company in Wales or in Scotland being controlled financially and policy-
624
wise from a board-room in London than there is in an automobile factory in Ellesmere Port or Luton being controlled in the ultimate from Detroit. I can emphatically tell your Lordships that, whether he be British or American, French, Dutch or Japanese, no businessman is suddenly going to shut down a plant that he has, after much research and capital investment, set up in a foreign country and leave his investment in machinery, jigs, fixtures and the rest of the complicated paraphernalia of modern production, to rot and wither. Such is the need for constant speed in production and, indeed, in a change of models, that there simply is not time to dissemble a plant and re-erect it elsewhere, if it runs into difficulties. What in fact and in practice happens is that if local conditions become difficult, whether it be labour, a tax situation or some other matter, then the multinational control takes very good care not to increase its involvement in that particular location; but that, after all, is only common sense.
I believe that we in this country can benefit enormously in several ways from immigrant multi-national enterprises, provided only that our working climate is propitious. I remember only a few years ago taking part in what was almost a multi-lingual discussion to decide whether a new chemical plant should be erected, at the cost of several million pounds, in Britain or on the Continent. All kinds of conditions were considered: the supply of water, labour, electric services, taxation and banking facilities. What tipped the balance finally in favour of erecting the plant in Europe was the fact that at that time it did not look as if Britain was going to enter the Common Market. I can assure your Lordships that multi-national industries would be much more inclined to invest in or to increase their investments in Britain if it were fully established that we were going to go or, indeed, had gone into the Common Market. May I at this point observe that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, seemed to base his most valuable contribution on what he fears might happen rather than on what actually has happened, but his was the starting point of this debate.
I would conclude by saying that to-day the world is a very much shrunken place compared with what it was before what, as one of its early protagonists,

625
I can be excused for describing as the "jet age". A businessman in New York thinks probably less about a flight to London than he does about a trip to San Francisco. Rapid, long-distance communication is commonplace. Subsidiary factories or companies overseas are not isolated. We in Britain, in our tight little Island, have not yet quite fully accepted this philosophy. We must get into the habit of thinking internationally and acting internationally, if we are going to keep our place in the league. If we isolate ourselves and imagine that we can have a self-supporting, let alone a healthily exporting economy, I think we shall be wrong. We must be out-giving with our energy and efforts, not individually trying to get a larger slice of a shrinking cake but thinking big and acting big. I welcome Britain's participation in the expansion of multi-national business enterprises in which, with energy, courage, faith and good judgment, we can play a useful and profitable part.
4.50 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I wish to add my congratulations to our maiden speaker to-day and hope that he will speak often and express as clearly as he did his opinions, even though he will understand that I do not share them. The subject before the House is a very involved one. I fully appreciate the reasons of bringing it before your Lordships. Nevertheless I do not think it can be usefully discussed at this juncture because by its nature it is linked to a question now uppermost in Britain; that is to say, our relations with the Common Market. Of course, the Common Market has had discussions on this topic and has evolved a rather detailed programme for controlling—or, rather, not controlling—what they call European companies. If we joined we should to some extent have to accept what they have and attempt further modifications if necessary. Certainly the whole discussion of the problem would be on a entirely different basis. I must say also that there can be a legitimate difference of opinion—indeed, one exists—as to whether the Common Market is willing, in the way we wish it to be, to control international enterprise. On the whole, therefore, I should have abstained from participating in this debate because I feel it to be somewhat theoretical. Although
626
many of your Lordships will have experience of this matter—from the individual to the general—it is as yet without a political foundation which might give us a basis for discussion.
There is, however, a matter of great urgency, and that is the need to call attention to the serious and immediate problem of Britain's relations to the oil industry, which is par excellence an international industry and one in which, unfortunately, we have not been able to exert the control that is necessary. The oil and gas story is a quaint one, showing the imperfect adjustment of Britain to her new position in the world. After a decade of fruitless search it became likely, in 1963 or 1964, just at the end of a previous Conservative Government, that the North Sea, and more especially the British Shelf, contained natural gas in huge quantities and that the northern waters of Scotland, which Britain shares with Norway, were likely to hold gas and oil in quantities which, even in international world proportions, are very considerable. This was completely unsuspected until the discovery of the Groeningen gas field. This is very important because it gave a completely stable region for the production of oil and gas which otherwise would be lacking, because most of the oil has been found in countries where conditions are not altogether stable. This underlines the attractiveness of the British field for those who wish to exploit it.
The quantitative importance of the find has been constantly written down, not only by the oil industry but also by the Ministry of Power and its successor monster Departments, the Ministry of Technology and the Department of Trade and Industry. I, for one, do not blame the oil industry at all for its tendentious statements. Indeed, I frankly admire it. It is in the industry's pecuniary interests to minimise the size of the discovery and thus secure a high price. It is for the Government to counteract this.
Natural gas has two types of outlet: one privileged, and one not. The priviledged one is to serve as a source of raw material for petrochemical materials and of domestic household gas. In this market the price of gas can be very high. How high it can be is shown by the fact that the Gas Council congratulated themselves on the purchase from Algeria of liquefied gas at eight old

627
pennies per 100 cubic feet. The cost of town gas, or of the conversion of an oil derivative called naphtha, into gas was well above that price. When British Petroleum struck gas, the Gas Council had in their minds a picture in which that sort of price of raw material was obviously a desirable one. It did not enter their vision that there might be so much gas available that the premium market might be saturated and non-premium outlets would have to be looked for in competition with coal and oil, in which case the commanded price would cease to be as high.
If the Gas Council were perplexed by this new problem, the Government were, if anything, even less prepared for this necessary drop in price. They had been accustomed to regard themselves—like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, of course —as equal, or all but equal, partners of the Americans in the oil game on the side of the producer companies. It is true that five out' of the seven so-called major oil companies were American; but we had two. Of course the two do not look so British when one looks into them. After all, 60 per cent. of Shell is Royal Dutch, and the largest individual holders of both Shell and B.P. shares—that is to say, private holders and not the Government—were the French. Therefore the proper relationship to the balance of the so-called British companies is not so good as might be thought. Under our tax laws, moreover, before Professor Kaldor's reforms permitted the British oil companies legitimately to avoid taxation, dividends and reserves at least came to this country and this was thought to be a good buttress to our balance of payments.
Also, official advisers of the Government were in close touch with the companies and some of them became prominent on the reverse side, while some of the high oil officials became official advisers of the Government. They certainly felt solidarity, if not an identity of interest. One might follow on the lines of the President of General Motors and say, "What was good for Shell was also good for Britain". This was enhanced in the post-war era by the growing nationalism in the oil-producing countries which, from a British point of view,
628
threatened the profitability and certainly the super-profitability of oil companies in the Middle East and elsewhere. The Mossadeq attack on B.P., which almost led the late Lord Morrison into rash countermeasures and was successfully dealt with by the Americans, was only the first sign of this new aggressive spirit of the undeveloped host countries. The formation of OPEC, which has exacted so much from the oil companies of late, was the first really effective answer (and I was interested not to hear my noble friends Lord Kennet and Lord Ritchie-Calder refer to OPEC) of small countries dealing with large companies on a quasi-equal basis. The fact that the underdog now expects support from the super-Power not immediately involved—that is to say, the Russians and Chinese in Latin America, and the Americans in other countries—has also balanced the power between the small countries and large companies.
In this new situation—and I perfectly understand it—the British Government were bound to be on the side of the companies. When it became evident that Britain herself would become an oil producer, even if only in what was then thought to be a minor way, at this stage the adjustment of the Government to the new situation was imperfect. The chief officials in the then Ministry of Power were not experts, and, so far as one can make out from published reports, no outside expert was called in, so to speak, to buttress the Government's case with the oil companies. The Continental Shelf Act, which is the basis of the exploitation of the North Sea and other waters round Britain, is if one of the youngest, also one of the most archaic instruments now in existence. It did not embody the experiences either of the United States or of Canada. The royalty exacted by Britain is one of the lowest, and if the companies are subject to corporation and income tax these can be offset against investment and losses incurred elsewhere. Past tax payments to Britain of the oil companies provide an interesting history in this respect. The elementary precaution called the chessboard surrender system, whereby after the lapse of a certain time the oil companies are obliged to surrender, on a pre-determined geographic pattern, part of the concession was not adopted in this country. The oil

629
companies here can choose what territory they surrender, and of course it will not be the most promising one. No participation in profits was secured beyond the tax and some rather minor membership in some of the exploration syndicates by the Gas Council and the Coal Board, which, if the statements to this effect are true, are now about to be liquidated. Yet the smallest little sheikh in Arabia now secures up to 50 per cent. of the profits, and tax which is on the whole higher than here.
There was, however, one provision in the Act, Section 9(2), and especially Section 9(3)(a), which, if used skilfully and with determination, might have safeguarded the interests of the country. This was the provision that the Minister of Power could prohibit the direct sale of the gas in this country (except as chemical raw material) if it had not been offered at a reasonable price to the Gas Council. This was a formidable power. It implied the right of asking (as the American Federal Power Commission has by routine) for proof of costs and the opening of the books to see how costs, risk and profit work out at the proposed price. The statutory power makes it a duty of the Minister to ascertain these facts and to act accordingly. This duty does not seem to have been carried out by any recent Minister. As we have heard in answer to a question, the Minister does not seem to have been involved in the latest price determination at all. This obviously is a clear dereliction of duty. And, to my astonishment, the Minister, answering in this House, admitted that the elementary data which every country, including, as I have said, the smallest little sheikhdom in Arabia, gets as of right, are not available to us.
It seems that from this viewpoint, as in insurance and banking—let us only think of the Eurodollar market—and in gambling, we have become a sort of haven of convenience and profit, like Liberia or Panama, if not Monaco, for the international colossi. This is an aspect of the permissive society which is perhaps less obvious, but much more dangerous to our wellbeing than those which are explored by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. What is even more astonishing is that the Department dare to assert that they cannot get these figures, when they know that we know
630
that both the Coal Board and the Gas Council are partners in various consortia, and that these consortia, being under American control, indeed have excellent accountancy facilities.
This, however, is an old story. The first gas contract, at 5 old pence per therm, was at least renegotiable after three years. The new ones are not. It must have produced originally, I think, 100 per cent. per annum profit on the cost of investment. Then came the discovery of the Indefatigable and Lemon Bank Fields. In both cases the companies asserted, and the Ministry apparently accepted, that the field was just medium size, and not a "whopper". But it was a "whopper". This was extremely important, as in a great field overhead costs are obviously much lower, being distributed over a much greater volume of gas. Thus it came about that the British pay 2·875 old pence per therm (100 cubic feet) as against the 1·75 paid by the Russians to the Iranians at the frontier—a thousand miles away from the field, and having to be pumped over the wickedest country in the world. Admittedly, Iranian gas is a joint product with oil, but that does not account for this huge difference. The American price, as I said in a supplementary question, is also below 2 old pence.
True enough, whenever any protest arose, stories promptly got about that the oil rigs were moving to God knows where, and that the oil companies would cease wanting the 10 to 15 per cent. politically safe profits after tax, and stop operating. I see that the day after I asked two questions on the gas price, a report was published in the top-people newspapers about the United States being threatened with a gas shortage because they do not pay sufficiently for exploration, when those in the know know very well that oil profits in America are in a special category because of the depreciation allowances, and equivalent to a multiple elsewhere. I congratulate the oil companies on the efficiency of their public relations departments.
And recently, without any discussion, the Gas Council having raised their price to the consumer by some 6 per cent. in recent months and having put in a claim for another 6 per cent. have agreed to pay 3·6 old pence per therm for a field

631
nearer to the shore than Lemon Bank. We were given some extraordinary calculations in this House to show how little difference this decision has made: somewhat on the model of the Czech girl's illegitimate baby. What is forgotten is that the previous level was already outrageous that the increase on that price is some 25 per cent., which is enormous, and that it now looks as if the whole of the premium market, and much more, can and will be supplied in future by natural gas.
Now comes the really tragic affair. It should be said that one old penny on the price represents—in the likely magnitude of supplies—something like £1,250 million over the probable life of the field, and most of this over the exchanges. All this after the Prime Minister and the Tory manifesto had stated that all price increases would be strenuously investigated and those which were unwarranted disallowed. The Prime Minister reiterated this only a week or two ago after my questions when reporting on his visit to Pompidou. Some promise! Some performance! It recalls that the Secretary of Slate has for long looked at the world—in the words of a famous statesman—through the nozzle of a petrol pump. I conclude this sad and sorry story by calling attention to the need of having long spoons when supping with superior people. The less a Government wishes directly to exploit natural resources, the more, and not the less, they need people who understand to advise Ministers to keep their end up, and Ministers who are not afraid to do so. Otherwise this splendid gift of nature will become yet another source of embarrassment and weakness in the balance of payments.
5.9 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, will forgive me if I do not follow him into the realms of the price of oil and natural gas, which I will leave to some other noble Lord to deal with. To return more generally to the subject of this debate, I am one who has spent many years in an international company, coming under the general heading of what an international company may mean. without attempting to define it. I have, however, no interest to declare, because I have re-
632
cently retired, and the only interest I have is the receipt of my pension. But I have had to deal with these problems at various levels in this country and in many other countries overseas. First of all, it seems to me that in technological industry there is bound to be a growth in the size of companies, and there is bound to be a growth rate in a number of international companies. In the technological field you have either to grow or atrophy. The rate of technological change is so great, the increasing cost of research and development is so great and, possibly above all, the economic size of plants is getting bigger and bigger and therefore one must increase in size if one is to survive. One increases in size by exporting.
Then, as noble Lords have mentioned, the question arises of manufacture in a country overseas. This may be brought about by direct economic influences, such as the cost of transport as against the cost of production locally, and such things as direct duties on imports into the export country. There are other important factors that come into this. Government pressure in an overseas country is one of the most important. This pressure may come about in many different ways. Along with the Government pressure comes competition. This is often exploited by overseas Governments, because one knows that if one does not agree to set up a plant in the country concerned a company from another country will do so. Therefore one may lose one's own exports to that country as well as any possible profit from manufacturing there.
There is also the question of the effect of sales on other products. If it is felt that the market is sufficiently important to set up a plant there, then that has a fall-out effect on the sales of other products and may influence the Government of the country concerned to help with import licences and the like. If one is exporting to a more sophisticated, more highly industrialised country, it is a matte' of fact that when one is selling a product which is a raw material for another company that company is much more likely to give you a higher proportion of its use, of its own consumption of your product, if they know you have a local factory. They then feel that you have a greater stake in the country and your supplies are less likely to be interrupted.

633
Many other factors come into the decision. There is the question of the stage of manufacture and the availability of labour with various skills. There is the political and economic stability of the country and the raising of capital. Here I put emphasis on local shareholding, which is often a very important factor in whether one is or is not regarded favourably in a country. One may buy into a local company, either by buying it completely or by buying a proportion of its shares. The whole of this is carried out within an overall company plan. I cannot agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has said, that large international companies do not seem to work on any plan at all. I think that is what he intended in his remarks, and I hope that I am not misrepresenting him. I should also like to put on record that I do not agree with the quotation he gave from the Financial Times, although I have not read the article in question.
So an international company is born and develops. It evolves and produces many complications of management. They are involved in the economies of many countries, in the development of multiracial staff and outlooks among those staff. They are often involved in the manufacture of the same product in many countries with different costs of production and profit margins. What are the lessons of this picture? First of all, as I have already mentioned, there will be a continuing increase in the size of companies; secondly, there will be an increase in the number of international companies; and thirdly, countries cannot escape from the effects of their political and economic behaviour. I believe that there have been cases—although I have not had direct contact with them—where companies have pulled out of countries owing to the political and economic situation in those countries. This has happened with companies in India and South America. Even if companies do not pull out it is clearly going to have a considerable effect on the country if the country is not politically and economically stable.
Another lesson lies in the development of multi-racial staffs. There is an increasing realisation of international character and involvement in the economies of many countries. Some countries
634
are very much better in this than others. It is most important to develop this atmosphere of international staffs where members of the staff can be moved from one country to another to operate in that country. There is the increasing complexity of management which involves knowledge of political affairs as well as economic and commercial affairs. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, when he said that people in industry want to keep out of politics. Nevertheless. they have to understand the political situation in the countries in which they are operating, and the complexity of management involves responsibility not to one country, merely the country of birth of the company, but to many countries. This is one of the reasons for some people feeling that these international companies do not owe responsibility to anybody. It is because they owe responsibility to so many countries that it is difficult for any one country to regard them as responsible to them.
I believe, too, that the operations of these international companies have been a great advantage in the assistance given to developing countries to create wealth in these countries. I know that there has been a certain amount of criticism that what a developing company has to pay out in the way of interest and dividends on money invested in that country they look on as a paying out of their resources. That is a very narrow view to take. I believe there is great advantage, indirect as well as direct, in the development of wealth in these countries. If a large, responsible company from Britain, Switzerland, America, or wherever it is, invests in a developing country, it accepts a responsibility for that development and for the staff involved in it. What it does in education and the injection of new technologies is of great value to the country concerned.
What needs to be done? The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised this question of what needed to be done, if anything. First, one should not do anything which will seriously affect the flow of international trade, which I believe is beneficial to the world as a whole. Secondly, the majority of these companies are well managed by people who feel their responsibilities not only to their shareholders but to their work people,

635
the customers, and to the countries in which they operate. Thirdly, the noble Marquess outlined the various regulations with which a foreign international company operating in this country had to comply. There are similar regulations in every country in which one operates. The days of individual national companies getting together to act in restriction of trade are over.
I have recently been reading a book on the development of the companies which came together to form Imperial Chemical Industries in the years up to its formation in 1926. The factor which struck one was how, in the late years of the 19th century and the early years of this century, when any company started exporting, its first idea was to get together with other companies so that there should not be undue restriction of profit. I do not believe that that happens to-day. I should like to conclude, my Lords, by saying that over many years of working in this particular field in an international company, when I have had to deal with subjects at many different levels, I have never found I was asked to do something which I felt it was against my conscience to do, and I believe that it is the same with the majority, or more than the majority—almost the total—of the people who are working for these companies.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I wonder whether I might ask him a question as he speaks on these matters with great knowledge and authority and has expressed such a co-operative attitude. He referred a little earlier on to the need to co-operate with the Governments of the various nations within which a multi-national company trades or with which it is concerned. But he then touched on a most interesting point when he said that it would be difficult to satisfy every nation because a multi-national company has responsibilities which go wider than a single nation's borders. The question I want to ask the noble Earl, purely for information, is this. Did he, or did any of his colleagues, ever feel the need of a multi-national organisation to whom problems could be put, which could explain attitudes, and from whom could be derived necessary understanding and co-operation?
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I am not aware of having been faced with any such problems or feeling that any such entity was necessary. I personally find it difficult to envisage such a body being set up. It would be a great mistake to use the European Economic Community, assuming we go into it, as a basis of such an organisation, as I think was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I say that because the E.E.C. is, and will be, regarded with suspicion by a large number of countries in the world. I feel that at the moment there is no need for any such supranational body. I do not see how it would operate because it would have to fit in with the regulations, commercial laws and industrial laws of every country in the world. It seems to me quite impracticable for any such body to operate. But I would emphasise again the point that, while there are so many regulations that must be complied with in every country in the world, whereas some of these regulations contradict each other or conflict with each other, in general if an international company is going to operate on the lines which are laid down in all these countries it cannot go far wrong.
5.24 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, we are having an interesting debate and should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Kennet for initiating it. Before I start the particular contribution I should like to make, I would comment on the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Balogh. When I was in the Government and at the Board of Trade matters of international companies arose from time to time, and generally they were issues on which one could obtain the necessary information; but if questions concerning oil companies arose these always produced on the faces of officials and others a wry smile, a blank countenance and the protestation that this was an extremely difficult subject. I personally know little of the ramifications of international oil companies, and most of the people I have asked about them confess equal ignorance. But my noble friend has made an important contribution to the debate, and I indeed hope that what he has said will be taken seriously and thought about by Government.
There is not much doubt that most of us in this House believe that on balance

637
international companies are good things. I take that view. They spread technology; they even-out levels of employment throughout the world, and they even-out differential levels of investment. They are vital to help the developing countries. I am no backwoodsman on this issue, but, if that is agreed, I think that one of the purposes of this debate is to see whether there are any considerations which require the attention of Government in connection with these international companies. It may be wise to take a constant and critical look at these operations, if only for the simple reason that if a few of them were to go wrong—and we have an example of an enormous financial institution in Europe having gone wrong quite recently—the effect of a few wrong-doers could perhaps throw unwarranted suspicion on those who conduct themselves as they should do. So it is worth looking at these cases.
The first point I have in my notes has not been mentioned so far in this debate. One notes the development of what I can only refer to as somewhat Chauvinistic attitudes in some countries about the operations of multi-national companies. We are all familiar with the attitude of the Japanese Government to foreign investment in Japan. There are now signs that the Japanese Government are ameliorating the inhibitions on foreign investment and their determination to let no Japanese companies be controlled by foreign capital. I hope that that goes further. But the matter does not stop there. When I was at the Board of Trade there was a constant flow of criticism from British companies about the treatment that some of them were receiving from foreign Governments. Discounting a known and rather strong tendency to exaggerate these matters, and admitting that most of these practices are covert rather than explicit, or that legislation in those foreign countries renders direct evidence difficult to obtain, nevertheless I was left with the impression that in France, Japan and the United States of America it was particularly difficult for a foreign-owned subsidiary to obtain the same treatment as those countries gave to their own national companies or to companies which were controlled by shareholders within their own boundaries, and that therefore pressure was being covertly applied to British multi-national companies to sacrifice the control of sub-
638
sidiaries to shareholders in those foreign countries in order that they could obtain the full benefit which those countries offered to their own national companies.
The main form of discrimination lies in the refusal to allow such foreign-controlled subsidiaries to enjoy Government contracts. This appeared to be a pattern that existed in France and in the United States of America (leaving aside the effects of the various States' legislation) and even a country like Australia now seems to be moving gradually towards the requirement that foreign companies in Australia should have at least a 50 or 51 per cent. holding in that country. For many centuries our own country has attempted to promote the freest possible international trade, and we know very well that to a considerable extent we have been driven off course because it is no good being practitioners of free trade in a world which is not with you in that respect.
I believe that the international subsidiaries of multi-national companies should consistently receive in the countries where they operate the same treatment as what one might call the indigenous companies—and, indeed, they do almost to 100 per cent. in this country —and I am concerned that we should not reach a situation in which we are driven off that liberal course by the practice of others. And I believe there is a danger that this may well happen. If we maintain an attitude to investment in this country which treats every one of those foreign direct investments in the same way that we treat a British company, while other countries develop their rather more restrictive attitude towards investments of British multi-national companies in their countries, we could reach a stage where all foreign investments in this country were controlled outside this country, and all overseas investments by British multi-national companies might be under the control of shareholders in the companies where they were operating. This would scarcely be a desirable situation to reach.
I do not want to be alarmist about this. I say that there are tendencies growing in this direction, and I think it would be a good thing if these tendencies were brought out into the open. I am aware, of course, that these practices could rank

639
within the term "non-tariff barriers" to trade. I think they do. There is a committee of GATT sitting to examine non-tariff barriers, and I would hope that if the practices to which I have referred are not fairly well up on their agenda, we could perhaps nudge that GATT committee to see that these matters are considered at as early a stage as possible.
Turning to another issue, in the draft document sent by the Common Market Commission to the Member States on the subject of multi-national companies, one pregnant sentence referred to the proposal that taxation of multi-national companies should be levied in that country where management control resided, I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read that. If it means that all taxation on multi-national companies should accrue to the place where management resides, this would indeed have a bearing on the previous points that I have made.
On another aspect, I have been interested in company legislation for a very long time, and one of the features of our Companies Acts in this country is that we treat the company in the Act as though it were the same animal as a subsidiary company; that is to say, that if we have a group of companies in this country the provisions applying to the filing of information about themselves, the balance sheet and accounts and all the rest of it, apply equally to each of their subsidiaries, who have to make returns. It is important that the difference between a company and a subsidiary company—which is one in which the major company owns either the whole of the share capital or not less than 51 per cent. of the share capital—is recognised, because the board of a subsidiary company is not collectively responsible for that subsidiary. The individual who runs that subsidiary is responsible to the main board of the group, and his instructions come from there. I know of no company where the chief executive of a subsidiary could inform the main group that although he had done something of which they would not approve, nevertheless he had been forced to do so because there was a majority vote of the board of the subsidiary company against him. This explains the difference between the two. Boards of subsidiary companies are not important bodies.
640
I have gone into this apparent adversion merely to point out that if one sees investment in this country established in the form of subsidiary companies, I think we ought to be aware of the illusion that those countries are under the direction of those subsidiary boards of directors; and we are apt to adopt this illusion because of our own lack of discrimination in the Companies Act between boards proper and subsidiary boards. I hope some thought may be given to this matter in the sense of the Companies Act, but also in its reference to multi-national companies and their subsidiary companies in this country.
I shall not make any other points because others have dealt with many of those about which I had intended to speak. I should like to end by saying that I recognise that multi-national companies are important; they are growing, they bring great benefits to world trade, and I think they are inevitable. But I think it would be folly to assume, as has been hinted at by one or two speakers, that because, on the whole, they are beneficial we had better leave them strictly alone and allow them:o develop as they will. Most of the boards of these international companies are no doubt comprised of men of goodwill, who know their national and international responsibilities; but we know also that where there is no law there is opportunity for those who would take advantage of the absence of law. I believe that the growth of law is a necessary corollary to the growth of multi-national companies, and I think it is not too late for our Government to begin taking a very serious look at this whole field.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for introducing this Motion today and in particular for the objective and constructive approach that he has adopted. However, I regret that I cannot altogether share his views, or the views of many noble Lords opposite. If I may, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, for an excellent maiden speech. I know that he speaks with great authority and also from experience on a worldwide basis, because when I was involved in a study on behalf of the Government of India I had the privilege of hearing

641
about the considerable benefits which his company had conferred on that country.
I have worked with international companies for a number of years, and I should point out that I feel that in general they are responsible people. We seem to have two sets of views in your Lordships' House to-day: those put forward by people who have worked from inside and those who have looked at the situation from the outside. I hope that in the few moments before me I, too, can be totally objective, and that I may in some small way allay certain fears and identify certain benefits and also, perhaps, indicate some areas where action by Her Majesty's Government could be beneficial.
We have all accepted that the trend towards larger units in all sectors of trade and industry will continue. Attention is continually being drawn to it, but I think it is important that we should get some idea of the sort of scale, and if I may I should like to give a few examples. There are people who claim that 300 firms will account for 50 per cent. of world production by 1985; others who say that 200 will account for 80 per cent. by the year 2000. Whichever way one looks at it, one has a trend which is going to continue, a trend which no legislation will he able to prevent. I do not think we should have Government intervention to halt this trend, but I hope that the decades of the juggernauts, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, called them, may be more beneficial than they are harmful.
Before looking at the benefits, I believe we should have some idea of the economic power of these large units we are talking about. It is difficult to draw comparisons, but if one equates companies with countries and uses as a guide to economic strength sales, on the one hand, and gross national product on the other, then one finds that already of the largest 100 economic units in the world more than 50 are companies. The growth of these companies is outstripping the growth of many countries. One finds, for example, that General Motors turnover is more than the G.N.P. of Belgium or South Africa or Switzerland; that of Shell more than Norway, Venezuela and Finland; of Unilever more than Chile, Portugal and New Zealand, and so on. Turnover and gross national product is
642
one comparison; employees and population another. The major international companies each employ hundreds of thousands of people of different nationalities, colours and creeds; their working populations are equivalent to the populations of very many major towns. Equally important, they have thousands of shareholders, ranging from those with a few lire, pounds or pesos to invest, to the larger institutions who have substantial stakes. They are in short, and will continue to be, an integral part of the economy of the world.
But what are these international, multinational, supra-national, trans-national or whatever you like to call them, companies? Who are they? If you look at the lists produced by various people, you find that of the top 200 companies, if you look at them by sales, over 125 are American, 16 British, 13 German, I think 13 French, 13 Japanese, and the rest spread around. But are they really American or British. Do you classify them by their country of origin, by the majority shareholders by their board or by their employees? I personally believe that after a certain size they lose the nationality of origin, and this in many cases, I know, is what they are seeking to achieve. This can introduce certain fears raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that we will have faceless ones in the centre controlling the economies of the world. But I personally doubt this. We have to look a little further and deeper, and I think what we have to consider is that the people who work in, who run and who invest in these large multi-national companies are people with different senses of responsibility; in general they are looking for the same thing; they are not a faceless machine. The management is human, the senior employees are human, the workers are human. They have their similarities and differences made up of different characteristics or different countries of birth, but in general they enjoy a reasonable way of life and certain benefits.
We have a pattern which is developing in these coming decades. We saw the initial growth, export led, the acquisitions, particularly in the 'sixties, and the dramatic growth of the American combines. They, with their strong home market and adequate finance, managed

643
to set up and acquire operations in major world markets and established dominance much quicker than many people realised. This was often because big companies like W. R. Grace were not trading on a world basis using their own name; they were buying national operations because the introduction of their name, the introduction of even the word "American" caused fears, lost markets and upset local people. But these American companies continued even when restrictions on overseas investment took place. They were often at the front of the Eurodollar loan queue even though they were managing to buy European companies out of their own profits.
We have seen some new changes recently and these I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to. We have seen the dramatic and dynamic growth among European companies and, equally significant, the companies of Japan. These Japanese companies, with carefully planned precision, have over the last few years dramatically increased their overseas markets their growth has been mainly export led and still is. This has been due to a great extent to overseas investment restrictions. I feel that it will not be long before we see major joint ventures set up between Japanese companies and local ones. One must admire the Japanese growth, and in particular the way they have concentrated on those industry sectors where they are best and on those markets where they have greatest opportunity and least competition from local products. But although I welcome them as a third force, alongside the American and European giants, I think their contribution can only be fully beneficial to world trade and to national economies if they would enter more into the spirit of multi-nationalism. They should be encouraged to relax their foreign investment and import restrictions and set up local operations, particularly in the developing countries which would provide employment opportunity and social and economic benefits to the local populations. I took some alarm in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that they were going abroad to avoid being "had up" for antipollution laws. I should like to make the point that in general the large international companies are very responsible
644
in the pollution field, because they realise. sensibly, that if they are not this could have some serious effect upon their future.
I believe that in the European field, irrespective of whether we go into the Common Market or not, multi-national companies in general can transcend any tariff barriers or things like that. I believe that we shall see a growth in Pan-European mergers over the next few years, major things that many of us are not contemplating. I hope that they will be true mergers rather than the acquisitions that have taken place before, and that we shall see a proper pooling of talent and resources. In Europe we have more problems than in other areas of the world. But despite this I think we are already developing the larger units with which to combat American combines and Japanese combines, and I think the trans-national mergers which have already started will continue. There are various people around who have pipe dreams that one day we shall see British-Leyland, Fiat and Volkswagen all together—and I took some comfort from my noble friend on the fact that legislation and monopolies commissions and other things like that will have some bearing.
But I think we have also to consider that the other area, the East European area, where, although they are looking to the West for contributions to technology, are themselves producing large units which will begin to expand and develop in other parts of the world. The multinational companies in general are full of responsible people; they are responsible businesses run by responsible competent businessmen. They are people who are aware of their economic power and of the good and of the harm they can do. Provided they continue to remain sensible businessmen and do not become politicians or dabble in politics, and provided they are not subject to major Government interference, I can see no reason at all why their continued existence should cause any alarm. They do not, as my noble friend Lord Thomas has said, dabble in politics. This is common sense, because if they do they can get into trouble in countries when Parties change power; they may be friends with one side and opposed later by the other.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot forbear to ask the noble Lord if I may

645
interrupt him for a moment. The argument he has just advanced to prove that international companies do not dabble in politics applies with equal force to national companies, who may also find themselves in trouble with a new Government. But I believe it has been known for nationally-based companies to make contributions to Party funds.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I appreciate the comment, but that was not exactly what I meant by dabbling in politics; because they also make contributions, through taxes and other things, to Government, although not to Parties. I think the noble Lord would find, if he were to ask any of these large multinational corporations, that this is one thing that causes them considerable concern. I think there was a case with the Shell Oil Company in some Far Eastern part of the world. You see, they are forever under attack by some local Government. If they are designated British or American and there happens to be an anti-American or anti-British feeling, what can the poor local person do if he wants to take action? He breaks their windows, or damages their property. That is one reason why these organisations are trying to keep out of the political field. I would make the point that their contributions come first as employers. They are responsible employers, giving excellent conditions of employment. They provide good wages and security, and offer excellent training (a point that has already been made) incentives, generous welfare benefits and pensions.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I cannot forbear asking who the noble Lord is talking about? Is he talking about all international companies, or some international companies, and if the latter, which?
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I was talking about responsible international companies, such as B.P., Unilever, Shell, Akzo, Bayer. There are many British and American ones which do behave responsibly around the world. It is difficult to make my point to the noble Lord, but I was employed by one. I felt that I was extremely well treated, and I had quite a hit to do with this subject. I spent some time studying what benefits people were seeking from them. They are businessmen, and they are in business to make profits. Their size and resources
646
allow them to take a long-term view. This can be beneficial to an economy because they can afford to ride with the bad situation. Their planning can carry them through for 10, 20 or 30 years or more. However, if the conditions in the country from which they operate and with whom they do business become intolerable, and intolerable over a long period of time, then they may be forced to cut their losses and withdraw investment from their operations.
I think, in short, that their existence does good and not harm. Certainly they can cause harm. Certainly one has to face the fact that, as businessmen, their leaders look closely at the fiscal advantages and disadvantages of every country where they operate. Here one could argue that perhaps they are right or perhaps they are wrong, because often they put their responsibility to their shareholders before their responsibility to a country. But they are seeking, in general, to be in business for a long time, and they jealously seek and guard good reputations. I think they realise in general that a bad reputation, an irresponsible action, can kill confidence in them, ruin their markets and place them in an embarrassing and difficult situation,
Finally, on the question of what Governments should do, I would say that I do not believe that Governments should legislate against them. I believe that Governments should get together for harmonisation of tax legislation, harmonisation of laws, and not necessarily for the introduction of new ones. In many cases international companies would welcome this. In general, they do not like the complications of Anstalts in Liechtenstein, or companies in Zug and companies in Delaware. Not long ago I had to try to work out who was employing me, and I found I was employed from Delaware. That was in my last job, and I have no interest to declare at the present time. All these problems cause concern and waste time, and what we are all seeking is a climate in which the multi-national company can make the best contribution to the developed and the developing countries of the world. I believe that, as has been pointed out, this is a question for free and open discussion and debate, and for people to put to Government ideas and suggestions a: to how they may all help each other on an international scale.
5.54 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, my reason for taking part in this debate is that some years ago, as chairman of a committee of inquiry into the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and the National Health Service, I had the opportunity of examining the operation of several foreign-controlled international pharmaceutical companies. As some of your Lordships may know, the pharmaceutical industry is one in which the role of such companies is of very great importance. Thus, as shown in our Committee's Report in 1965, some 60 per cent. of all prescription medicines produced in the United Kingdom was accounted for by such foreign-owned companies. I am conscious that in some circles the Report and the recommendations resulting from the Committee's inquiries were misinterpreted as an attack on such companies, so. perhaps I had better declare t the outset that I am no economic chauvinist, and that I am not opposed to foreign or multi-national companies as such. On the contrary, I fully recognise the contribution that multinational enterprise has made to world economic development, and believe that the problems associated with it are genergenerally outweighed by its advantages.
We have heard during the course of this afternoon's interesting and valuable debate many of the advantages of the multi-national company. At this hour, I will not weary your Lordships by going through all those advantages again. Even if the benefits of the multi-national enterprise could be shown to be less important, Britain would be in a weak position to complain. As the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said during an early stage of the debate, foreign investment is a two-way traffic, and Britain is one of the world's largest foreign investors. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in his valuable maiden speech, quoted Professor Dunning, a well-known and acknowledged expert on this subject. He said that some 30 per cent. of the profits of British-owned enterprises are derived from foreign operations. He did not, however, quote what Professor Dunning also said, that multi-national companies controlled from abroad may soon account for a quarter of our manufacturing output.
648
However, it is just as well to recognise that there is often a conflict between the interests of the multi-national company and those of the host country. That is not in the least surprising, for the main object of such enterprises is to maximise profits for their shareholders, most of whom are domiciled outside the host country. Furthermore, because of the international nature of such firms, they are often able to minimise the effect of some financial and other regulations which domestic companies have to observe. A multi-national company can, for example, run down its liquid resources in a country with a weak currency, and build them up in one where an upward change in parity is likely. I recall the then chairman of a world famous company, with interests throughout Western Europe, telling me that this was the policy that his company was pursuing before the French and German parity changes in 1969.
Clearly, this cannot be called speculation. It is prompted by the obligation to protect the shareholders' interests. But when many companies do the same thing, the effect is to aggravate existing pressures on exchange rates. Similarly, I ask your Lordships to take the question of transfer prices, or, in other words, the prices at which different companies of the same international organisation acquire goods and services from each other. By inflating the prices paid to companies situated in a country where company taxation is lower, a multinational enterprise can reduce its tax burden in higher taxed countries. Although the United Kingdom authorities have powers to investigate such transfer prices, I do not believe that all the loopholes have been closed.
Certainly, our committee found the question of some importance during our investigations of the pharmaceutical industry. The available data did not allow us to draw any detailed conclusions, but members of the committee regarded it as significant that the cost of raw materials accounted for a much greater share of total production costs in foreign controlled firms than in their British counterparts. We found a similar difficulty in the case of research and other expenditures. As your Lordships know, pharmaceutical manufacture is a science-based, highly research intensive industry. Foreign

649
pharmaceutical companies do much of their research abroad, and we were not able to satisfy ourselves that the share of the research costs allocated to the British subsidiary was always a realistic one.
Another important question posed by multi-national companies, which has been referred to frequently this afternoon, is the effect on the host country's exports and balance of payments. Although this problem has been examined in considerable detail by economists, there remains some uncertainty whether the net effect is favourable or unfavourable. While I do not claim that the situation in the pharmaceutical industry is a valid guide to all foreign controlled international companies in this country, your Lordships may find some of the facts put before our committee of interest. Broadly speaking, these showed that foreign-owned pharmaceutical companies had a neutral effect on this country's external payments balance, although it should be pointed out that our figures did not take account of their original investment. Thus, while some foreign companies were important exporters, many others were not and their overall contribution to our overseas sales was very much less important than the contributions of domestically owned firms.
At the same time, foreign companies tended to import a much greater proportion of their raw materials and intermediates than their British counterparts. For example, in 1965 British pharmaceutical firms imported 22 per cent. of their material purchases. The appropriate figure varied from 39 per cent., in the case of U.S.A. subsidiaries, to 74 per cent. in the case of Swiss-owned enterprises. However, before I am rebuked for over-simplification, let me say that I am conscious that a true measure of the effect of foreign-owned companies on our balance of payments should also take account of what would have happened if they had not been established in the first instance. Unfortunately, this is a notoriously difficult subject, involving a large number of different assumptions which cannot be explored within the limits of a short speech. In my view, most foreign controlled companies are aware of their responsibilities to their host country. For example, many of
650
them, to my knowledge, go to great lengths to train and employ a large number of local nationals in executive and management positions. But in the final analysis the vital policy decisions arc generally taken by the foreign parent, and not all of those decisions are necessarily in harmony with the policy of the host country's Government. It is for that reason that Governments must concern themselves with the growing activities of multi-national companies, and be constantly on their guard to ensure that national interests are not compromised.
6.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I was much amused when, in the middle of his interesting speech, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to the lateness of the hour, to observe my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who has become accustomed to very late hours, looking with surprise at his watch to see whether it was yet after midnight. I am about to do something which I do not at all like doing, and that is to venture to speak in a debate in which I have not had the advantage of listening to the opening speeches. In congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, on raising this subject, which seems to me entirely appropriate to the kind of discussion that we so often have with advantage in this House. I should like to apologise to him very much and to my noble friend Lord Lothian for not having heard their speeches. I would also say to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, how sorry I am to have missed his maiden speech. I was extremely interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Selsdon, speaking from first-hand experience, and I agreed with much of what he said.
I am always interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brown, and I agreed with what he said about subsidiary companies. Now that my own responsibilities in business have withered away to a point where I am only chairman of a subsidiary company, I know very well what would happen were I to take a line which differed violently from that of the chairman and board of my group. My responsibilities would wither away still further. So I am only going to venture to make two or three observations from impressions, which I cannot support to-day with

651
any statistics but which stem from experience that I had many years ago when I had some responsibility for the behaviour of our national economy and the only first-hand experience I have had of an international company when I was on the board for a number of years of a company with very extensive overseas investments. In that connection I should like to say that my experience is far less than that of my noble friend Lord Courtown, in whose speech I was extremely interested. He told us that he no longer had an interest to declare. I, too, no longer have an interest to declare, in my case owing to the on-come of senility, whereas in his case it was the on-come of his pension. I should like to assure him, from such knowledge as I have of that company, that his well-earned pension is secure.
My Lords, I have no hesitation at all in saying, as most other noble Lords have said, I think, that in general British investment overseas and foreign investment here, subject to certain safeguards, have been and are of benefit to our national economy, and should be encouraged. This seems the general view of most Governments, who in fact encourage such two-way investment, with perhaps the exception that was mentioned by Lord Brown, and I think also by Lord Selsdon, of the Japanese, who I think might well go further than they do in themselves adopting an attitude which can be reconciled with the attitude they expect other countries to adopt to them. I believe that this matter can best be appraised without attempting too narrow an arithmetical balance of the direct effects, for instance, on our balance of payments, but should be appraised over a fairly long period and in a general way. In the short term, inward investment tends of course to strengthen the balance of payments: in the longer term, not necessarily so. New outward investment in the short term is disadvantageous to the balance of payments but in the longer term it is probably beneficial and, if the investments are prudent. can be very beneficial indeed. But if we conclude that on balance the effects are helpful, then I believe we should take a very broad view. If we want foreign countries to give a welcome to our investment in their countries, then we should not repel them when they wish
652
to invest here. Our attitude must not be a favourable one in one direction and a hostile one in the other. But, of course, there are many other factors beyond the direct effect on the balance of payments, as my noble friend Lord Courtown pointed out.
As regards the benefits of British direct investment overseas, one, of course, often is to keep contact with markets in which direct exports have, for one reason or another, become impossible—possibly because of tariff barriers. Secondly, it often brings with it opportunities for additional exports. The most obvious one, I suppose, is for plant and equipment, but there are many others. Then, as I think one of my noble friends touched on, the expanding scale of activities that results is sometimes very helpful from the point of view of technical developments at home here, such as research and the higher efficiency which often results from being able to make comparisons of one's productivity cost in one's country with that in other countries. I believe those are helpful. As regards foreign investment here, it sometimes brings valuable technical know-how, and it often brings additional employment in areas where it is much needed. Of course, it sometimes needs watching. On occasions there are damaging features that come with it, and matters like market allocations, I think, need an eye kept on them. So some controls and safeguards are certainly appropriate.
The rate at which we can afford to make new direct investment overseas must clearly be related to the strength of our balance of payments at the moment, and I am sure it is right that Governments should keep an eye on this and should give preference to projects which give a reasonably quick return. As regards foreign investments in the United Kingdom, clearly they should be subject to the normal exchange controls and as an old Treasury man I should wholly approve of an eye being, kept on the incidence of taxation to see that they bear a fair share. But we should do all this treating them, so far as possible, as we should our own companies. and avoiding, if we can, imposing tiresome and frustrating minor restrictions that are so often misunderstood and defeat the effectiveness of the whole project. But what I think is important—and this applies to outward and inward investment—is that those

653
administering the project should pay proper consideration to local practices, attitudes and customs, particularly in the field of industrial relations. I think that, in general, self-interest does result in responsible behaviour; and my own limited experience, too, is that the people running the big businesses I have come across really try to carry out their responsibilities with a due sense of responsibility, if I may say so. In this connection—that is, having regard to local practices and attitudes—I rather like a code of principles and practices which has been issued by the Canadian Government as a guide for investors in a foreign country.
In conclusion, my Lords, one feels that one of the dangers of the modern world is still excessive and restrictive nationalism. There is no future for the welfare of mankind in such attitudes, and if we believe that freedom of movement and association and understanding between peoples is what we ought to be aiming at, then I think we should welcome trade connections of every kind that can be devised, because I think they help to break down national barriers. I am inclined personally to think that the power of international companies is often exaggerated. They do have strong and probably growing influence, but I believe that national Governments still have the essential controls necessary, and the whip hand.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked my noble friend Lord Courtown what I felt was a very thoughtful question: whether he felt from his experience that some central clearing house or organisation would be helpful to companies investing abroad. That seemed to me a very relevant question, and I came to the same conclusion as my noble friend: that the right thing is for companies investing from Britain overseas to keep in just as close touch with Government Departments in the countries to which they go as they would in their own country—in fact, more so. For the reason my noble friend Lord Courtown gave—that the practices vary so enormously from one country to another—my own feeling is that there would not be advantages to be obtained at present from new mechanisms. I think, with great respect, that I should probably give the same kind of answer to the point made on the same
654
subject by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I did not have the advantage of hearing it, but I shall read it in Hansard tomorrow.
So I hope we shall conclude that international companies are in general responsible, and that their developments are in line with our growingly interdependent world society. I hope we shall conclude, too, that in a matter like this vigilance is justified, and in particular a watch on monopolistic features, diminution of competition and so on. I hope, however, that we shall look at these developments not with fear and suspicion but with good will and encouragement.
6.19 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am pleased to have the opportunity to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, who speaks with considerable experience, having had a distinguished career both in business and in Government. Like him, I welcome this debate. It is right to take note of new developments, such as the increasingly important role which multinational companies are playing and will play in the future. I welcome very much the remarks made by Lord Selsdon. I think that we are going to see an extension of the multi-national companies into a great deal of production in the future. Nobody quite knows to what extent. This is a matter that we must keep continuously under review.
But the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and his general conclusion is a long way from the realities of the situation as I know them from my own experience. I think that one of the reasons is that Lord Kennet's Governmental experience has been largely of the activities of international companies working in this country, whereas my experience as an executive director of the R.T.Z.. to which he referred and to which I will return later, has been of a United Kingdom multi-national company operating in many different parts of the world and having negotiations and discussions with many Governments, particularly in the newly-developing areas. In case it has been taken up by the Press. may I make some reference to the remarks which the noble Lord. Lord Kennet, made? I am not quite sure what he intended when he said that R.T.Z. pays only 2 per cent. of

655
its total tax bill in the United Kingdom. I hope that he 'was not implying that the company was guilty of any manipulation of its operations in order to avoid United Kingdom tax; because the truth of the matter is that the company pays tens of millions of pounds in tax, but unfortunately the tax is paid where the profits are made, and that is overseas. In the United Kingdom we have relatively few operations and until recently they have been mostly zinc smelting which has been going through a bad phase throughout the world. The small scale of our operations, coupled with its unprofitability, has meant that the amount of tax paid in the United Kingdom is very small in comparison with the total tax bill. As soon as the United Kingdom operations increase, as they will, and become more profitable, the United Kingdom will receive the proper tax.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as the noble Lord would like me to interrupt, let me hasten to say that what I said carried no connotation of an accusation of manipulation in any sense. But it would be interesting if the noble Lord could confirm that 2 per cent. is about right.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, it differs from year to year. It is between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. It is about £800,000 out of the tens of millions paid overseas. It is my fervent hope that we shall be able to pay more United Kingdom tax. Nobody likes to do that; but it is a reflection of the profitability of the scale of operations.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He will agree that the results he has mentioned are results that flow from the deliberate policies of all Governments in this country to avoid the ridiculous situation that would arise from double or treble taxation.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that intervention.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, just to round it off, it might be worthwhile asking whether the noble Lord would agree that it is not impossible for a multinational group of companies to affect the
656
question of which country it takes its profit in.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I do not want to get drawn on the technicalities of tax, but I am going to come to the question of a "tax holiday". I was going on to say that when the noble Lord wants to have regulation of different countries and to get a charter, he must remember that countries like Ireland are proud of the fact that they can give a 20-year "tax holiday". That is why we spent a lot of money exploring for minerals in Ireland. One must look at both sides of the coin. If you can go to an area where you get a "tax holiday" or better tax treatment it is not a bad thing to do in the interests of everybody.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, fell into a trap. He said that it was almost impossible to define multi-national companies, and then went on to generalise about them. I do not think that you can do that. It is wrong and misleading to think that international companies have a great deal in common. They vary tremendously in their organisation, in their practices and in their responsibilities. One thing that they have in common (and perhaps this is what the noble Lord referred to) is bigness. The bigger you are the more you come under suspicion; I suppose that is human nature. But they range across the spectrum from the highly centralised organisation where decisions are taken in Chicago or London and directives are issued on a global basis, to those which are highly decentralised and whose decisions apart from minimal coordination are largely taken in the different areas of co-operation. They are managed and owned by persons of local national origin and the decisions are very often identified with the interests of the countries concerned. The organisation will differ according to the objectives and the purposes of the companies. The problems of an international company manufacturing in a few countries and selling in all countries will obviously be different from those of a company making components in a number of countries, assembling in one or two others and selling in the relatively few sophisticated markets of the world.
There are tremendous variations on this theme of multi-national companies.

657
I think that the area most sensitive to the activities of multi-national companies is the one in which I have been engaged over the last 20 years, through R.T.Z., and that is the field of natural resources. This is very properly a highly emotive subject because multi-national companies come with their expertise and their finance and can have the appearance of being used to exploit the nations concerned. This is why it is vital that the multi-national company should identify itself with the interests of the host nation at the earliest possible point in time and to discuss and answer questions like, "How far are you going to process the minerals? To what extent are you going to develop? Are you going to stay for a long time? To what extent are you going to plough the profits back into the host country or to similar and allied businesses?" These are things which are vital for the multinational company to appreciate if it is in the natural resources field.
My noble friend Lord Tanlaw, in his admirable maiden speech, gave some of the requirements for behaviour of the multi-national corporations, and certainly those developing the natural resources of any nation. I think that, first, the corporation has to recognise that it has a responsibility to at least three entities: to the shareholders, to the employees and to the countries in which it operates. You can also mention the customer, but in the natural resources field this is remote. All three must be served. Unless they are so served, it is unlikely that the corporation will survive in the future. Secondly, the corporation must aim for a progressive degree of local autonomy in decision-making, subject only to co-ordination but not dictation from the centre. That is why I believe it is vital if a multi-national corporation is to behave responsibly that at the earliest possible moment it should take in some good local partners. Thirdly, the corporation should employ as high a proportion of nationals of the host country as possible, particularly in top management—and if not in top management to begin with, then they must be trained to take over. If you want first-class men, you must give them autonomy to develop and delegate authority to them.
658
Then, fourthly, it is equally important that the board of the overseas corporation has on it a majority of nationals of that country, and also that some of those nationals, indeed perhaps only one, should be represented on the parent board at the centre. In this way you get a two-way exchange. This is where I did not quite understand the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I took his point that it might be necessary in the future (I do not agree) for the Governments of host countries to have Government directors on the boards of the subsidiaries. I have no objection to that; but my experience has been that that is not what the local Government want. They would rather the company went into partnership with, say, the Industrial Development Corporation, and have a proper partnership at board level as well as at management level in that country. The idea of putting Government directors on to the parent board, which is what I understood him to say, could be also something. I think that he ought to think this one out again. Some companies operate in twenty countries, and although it is very interesting, I do not know what one would do with twenty extra directors, all of different nationalities, if they came to monthly board meetings. I think that this is too theoretical and could not be born out in practice.
I feel that this business of having local nationals on local boards, and also having on the parent board nationals—that is, private nationals—from countries overseas helps to ensure that the people and the Government of the country concerned feel that they are resolving their own problems within their own frontiers, which is indeed what they do. Where a company has directors from London on the local board those directors very soon begin to think in terms of Australia, or Canada, or the United States or Zambia or wherever they may be. They become identified with local interests and problems.
Fifthly, my Lords, the multi-national corporation of the future must have a highly developed sense of social responsibility, often far ahead of lesser international groups. This I think means, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw said, offering the local population the chance to participate financially in operations, once the major risks have been removed

659
Nothing could be worse than involving them at a very risky stage, and for local people to lose their money in a speculative operation. But as soon as the major risks have been removed I believe it essential to bring in the local public on a shareholding basis. I think, also, that in some cases it is probably more suitable to do this by offering shares to the local Government, local administration, local trusts—anything to identify the people of the area with the operations which are taking place. Those who oppose multinational private enterprise, or who want to put it in a straitjacket, should consider their attitude very carefully, because in the next three decades the raising of the standard of living of people in the developing world will come to depend more and more on the multi-national companies which can help them in a tremendous way. We are going to need very large-scale management and financial efforts involving amounts running into a billion or a billion-plus dollars. This is an area in which the multi-national company can offer something to the community. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. We need eternal vigilance in this as in so many other fields if we are to preserve liberty and the rights of nations and their sovereignty. But I do not believe that the conclusions arrived at by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, are practical.
Ultimately, as was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, every nation is sovereign, and knows it. They have the whip hand. They can expel you, they can confiscate your equipment, and in the long run there is no question that they have the whip hand. The claim that multi-national companies can drain manpower away from a country is, of course, theoretically true; I do not doubt that it happens in certain cases. But multi-national companies also can train nationals and bring them up to a much higher standard, and provide them with opportunities to widen their horizons by moving people from one part of the world to another. This is something which has to be set against the so-called draining of manpower. I believe that on balance everyone gains from this movement of people round the world because they become more cosmopolitan and more experienced. The noble Lord,
660
Lord Kennet, said that international companies keep what may be called the middle jobs in the better parts of the world and leave the worst jobs to the poorer parts of the world. I can only say that this cannot be true if you are thinking in terms of running a very large installation, whether it be a tyre-making factory or an opencast mine. That is an entity in itself, with managing directors, with people at every level; you must have them. The idea of stratification, and the segregation of people, with the poor going out to work in developing countries, the middle management being in some obscure part of Europe and the best jobs going to chaps in London would not work. Of that I can assure your Lordships.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I did not have the mining industry in mind when I made that comment. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord. But I suppose that not even he would say that a large part of the mining research which is done by his company is done in Nouméa, shall we say?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, that is not true; in fact the noble Lord has hit on a very good one. A great deal, in fact practically all, of mining research is carried out at mines. Where else could we do it?
LORD KENNET: In laboratories?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I really must give the noble Lord a few lessons about this. In mining research you have to get up to the scale of using trucks of from 35 tons to 150 tons. Try doing that in a laboratory! No, my Lords, these are big industries and they have tremendous opportunities for people to get promotion. Mining research goes on all over the world. It goes on at the mine, it goes on in the labs. and in assay places and so on. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is on a poor point. But the point I want to end on is that this idea—
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, may I say—I am trying to clarify my mind—that I thought my noble friend Lord Kennet was suggesting that a great deal of the high-level work was done (I do not mean the individual high-level work, but the nature of the work) in

661
the advanced countries, and that a great deal of the hewing of wood and drawing of water in mining was done in the developing countries?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I do not think that I could develop that; it is an argument in itself. It is a complete team job in which you are working in Nouméa, in South Australia, Broken Hill, and all these other places; and you cannot segregate any one part, bringing in Warren Springs and all the rest.
The point I really want to end on is the suggestion that there should be a standard charter. There is a lot to be said for having a code of practice which could be built up certainly well in advance of a charter, but how many countries in the world would want a charter which would restrict their flexibility to offer inducements to companies to come and operate? If you think in terms of a charter as a supra-regulatory system, you are depriving the countries of their sovereignty. I do not believe that Eire would be at all willing to come into a regulatory system which would stop her from offering a twenty-year tax holiday to get the mining companies exploring there. That has been a very successful policy; millions of dollars have gone to Eire because of it, and when we talk about sovereignty we must remember that the countries of the world prize this flexibility. It is not just a question of companies playing off one country against another. Countries are coming to companies and offering them inducements. The Deputy Premiers of the States of Australia are often in this country saying, "We can do better than the other chap. We can offer you free land." Or it may be that they offer cheap electricity for five years. When you get into the realms of a supra-regulatory system you are treading on very dangerous ground, and are liable to run up against the whole question of reducing the sovereignty of the country concerned.
I believe that there is something to be said for the developing countries trying to get a standard approach to multinational companies, because so often one talks to a Government and, because of the suspicion of the bigness of the operation, the Government do not offer
662
the inducements necessary to get a new industry started in their country. I think there is a great deal to be done along that line by a code of practice, but I do not believe a charter is the right answer.
6.39 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am always interested in the practices of your Lordships' House. The latest one I learned to-day. It is that if you wish to establish non-controversiality you have to offer birthday greetings to noble Lords. I would want to establish all-Party noncontroversiality, first by underlining and seconding the birthday greetings to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who sits on the Conservative Benches; secondly by offering birthday greetings to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, who sits on the Liberal Benches, and thirdly, by offering birthday greetings to my noble friend Lord Walston, who is absent now, but who sits on the Labour Benches. I hope that now we may now proceed in a thoroughly non-controversial way with what might otherwise be a slightly difficult matter.
I want, first, to thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for bringing forward an issue which is obviously of vast and quickly growing importance and one the figures in respect of which are so astonishing that it is not surprising that most of us have been unduly unaware of the size of the problem. It has been catching up on us so fast and the forecast figures are so great. But the very fact that six or seven noble Lords are able to address us out of their own knowledge, which is always reliable, is one of the most valuable ways a debate can be conducted.
It is my privilege to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, one of those who addressed us out of his own knowledge, on a most stimulating and well-informed maiden speech. I thought that he made a valuable point, indeed, when he referred to the help which international companies can give to both the exports of the parent country and to the development of the economy of the host country. And he touched a very sensitive nerve when he referred to industry in Scotland. I suppose, if I may follow up his thought, that there would not be a single one of those people who are at

663
present circling our premises, singing songs to keep themselves in good spirits and to demonstrate their pathetic situation—I refer to the delegation from Upper Clyde Shipbuilders—who would object to finance coming in to restore the security of their employment, if it came from a foreign source. That is one of the most relevant ways of looking at it.
It is an enormous problem, and many noble Lords have referred to statistics which I need not repeat. I would add only one, which impressed me greatly having regard to my previous experience in government—namely, that there are only four Governments in Western Europe which have budgets bigger than that of General Motors. That puts in perspective the size of the problem and of some of the, biggest multi-national companies. I think it is fortunate that my noble friend Lord Kennet raised the matter, because we are in a peculiarly happy position in discussing this question. Not only has it been truly said that 30 per cent. of the profit of British companies is derived from overseas operations but it is interesting to compare our attitudes in relation to American attitudes. The Americans are described as being the arch-propounders of the idea of the multinational corporation, but in fact if we compare the 50 top companies in the United Kingdom with the 50 top corn-panics in the United States of America we find that there are more companies in the United Kingdom with a higher involvement in multi-national trading than in the United States. Though, of course, the United States is much bigger and richer and with a much greater G.N.P. and therefore, as we should expect, the absolute figures are greater, nevertheless, in the pattern of thought and outlook it is we who are the leaders in this field and not the United States.
Many advantages of the multi-national companies have been listed and I have no need to go over them again, except that I am bound to mention one or two for the conclusion I am going to draw. One relates to economic growth. The investment of new capital, new production techniques, new management skills and new training of labour all these things are obvious. What perhaps has not been sufficiently stressed is the way in which the arrival of the foreign com-
664
petitor tends to reduce the efficiency gap as compared with the British competitor —that is to say, the British then proceeds to pull his socks up and the efficiency gap is reduced. Another advantage is in taxation. I am drawn to this because of what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said. May I follow up some interesting figures he gave? He said that a particular company (it matters not which, for one acts as good as another for my example) may find it is paying 2 per cent., which is £800,000, in British taxation and the rest abroad. If 2 per cent. is £800,000, the balance is a very substantial sum £40 million.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the noble Lord had better not use that figure, because it is not the right one.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am talking about a possible company which may find itself in that position, and the point I am reaching is that the contribution of taxation is so enormously important that it is best understood if regarded as a contribution to the social services of the country in question. Therefore, a British company which has the alternative (I do not say that it actually has, but in order to understand the argument we must consider that it has) of making the same return on its capital either by investing in this country or abroad and is going to pay taxes according to where the profits are derived, is going to contribute a very large sum to the social services either of the country abroad or of this country. Therefore, we should not dismiss too easily the advantage, for tax purposes, of a contribution to our social services of a company operating within its own frontiers as opposed to one operating outside frontiers, if it has the alternative.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord emphasise, "if it has an alternative"? It is finding the alternative in this country which is so difficult.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I have said it twice and would gladly say it a third time—" if it has the alternative ". I only want to put the matter fully in perspective, in case this has not been taken into account adequately already. The other advantages—employment, regional development, exports, imports. the balance of payments—are well-known and I need not

665
repeat them. But there are disadvantages to which I am bound to refer because of the conclusion I wish to draw, which is not wholly in line with what the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, said. The noble Lord spoke again with great authority and from his own experience, but I would distinguish what he said from what the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said. I think that the noble Lord said two things which did not tie up completely. First, he said that the international company sometimes had to have regard to the interests of its shareholders before the interests of the host country. I should have thought that that was a self-evident fact. Then he went on to say that therefore there is nothing to be done.
LORD SELSDON: My Lords, I think that what I said was that rightly or wrongly the multi-national company put the interests of its shareholders ahead of the interests of the country, but I should like to feel that the multi-national company realises that if it did not have regard to the interests of the country as well, it would not be looking after the long-term interests of its shareholders.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord has again stressed his dilemma. He would like the company, which is required under its statutes to have first regard to the interests of its shareholders, also to take the view that it would best serve its shareholders by serving the interests of the host country. That might or might not he so. I think it would be sensible to keep one's eye open just to be, as I think the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, "vigilant". I am bound to stress that there are disadvantages to he taken into account, though perhaps they are not nearly so large as might be thought. There are problems affecting central Government controls in the host country. Control is somewhat weakened in terms of economic spending and it is capable of being weakened in terms of exchange control and monetary control—all these because the multi-national company can jump national boundaries much more easily than the national company can. So those points must be taken into account.
There is the question of foreign remittances, which are of three kinds: dividends, patent or licence fees and transfer prices. In each case remittances can be
666
organised so as to be different from what they would otherwise have been. I do not think that that is an overstatement. Dividends are very often a matter of policy. Indeed, as the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said, we have a rule in this country requiring British investors abroad to return a given amount of their earned profits. It is very liberally interpreted by the banks, and can count for reinvestment abroad. We all understand that: but there is a rule and there would not be if there were no necessity for it. In this respect the present Government have taken over the rule carried out by the previous Government. The question of patent or licence fees can be troublesome, as can that of transfer prices, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, told us, referring to the evidence he found as chairman of the Committee on Pharmaceuticals; and the difference in prices of raw materials was pointed out.
In addition to those disadvantages, there is another which we have not talked of overmuch in this debate: that is the difficulty sometimes experienced of interpreting head office instructions in terms of labour relations, which are sometimes misunderstood. They have caused difficulties. Difficulties do arise in those three areas, and one has to be vigilant, or possibly a little more than vigilant.
What are the possible lines of action that suggest themselves to me? I should like to refer first to the basic economic justification, which has not so far been referred to. I should think the first requirement is to see that so far as possible a British firm—looking at it from the point of view of Britain as host country —should be fully competitive before an American or Swiss firm comes in to manufacture on an identically competitive basis. If that is not the case, then the economy of the world as a whole is not being bettered. There is no point whatsoever in a foreign company coming in to make goods at an excessive profit—excessive because the cost is so much reduced through the know-how of the foreign company, which know-how was available to the British company, so that the benefit could have remained completely within this country. Therefore, one must have a situation where, in terms of the foreigner coming in to compete by setting up his own organisation. the British firm must be able to compete; or if the

667
foreigner is coming in to buy out the British firm, then the British firm must be as competitive as possible because the price of its shares will then be that much higher and there is no point whatsoever in a British company selling its shares cheaply when it can sell them expensively.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am not really following the noble Lord. This is contrary to anything I have said. One of the reasons why companies come in is because they are more efficient; and this has the beneficial effect of making the British company more efficient still. This is how competition comes in, together with increased productivity. Have I misunderstood the noble Lord?
LORD DIAMOND: Not at all. I confirm what the noble Lord has said: one of the benefits is that the foreign firm coming in is more efficient. But is efficiency the only question? Is it more efficient because it has reached a normal pitch of efficiency, whereas the British firm for some reason or other is totally inefficient? If that is the case, of course the incoming firm is more efficient, but for no good reason.
LORD BYERS: But the noble Lord is suggesting that he will keep the efficient foreign firm out, in which case the British firm will go on being inefficient.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, let me spell it out more clearly. I am suggesting that the British firm should be fully efficient.
LORD BYERS: How do they get to be efficient?
LORD DIAMOND: As fully efficient as a British firm can be.
LORD BYERS: But not as efficient as the Americans.
LORD DIAMOND: If the American company can compete successfully with the British firm, fine: that must be because of some inherent advantage, such as economy of scale, which, being spread, is of value to the world as a whole. But if it is merely a case of the British firm obviously failing to achieve an attainable standard of efficiency, then you are attracting in someone from outside to do something which you can do as well or
668
better yourself. The only way is to use what methods are open to make the British firm as efficient as possible.
LORD BYERS: Such as bringing in foreign competition.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, the noble Lord is paying me a compliment when he refers to my argument that the introduction of an American firm has often tended to narrow the gap because it has brought in new management techniques and new technological systems which were not available in the United Kingdom, together with a lower spread of overheads and R. and D., which were not available to the British firms. All I am saying to the noble Lord—and he will surely accept this—is that these matters are not black and white. There are cases where it would be better for the British firm to establish itself on a fully efficient basis so that the competition can be seen. That is all I am saying. The noble Lord says it is not?
LORD BYERS: No. With respect, I said it does not, and that you have to bring in from time to time foreign competition to raise the standards, not just in this country but in others.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I repeat that this is very beneficial. I am only saying it has not hitherto been mentioned in the debate that one should endeavour to reach one's maximum standard of efficiency first, for the economic argument to be tested. I should have thought that would be in our own interests, whether in terms of competing with an incoming competitor or in terms of getting the best price for shares from an incoming take-over bidder.
Moving to the more frequent experience, what lines of thought occur to one where already there is a situation in which the foreign company is operating within ones' shores? I need not spend time on the labour aspect, because the trade unions are well aware of this and are active in forming a suitable countervailing authority which is available to them through the international trade unions. There are six or seven already well established, and if they can get the information from their member unions and agree a policy and put it to the multinational companies, then these companies

669
would be acting in knowledge instead of in ignorance; which would be much better.
But I do not think we can leave it at that; that is to say, I do not think it is proper for the Government of various countries to say: " Well, there are two Estates within the Realm opposing one another. We can leave them to fight it out, and justice will automatically ensure in that way." Governments have to see that the balance is fairly held. I think what is needed is some kind of code of good behaviour, which should if possible be agreed trilaterally—that is to say, as between employers' associations, employees' associations and the Government—prepared internally, and then, so far as possible, agreed upon by as many countries as are prepared to agree to it and whose pursuits are in common. I do not think it is very helpful that there should be companies that are able to play off one country against another. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, may take a different view on that. He is saying, " You are limiting individual sovereignty unless you allow each country to play off against every other country; unless you allow each Canton in Switzerland to play off against each other Canton." I do not share that view. I do not share the view that you are achieving maximum efficiency (and we are now talking in global terms, and therefore you are achieving maximum efficiency in global terms) by merely seeking the softest labour area, the softest tax area, or whichever other soft option is available.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord misrepresents me. I am not advocating one company playing one country off against another. But if he is saying that companies should not go and choose between four and five countries, then he is really, by a charter, limiting the right of those countries to offer their own inducements. I believe that they should be allowed to offer their own inducements. I do not think that anybody should dictate to the United Kingdom what inducements or lack of inducements she can offer to companies who want to come here. That is the other side of the coin.
LORD DIAMOND: These are matters for judgment. In my judgment it would not be in the best interests of global
670
efficiency and world trade, which is what both the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and I want to promote to the full, if companies can escape the real rigours of taxation by being given artificial havens of one kind or another, either of tax or whatever it may be.
LORD BYERS: Cheap electricity.
LORD DIAMOND: Or cheap electricity—another dodge which is frequently adopted and which has been tried out, not very successfully in one or two cases. There would be an uproar in GATT, for example, if cheaper electricity were declared to be one of the methods by which trade was being promoted there. There would be an uproar between, say, Norway and Great Britain in shipbuilding if cheaper steel were given as an inducement there or here.
So I am bound to say to the noble Lord that there must be rules. GATT is really a body of rules in order to have fair play between nations. I think it would be right that there should be a code of good behaviour, established in the way that I have indicated and supported by those nations who are to support it. I should have thought that the O.E.C.D. might serve this purpose, or the enlarged European Community. Certainly there should be something of that kind. I say this particularly because, in contradistinction to what the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, all other directors of international companies to whom I have spoken, particularly in the financial field, have always said to me: " Our difficulty has been that we have had nobody to talk to. We are carrying out a difficult task." They all take the same view as the three noble Lords who have spoken; namely, that their duty is to understand the needs of the host country, its practices and its economic viability; to work closely with the Government, and to consult them regularly. They are good employers. But they say that problems arise which go beyond the boundaries of a single country. They find that there is nobody to talk to, and they would prefer that there should be some such body. I see enormous difficulties in having some such body on a statutory or inter-governmental basis. I do not think it impossible to work towards a code of good behaviour which should be helpful

671
all round. I doubt if we can do it all in one bound, but I think one can take a little jump and go that far. That, I think, is really as far as I would want to go, and as far as I would want to add to the arguments in what has already been discussed.
I now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and the Government's attitude. We had an interesting speech from the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, at an early stage in the debate. In contradistinction to my noble friend Lord Kennet, who devoted most of his speech to the political and economic problems which have to be grasped, the noble Marquess said, broadly, that he would keep a lookout, or something like that. He gave the impression of an extremely complacent Government. And it is not only the noble Marquess who has given that impression, because the Sunday Times, in an article in April last, described the Government's attitude as "a policy of benign neglect". I share that view: I would add a little more emphasis to the neglect than to the benignity, but that is how they described it.
I do not think that the Government are sufficiently aware of the problems which might arise if we continue to do nothing about this. After all, there are large political issues involved. The British Empire was a pretty big political problem, and that arose out of this kind of activity in earlier centuries. I do not know what we shall see developing. We shall not see another British Empire; but we shall see a situation in which enormous economic power will rest in the hands of fewer and fewer people. I think this creates problems of which we must be aware, and my noble friend Lord Kennet was very wise in drawing it to our attention.
I repeat that I think it peculiarly suitable that the United Kingdom should set a lead in this matter, because we have interests both in incoming and outgoing investment. I hope therefore that the Government will turn their mind to something of the kind that I have indicated—to a code of good behaviour, at least, if not to a more formal organisation—and will not leave the matter in the situation in which it is at the moment.
672
I am bound to conclude by saying that I regard the extension of international companies and international trade as potentially of enormous benefit. I can see no better way of nation understanding nation, and I can see no better way of securing world peace.
7.9 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords we have had a wide-ranging and fascinating debate. About two minutes ago I was going to get up and say that I had never had the chance of standing at the Dispatch Box without having a single question to answer, because I do not think a single question has been put to me: in fact, there had not been any criticism of the Government until the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, ventured a few side swipes at the last moment. I should like to start by sincerely congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, on his maiden speech. At one time we came within measurable distance of being Parliamentary neighbours; but that was not to be. We are now, however, in one House together, and I am glad to see him here. He made a balanced and well-informed speech, based on his personal experience, in a delightful manner, and 1 should like to say that we look forward to hearing him often in this House.
There has been an underlying agreement to-day. I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, very much indeed for the opportunity of debating this matter. It is something I cannot remember having heard debated before. It is a matter which is being more and more studied on a very wide scale and is drawing more and more attention. I think it is time that we studied it. The noble Lord gave us a great deal of food for thought. We should like to take away what he and other noble Lords have said to-day and think about what has been said, rather than attempt an off-the-cuff answer to the many very interesting issues that have been raised. My noble friend Lord Lothian earlier gave a full account of the Government policies affecting multinational companies and I do not propose to go over that ground again in replying to the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, suggested four obvious steps that should be taken, and then he asked what form of organisation should there be,

673
whether it should be global or regional, or what grouping would be involved.
I should like to say a little about the future of industrial investment in Europe, which has some relevance to the matters mentioned to-day, particularly as the noble Lord came to the conclusion that the right grouping so far as we are concerned was a European one. I do not think he carried the rest of the world any farther than that, and I certainly should not blame him for that. For the great majority of international companies the ultimate ownership and control rests in one country. It is in Europe that one finds several examples of companies which are owned and controlled on a multi-national rather than a national basis: the long established Unilever and Royal Dutch/Shell companies have in recent years been joined by Agfa-Gevaert and Dunlop/Pirelli. For a number of years British industry has been expanding in Europe, and it is to be expected that the two-way flow of industrial investment will increase when we join the E.E.C.
In many industrial sectors there are very powerful reasons for companies to grow larger. The need to support increasingly large and complex research and development programmes in such industries as electronics, especially large computers, and chemicals, including plastics and pharmaceuticals, which the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, mentioned, requires a large sales volume in order to recover the original outlay, and to finance adequate future research and development. In certain sectors, chemicals again, steel and domestic appliances, there are considerable gains to be made from economies derived from increasing the scale of production on long production runs. There are also frequently important advantages of scale in other areas, such as marketing and finance. All this is well known, but it is not perhaps so widely appreciated that the pressures towards increasing size are, for companies based' in a single European country, increasingly pressures towards international rather than national operations. This means that the need for expansion of European companies outside the borders of their home country would inevitably have taken place, with or without the so-called American challenge.
674
What are the prospects for increasing the flow of industrial investment between Britain and the Six when we join the E.E.C.? The Community are fully aware of the need to encourage companies to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the large-scale market of the Six. In doing so, one of the Community's objectives is to make it easier for firms to expand to their optimum size; for example, by merging with other companies, both at domestic and at community level. Among the obstacles they found to be holding up such developments was one to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred, the differences in company law in the six member States. They have therefore embarked on a programme of harmonising some of the more fundamental aspects of company law so that shareholders and third parties dealing with companies may know that they can rely on certain safeguards, whichever country they are dealing with. Because of the complexity of the subject, and the differing systems at present in force, this work has so far advanced rather slowly, and the United Kingdom, if she joined the Community in January, 1973, could expect to play an important part. The measures adopted so far would require only minor amendments to United Kingdom company law, which is generally regarded by the Six as a model to be followed, and the measures adopted so far would require us to make only minor amendments.
A separate. but complementary measure is the draft statute for a European company. We have had references to international companies. Probably we shall see first of all the creation of European companies within a European grouping, as a first step at any rate. The creation of European companies is a major initiative and would remove the psychological objections to mergers between companies from different member States because each would belong not to an alien but to a truly international organisation. The criteria for creating a European company have not been defined in a narrowly nationalistic way. and Community-based subsidiaries of United Kingdom firms could participate in such projects even if the United Kingdom were not to become a member of the Community. The fact that a fairly modest level is proposed for

675
the minimum capital of such companies (I think it is 250,000 units of account, and I think the unit is the dollar) shows that this intention is not simply to encourage the creation of giant European companies but also to bring medium-sized companies together on a trans-national basis so as to take full advantage of the Common Market.
To complement the moves towards harmonising company law, there is a need also to work towards a common company taxation policy and common policies to encourage investment, including regional investment incentives. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, thought that this was something which every country would want to retain entirely in its own hands, but I am sure that he is aware that the countries in the Community are endeavouring to harmonise their regional policies precisely with the object of concentrating the international lead on those regions which most require it.
European investment in Britain has until now, apart from investment here from the Netherlands, been much smaller than British investment in Europe. We may expect investment from Europe to increase, and it is encouraging to learn that the Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie (B.D.I.). the German counterpart to our C.B.I., have recently reported favourably on investment prospects in Britain for German companies, following a visit they made to this country towards the end of last year.
A great deal of the discussion that we have had to-day has related to the power of multi-national companies in relation to individual States. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, with one of his characteristically brilliant phrases. referred to a seepage of sovereignty. He said that sovereignty has been seeping away downwards into the invisible root system of politically irresponsible capital. I think that was his phrase. In a sense, sovereignty has been seeping away from national States in any case. Most of us will agree that it is a good thing that we should harmonise our trading policies, at any rate so far as possible, so encouraging the free flow of trade and also removing causes of friction. So we accept a good deal of common exercise of power as things are now. But, of course, it would
676
be a different matter if real power were seeping away outside the control of Governments altogether.
It is undoubtedly true that large companies which have at their disposal such massive resources of manpower, capital and knowledge are very powerful; but if effective competition between such companies can be maintained (and this was a point which I hoped the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, had in mind in the early part of the argument he got into with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, which I must confess I could not follow either way) both within individual nations and internationally, then it is unlikely that this power can be deliberately used to the disadvantage of an individual nation State. Surely the relative powers of multinational corporations and States differ in nature. One need only consider the bargaining position of a small developing country when it can threaten nationalisation of local assets of an international company. But the equation does not have to be looked at in such crude power-struggle terms. Any company with a large investment in a particular country has an interest in making the best return it can on that investment; and it will not make a very good return if it pursues bad labour relations policies or acts in ways that weaken the economy of the country in which it operates. This is bound to react upon its own interests.
To say that the power which multinational corporations have in relation to individual States can easily be exaggerated is not to deny that the growth of their activities is of interest to Britain and to other nations. The subject, as I have said, is being more and more discussed in international forums, and more and more being studied at various levels. For example, there is a great study by Harvard University on the subject at the present time. It would be inappropriate for me to go in any detail into the policies and practices of other countries in regard to freedom of investment, but I should like to refer briefly to the work now in hand in one international body—O.E.C.D. There are two Working Parties—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be glad to hear this, although he probably knows it already—in O.E.C.D. which are at present looking at different aspects of what is referred to as the multi-national company

677
phenomenon. One is under the Committee of Experts on Restrictive Business Practices and is concerned with the question of the effect on competition of the activities of these companies. The other is a group under the Industry Committee, which is studying the availability of statistics and exchanging information between member countries relating to their policies towards multi-national companies. United Kingdom officials are taking an active part in both these Working Parties. We are not standing benignly apart, or whatever was the phrase used. What has already become clear from these international discussions is the extent to which most countries generally welcome foreign investment.
Because of the scale and importance of the growth of international investment. the Government have for a number of years carried out detailed statistical surveys of the overseas investment, to monitor its growth. Estimates of direct investment and earnings on it, which are regularly incorporated in the balance-of-payments accounts, are mainly derived from the Department of Trade and Industry's overseas transactions inquiry. Altogether, about 2,500 companies are approached each year for details of transactions with overseas affiliates or foreign parent or associated companies. A smaller number of large companies (about 350 companies with overseas affiliates and about 250 affiliates of foreign companies) are approached each quarter for brief details of direct investment. These inquiries are conducted on a voluntary basis, although the annual inquiry has a response rate of about three-quarters, and estimates for non-respondents are built up from published accounts, previous returns and other sources. The results of the annual inquiry are published as a Business Monitor, M4, Overseas Transactions, with a brief introductory note in Trade and Industry. The quarterly estimates of direct investment and earnings are included in the article on the balance of payments, which appears in Economic Trends.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will excuse me if I interrupt. In these studies which are going on in the O.E.C.D., would it be possible for our representatives on these
678
Committees to seek to raise the question of the extent to which investment is welcomed only if the nationals of the country in which the investment takes place effectively control that investment? I am of the very strong impression that there are a number of countries in which indeed international investment is welcomed, subject to control of investment being in the country where the investment takes place. Could this matter be raised in these Committees? It is a very important matter from the point of view of our British investors.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have before me a note of what the noble Lord said and I was proposing to come to that point. I thought he made the point extremely strongly. It is very well worth taking note of and I am sure it will be one of the matters that will be particularly studied. I cannot undertake that we shall raise it at the first opportunity in O.E.C.D., but I am sure that it will be fully studied. And I thought that what the noble Lord said evoked quite a response in the House.
I was saying that every three years surveys of the book values of overseas investment are being carried out to determine the scale of foreign investment here and our own investment overseas. The results of this survey are also published in Trade and Industry. These statistics which my noble friend Lord Lothian gave earlier in the debate were derived from the studies I have just mentioned. But most people would agree that statistical studies, though valuable, have their limitations. For this reason, the Board of Trade in 1967 commissioned a wide-ranging study, under the direction of Mr. Steuer, of the London School of Economics, of the effect of foreign investment in the United Kingdom. This report is now being completed, and it is intended to publish its findings, which cover not only the balance-of-payments and monopoly aspects which my noble friend mentioned but the effects of foreign investment on our technology, or labour relations, and on our national autonomy. I cannot today anticipate the report itself, but I understand that it is unlikely that the findings will indicate the need for any major changes in the Government policies towards foreign investment in Britain.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves the question of published statistics, I wonder whether he is in a position to say a word on the question about which Lord Lothian said he hoped he would be in a position to say something; namely, whether the published figures, or indeed the forthcoming report from the L.S.E., shows the extent of transfer pricing and of intra-group leading and lagging as regards international companies operating in this country.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am not quite certain about that. The financial links between different countries are growing more and more complex, and individual national economies are exposed to larger movements of funds, both inwards and outwards, than in the past. I think the best way I can put the position is this. Multi-national companies play a part in this, but in moving reserve funds or in accelerating or delaying payments between countries—the so-called leads and lags of which the noble Lord was speaking— they are doing what national companies and individuals can do and frequently do. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said there were more opportunities for international companies to do this than for national companies; although with the forward exchange market in operation, of course, this is probably more wide-spread among non-international companies than most people imagine.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene once more? It is a point of substance, although it might appear to be niggling. I was not seeking to establish that international companies did this more than national companies, but I believe that the extent to which they do it is unknown, whereas the extent to which national companies do it is known because it shows up in their reports. Would the noble Lord agree with me that the Government statistics as published do not reveal the extent of leading and lagging by the national Government internally nor do they reveal the effect of transfer pricing by the national Government within their groups?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord will acquit me of being an expert in this subject. I should not like
680
to agree or disagree with him, but I should have thought it extremely probable that what he has said is correct. The point I was trying to make was that the problems that may arise are not specifically due to the operations of multi-national companies. In the United Kingdom, the exchange control provides an important but not a complete safeguard against reserve funds. Our experience of the movements of these lags and payments between countries is that multi-national companies play a significant part in this, as in world trade generally, but we have no reason to suppose that the scale of their transactions has been disproportionate in such movements, nor that they appear to initiate such movements. If I may I will write to the noble Lord on the point that he has raised because I cannot take it upon myself to answer at the moment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, when he writes to me, will the noble Lord bear in mind that if we do not know what the movements are then of course we have no reason to suppose that they are disproportionate or otherwise?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, but for the reasons that I gave everybody wants to avoid the penalties of not foreseeing situations and therefore making appropriate financial arrangements for transfers. What I was saying was that there was no reason to believe that multinational companies would do this to a very much greater extent than national companies which had obligations to meet, or whatever reason they had to transfer funds.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, referred to tax payments by international companies as representing a contribution to the country's net social services. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that company tax is only one way in which a company makes such a contribution. It makes direct social security contributions on behalf of its employees, and value added tax will bring in a general tax on all United Kingdom companies' operations. Companies also pay rates to local authorities.
LORD DIAMOND: Yes, my Lords, that is the argument.
LORD DRUMALBYN: In what the noble Lord said I think perhaps he was

681
not going quite far enough. After all, the decision where to invest must rest with the company itself and I do not think he meant to imply that any restraint should be placed upon companies who, for one reason or another, decide that it will be more advantageous to themselves to invest abroad rather than in this country, partly, of course, because of the many additional advantages that entry into a country and establishment in a country may give.
I think I should also add that while examples have been given by some noble Lords which indicate that certain foreign owned companies pay little United Kingdom tax, there is no evidence, taken as a whole, that foreign owned companies declare lower profits than domestic companies. Indeed, the study by Professor Dunning, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, showed that American owned companies in the United Kingdom made higher profits than the United Kingdom owned counterparts.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked a question on disclosure requirements of the Companies Acts. Transfer prices are not disclosed under the provisions of the Companies Act but may be subjected to scrutiny by the Inland Revenue in determining a company's assessment. As to leads and lags, I think I have already dealt with that point.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, intervened in the speech of my noble friend Lord Lothian to ask about market values as opposed to book values of investments quoted in the speech. I cannot give figures for market values for these investments because no sound basis exists on which to estimate the extent to which book values understate the value of the investment, or in some cases, overstate the value of the investment. This is why my noble friend gave an indication of the proportion of total manufacturing output in the United Kingdom represented by United States direct investment here.
The noble Lord, Lord Brown, asked a question on the safeguards in regard to the takeover of United Kingdom companies. Section 30 of the Exchange Control Act 1947 requires consent for the transfer of control of a United Kingdom owned company to non-residents of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred to a film in which an organisation of which a number
682
of international companies are members —Business International—was involved. He said that in this film it was suggested that multi-national companies collectively should transfer their headquarters to a small island, and I thought he painted a slightly fantastic picture of the multinational companies standing as a form of businessmen's world capital.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, may I just intervene to say that I was quoting straight from the script.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I am sure, but what I could not quite make out was with what degree of approval the noble Lord regarded this form of prophecy.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: Do not ask me!
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if that is so I feel that things are much more likely to develop along the lines indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, than in that kind of way. The noble Lord, Lord Balogh, is not here so I shall simply say that careful note will be taken of all he said.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I say on behalf of my noble friend that he gave me a note apologising for the fact that he had to deliver a lecture at this time and therefore would not be able to be here.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord in fact passed me a note to say that he could not be here—at least, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, because the signature looked something like "Balogh". My noble friend Lord Amory also is not here. He referred to Canadian guidelines. The idea of guidelines is quite an attractive one and I think is much more likely to emerge in the long run than something like specific controls.
At the beginning of my speech I said we were all agreed on the importance of the subject of to-day's debate. 1 believe, too, that we are also generally agreed that the growth of international investment and in multi-national companies has been to the benefit not only of Britain but of world economy generally. There are some who suggest that the time has come to seek greater

683
control over the activities of multinational companies. I do not see any need for us in this country to impose greater national control on our own. Indeed, it would be very much against our interests to do so. As I have said, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, on this. I think that any difficulties that may exist are not so formidable as to cause us to take the initiative in working towards comprehensive international control of such companies. We know that other Governments, including our future E.E.C. partners, are taking an increasing interest in the effects of international investment. We are ready to discuss that subject with other countries generally, or specific aspects of the subject. I have already mentioned that Government officials are taking part in these new O.E.C.D. working parties and are collecting information and exchanging experiences about multinational companies. When we join the E.E.C. we shall naturally take part in their discussions, with the two-fold object of increasing the extent of international investment in Europe and in adopting common policies towards inward investment in Europe and outward investment from it.
We have heard a great deal of the problem which multi-national companies can present for nationally-based trade unions, but here I hope and suggest that the right response—and this is what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, indicated; he felt the unions were capable of looking after themselves in this—is for unions to co-operate internationally, as they are already beginning to do to a greater extent, rather than for Governments to intervene on one side or the other. Much of course, in this as in other matters, depends on the attitudes of the companies involved. I would only say that if a multi-national company is prepared to talk to a group of trade unions representing the interests of employees in different countries, this may help to increase understanding all round and to get a greater knowledge of the intentions of the parent company of the multinational company. I fully share what has been said about the multi-national companies combining the pursuit of their commercial objectives with a reasonable regard for the social and economic situa-
684
tion in each of the countries in which they operate. I think there was widespread agreement to-day that, generally speaking, multi-national companies behave responsibly, if only because it is in their interests to do so. But I would also share the view that has been expressed that there is need for continuing vigilance, and it is with this object in view that we are having international discussions within O.E.C.D.
The Government will continue to monitor the growth of international investment as it affects Britain and to assess the broad contribution that multinational companies make to our economy. I believe that to-day's debate has made a very useful contribution towards a wider understanding of the many issues involved. I think there have been many useful suggestions which the Government will wish to study carefully. I would conclude by once again thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having introduced this subject in such a lucid and striking way.
7.43 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should like, if I may, to associate myself most sincerely with what has been said about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw. I too listened to it with the greatest pleasure and interest. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, spoke in a curious way: it made me feel he had expected that I was going to attack international companies as something pernicious that ought to be strictly disciplined and, if possible, abolished. I did not do so, and listening to his speech it made me almost sorry that I had not done so, because it would have fitted so well with what he said when he put on the record the things they had done, the increase in the level of economic activity in our country and others. With all that I agree, and I am most grateful for it. But in the end I am not sorry that I did not attack international companies. We are very much in their debt. I am reinforced in my initial judgment, and I am glad that it was endorsed by the leaders of my own Party, that this was the moment to raise the matter, because no single point I made was reflected in the noble Marquess's prepared brief. It might have been. Sometimes the officials are thinking about what people in Parliament

685
are thinking about, and sometimes they are not; and when they are not, that is an indication that a debate has taken place at the right moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has gone away, but the House listened to him with very great interest because of the enormous breadth and depth of his experience. He said that it seemed to him that my speech had been based on fears of what might happen, rather than on an assessment of what had happened, and he said he was sure that no businessman in one country would ever close a factory in another country and go away, because that would be a bad business proceeding. If his experience had been even greater, he might have known of the case of the Remington-Rand factory in France, which was the beneficiary of a Government investment grant and was closed without warning in 1962, throwing all the employees into unemployment; the case of the General Motors refrigerator factory in France which was closed in the same circumstances in the same year. And he might have known that the then French Minister of Industry and Commerce. M. Michel-Bokanowski, publicly requested an explanation of the closures and of why the French Government had not been informed and received none. and this was the reason why Gaullist policy towards American investment became a little hit different from before. And he might have known of a subsequent case where a Raytheon factory in Sicily was closed without warning, throwing all the employees out of work.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Balogh is not here. It seemed to me that his speech was one of the most formidable attacks I have ever heard in this House on Government inactivity, on a front which is a narrow one in the context of the wide debate we are having to-day. But it is an extremely important one, and I hope that his enforced absence will not be a reason for us not to hear of it again, for I am deeply disturbed by the lack of answer to what he said.
I would take up one small point in the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Byers. He made out that it would be quite an absurd idea for Governments to arrange to have directors on the parent boards in the originating country of international corporations, because there would be too
686
many if the corporation was operating in a great number of countries. He held out the spectre of twenty directors turning up to sit on the board in Detroit or Delaware, or wherever it was. That is not what I was thinking of. I was thinking of a good many years ahead to an age when it would be quite easy to have a regional arrangement, an inter-governmental arrangement, with one inter-governmental director to represent a good many Governments or a good many national investment boards, if that is what he would prefer.
Speaking after him, it falls to me with great pleasure to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his most helpful and thoughtful speech. I really mean that.
May I nip back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon? He mentioned a fairly widely quoted figure: that if we go on as we are now, by the year 2000 only 300 firms will be controlling about 85 per cent. of the world's trade or commerce—something like that. I would remind the House that Lenin took it further. He said fifty years ago—or more; sixty years ago—that if we went on as we were already beginning to then, the time could be foreseen when there would be only one firm controlling the industrial and economic destinies of the world; and he said that that would not happen, obviously, because capitalism as a system would come to pieces before it did. Capitalism will do what it will, but I hope that those who are in charge of it in any major way will remember and give due weight to that dusty prophecy.
Many speakers from the Government Back Benches, and from the Liberal Benches, both Front and Back, have praised the responsibility of the international corporations and demanded the continuation of full freedom for them to operate. Many of them made the point that the international corporations are well in touch with their parent Governments and also with the host Governments in countries in which they want to operate. I do not doubt it. They are wise to be that. That is not my point. My point is this: I doubt whether the Governments themselves are well enough in touch with each other. My noble friend Lord Diamond reminded us that the British Empire had been acquired in a fit of absence of mind. I think that

687
the moral of to-day's debate should be that the Government will, we hope, keep their wits well about them in the coming years. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SCUNTHORPE CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
GREAT SOUTHERN CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION (SOUTHAMPTON COMMON) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  APPEALS COSTS
  APPEALS COSTS
  MUSEUM AND GALLERY CHARGES
  MUSEUM AND GALLERY CHARGES