HC Deb 16 November 1961 vol 649 cc687-819

Order for Second Reading read.

3.58 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is only after long and anxious consideration and a considerable reluctance that the Government have decided to ask Parliament for power to control immigration from the Commonwealth. We all know that throughout the continuous evolution of the Commonwealth, citizens of member-States have always been free to come here and stay here as long as they like. This has been a cherished tradition of the Mother Country and there is little doubt that it has been an important link binding the Commonwealth together. But I sometimes wonder whether the House or the country realise what, in fact, this doctrine of the open door has involved.

The justification for the control which is included in this Bill, which I shall describe in more detail in a few moments, is that a sizeable part of the entire population of the earth is at present legally entitled to come and stay in this already densely populated country. It amounts altogether to one-quarter of the population of the globe and at present there are no factors visible which might lead us to expect a reversal or even a modification of the immigration trend which I am about to describe.

The Government do not believe, therefore, after very serious consideration, that any country would permit an indefinite continuance of virtually limitless immigration. Most people, I think, would agree that eventually an influx on the present scale would have to be controlled. I think that the House knows well that all other Commonwealth countries have power to restrict immigration and all of them, in practice, exercise this power either generally or in respect of citizens of particular Commonwealth countries. Some of them—I should like to pay tribute to them—have been par- ticularly generous in not exercising their powers against United Kingdom citizens.

The Government have now come to the decision that the time has come for us to take some necessary powers. These, as I shall explain later, in the first place are for a temporary period. They will apply to all Commonwealth immigrants and are more liberally conceived than the present power of control of aliens.

That is the general introduction which I want to make before coming to the figures so that the House may assess the extent of immigration. We start from the fact that we are a thickly populated country and certain to become more so. There are fewer countries more densely populated than our own. Over the past ten years the population here has increased by 2½ million, to reach more than 51¼ million. Immigration is becoming an increasingly important factor in this problem. We have long been familiar with the control of the immigration of aliens; it has been controlled in modern times since 1905. An alien is not allowed to stay in this country unless he makes a case, first, for admission and then for permanent residence in this country. Under this system about 16,000 aliens a year settle here as permanent residents.

I should like to refer to the fact that this country has probably as noble and as good a record in introducing refugees to our shores as any other country. Taking the immigration figures, there are immigrants from Canada, Australia and New Zealand; the total of these is not accurately known. Some come here to work for a short time and then return. The best estimate which I can make of people coming from these countries is about 50,000 a year, but many of these are not immigrants.

Then there are workers from Ireland, about whom I shall speak, and many of these also come for a short while and then go back. The number coming in any one year for the first time is roughly between 60,000 and 70,000 in so far as we can calculate it.

Mr. Philip Noel-Baker (Derby, South)

From all Ireland?

Mr. Butler

From the Republic of Ireland. Many of these are going backwards and forwards, and we cannot be certain about the numbers. We have no check as many are seasonal workers who come and then go back, but we calculate that the figure is about 60,000 or 70,000 who pass through our ports, in so far as we can calculate it.

A new factor in the last eight years or so is immigration from other parts of the Commonwealth, notably the West Indies, India, Pakistan and Cyprus, and to a lesser extent, from Africa, from Aden and from Hong Kong. Immigration from these sources first became a noticeable figure in 1953, and since 1955 we have endeavoured to keep figures of the numbers going in and out. The net intake in 1955 was about 43,000 and an inflow of approximately the same dimensions went on for the next two years. The figure dropped to 30,000 only in 1958 and to 21,000 in 1959.

This striking drop was attributable in part to a slight economic recession which we had. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I thought it as well that I should give the picture to the House so that we can make up our minds in relation to the Bill and the justice of the case. As I said, the drop was attributable in part to the recession here but it was also due to efforts made by other Governments to restrain their emigrants. For example, fairly stringent measures of control have been in force in India and Pakistan for many years past I should like to express—and I hope that this will be carried to these Governments who have tried to help us—the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government for their co-operation.

The possibility of similar restrictions in the case of the West Indies has been put to the Governments concerned, but they have felt unable to do more than to ensure that passports are not given to emigrants with serious criminal records, or to old people or to unaccompanied children. Despite the action taken, a rapidly increasing number of immigrants is managing to come here from all these countries. In 1960, the figure rose to 58,000, and in the first ten months of the current year it was 113,000. Of this figure, in the first ten months about 57,000 have come from the West Indies and about 19,000 each from India and Pakistan. The total number of these newer immigrants, including children born to them in this country, is believed to be now at a level of about half-a-million.

Mr. Douglas Jay (Battersea, North)

To get the facts clear, will the Home Secretary give the figure for the annual emigration from this country, so that we have the whole picture?

Mr. Butler

I have not the figure, but I will make a note for my right hon. Friend who is to wind up the debate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not wish to give an inaccurate figure, but I will see that the correct figure is given in the course of Second Reading.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell (Leeds, South)

It is extremely important that as soon as possible the precisely accurate figures for emigration and immigration should be available. Is it not possible—perhaps the Parliamentary Private Secretary is now doing it—for these figures to be produced so that the Home Secretary can give us them in the latter part of his own speech?

Mr. Butler

I am always ready to suit the convenience of the House and to do what I can, but I do not want to give an inaccurate figure.

Mr. H. A. Marquand (Middlesbrough, East)

While the Home Secretary is looking up the figures, will he also take care to provide the House with figures for the last two or three years of migration from the West Indies of the numbers who have come simply to join their husbands in this country?

Mr. Butler

That would be a more difficult figure to give. I think that it will be very difficult to give an exact figure of emigration, but I will do my best to meet the request.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway (Eton and Slough) rose—

Mr. Butler

The Opposition Amendment criticises the nature and extent of the consultation which has preceded the decision which we have reached to legislate. In answer to the Amendment, I should like to say that contact on this subject has been maintained in a variety of ways with the Governments concerned and with their Prime Ministers and leaders. Many members of Her Majesty's Government have met many of these distinguished leaders of these nations and we have been in contact for a long time. The Opposition Amendment refers to the expression an "inquiry". All I can say—

Mr. Brockway

On a point of order. The Home Secretary has stated that he cannot give figures about emigration from this country and immigration into this country. He gave me those figures this week and I now have them in my hand. Should he, therefore, withhold them from the House?

Mr. Harold Davies (Leek)

Roll in the Common Market and our own people out.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) rose to a point of order, but I do not think that what he said involves a point of order.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood (Rossendale)

A point of honour.

Mr. Butler

The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) has the figures in his possession, but I have not.

Mr. Brockway

The Home Secretary gave them to me.

Mr. Butler

I have had many contacts with the hon. Member. I do not deny that I gave them to him. But I have not them at the moment and I do not propose to give an inaccurate figure.

Mr. Brockway

I have pleasure in handing the figures to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There are a large number of hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate. I respectfully remind the House that there is a relation between interventions and the number of hon. Members whom the Chair can call to speak.

Mr. Scholefield Allen (Crewe)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How is it possible to form a balanced judgment in this matter when we are given only one side of the case?

Mr. Butler

I will examine the figures which have been given and see that a statement is made on behalf of the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall not be rushed by the House into making a statement without proper consideration.

I was saying that the Opposition Amendment refers to the word "inquiry" and I explained that many contacts have been held between members of our Government and Ministers of these other Governments. Not only has there been this contact, but there has been a most heart-searching consideration on our part of what action should be taken. I have reminded the House that the Governments of the West Indies, India and Pakistan did their best to control the flow in 1958 and 1959, and we are deeply grateful for their efforts.

In the end, however, their efforts were not sufficient to keep the flow within reasonable bounds. It was only when we realised this that we gradually came to the decision to control immigration. This decision, of course, was our decision, Her Majesty's Government's decision, and we have fully understood the expressions of anxiety and concern which have come from some of the overseas Governments.

Directly the decision was taken, my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary informed the Governments of all the territories for which he is responsible. He gave them, in confidence, considerable information about the Government's intention and explain the reasons.

Mr. Marcus Lipton (Brixton)

At what date?

Mr. Butler

My right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary took similar action with the Governments of the independent members of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Lipton

At what date?

Mr. Butler

Since then, consultation has continued. As the Prime Minister said in answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on Tuesday last, consultation goes on all the time. We gave notice some time before we discussed this matter that we proposed to deal with it. Consultation must go on all the time and it cannot be reserved merely for Prime Ministers' conferences.

Mr. Charles Royle (Salford, West)

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the result of the talks was and will he read to the House the protest which was sent by the Prime Minister of the West Indies Federation?

Mr. Butler

I read the hon. Gentleman's intervention at Question Time last Tuesday. The answer to the hon. Gentleman is that consultations with overseas Governments, whether Commonwealth, Colonial or foreign, must of necessity be private. I cannot publish the text of confidential exchanges between one Government and another.

I have explained, in answering the Opposition Amendment, that these consultations took place from the date, and even from a time before then, when the decision was taken. What I wish to make clear now is that future consultations must go on.

We know how valuable the immigrants have been—[HON. MEMBERS: "Humbug."]—and we trust that by close contact with the Governments concerned we can illustrate the spirit in which we mean the Bill to work. I say now, and I am sure that I speak for the whole House, that no one can doubt the value of the contribution which the immigrants have made to our national life. In particular, our hospitals and public transport system would be in difficulties were it not for the services of immigrant workers.

I pay a tribute to the courteous and efficient way in which so many of them serve us in our hospitals, buses and railways, restaurants and other branches of essential services. I say that on purpose. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Anyone listening to the interventions from the other side of the House would imagine that there was a question of imposing a total prohibition. This is quite untrue. It is not proposed by the Bill to impose a total prohibition on further immigration. It is proposed simply to control the flow.

We must remember that we are working in a period of full employment. It does not take much imagination to realise what might happen if, unfortunately, there should be a recession of trade and immigrants were competing for jobs with other people in this country. In such circumstances, life would be very difficult for the immigrants already here, and the situation would be made very much worse if others con- tinued to flock into this country in unlimited numbers in the hope of finding a job. The strain which such a situation would provoke between immigrants and resident British subjects could well have its effect on Commonwealth relations.

The Opposition Amendment is concerned, and rightly concerned, with Commonwealth relations, but I should not wish the House to forget this aspect of the problem.

Mr. John Dugdale (West Bromwich)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Butler

No. I must explain these matters and make my speech to the House so that other hon. Members may take part in the debate.

It cannot be denied that the immigrants who have come to this country in such large numbers have presented the country with an intensified social problem. They tend to settle in communities of their own, with their own mode of life, in big cities. The greater the numbers coming into this country the larger will these communities become and the more difficult will it be to integrate them into our national life.

During the debate on the Address, the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) questioned what had been done to help immigrants. I remind him and the House of the excellent work done by many agencies to promote good relations between immigrants and the people of this country. I refer, in particular, to the Migrants Services Division of the Office of the Commissioner for the West Indies, the welfare officers of the Indian and Pakistan High Commissioners, and the committees set up in many areas under the aegis of local authorities. We welcome the work they have done, but they can deal with limited numbers only, and, if the numbers of new entrants are excessive, their assimilation into our society presents the gravest difficulty, as many hon. Members on both sides of the House have informed me in the course of private conversation.

Of course, we are doing our best to improve housing conditions. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] This is a matter referred to in the Opposition Amendment. I do not wish to omit from my speech any point made in the Amendment. The Housing Act of this year provided the local authorities with better powers to deal with overcrowding and unsatisfactory accommodation and also helped them financially in rehousing families from overcrowded conditions. Given a too rapid increase in the number of immigrants, there is a real risk that the drive for improved conditions will be defeated by the sheer weight of numbers, and the immigrants will be among those to benefit most if the new powers in fact prove, as we hope, to be effective.

I turn now, as is right in a Second Reading speech, to examine the form of the legislation which we propose. Various possibilities were considered by us and rejected. I take, first, a check on accommodation. We do not think that such a control could be operated without intolerable supervision and regimentation. To follow an immigrant moving from place to place in this country would be almost impossible. Also, this would be a power in excess of what we use in dealing with aliens. Therefore, we rejected it. Another suggestion is that immigrants should put down a cash deposit. We do not think that this would be effective. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that the only practical means of dealing with the situation is to control the incoming numbers on the basis of the issue of employment vouchers.

I turn now to the Bill itself to explain what we have in mind. Part I deals with the control of immigration. Part II deals with deportation. Part III deals with supplementary matters. Part I begins by defining in Clause 1 the persons to whom control of immigration is and is not applicable. The objective here is to except from control—and, therefore, to guarantee their continued unrestricted entry into their own country—persons who in common parlance belong to the United Kingdom. This is achieved by excepting, first, persons born in the United Kingdom, and, secondly, persons holding passports issued by the United Kingdom Government.

This criterion has been chosen primarily for ease of identification by the immigration officer at the port of entry. He has only to look at the passport to see by what authority it was issued, and the place of birth is shown.

The use of such a test will lessen delay at the ports. With these exceptions, Clause 1 applies the power of control to all Commonwealth citizens, a phrase synonymous with British subjects, and also to British-protected persons and citizens of the Irish Republic.

Clause 2 gives power to immigration officers to refuse admission to the United Kingdom to any person to whom the Bill applies or to admit him subject to conditions relating to length of stay or his employment or occupation.

Under this Clause there are three main categories of immigrants from the Commonwealth who will be granted entry into the United Kingdom. The first category is defined in subsection (2, a); people coming here for the purpose of employment and holding vouchers issued by the Ministry of Labour. These vouchers will be issued to three kinds of applicant; first, those who can satisfy the Ministry of Labour that they have jobs to come to; secondly, those who can satisfy the Ministry that they possess training, skill or technical qualifications which are likely to be useful in this country, and, thirdly those who fall into neither of those categories and vouchers for this third category will be issued on a first-come first-served basis.

The Government will decide from time to time how many such vouchers can be issued having gone into all the factors which bear on our capacity to absorb further immigrants without undue stress or strain. The Minister of Labour will be speaking in the debate later and will deal more fully with the voucher system.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

Will the wives and families of those who are admitted on the ground that they have skill which we require be allowed to come in, in addition to the quota of migrants?

Mr. Butler

Yes, the wives and children. When we come to the Committee stage we shall have to consider other degrees of relationship, which is always a problem for the immigration service. As I have said, I am able to say "Yes" to the hon. Lady's question.

The second category of immigrants who will be granted entry are those defined in subsection (2, b). That is to say, those who can satisfy the immigration officers that they are in a position to support themselves and their dependents, if any, without working. This will cover not only visitors, including business visitors, but also, for example, retired people who come to live here on pension.

The third main category allowed in will be those who are granted entry by the immigration officers under administrative arrangements. Here, there will be a number of people who should be admitted in circumstances other than those defined in subsection (2). I have particularly in mind students, returning residents and wives and dependent children. I am particularly keen to make clear that I have no doubt that students coming, from overseas will be able to come in and enjoy their stay here. These categories are not easily susceptible of legal definition, but I have students particularly in mind. I think that this will be best dealt with at the discretion of the immigration officer, in accordance with general directions which I shall issue from time to time.

It is important, therefore, that the House should be seized from the outset with the importance of leaving some discretion to the immigration officer. This discretion is defined in Clause 16 (3) and I can say that our experience of immigration control at the ports and airports enables me to pay a tribute to the fine work of the immigration service of this country.

The experience of the aliens administration also shows the need for flexibility in these matters so that instructions can be modified from time to time according to changing circumstances. The Amendment says that the Bill gives excessive discretionary powers to the Executive. It is important to maintain—and we shall no doubt discuss this in the later stages of the Bill—and preserve the constitutional position in which the Secretary of State is answerable to this House for the policy which he administers and the way his agents carry it out. That is the answer to those who claim that. The responsibility should rest with the Secretary of State and he should be answerable to Parliament.

Mr. Gaitskell

Will the general directions the Secretary of State proposes to issue be debatable in this House.

Mr. Butler

No, Sir, but this House will have ample opportunity of asking questions of the Executive, of Ministers. I think that it would be undesirable to do what the right hon. Gentleman requests in this case, but, in any case, there will be ample opportunity in Committee to explain what the Secretary of State has in mind and the manner in which he proposes to administer this. I shall be glad, at a later stage, to give a description of how we propose to deal with the problem of students.

Mr. Gaitskell

This is an important point and I should like the Secretary of State to make the position clear. He spoke of these general directions under which the immigration officers are to exercise their discretion. When he says that this is a difficult issue, does he intend to publish the details? Will they be made available to hon. Members, so that they may know what instructions he is giving?

Mr. Butler

They have never been published in the past, even under the administration of hon. Gentlemen opposite and I think that it would be extremely difficult to concede the right hon. Gentleman's request. I realise that it is a perfectly legitimate request, but I suggest that we discuss the matter at a later stage. I want to make that plain so that when we come to discuss the later stages of the Bill we will know just what we are discussing, where we have agreement and where there is disagreement.

Another feature of Clause 2 (3) gives to immigration officers the overriding power to refuse admission on medical grounds, because of a person's criminal record or for security reasons or if a person seeks to return to this country in contravention of a deportation order. As regards criminal records, admission may be refused to anyone known to have committed any of the crimes listed in the Schedule to the Extradition Acts. They include all serious crimes against the person or property.

I need not trouble the House in great detail with Clauses 3, 4 and 5. Clauses 3 and 4 provide the necessary ancillary provisions for the enforcement of the scheme proposed. I would, however, draw the attention of the House to Clause 5, which makes Part I of the Bill a temporary Measure to expire at the end of five years unless continued from time to time for periods not exceeding five years by Order in Council subject to affirmative Resolution of both Houses.

In a matter of such importance the Government feel that we should feel our way, not commit ourselves for an indefinite time for such a substantial change in a traditional open door policy. In five years we may find that the economic condition of this country is different. In five years other countries of the Commonwealth may have different economic pressures from the serious ones they have now to make a review of this kind desirable. We may be able to say where we stand in relation to the Common Market and the operation of the Rome Treaty in relation to this country. This is, incidentally, for the time being, why we have decided not to make permanent our aliens legislation.

I now turn to the Common Market aspect of this and in view of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition on the debate on the Gracious Speech I must say that we do not accept that there is, or that there should be, necessarily any inconsistency between this Measure and the situation which is likely to result if we enter the Common Market. Let us take the present situation under the Treaty of Rome.

In June of this year the Council of Ministers approved regulations valid for not more than two years which recognise, subject to certain exceptions, the principle of priority of consideration which should be given to indigenous labour. The Prime Minister, speaking in the House on 2nd August, said: … It is quite unreal to suppose that we could be compelled suddenly to accept a flood of cheap labour, or to alter the basis of our social security overnight."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd August, 1961; Vol. 645, c. 1490.] My right hon. Friend then referred to the possibility of measures of administrative control. If one reads Articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty of Rome it would appear that control is possible. Negotiations have not yet properly started and we certainly should not be able to say what the final position is until these negotiations have got a good deal further. It is not for me, in explaining the Bill, to go further into the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, but it is wise to include the provisions of Clause 5, which gives the Bill a temporary character subject to renewal.

I wish now to refer to the Irish Republic. There are a great many anomalies connected with our relations with Ireland, one of which is that the citizens of the Republic, although no longer British subjects, possess under Statute all the privileges and obligations of British subjects. Thus the Bill was drafted to cover the citizens of the Irish Republic, and this is the effect of Clause 1 (4).

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), when Home Secretary in the Labour Government, in referring to a particular anomaly, said on 13th July, 1948: It is true that this may present anomalies, but in my experience of attempting to deal with the Irish, whether Southern or Northern, if one can do anything at all it is sure to be either by way of creating an anomaly or of recognising one."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1948; Vol. 453. c. 1112.] Under the shield of that benign advice I propose to proceed with the reasons that have led the Government to certain conclusions. The Government have always realised the very great difficulty there would be in operating the control against the Republic, for practical reasons that I shall explain, and I have always thought that we would not be justified in operating this control unless circumstances compelled us, or compel us to do so.

The reasons are as follows. First, the history of previous attempts has left in the minds of all concerned the determination to try to avoid such controls in the future. This was the war-time experience. Secondly, many of those who come from the Republic are seasonal workers who are coming to a job and who would, in any case, be let in under the provisions of the Bill.

It is when we come to the difficulties of physical control that we realise the problem, and I must ask the House to follow me in those difficulties. First, if we established a control we should have to operate it against a large number of British citizens who use the Irish ports. I am here supposing that we could control the Eire—that is, the Republic—and Ulster border and limit the problem simply to shiploads from the Republic to the English ports, but all experience and information indicates how very difficult it is to police the Republic-Ulster border and prevent people getting across it either by day or, especially, by night.

We are, therefore, forced to the conclusion, as we were in war time and after, that if we are to operate a control against the citizens of the Irish Republic we should have to institute a control within the United Kingdom itself; that is, against Northern Ireland and Belfast. I repeat—against the United Kingdom itself and against United Kingdom citizens.

The Government take the view that this would be an intolerable imposition upon British citizens, and would be treated as such. I feel certain that to insist on all passengers from Northern Ireland carrying passports and being subject to examination would present us with a political and practical problem as severe as that which emerges by our decision not to impose control against the citizens of the Republic. We have had discussions on the Bill with the Government of Northern Ireland. Lord Brookeborough said at Stormont, on Tuesday, that he was satisfied that we had taken Northern Ireland's interests fully into account. He has also assured me that any proposal to restrict freedom of travel between Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the United Kingdom, and the rest of the country would be unacceptable to the Northern Ireland Government.

I fully realise, of course, that our decision can be, and may well be, misunderstood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Bill is drafted so that there is no racial discrimination—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and this decision is not dictated by such considerations—

Mr. Lipton

Why was the Clause put in at all?

Mr. Butler

I am certain that the Government is right to reach this decision in present circumstances. To those who are in doubt, I would say that we reserve the right to impose the control should it be necessary in the future in spite of the difficulties.

A great many suggestions have been put to me by hon. Members for dealing with this problem, while accepting, as many of them do, the difficulties relating to the border and accepting the difficulties relating to imposing a control within the United Kingdom itself. I am examining such problems and schemes, but I cannot give the final answer today as they present very great complications.

Meanwhile, Her Majesty's Government have noted the undertaking given by the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic yesterday that freedom of movement would require the introduction of legislation in the Republic to preserve uniformity of control; and that an early statement would be made.

I have, of course, been talking about Part I of the Bill. The hon. Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) asked why we had this provision in the Bill. I must emphasise that Part II of the Bill, which deals with deportation, does apply in full, and will be enforced in proper cases, against citizens of the Irish Republic as against other citizens to whom this Bill applies. This is a new power which otherwise we would not possess.

I should like now to deal shortly with Part II of the Bill, as I think that it may command more general assent. We have long been pressed to introduce measures to authorise the deportation of immigrants from the Commonwealth who offend against our laws, and thus give this country the same kind of powers as are possessed by practically every other territory in the Commonwealth. We came to the conclusion that the positive results that would be achieved by such a Measure were not in themselves sufficient to justify legislation for that purpose alone, but now we have decided to seek powers for a general control of immigration we have thought it only right to seek powers also to deport offenders. I think that I need comment only on the special features of this part of the Bill.

Clause 6 and subsection (2) of Clause 7 define which persons are and are not liable to deportation. Exemptions from deportation are framed differently from the exemptions from immigration control in Clause 1 because we are here dealing with matters which can be examined by a court, and not with what can be the criterion for a quick decision of an immigration officer. The effect, putting it shortly, is to exempt people connected with the United Kingdom by birth, parentage, naturalization or marriage. We are also dealing with people already in this country, and have thought it right to exempt from deportation any one who has been ordinarily resident throughout the five years before he is convicted.

Subject to what I have said, a court may recommend deportation when anyone over 17 is convicted of any offence punishable with imprisonment, and this definition includes all offences about which concern has been expressed. I wish to emphasise that no one may be deported under this Measure unless recommended for deportation by a court.

Clause 8 provides that any person recommended for deportation has the right to appeal against that recommendation in the same way as he can appeal against conviction. Clause 9 provides that the recommendation of a court does not automatically lead to deportation; it is left to my discretion, as Home Secretary, whether to carry the recommendation into effect by means of a deportation order. I am satisfied that these powers will be valuable in a comparative limited number of cases. Having had to exercise similar powers over aliens for the last few years, I can say that the number of aliens deported annually is about 100.

I come, in conclusion, to Part III, which contains a number of supplemental and consequential provisions which I need not deal with in detail except for Clause 12—

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe (Devon, North)

The right hon. Gentleman said, I believe, that the administrative decision as to whether immigrants shall or shall not be allowed to enter the country is not the subject of quasi-judicial appeal. Is it within the Home Secretary's recollection that during the war there were aliens tribunals, staffed by lawyers of considerable experience, who decided precisely this question of whether an immigration officer was justified in refusing entry to an alien? If it was possible to operate that during the very difficult period of wartime, why is it impossible to do it with Commonwealth immigrants now?

Mr. Butler

Our experience of administering immigration up to date is that the freer we leave our immigration officers the better and more successful the administration, subject to the responsibility of the Secretary of State. What I say to the hon. Member, as I said to the right hon. Gentleman, is that this is a matter which we must discuss during the later stages of the Bill. We shall then go into more details, such as the point the hon. Gentleman suggests.

Mr. Thorpe

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not like to misrepresent the position. Is he or is he not saying that it is impossible for a quasi-judicial body to be set up to which immigrants refused entry would have the right of appeal? Is he seriously saying that? Will he answer "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Butler

I did not say that. I simply said that we should consider the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, which has a basis of experience, in the course of the later stages of the Bill. I will undertake to do that. I never said that it was impossible. I never intended to say so, in any event. I am perfectly ready to consider any matter in the later stages of the Bill.

At present, a citizen of any other self-governing Commonwealth country has the right after twelve months' ordinary residence in the United Kingdom to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Clause 12 raises this period of twelve months to five years. We have been reluctant to make this change, but it is a necessary consequence of the deportation provisions of the Bill. The House may like to know that five years is the period laid down in the equivalent legislation of Canada and Australia.

It will be noted that my present discretion to accept less than the prescribed period of residence remains unaltered and this power can be used to prevent the raising of the period to five years operating too harshly in individual cases which deserve special consideration. Particular consideration will be given to persons who have had close contact with the United Kingdom.

That sums up the main provisions of the Bill, because the Schedules are largely consequential. It has not surprised me that the Bill excites considerable feeling on both sides of the House. The Government regret having to produce these proposals, but they believe that this Measure is rendered necessary by the course of events. It would have been perfectly easy just to go on watching the situation, but the Government have preferred, admittedly after hesitation, to take a course which is as distasteful to them as it is to many of their critics.

We consider this course to be right. I believe that this course is right and will be to the advantage of Commonwealth relations. I believe that if we continue consultation with the Governments overseas we should be able to explain the humane and reasonable manner in which we wish to administer the Bill, and with the help of the House I hope that we can make the Bill a good and a humane instrument for doing a very necessary job. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Walker (Smethwick)

I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof: this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which, without adequate inquiry and without full discussion at a meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers, removes from Commonwealth citizens the long standing right of free entry to Britain, and is thus calculated to undermine the unity and strength of the Commonwealth: gives excessive discretionary powers to the executive without any provision for appeals; will be widely regarded as introducing a colour bar into our legislation; and, though providing for health checks and for the deportation of those convicted of certain criminal offences, fails to deal with the deplorable social and housing conditions under which recent Commonwealth immigrants and other subjects of Her Majesty are living. We have listened to a most extraordinary speech. The Home Secretary in effect, did not attempt to defend the Bill he was introducing. There were two rather amazing passages in his speech. In one he made it clear that he has made up his mind about the Bill without being aware of some of the most significant and important figures. Whether or not he has given them to my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), he clearly does not have them in his mind. The net figure of migration is the absolutely critical figure in deciding this matter.

The Economist Intelligence Unit study on migration from the Commonwealth suggests that the outflow is very much larger than is generally thought. For instance, it is estimated that between 1955 and 1960 no less than 20 per cent. of the West Indians went back. To make up one's mind that this is a desirable Bill without even being aware of the numbers that go back, and, therefore, of the number that stay, is most extraordinary.

The other passage which startled me was the right hon. Gentleman's very embarrassed account of why the Government were excluding the Southern Irish from the Bill. He was guilty of an Irish bull himself. He tried to solace some of his own supporters by saying that he would reserve the right to impose restrictions which he had just shown could not possibly be worked under any circumstances. Why did the right hon. Gentleman put this in the Bill in the first place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) asked? I think I know. He put it in as a sort of fig leaf to preserve his reputation for liberalism. Now he stands revealed before us in his nakedness. He is an advocate now of a Bill which contains bare-faced, open race discrimination. He advocates a Bill into which race discrimination is now written—not only into its spirit and its practice, but into its very letter.

The more I have studied the Bill, the more I have come to the conclusion that it is ill-conceived, that it will not work, that it has been hurried, and that it will do irreparable damage to the Commonwealth.

The Leader of the House, speaking at the end of the debate on the Gracious Speech, showed himself to be sensitive to the charge that there had been unseemly haste in preparing the Bill. It bears all the marks of being rushed and unconsidered. Why were the Irish provisions put in? Why was not time taken to work out the fact that they could not possibly be made effective? The slightest knowledge and consideration would have shown that the Bill could not be applied to Ireland. It is obvious that the Bill has been enormously hurried from the fact that the provisions concerning Ireland were put in.

No time was allowed for an inquiry. The facts simply are not known. The Home Secretary constantly told us, "I do not know the facts. I do not know how many stay. I do not know where they go. We do not even know the total numbers moving about". In its six annual reports the Oversea Migration Board has deplored the absence of decent statistics about emigration and immigration into this country. It has said over and over again in its reports that the figures now in use are almost meaningless and unreal. Our decisions are being taken on this sort of information.

There ought to have been an inquiry to tell us the figures involved, how many are re-emigrating, which the right hon. Gentleman does not know, where they are staying, and whether local authorities ought to have better powers to deal with overcrowding. In this vital matter, which is so important that we are taking the Committee stage of the Bill on the Floor of the House, we are in effect, being asked to legislate in the dark.

Another example of the way the Bill has been rushed is the fantastic absence of consultation with the rest of the Commonwealth. On this matter the right hon. Gentleman employed the ambiguous language he usually employs when he is highly embarrassed. There ought to have been a Prime Ministers' meeting. At that meeting the question of all barriers to movement in the Commonwealth ought to have been discussed. There are many barriers. I deplore them. I deplore other barriers in the Commonwealth as much as I deplore the Bill. One thing which worries me about the Bill is that we now put ourselves completely out of court when arguing with other Commonwealth countries in favour of removing or reducing the barriers to movement.

Even if there were not time for a Prime Ministers' meeting, or if it was difficult to fix the date, there should have been proper consultation. There was none. The Prime Minister made it clear the other day that a week or so before the decision was announced to the Brighton Conference other Commonwealth Governments were informed—not consulted, but just told. They were told at a date which did not leave them time to make any comment at all before the Bill was produced and the decision announced. The Prime Minister of Jamaica learned about this from the Press.

I say this to the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. This is an extraordinary and dangerous doctrine about Commonwealth consultation. The doctrine is, "If you are frightened of criticism, do not consult. Just inform, and give them no time to comment". It is the same thing as was done over Suez. This reduces Commonwealth consultation to a nullity. Yet it is the life-blood of the Commonwealth. When I was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations we followed the opposite policy. If there was anything which was likely to worry or disturb Commonwealth Governments, we conducted long and early consultation before we came to decisions. This is the only way in which consultation in the Commonwealth can be conducted. What was the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations doing? Was he urging that proper consultation should have been undertaken? Was he overwhelmed and defeated, in which case he should resign? Or was he falling down on his job, in which case he should resign?

There could easily have been consultation. There was no need for all this degree of rush, even on the Government's case. They could have left it for a couple of months so that there could have been give and take and movement of opinion. The reason is that the Government are ashamed of what they are doing. They did not want to give time for consultation, and the reason they are ashamed is that this Bill in intention, in fact and now openly, because of what has been done in regard to the Southern Irish, is a Bill based on racial discrimination.

In its first form, before the Irish were taken out, the Bill was very careful to cover up this racial discrimination, but this only makes it worse, because a colour bar clothed in hypocrisy provokes even deeper resentment than a straightforward colour bar. How is this going to work?

Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth)

The right hon. Gentleman is talking about hypocrisy. Did he read the editorial in the Observer on Sunday, a newspaper which I think he supports, which said that it was sheer hypocrisy to pretend that colour is not an important factor?

Mr. Gordon Walker

Of course, I read that article. I hope that the hon. Member for Louth read the article in The Times the other day. In any case, whatever these newspapers are saying, the fact remains that this is a hypocritical Bill. It is clothed and cloaked as if there was no racial discrimination involved. But how does it work?

The right hon. Gentleman very properly gave us an account, in a sort of formal sense, of how the Bill will work, but what will happen in actual fact is this. Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders will encounter for the first time difficulties in coming here—the formalities of getting vouchers and all sorts of new conditions which will take away from them rights as old as the Commonwealth. But Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders will overwhelmingly fall into the acceptable categories. Some coloured immigrants will come in because they have jobs and vouchers.

Then we have this quota—first come, first served. It sounds as if there will be no racial discrimination, but everyone knows that the overwhelming majority of those trying to get in on the open quota will be coloured people. The net effect of the Bill is that a negligible number of white people will be kept out and almost all those kept out by the Bill will be coloured people. That is why I say that this is a hypothetical Bill, because that is the intention of it. The exclusion of the Irish makes all this blatant, obvious and undeniable.

I doubt, with all the damage the Bill will do in the Commonwealth, whether it will really work or achieve the aim which it is setting out to achieve, because it rests on an economic argument which is completely fallacious, which was echoed by the right hon. Gentlemen.

The fact, to which the right hon. Gentleman and many others who support this Bill shut their eyes, is that an expanding economy creates new jobs. In the Birmingham area, between 1955 and 1960, 60,000 new jobs were created. The services in an expanding economy are continually short. There is a shortage of labour on the buses, in the hospitals and of men for the Forces, for which we are recruiting in Jamaica at the very moment that we are discussing this Bill. We could not run the economy without some immigrant labour from some- where. Even this House depends upon coloured labour employed in the Serjeant at Arms Department.

Therefore, an expanding economy, even one expanding at the rate laid down by this Government, produces labour scarcity. We have to accept this as a fact of life. There is a direct relation between labour demand and immigration. Ninety-five per cent. of immigrants get jobs quickly. They do not just move about casually. They are able to take a share in the working of our economy.

Some widespread fears are, in fact, wholly exaggerated. There was one which the right hon. Gentleman played on. Many people talk about millions of people coming here; he talked about a quarter of the population of the world coming here. But a limit is set on the numbers coming here by the economy itself, by the need of the economy for labour. It is the net figure that matters whether of immigration or migration. I think that the figure is not very great. Some years it is negative; some years it is positive.

Another argument used by the right hon. Gentleman, which is fallacious, is the fear of a slump causing tremendous racial troubles. The truth is that there is a fairly quick adaptation of the numbers to the movement of the economy to and fro. The right hon. Gentleman himself gave an example. He said that in 1958–59 the number moving in dropped and the number going out went up, both of coloured immigrants and of Irish, because the economy contracted. If the Government anticipate a catastrophic slump, they had better tell us, because a lot of other things will arise. But, short of that, the ordinary movement back and forth of the economy produces an extremely rapid adaptation of the figures of immigration, including people going back.

The truth is that the only way of putting a real ban on immigration is if we are prepared to slow up the economy. We must be told if that is the Government's policy. If not, an expanding economy will suck in the labour from somewhere. Recruitment will be organised in the overseas Commonwealth, with labour exchanges being set up in the West Indies in order to get round the Bill so that people there will get vouchers. The Irish will come in in greater numbers.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his argument would be fairer if instead of "expanding economy" he said "inflation", and does he not think that immigration, however, excellent in the long run, in the short run is inflationary?

Mr. Gordon Walker

I must agree that inflation is inflation, but all the rest that the hon. Member has said seems to be poppycock and nonsense and quite irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Of course, labour will come in from the Common Market countries if we go into the Common Market. There are doubts about the meaning of the Treaty of Rome, but it is quite clear that under the Treaty of Rome recruitment of labour in the various Common Market countries will be much easier and we shall move steadily towards freedom of movement.

The net effect of all this will be an affront to all Commonwealth countries, whether pre-war or post-war—the whole lot—Australians, Canadians, West Indians and Indians will find that for the first time they are being investigated, detained and having to get vouchers under the discretion of the immigration officers, whereas the Irish and people from the Continent will be able to came in freely, or very much more freely.

Soon we shall have to have new notices at our parts. One will say: "British, Irish, German, Italian and French—this way"; and the other will say: "All other aliens and Commonwealth citizens this way."

The Times in a weighty leading article came to the conclusion that the Bill would not work in the terms of its own intentions. On 14th November it stated It is difficult to see how it"— that is, the Bill— is going to reduce numbers or do much more than introduce a lot of complicated paperwork". Much worse than a lot of complicated paperwork is going to result from this Bill. In the same leading article The Times said: The damage, emotional, economic, and political, which it"— that is, the Bill— is likely to do to the already fragile fabric of the Commonwealth can hardly be exaggerated.

Sir C. Osborne

What about the article in the Observer?

Mr. Gordon Walker

Conservatives pride themselves on being the party of the Commonwealth. I am beginning to think that they and the Ministers on the Front Bench do not know the first thing about the Commonwealth today.

One thing which I never forgot when I had some part in dealing with this matter was that, although relationships between people of the white race and other races is a world-wide problem, it is, in a special sense, a peculiar Commonwealth problem. European imperialism imposed a long period of domination by whites over peoples of other colours. Consequently, the struggle for independence imparted a special intensity to the relationships of coloured and white people and conflicts between them, which did not attach to other sorts of racial conflict, to other acts of oppression or other acts of intolerance.

The transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth meant that this special problem was carried over into the Commonwealth, because the essence of the Commonwealth was that we did not terminate our relations with these Colonies but translated them into a continuing relationship between Asian, African and European nations. We must therefore accept—we may sometimes think it not logical—that for some time to come a special tension in relationships between white people and people of other colours will be an integral part of Commonwealth relations.

That is why South Africa presented a special, unique problem for the Commonwealth, which went to the root of the nature of the Commonwealth. That is why this Bill goes to the root of the nature of the Commonwealth. That is why it has produced heart-felt, genuine and deeply-felt alarm in many parts of the Commonwealth. There have already been reactions to it, the strongest in the West Indies. Hon. Members on both sides of the House who know the West Indies knew that this would happen. It has happened. Objection has been voiced by Sir Grantley Adams, a man who I have always found to be one of the wisest and ablest leaders in the Commonwealth and deeply attached to the Commonwealth. His words cannot be ignored by anyone who really has the interests of the Commonwealth at heart.

India has let it be known that, if the Bill is passed, it will consider introducing equal retaliatory measures. There has been much talk about the lack of reciprocity. I do not like bars to movement anywhere in the Commonwealth. In India there is complete reciprocity. A Briton can go to India as easily as an Indian can come here. He can go there, stay there and work there. There are more Britons in India today than there were before she achieved her independence. Imagine all this being stopped, with vouchers and all sorts of restrictions. The Bill will have a very grave effect on our trade, on our exports, because our people in India are primarily there for trade.

It would appear from the timing of the Bill, from the Commonwealth point of view, almost as if the Government have picked the worst possible moment to introduce it. We are at a critical stage in bringing non-racial states in East and Central Africa to independence and self-government. Everything there turns on the tolerance of an African majority for a white minority. To pick this moment to introduce a racially discriminatory Bill into our Commonwealth relations is the height of stupidity. We are at a critical stage in the future of the West Indian Federation. This is also the time when the Common Market, whatever one may think of its merits, has unquestionably introduced doubt and suspicion among the member states of the Commonwealth. To introduce this Bill at this time is really appalling.

The Home Secretary made a lot of this being a temporary Bill. But it lasts for five years and can be renewed by order. It is nothing like the Aliens Act, which we discuss year by year and which we discussed last night. It will be intolerable if this House has greater control over and greater influence in regard to restrictions on the entry of aliens than in regard to restrictions on the entry of Commonwealth citizens. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of State, Home Office, was good enough to say yesterday that the debate that we have year by year has a great effect on administration and that it brings about a great improvement in individual cases and in general policy. But we shall not be able to do that with regard to Commonwealth citizens. This must be an annual Bill so that we can discuss and watch it year by year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. Parliament cannot delegate to Ministers so much power and so much discretion over a matter which concerns the Commonwealth and Commonwealth citizens.

The heart of our Amendment is that the Government are approaching the wrong problem in the wrong way. Of course, there is a real problem, a problem of social relations, housing, and overcrowding, which produces racial tension. Hon. Members who represent the affected areas—I am in one of them—know that there is deep and genuine feeling on this matter. We have all been told by constituents, "If you had to live in the conditions in which we live your mind might well be changed". I have always thought that there was force in this argument. It is easy to be high-minded from a distance. But Members of Parliament have duties. They have a duty to consider this question in the wider perspective of the Commonwealth and the Common Market. In addition, they have a duty to try to get at what is the real problem and the remedies for it.

There are two causes of the real problem. One is what I might call the clotting of the immigrant population, its gathering together in smallish areas of poor housing and high unemployment. The latest figures which I have been able to obtain show that 40 per cent. of the coloured immigrants in this country live in London, 30 per cent. in the West Midlands and 3 per cent. in Scotland. The position is worse than the figures show, because the immigrants are concentrated in small areas within larger conurbations like London and the West Midlands.

The second cause of the problem is that, in these areas of clotting population, the creation of new jobs by the expanding economy is outrunning the provision of houses. This is the simple cause, and the results, of course, are appalling. They affect everybody, and not just the coloured immigrants, who live in these places. The thought that in 1961 homelessness should be increasing day by day and week by week in London is appalling, and it is a manifestation of the same basic problem that we have to face concerning the clotting of the immigrant population.

The Government are to blame for this situation. The Government have totally failed to relate the increase in the number of jobs to housing. They have totally failed to disperse industry. They have contributed to homelessness and overcrowding by their Rent Act and by cutting back local authority house building.

We must get the problem in perspective. It is a very grave problem, but it occurs only in relatively small areas and the Bill is quite irrelevant to the problem; it will do nothing whatever to remedy it. Immigration will go on under it. If we do nothing else but just have this Bill the problem will get steadily worse. I believe that one motive of the Bill is not to achieve very much but to divert anger in the cities from the Government and its policies.

A real drive now to start local authority building again and to disperse industry would have a relatively quick effect on this problem and much of the present tension might go rather quickly. There have been other waves of rapid immigration in our time. When I was young in politics, there was a great emigration from Wales. I remember that in Oxford all the things that are said now about immigrants were said about the Welsh. That problem has disappeared, partly through time and partly because great housing estates have been built which have totally changed living conditions.

In this respect, there is a point which is constantly overlooked. It is that we cannot build the houses or the roads that we need to get this dispersal, this acceptance of the immigrant population, without immigrant labour. It cannot be done.

We do not take any negative view in opposing the Bill. We think that there is a problem and that it should be dealt with. The Government must make much greater efforts to disperse this population. They must support local authorities much more in using their anti-overcrowding powers. They must take active measures to combat the colour bar. This is necessary now in our country because there are some elements that are stirring up race hatred. We should consider legislation to punish deliberate incitement of race hatred. We must certainly have legislation to stop the practice of the colour bar in places to which the public has access.

The Government must use their full influence. It is no good the Home Secretary praising the bodies who have helped. What have the Government done to help them? A great deal can be done to help the committees set up by local authorities and others. They need welfare officers and interpreters. We all know that where there is bad behaviour by immigrants, if somebody of their own race and colour goes to them with the authority of being a welfare officer, it is nearly always put right and relations improve immensely.

We bitterly oppose the Bill and will resist it. It has been rushed. There has been no inquiry, no consultation with the Commonwealth. It is widely and rightly regarded as introducing a colour bar into our legislation. It will do great harm to the Commonwealth. It is so ill-conceived that it will not achieve even its own mis-begotten purposes. It is a Bill, as the Economist said, that is a ramshackle monstrosity.

5.13 p.m.

Sir Cyril Osborne (Louth)

Mr. Deputy-Speaker—[An HON. MEMBER: "Deputy for Mosley."]—I hope that hon. Members opposite, who are so keen on racial equality, will at least give me the courtesy of a hearing—[An HON. MEMBER: The hon. Member does not deserve it."]—and will give me the sort of hearing that they would demand for anybody speaking from this side who happened to have a black face. [Interruption.]

The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) made three points to which I should like to refer. He said that one of his constituents had told him, "If you lived in a coloured area, you would think differently about this problem". As the House knows, I have been agitating for this type of legislation for ten years. I make no bones about it and I do not apologise for it. I have received thousands of letters from all over the country, mostly from people who live in the areas—

Mr. Scholefield Allen

Mosley gets thousands of letters. [Interruption.]

Sir C. Osborne

Is this the sort of liberty that is given to an Englishman? I have received thousands of letters from people who live in these areas and who are affected by this problem.

Mr. Lipton

Answer them.

Sir C. Osborne

I have answered every one. Many of them are from the Brixton area which the hon. Member will not touch. These people show an acute sense of distress because of this problem. The right hon. Member for Smethwick gave not nearly enough attention to the English people in the great cities who are affected by this problem.

The right hon. Gentleman's second point—if I may have his attention for a moment—was that the net migration figures would show in some cases that more people left this country than came to it. That is probably true. The position varies from year to year. What the right hon. Gentleman will agree, however, is that those people leaving this country for other parts of the Commonwealth have to subject themselves to restrictions even greater than those that the Bill will impose. That is a fair point to make. Therefore, it does not seem to me at all unreasonable that we should say to other parts of the Commonwealth that we will exercise the same powers in our own country that they have power to exercise in their countries.

I support the Bill wholeheartedly and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on introducing it. I recognise that this is one of the most momentous decisions that the House will have to take for many a generation, but I believe that it is ten years too late and that it is still inadequate. I think that far greater controls will be necessary before long. As a child, however, I was taught that half a loaf is better than no bread, and I am grateful for small mercies.

Why is the Bill necessary? That is the question we must face. [Interruption.] I beg hon. Members opposite to listen. Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was challenged by the Leader of the Opposition for supporting the Bill after the speech which my right hon. Friend had made at the Brighton conference on the brotherhood of man. My right hon. Friend said: I detest the necessity for"— the Bill— but I believe it to be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1961; Vol. 648, c. 926.] I am quite aware that the onus rests upon us to prove its necessity. Yesterday, there appeared in the Daily Telegraph what I thought was a rather good letter giving a number of figures which prove beyond doubt that a Bill of this kind was necessary. The right hon. Member for Smethwick simply ignored those figures and the implications behind them. When the Leader of the Opposition winds up the debate from his side of the House, I should like him to face the ugly facts of those figures that were in my letter yesterday in the Daily Telegraph. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Llywelyn Williams (Abertillery) rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche)

Order. If the hon. Member who is speaking does not give way, obviously the hon. Member for Abertillery (Mr. LI. Williams) must resume his seat. I would point out that a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. Possibly, we can have fewer interruptions.

Mr. LI. Williams

I am grateful to the hon. Member for now giving way. Does he consider it justifiable to use one particular word in the letter to which he has referred, in which he said 'Keep out brother' is a statistical necessity"? Does the hon. Member think that he is entitled to use the word "brother" in that context?

Sir C. Osborne

That was a quotation from The Times and it was in inverted commas.

Mr. Walter Monslow (Barrow-in-Furness) rose—

Sir C. Osborne

Let me answer one at a time. The right hon. Gentleman had a fair run and was listened to patiently. [HON. MEMBERS: "He was talking sense."] That word came from The Times of London and it was in inverted commas to show that it had been copied from elsewhere. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that?

Mr. Monslow rose—

Sir C. Osborne

I appeal to hon. Members to let me get on, but I will give way once more.

Mr. Monslow

Does the hon. Member remember the famous words of John Wesley, "The world is my parish"?

Sir C. Osborne

That is true. I agree with that, but even in Methodism each man is entitled to settle his own domestic affairs in his own household.

Mrs. Harriet Slater (Stoke-on-Trent, North)

According to our standards.

Sir C. Osborne

Every Methodist is entitled to do that. [Interruption.] I was challenged by the hon. Gentleman and I am trying to answer.

Mr. Harold Davies

Drooling hypocrisy. Keep Christianity out of it.

Sir C. Osborne

The question I want to face is, why do immigrants come to this country? Why do they come here? For the simple reason that the standard of living in this country, as I showed in my letter, is so much higher than that they can enjoy in their own country—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why is that?"]—and they will continue to come here whilst our standard of living is so much higher than theirs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why is that?"] As long as that is true they will come. This is the honey pot to which they will come, so long as there is any honey in the pot.

An Hon. Member

How much money has the hon. Member in the West Indies?

Sir C. Osborne

The equality of brotherhood which hon. Members opposite show astonishes me.

Mr. F. H. Hayman (Falmouth and Camborne)

Will the hon. Member say whether he believes in the brotherhood of all men or merely in the brotherhood of white men?

Sir C. Osborne

I believe in the brotherhood of all men, and I would not shut out half a dozen members from my own party just because they disagree. [Hon. Members: "What about Nigel Nicolson?"] So far as I know, the Foot family are still white. I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.] Do let me get on. If I am constantly interrupted I will only take longer, I warn hon. Members. I am trying to answer a question.

We have got to face this. Why is it that they come here? It is because they can have a very much higher standard here than they can in their own country. In Pakistan and India they work harder for a week's wage which is less than they can get here on the dole for doing nothing, and whilst therefore—

Mr. John Diamond (Gloucester) rose—

Sir C. Osborne

I cannot give way again.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order.

Mr. Diamond

How many unemployed are there there?

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker (Swindon)

How many?

Sir C. Osborne

If this is the sort of liberty which we can expect from hon. Gentlemen opposite, God help England if it is controlled by them.

Mr. F. Noel-Baker

How many? Flow many?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I hope that hon. Members will not keep on shouting out repetitive questions from a sitting position.