asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, under the proposals announced by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 4th February, each of the inner London councils will become the local education authority for its area and will therefore be responsible for provision and funding of its local youth services.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Perhaps I may ask whether she is aware that there are 713 voluntary youth organisations in London and that when the boroughs take over responsibility for the running of these youth clubs they are bound to give them a low priority. That will mean thousands of young people being allowed to go on the streets and turning to crime.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his supplementary question. I am not sure that I agree with the suggestion that this service will be given a low priority. The voluntary sector provides a very valuable and highly regarded service in this area. The Government believe that a continuing statutory—voluntary partnership in the delivery of the youth service within the boroughs will lead to good value for money. This partnership is well established and there is every reason to believe that it will be maintained in inner London as in other parts of the country.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that in many of the boroughs where the need for youth service is at its very greatest—for example, Brixton, Lambeth and Tower Hamlets—the financing of it will be an almost impossible burden for those boroughs?

My Lords, in asking the boroughs of inner London to produce development plans for the whole of the education services, consideration will be given to the provision that they are suggesting in the youth service area. I am setting up arrangements for meetings with representatives of voluntary organisations to hear their ideas. It is still early days; but there will be full consultation and dialogue. The best possible arrangements will be made which may well include co-operation between two or more boroughs.

My Lords, while trying to understand the reasons for the Government abolishing ILEA, is the Minister aware that the average teacher in London, especially in the inner cities, is absolutely appalled at the thought that the administration of education is to be handed over to certain boroughs? The boroughs are not competent to run the disposal of rubbish. The Government cannot continue to talk in the way that they are at the moment. There will have to be some unitary authorities responsible for running the schools. It is madness to think that the boroughs can undertake the tasks that ILEA has been doing.

My Lords, the noble Lord's question goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. Nevertheless, to reassure the noble Lord, I would point out that the Secretary of State is going through a series of meetings with representatives of local boroughs as well as with representatives of ILEA. Guidance will be issued after Royal Assent. Development plans will have to be submitted by each local borough and vetted by the department. There is a special unit in the department to help and advise boroughs that lack experience. These moves, together with the general reforms planned in the Education Reform Bill shortly to come before your Lordships, will lead, I believe, to finding a satisfactory solution.

My Lords, in the light of what my noble friend has said, can she give an assurance that there will not be a gap between the time that ILEA gives up and the local authorities take over when there is no money for the youth clubs and youth leaders? I regret to have to say that youth leaders are already leaving the London youth service because of the lack of security. Bearing in mind that a number of the clubs have children from different boroughs, will there be disagreement among the boroughs as to who should pay for the clubs?

My Lords, the Government will be asking for development plans for each borough to be presented before the end of February of next year in relation to the provision for April 1990. We believe that in this way there will be plenty of time to cover any "gap period" to which my noble friend refers.

Is the noble Baroness aware that the voluntary service with which many of us have been concerned over the years has played a vital part in character-building among the young folk of Greater London? Because the Government wish to destroy ILEA, why should they wish equally to destroy something which is noted for character-building in this great city? Will the Minister be gracious enough to give the House the assurance that she will convey that information to the Secretary of State?

My Lords, not only is the Secretary of State aware; we believe also that local councils are aware of the youth service machinery already in place in their areas. We believe that the voluntary sector, working with local councils, will be closer to the needs of communities and that there will be appreciation of the effective work undertaken by voluntary organisations in those communities. Furthermore, local communities will be able to bring pressure to bear on their local councils to sustain the work of voluntary organisations serving their needs which, as I have already said, perform an extremely valuable role.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us a little more about how it is expected that this service will be funded in 1990? At the moment the DoE has set GREA at £13·5 million for youth provision while ILEA has budgeted for £36·5 million, a great deal of which goes in grants to just those voluntary bodies that the noble Lord, Lord Newall, asked about, such as the London federation of youth clubs and the London adventure playground association. These could well collapse if that same grant is to be kept up. How will the funding be done?

My Lords, the boroughs will need to review the organisation and cost of the youth service and the other services that they will be undertaking. The voluntary sector of the youth service believes that it provides a good, cost-effective service to young people. We agree that individual organisations must ensure that all the facts about their achievements are well known to the boroughs. I believe that in many cases they are. They will be considering, as will the special unit within the department, how the department can best assist in ensuring that dialogue takes place and adequate provision results.

My Lords, the Minister has not replied to my question. Will there be a commitment from the Government that funds will be available for these extremely good clubs in 1990?

My Lords, the Government will provide funding for the whole of the education service. We are taking every possible step to ensure that the youth service is included within the general arrangements and that it is not forgotten or left aside.

My Lords, is it not true that a vast majority of the boroughs in this country have never been under the control of ILEA or anything like that, but that they have always conducted their education and youth services extremely well?

My Lords, the noble Viscount has raised an important point. We wish to emphasise the fact that we believe that the youth service in particular can be better handled at a more local level.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the abolition of ILEA is very much involved in this Question? Is she further aware that I have recently received a letter from a former Conservative opponent asking me to do my best to assist the House of Lords to stop the Government going ahead?

My Lords, that question is wide of the original Question, but I shall bear in mind the noble Lord's remarks.

My Lords, the noble Baroness has been helpful to the House—and perhaps the Government Chief Whip will be patient for a moment— in answering important questions about the service. However, a degree of confusion arises as a result of the exchanges and clarification is needed. The voluntary youth services are immensely important in the development of the life of London over the next few years. Will she ask her right honourable friend to consider publishing a White Paper as soon as possible giving details of the plans that the Government have in mind, and relating especially to funding?

My Lords, in view of the time limits which are likely to be put upon us, and in view of the need to provide for the "gap period", to which my noble friend Lady Faithful referred, we believe that at this stage it is best to get on with matters. The consultation and dialogue will certainly continue and I believe that the noble Lord's point will be met by the issue of guidance, which it is intended to publish after Royal Assent.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I share the noble Lord's interest in the recent discovery. We understand that the City Corporation, together with English Heritage and the Museum of London, are considering options and we are monitoring the situation.

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for his reply. Can he expand on it a little and assure the House that the Government will monitor the proceedings and encourage the City Fathers as much as possible to open the site to the public?

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that this is a recent discovery. Applications for planning permission, listed building consent and conservation area consent for the extension of the Guildhall and the demolition of one unlisted building are currently before my right honourable friend. I cannot at this stage comment on the merits of the case. However, English Heritage has advised that applications should be considered at a public inquiry and we are considering that recommendation.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in response to strong representations from the Royal Fine Art Commission the City of London has promised to take the necessary measures to preserve these important remains temporarily? However, is not the present problem that of permanently preserving this unique piece of architecture for future generations?

My Lords, I am well aware of the point raised by my noble friend. However, I should like to remind him that had it not been for the fact that the Guildhall Library was partially demolished by a German bomb this reconstruction would not have been anticipated and the matter brought to light.

My Lords, following on what has already been said, I believe that an early agreement must be reached between the City of London and archaeologists that the remains, which are acknowledged by all sides to be of immense importance, will be preserved. Will the Government ensure that there is wide and open discussion to forestall the building over of the three sites involved, even though recording may have taken place? There is a difference between obtaining the records and having the sites preserved so that people can see them in an interpretative centre.

My Lords, it is still early days. I draw the attention of the noble Baroness to my earlier remarks about the recommendation made by English Heritage, which we are now considering.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are already two important Roman sites, which are at Billingsgate and on the embankment near Blackfriars and which have been closed in? I believe it to be essential that that does not happen to the amphitheatre.

My Lords, so far no irrevocable decisions have been taken.

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord who has just spoken. I am not speaking from the Cross-Benches. Is the Minister aware that there have been several examples—and if the noble Lord wants to know the examples I can send him the information—of at least three sites which have been closed in by the City of London Fathers? Therefore, at this stage it is essential that we should ensure that that does not happen in this ease.

My Lords, I am sure that the City is well aware of the public interest in this issue and its potential. I should remind noble Lords that only part of the amphitheatre has been uncovered and that the whole could not be preserved without the destruction of other important buildings in the City.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the very successful Jorvik Viking Centre in York was set up four years ago with a loan of £2½million, and that that loan has almost been paid off as nearly 900,000 visitors visit the centre each year? Therefore, will the Government lend support to the leading archaeologists who are pressing for the Roman amphitheatre discovered underneath the London Guildhall to be preserved in a national heritage centre on the scale of the Jorvik Centre in York? Perhaps discussions between the two cities would be of use.

My Lords, I am well aware of the Jorvik Centre and am extremely pleased that the noble Baroness pointed out that there are 900,000 visitors each year. My brief gave a figure of 800,000, which is most encouraging. The Jorvik Centre is a great example where public and private investment have resulted in a very satisfactory conclusion. I am sure that the City is well aware of the success of the Jorvik Centre and will keep it in mind when considering the future of the Londinium amphitheatre.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that beneath St. Peter's in Rome and beneath York Minster\ancient history has been preserved and can still be viewed through not having allowed modern buildings to be erected immediately above?

My Lords, I am.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the National Gallery, Tate Gallery and National Portrait Gallery are at present unable to dispose of any unwanted items from their collections, whether by sale, gift or exchange. The provisions which the Government intend to introduce would remove what we believe to be an unnecessary obstacle to sensible collections management. The existence of an enabling power would not, however, invalidate individual agreements between donors and trustees about the conditions under which particular pictures were accepted into the collections.

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that encouraging reply. Are we not under the difficulty that boards of trustees cannot bind their successors and, without the authority of Parliament behind them, trustees will not be able to give the absolute assurance, which a prospective donor may demand, that a picture will never be sold? In consequence, we might find that some gifts which the trustees would dearly love to have will not be forthcoming.

My Lords, I believe that in a way I answered that supplementary question in my Answer. The existence of an enabling power would not invalidate agreements between donors and trustees about the conditions under which particular pictures were accepted into the collection. That would also apply to trustees accepting new gifts into collections for the future, if they felt that they were in a position to provide such an undertaking.

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said about management, will the Government confirm that the trustees will not be required by the Treasury to dispose of works of art in order to pay for essential building repairs and special acquisitions?

My Lords, the funds received from the sale of any unwanted items are to be ploughed back specifically into the collection and will not be available for spending on running costs of the building, maintenance and so on.

My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said about incorporating a general principle into the law on this matter binding trustees. Is it not a case, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham might put it, of quis custodiet ipsos custodies—in other words, can you trust the trustees?

My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with me that over a very great length of time trustees' record of public service in many of the great national institutions and collections has been a very fine one.

My Lords, I understand that the pictures given by donors will probably be excluded in the legislation. Will the Government also exclude all those pictures now in the three galleries to which members of the public, including children, have contributed with donations ranging from large to very small; for example, the two paintings by Stubbs "The Haymakers" and "The Reapers" and also Constable's "The Opening of Waterloo Bridge"? If the Government intend to exclude those, which they should, what is the point of bringing forward this very bad legislation?

My Lords, the disposal provision we have in mind is very carefully constrained. One of the criteria in the National Heritage Act 1983, on which we shall base the legislation, is that the item in question should be judged unsuitable for the collection and can be disposed of without detriment to students or other members of the public. I am sure that all the pictures to which the noble Baroness referred will be covered by that description.

My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that acceptance by a gallery of a gift has an implied condition that it will be retained and shown to the public?

My Lords, I am unaware of any great work of art that has been disposed of from a public collection in this country to the detriment of the national collection.

My Lords, have the Government had any success in persuading galleries to lend to other institutions those pictures and so on which they cannot show? Do they not agree that it is almost as bad to imprison pictures unseen in cellars indefinitely as it is to sell them?

My Lords, I should be very happy to answer a Question on that subject if the noble Lord would like to table such a Question.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that anybody who is as fortunate as I was some years ago to visit the Hermitage Museum in Leningrad will see there a substantial collection of very valuable paintings by artists such as Rembrandt that were sold to Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Is it not a tragedy that on that occasion those paintings were sold? Should we not be talking about preserving all of our heritage and not disposing of any of it on a commercial basis?

My Lords, I am slightly mystified by the noble Lord's question. I was unaware that Rembrandt was an English artist.

My Lords, I was not referring to Rembrandt as being an English artist.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that one of the dangers is that artistic tastes change? Is he aware that in the 1920s paintings by Gainsborough were extremely expensive in real terms compared to the present time? Is there not a danger that paintings will go out of fashion and be sold and then come hack into fashion and we shall regret their sale?

My Lords, the last time the subject was raised, my noble friend Lord St. John brought up the example of the pre-Raphaelite pictures which were considered very unfashionable 30 or 40 years ago. Of course in that case the trustees, when discussing the matter as a whole, decided quite rightly—which is why one has a board of trustees—to preserve the paintings.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government have proposed that, while sight tests provided under the National Health Service should remain free, patients who can afford to do so should obtain their tests privately. Clause 10 of the Health and Medicines Bill, which will shortly come before the House, will give effect to this proposal. The resources released by this change will enable us to develop preventive measures in other priority areas of primary care.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government are putting financial ability in front of and above the word "compassion"? Is he not also aware that after certain operations and certain afflictions routine eye-testing in order to effect detection of a disease—for example, diabetes—is vital? Is the noble Lord really saying that if a person is a border case after an operation and the ophthalmic surgeon feels there is a need for continual eye tests, or if a person suffering from a disease such as diabetes needs regular eye tests, and is deemed to be able to afford it but cannot, he will just have to suffer? Is that the Government's policy?

My Lords, the noble Lord has slightly misunderstood the position. National Health Service sight tests are carried out under the National Health Service Act 1977 either as part of the general ophthalmic service arrangements which family practitioner committees make with ophthalmic opticians and ophthalmic medical practitioners or as part of the hospital eye service. In the cases cited by him the tests will continue to be done under the National Health Service.

My Lords, further to the noble Lord's replies, can he give a guarantee that the Government will not introduce compulsory charges for eye tests under the NHS? Is he aware that roughly 1 million people are referred to opticians for treatment as a result of such sight tests? Is he further aware that a recent MORI poll showed that 80 per cent. of the public are opposed to the introduction of charges? Can he give some assurance that that will not be done the next time round?

My Lords, the Government's policy in this area, like many other parts of their policy, is that those people who can afford to pay and who fall outside the exempt categories should do so. There is not much difference between that position and, for example, the prescription service, which the noble Lord knows well.

My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that the professional bodies covering ophthalmic surgeons and opticians are totally united in their view that the present system should not be interfered with? A person's eyesight is too valuable to be subject to any financial test. Would he be gracious enough to convey those views to the Secretary of State? Will the Government consider abolishing their peculiar attitude of adopting this odd animus to the professional bodies within our National Health Service?

My Lords, I do not need to convey those thoughts to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services because the professionals have already made him well aware of them. However, I should like to make the point that patients will still need to obtain a prescription for their glasses and therefore will still have their eyes checked regularly. There are no plans to change the existing type of test, which of course is all-important where the detection of glaucoma, cancers and other diseases of the eye might be thrown up.

My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Lyell will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the terrorist murders in Northern Ireland.

It may he for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Immigration Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour and that during this adjournment the Second Reading of the British Railways (Penalty Fares) Bill will be taken.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

My Lords, it falls to me on this occasion to compliment my noble friend Lord Newall on steering his Bill thus far. I am grateful to him for withdrawing at Report stage his proposed amendment that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should be empowered by order further to vary the amount which the operators of greyhound tracks may charge bookmakers. The Bill is itself now confined, as introduced, to varying that amount. On Second Reading and in Committee I explained that we are not opposed in principle to such a measure. For completeness I had to add that we understand that the Bill does not enjoy the agreement of the bookmakers, which may be thought to be a necessary ingredient. But it does address a real issue. Whether the solution it proposes is the right one is a question for Parliament to judge. We will watch its progress in another place with interest.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. We have had some interesting and useful exchanges and I am grateful to him and to the Opposition for their support.

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 6, leave out ("repealed") and insert ("amended by substituting for the word "wives" the word "spouses" ").

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who has explained the nature of the amendment. I support it. Clause 1 repeals Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act which has been found to be sexually discriminatory. That is why an amendment to the 1971 Act is thought to be necessary. I argue that the only amendment required is the very simple one that the noble and learned Lord has proposed.

I do not know why this Bill has been introduced. There has been no widespread cry against a flood of 25 polygamous wives every year. Primary immigration is dropping; secondary immigration is dropping. The Bill was precipitated by an election letter. I can see no other reason for it. As the noble and learned Lord has said, it is a breach of an undertaking written into the 1971 Act—written into an Act of Parliament. Some argue that governments cannot bind their successors. At the best of times this has always seemed to me a somewhat tenuous argument. It is particularly tenuous if the government in question are of the same political complexion as the predecessor whose undertaking they propose not to honour. If that technical doctrine were taken seriously it would mean that no undertaking by any government would be worth the Hansard upon which it is printed.

That is one reason why the Bill seems to me a somewhat serious one. It calls into question the whole reliability of pledges given by governments. As a consequence of this unreliability—this question of the honour of governments—we are asking in subsequent amendments for affirmative resolutions of both Houses to be introduced under the Bill. No honourable person would behave as this Government have behaved in respect of a pledge given to a whole group of people. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is an honourable man; we all know that. He would not behave in such a manner in his personal or business life. It seems strange that the rules, the norms, the values and the propriety which apparently bind individuals in their private and business lives are not relevant to the behaviour of governments.

We wish to amend the clause in order to conform with the ruling of the European Court. The method the Government have chosen is characteristically restrictive. The restrictiveness is characteristic of the whole Bill. The Bill, it can be argued, deprives husbands of rights and places them in the inferior position in which their wives found themselves. It is somewhat ironic after the Chancellor of the Exchequer has removed financial discrimination against married women by levelling them up to the position of unmarried couples that the Committee should be asked today to deal with a similar anomaly by levelling down. That is the central argument I put forward about this Bill and this particular clause.

The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, argued at Second Reading that it is wrong and anomalous to distinguish between those born before 1973 and those born after that date. That distinction was deliberately and carefully written into the 1971 Act. It was an anomaly which the Act inscribed in the law. When did this anomaly become intolerable? All laws of this nature create arbitrary distinctions. The noble Earl may remember the British Nationality Act 1981 which distinguishes between a child horn abroad of a British woman after 1st January 1983 and that child's brother or sister born before 1983. Is that anomaly intolerable? Will we now have an amendment to that Act to abolish the anomaly? I believe that the noble Earl will need to answer that very simple question if he really asks the Committee to take seriously the position on anomalies.

This Bill introduces elsewhere huge anomalies to which we shall be drawing the attention of the Committee. In particular I refer to the distinction between EC citizens and citizens of this country. Here is an anomaly to which the noble Earl referred at Second Reading. I hope he will explain why what he found tolerable in 1971 is intolerable in 1988. Perhaps the noble Earl can explain why an anomaly introduced in 1981 is tolerable while an anomaly introduced earlier is not.

The virtue of the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is that it is simple. That is a great virtue in the law and a rare one. It maintains an undertaking which the Government solemnly wrote into the law. It is non-discriminatory. And it levels up, not down.

When the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, suggests that there is an anomaly in our law between the admission of citizens of the EC and citizens of the Commonwealth, I wonder if he is really suggesting that Commonwealth citizens should all be given the right of entry which, under the Treaty, we have granted to EC citizens? If so, it would seem to be inconsistent with what he said at Second Reading. He made it clear then that he and his party were opposed to mass immigration. If we were to repeal the control of Commonwealth immigration, that is what we would have.

I thank the noble Lord for giving way. The proposal that I support is written into the amendment to which my name is committed.

That I understand. It puzzled me somewhat when the noble Lord went a good deal wider than the amendment. He has drawn attention to what he considers to be an anomaly but which most of us do not consider to be so. Most of us do not believe there is an unjustifiable anomaly between the treatment of Commonwealth citizens and those of the EC.

Let us see where we are agreed, because in a controversial matter which arouses strong feelings it is best to find agreement if we can. In Amendment No. 1 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is assuming, just as the Government are assuming, that subsection (5) of Section 1 of the Immigration Act 1971 shall be either repealed or replaced. Therefore it is a question of how this is done. Perhaps it would help the Committee if I were to remind it of the terms of subsection (5). It is not very long and I think it would be helpful to put it on record so that Members of the Committee can have it in their minds. It reads:

"The rules shall be so framed"—

the rules mentioned in the previous subsection, to be made by the Secretary of State—

"that Commonwealth citizens settled in the United Kingdom"—

I stress the words "settled in the United Kingdom"—

"at the coming into force of this Act and their wives and children are not, by virtue of anything in the rules, any less free to come into and go from the United Kingdom than if this Act had not been passed".

Therefore we are talking about how the rules shall he framed.

Subsection (5), as has been correctly, accurately and appropriately mentioned, is discriminatory. The European Court found that it was discriminatory. It benefits the wives of male Commonwealth citizens and not the husbands of female Commonwealth citizens. In the case of Abdulaziz the European Court of Human Rights held that our Parliament was guilty of sex discrimination. That is what the Government are trying to correct. I find that the indignation expressed in the speeches today and at Second Reading was somewhat misplaced. I hope that I am not being unfair.

The Government are now asking Parliament to put this right. One should mention in passing that in the 15 years in which we have tried to operate it—since 1973 when it came into force—it has been found difficult to administer and has had some rather strange results. For example, at col. 365 of the Official Report at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ferrers mentioned a case where the Court of Apppeal found that a woman liable to deportation can render herself wholly immune from deportation by marrying a Commonwealth citizen man who was settled here on 1st January 1973. That is only one example (but I understand that there have been others) of the strange and, if I may borrow a phrase, anomalous results of the operation of the subsection. After 15 years' experience it is right for us to consider a change in the law.

Without repeating the arguments given by my noble friend and without labouring what I have already said, I believe the simple thing to do is to repeal subsection (5) of Section 1 of the 1971 Act. Obviously we have to be careful how we do it so as not to cause injustice or hardship. But, there again, at Second Reading my noble friend Lord Ferrers made it perfectly clear that it does not mean that those who settled here before 1973 would be unable to bring their wives and children to join them. It means that they will have to satisfy the same requirements in the immigration rules as those who do not at present benefit from this subsection. I must confess that I find that perfectly reasonable and I hope that my noble friend will not advise the Committee to accept Amendment No 1.

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for introducing the amendment and for commenting that it is a complex Bill. It is reassuring for one who is not a lawyer to learn that. As I try to find my way around its complexities I am glad to know that others also do not find it entirely straightforward.

I am flattered to find that Amendment No. 1 to which I have put my name arose in part from a comment I made at Second Reading. I listened with great care to the arguments put forward at Second Reading by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It seemed to me that their major argument in favour of the Bill was about numbers. We heard a good deal about numbers. We heard about the tens of thousands who were still coming into this country. We were also assured by the noble Earl that the numbers affected by the Bill before us would be very small. In other words, it is as if we are screwing a tap which is dripping only very slightly in order to try to cut down the drips. We have to ask whether the small numbers involved justify the cost of squeezing people in that way. Some of us argued at Second Reading that the cost would be so great that it could not be justified by the fact that small numbers might be excluded.

At Second Reading there were two arguments against Clause 1. The first has already been underlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It is that Clause 1 is a breach of the undertaking already given by a previous government. The second reason for disquiet about Clause 1 concerns family life. It will make it that much more difficult for certain families to be united. This is the thrust of the argument from the Churches in relation to a number of clauses in the Bill. It is yet another threat—involving perhaps only a small number of families but nevertheless a threat—to the family life of a number of people settled in this country.

I listened carefully just now to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. He said quite rightly that what was at stake was how the immigration rules were to be framed in order to do justice to the decision of the European Court. He commented that to pass this amendment would introduce an anomaly in that it was possible under present legislation for a woman affected by a deportation order to overcome that order by marrying a Commonwealth citizen settled here before 1973. That is how I understood him and he will correct me if I am wrong. What is at stake here is the question of whether the immigration rules affect those who were settled before 1973. Those rules include the business of not being a liability to public funds.

It is perfectly possible that a Commonwealth citizen settled here before 1973 would satisfy those conditions and that therefore the marriage to such a person of somebody who was due to be deported would still overcome that order. It seems to me that however we frame this legislation there will be anomalies. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has already pointed that out. To overcome all the anomalies in the legislation will be extremely difficult. Therefore to bring up the example of one anomaly as an argument against an amendment is simply to leave out of account all kinds of other anomalies which will continue.

This is a simple and straightforward way of bringing about what the European Court wished to occur; namely, the overcoming of the discrimination in the 1971 legislation. It is simple and straightforward and does so by an extension rather than a reduction of rights. That is the thrust of our case.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that this Bill was a matter of some complexity. If such a distinguished noble and learned Lord who is qualified in these matters finds it complex, I still have hope. It is a complicated matter; anything that concerns immigration is complicated. The noble and learned Lord said that the clause was discriminatory and that by introducing the amendment, which he has put down with a number of his colleagues from different parts of the Committee, the discriminatory nature of the Bill as it stands would be removed.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that he could not understand how people who were honourable in themselves could not be honourable in government. If I may say so, I find that rather a curious argument—not that there is any dishonour between the Government and private individuals—because when an Act is passed it does not mean that it is passed for all time and that there can never he any alteration to it, or that Parliament is sacrosanct. In this clause we are saying that it is now 15 years since the 1971 Act was enacted and those whom Section 1(5) was intended to apply to have had all that time in which to bring their families to this country to join them without any question being raised as to their ability to support or accommodate themselves.

I differ from what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said in respect of the breaking up of families. The provision does not mean the breaking up of families; all that will happen now is that people will have to show that they have the ability to support and maintain those people without recourse to public funds, merely because it is now 15 years after the provision was put into effect. The reason it was introduced into the Bill, as I understand it, was because there was some justifiable concern at that time that those who were already resident in this country might be worried about their future. When the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, asks, "Why was it acceptable to the Government of the day and yet is not acceptable to the Government now?" I should remind him that it was not the Government's wording; it was part of a wording introduced by Members of this Chamber in an amendment to the Bill.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said that the whole purpose of the amendment was to try to get the equality of the sexes right. He referred to the 1891 Act.

It was 1981!

Yes, indeed; it was the 1981 Act. I remember once being told by a civil servant: "The male embraces the female in the Civil Service". I replied that I did not think you had to join the Civil Service for that. It is of course true to say that in the normal course of events the two sexes go together.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the purpose of the amendment was to make the Bill non-discriminatory. I am bound to tell him that it would not have that effect. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that very few people were going to be affected by this provision. However, I should remind him that it was the judgment of the European Court that stipulated that our law as it is at present is discriminatory. The noble Lord has tabled his amendment to try to make it nondiscriminatory. However, the fact is that, although it would no longer discriminate in its application as between men and women, there would remain discrimination between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens and between those who settled in this country before 1st January 1973 and those who settled here afterwards.

It is already the case that, within a family containing two sons one of whom was born in 1972 and one born a year later, Section 1(5) provides that, should they in future marry foreign girls, the elder of the two would be able to bring his wife here without meeting the normal tests and immigration rules, while the younger brother would be subject to them. The lack of sense in the present position is further exacerbated by the fact that if those two children were girls, and not boys, they would both now be subject to the requirements of the rules should they wish to bring their husbands to settle here at some time in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon said that this is where their amendment would make things better. However, it would in fact put a further twist of illogicality into the situation. For example, in the case of the two girls to which I have already referred, if that provision were to apply, it would be the elder sister, and not the younger, who would be in the favourable position of not having to satisfy any particular tests before bringing a husband to this country. Therefore, if the Committee were to accept the amendment which has been moved—for reasons which I entirely understand—the Act would in fact continue to be discriminatory and it would be discriminatory within families. We think the right way to deal with this is to remove the clause altogether and thereby remove the discrimination.

I wish the Government would try to face the issue. We must recognise what is at stake here. When the Immigration Bill was going through Parliament in 1971, there was tremendous concern in the black community that their rights were being taken away from them. The Home Secretary of the day gave an undertaking that that would not be so. This Chamber went further than that and tabled an amendment to the Bill—which the Government finally accepted—to safeguard that position. Therefore the black community felt satisfied. It is still satisfied but, when the Government repeal Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act, it will once again be upset. If a pledge made in that connection can be taken back, that means that any other pledge that has been made can be taken hack. That is why it is unwise to go down that road.

It is recognised that the Government are in difficulty with the European Court of Justice, because the court has ruled that the section is sexist. The amendment would remove that aspect and it would no longer be sexist. Therefore the Government should accept it rather than proceeding to repeal the section. It is no use talking about the fact that it is discriminatory between Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth citizens. Why should it not be? After all, when all is said and done, of course it is discriminatory; any law relating to immigration would be discriminatory as regards the citizens of a country. Therefore, that argument is a bit of a nonsense, if I may say so. It is bound to be discriminatory between the people who were in this country before 1973 and those who came afterwards. That is an understandable situation; the law introduced in 1971 was intended to control the people who came afterwards. All the law provided was that those who were here at the time had their rights safeguarded. Why then can we not recognise and respect our pledge and continue to honour it?

The fact that the provision was introduced 15 years ago is also a serious blot; it is a blot on the Administration. I say that because what has happened over the years is that people have experienced the maximum amount of difficulty in bringing their wives and children to this country, as all manner of obstacles have been placed in their way; for example, about the children not being their children and so on.

We have advanced. We now have DNS to prove whose children they are. There will no longer be any difficulty about that. There has been an argument about public funds. If someone has been living here for 15 years they have been contributing to public funds tremendously. If at the same time they had no children here, they were paying for the education of others' children while theirs were elsewhere. They were not receiving child benefit; they were paying it for other people. It is nonsense to talk about such people living on public funds.

I wish that the Government would think through these matters. We are talking about people who have been here for 15 years. During those 15 years they have been contributing to the state through taxes, rates, their work and their contributions to society. In 1971 the Government gave them a pledge. I ask them for Christ's sake to keep it. The amendment merely asks the Government, since they are worried about the court's ruling—obviously they must be worried about the ruling of the European Court—to remove the sexist element. That is what the amendment will do. I hope that if the Government do not understand that, the Committee will. I plead with the Committee to see that parliamentary pledges are regarded as pledges that will always be observed.

I should like to say why I feel that I should support the amendment. I am sure that all sides of the Committee appreciate that we are dealing with real people. Although the numbers affected by the proposed legislation are comparatively small, these people form a significant group in the life of our country. The point about family life and the strengthening of family life is important whether it applies to many or to few.

Some years ago I spent a day with the Bangladeshi Divided Families' Association in my diocese in Oldham where many Bangladeshi people came to work in the mills when we were glad to have them come to this country. The Committee will remember that the studies carried out by all-party committees working with the Bangladeshi community in particular indicated that it is one that for a variety of reasons faces more difficulties than any other ethnic minority in our country.

I vividly remember the day that I spent with the Bangladeshi community. I heard about the difficulties that the men had in being reunited with their wives and families. I admit that this is a complex matter. It was difficult in Bangladesh to determine the truth of certain family relationships, and yet one by one many families have been allowed to come here while with others there are great delays.

In preparation for the debate I thought that I would ask one of my staff in the diocese to interview Bangladeshis again to see whether the situation was continuing. I am afraid that I was unable to do it myself. I shall give two examples of the kind of people who will be affected by the legislation. One is a male whom I shall call Abdullah for the sake of the debate. He was originally from Bangladesh. He came here before 1968. Section 1(5) applies to him. His wife will be interviewed at some point but well after the legislation is likely to go through. As is relatively normal, she could be refused right of entry due to insufficient proof of relationship. Any further application would then come under the new rules. As he is working for a low income, below the subsistence threshold for DHSS purposes, Abdullah feels that she will never get here because he will never prove that he can support her and the children without recourse to public funds. He feels that she has fallen foul of an informal quota system which is not supposed to exist.

The second example, whom I shall also call Abdullah, has been here since 1959. He is now in his middle fillies. He has taken early retirement from the buses. He has a house, but he will not work again. If he does not put in an application before the repeal of Section 1(5), he feels that he will be permanently separated, because, although he has paid his taxes and so on for 25 years, under the likely rules which he feels would apply to him, he could not prove that he could support his wife without recourse to public funds.

Although these people are a small group in our communities, many of them come from the more vulnerable sections of ethnic minorities, and the legislation may affect them. The point made by my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon about the need to consider the effects on family life is valid.

I find it difficult to understand why, in response to the decision of the European Court, the Government did not decide to implement the change the other way and give wives permission to bring in their husbands.

My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, with his customary modesty, said that this was a complex Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who has that quality in common with my noble and learned friend, assented. That does not mean that this is a complicated amendment. The issues are transparently clear, in my submission. They cover two points. First, is Parliament prepared, and is this place prepared, to enter into a breach of faith? Secondly, is Parliament prepared, and is this place prepared, as at this moment if the amendment is defeated, to dictate a matter of social policy in our country which I believe to be highly undesirable?

First, on the issue of good faith, the noble Earl said that Parliament can always repeal something which Parliament has previously enacted in the light of experience. I wonder whether he would assent to this proposition: one does not do that unless there are exceptional new reasons for doing so, especially when a previous Home Secretary, of the same political complexion as the present Government, dealing with arguments that were advanced in this place and in the other place, said that, if the 1971 Act were passed and it did not deal fairly with people who were settled in this country, it would be a wrong parliamentary enactment.

This place, with people of all political persuasions contributing, and with the leader in that matter being the noble Lord, Lord Wade, sitting on the then Liberal Benches, passed an amendment. That amendment said, and meant, that it was wrong for that Act to be passed without in the future protecting the dependants of the people who were settled here, as defined in that Act.

Mr. Maudling, the Home Secretary at that time, solemnly, and without talking in terms of inconsistencies—whether they be of someone born a year later, or whatever—used words which I ventured to quote on Second Reading, I quote them again. Mr. Maudling said:

"I said on Second Reading—and I was very anxious that this should be made known—that Commonwealth citizens already here free of conditions, which means, broadly speaking, all working immigrants, will not be affected. There will be a right to work where they wish, as at present, and a right of automatic citizenship, as at present. There will be no new papers to be carried, and they will be allowed to bring in dependants. That WAS the undertaking I gave, and I have not departed from it in any way".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/10/71; col. 551.]

In order to hind that undertaking into solemn legislation he concluded by saying at col. 552:

"By these Amendments we are giving statutory form to the undertaking I gave on Second Reading that people already accepted for settlement in this country would not be prejudiced by the Bill."

It is no answer to say, "Well, we have had experience for so many years". The noble Earl did not talk about bad experience, difficult experience, exceptional circumstances for breaching that undertaking and that statutory provision. People trusted the Government when that provision was passed. I solemnly ask whether, if the present provision is not amended in this way, the Committee is worthy of that trust. It is a weak argument to talk in terms of the European Court of Human Rights and its decision. The decision was: "British Government, you have not gone far enough. You must not do this in regard to husbands if you do not do it for wives and vice versa". It is like saying to those judges dealing with human rights: "Do you know what the British Government are going to do because of your judgment? Because of your judgment they are going to say, 'it was wrong, was it, to do it for husbands and not for wives? Well, we will not do it for either. This is our conception of human rights. Thank you so much, European Court of Human Rights, for having got us out of all our difficulties'".

I ventured to give an example at Second Reading; I shall somewhat alter it. Is it not the same as if there is a storm and noble Lords, in their mercy, open the door and admit a wife? Somebody says, "Is not that a little wrong? The husband is on the doorstep too". You say, "Oh, really? Then in those circumstances I think I shall push the wife out". Is this the way in which we deal with immigration and with promises?

I turn shortly to the second issue. It is a social issue and, as I said, we shall he deciding it in the course of the debate. We on these Benches understand completely that we have to control new immigration. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, was quite right when he said that it has to be controlled. Most of us regret it, but our island areas are limited, our employment is limited and our housing is limited. On both sides we agree that there has to be limitation. This is the time, is it not, to consolidate? This is the time to reaffirm a fair immigration policy. This is the time when we want social conditions which are just and which are harmonious with good family life because good family life breeds good citizenship. The numbers have been going down; as has been said, they went down to 40,000 in 1986. I asked the Minister whether he would kindly give me the figures for 1987 and, with his usual courtesy, he gave them so far as he could. They were approximately 35,000 for the first nine months of 1987. So there were no exceptional circumstances in regard to mounting immigration, primary or secondary.

In these circumstances, quite apart from the pledge and the decency argument, as a matter of policy do we not wish to ensure that those who are here, and properly here, who have been settled here for years, can bring over their families, including their children up to the age of 18, so that both spouses can be reunited, in the hope that we shall cement instead of divide and unite instead of separate? In those circumstances, we can say with good consciences that we have done our best to produce good citizenship among our immigrant community. If we do not pass this amendment, we may have much on our consciences.

One of the great pleasures of being in this House is being able to hear good advocacy, and we have heard the remarkable advocacy of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I say in all seriousness that it is a pleasure to hear it, even if one may not agree with the conclusions or with the point which he is trying to make.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a distinguished lawyer. He is also a distinguished parliamentarian and politician. For those reasons I find it quite astonishing that he fell into the elementary trap of making a clause stand part debate speech and did not address himself to the particular amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, fell into the same trap. All the arguments of both noble Lords were that the clause should not stand part. What we are addressing ourselves to is Amendment No. 1.

I know that the noble Earl will forgive me, as he always does, and allow me to intervene, because he is very courteous. However, if we were debating whether the clause should stand part, the noble Earl knows as well as I do—and he is always fair—that the argument which he would address to the Committee would be that the clause cannot stand part because we should be in breach of the European Court of Human Rights. If the clause is to remain, we should be in breach of that judgment. That is exactly why I am trying to say to the Committee that we should be upholding that judgment and altering the word "wives" to "spouses". We cannot do anything else.

That is all very fine, but the noble Lord did slightly sweep away the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights because he said "Oh, the Government would say 'here comes the European Court of Human Rights to solve all our problems' ". The fact of the matter is that the noble Lord is suggesting that we add certain words. I tried to explain to the Committee that if we added those words we should not be eliminating discrimination but adding to it. I made it perfectly clear why and gave the example of a person who was here in 1972 and one who was born later. At the moment there is discrimination between the two. If these words were to be added to the Bill, there would be discrimination between girls who were born before and after that time. It really is not an answer to say that if we pass this amendment we shall all be in the clear, that we would satisfy the European Court of Human Rights and that there would be no discrimination. There will be.

Perhaps the noble Earl will permit me to intervene. I am not sure that I quite follow his argument. Is he saying that if we pass this clause as amended there will be sexual discrimination? We have never argued that there will be no discrimination if this amendment is passed. All we have said is that if the amendment is passed, the sexual discrimination to which the court objected would be eliminated. Is he saying that that is incorrect?

No. Of course sexual discrimination will be eliminated if we pass the amendment. However, this amendment will have other effects which will make it discriminatory.

The Committee has heard distinguished speeches and I shall now be brief. What is in issue here is whether we are going to perpetrate the further breaking up of families, which would be one of the consequences of the government proposal. The maintenance of family unity, especially in the immigrant communities, is absolutely crucial at this time of so much law being infringed and so much disorder. I venture to invite the Committee to weigh very carefully the guidance we have received from the two right reverend Prelates and from other parts of the Committee. I invite the Committee to express a view on this very important issue as regards the future of social harmony in our country.

I beg to move that the House do now resume for the Statement.

My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I shall repeat a Statement that is currently being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows: "With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the recent killings in Northern Ireland, and especially on the murders of two soldiers in Belfast on Saturday 19th March.

"I must remind the House of the background and sequence of events during the past week in Northern Ireland. On Wednesday the funerals were held of the three IRA terrorists killed in Gibraltar. In spite of the very large crowds and the extremely tense situation in West Belfast, the funerals had proceeded in an orderly manner, without violence and without any paramilitary display. This was the position when a vicious attack took place at Milltown Cemetery by a loyalist gunman. In that attack three people attending the funeral were killed and a large number injured, of whom one remains in intensive care.

"On Thursday there was the funeral of the IRA gunman shot by the army on Monday. He was acknowledged by the IRA as one of its members. His funeral took place without disturbance and without paramilitary display.

"On Friday the funeral took place of Charles McCrillen, a Catholic with no paramilitary connections, shot by the UFF; and of Thomas McErlean, one of the three killed at Milltown Cemetery. These again took place peacefully and without any breach of the law. On Saturday the funerals of the other two killed at Milltown Cemetery took place; first that of John Murray, and second that of Kevin Brady, who was acknowledged by the Provisional IRA to be one of their members. It was at this funeral that the quite horrific events took place that have so shocked the world.

"I should like to tell the House the facts as far as they can be established about these events. Just after midday on Saturday, following the funeral service at St. Agnes' Church, the cortege moved off along Andersonstown Road towards Milltown Cemetery. At that point a civilian car attempted to reverse away from the cortège. Despite the television coverage of the subsequent events which many honourable Members will have seen, it remains unclear how the car came to be in that position and for how long it had been on that road. What is quite clear, however, is that as it reversed away from the cortège, its way was blocked, both forward and backward, by taxis accompanying the funeral. What immediately followed is a matter of sickening visual record. A number of those in the funeral cortege immediately set upon the car with the obvious intention of pulling out the two occupants. Photographs indicate that at this point the driver of the car leaned out of his window and fired one shot in the air— the only shot which both occupants fired in the course of the attack upon them. After only a moment's pause the crowd resumed the onslaught on the car, some of them smashing at it with iron bars, and eventually succeeded in hauling out both occupants. Both men were then dragged by the crowd into an adjacent stadium, the gates were closed and it appears that a smaller group of attackers continued to assault them, stripped them and searched their clothing, subsequently threw them over a wall, and then bundled them into a black taxi which took them to a nearby piece of wasteland, where they were shot.

"It subsequently emerged that the two victims were corporals in the Royal Corps of Signals. Shortly beforehand they had left a joint police and army base in North Howard Street Mill after completing a routine maintenance task, in order to return to their unit at Lisburn. They had no reason to be in the vicinity of the funeral. This is not an approved route for soldiers who are not on operational duty at the time, and there is absolutely no question of their being involved in any way with surveillance or any other duties connected with the funeral. I am therefore unable to tell the House with any certainty why they were there. If the most likely explanation is that they decided to take the shortest route back to their base, without appreciating the presence of the funeral, this can only be conjecture, and it will be probably never be known why they were there.

"Whatever the reason, however, nothing can conceivably justify the utterly appalling outrage that then occurred and which resulted in their deaths. The whole House will join me in extending the utmost sympathy to their families, and even more so in view of the awful television pictures of the occasion. Nor has it gone unnoticed that although they both had loaded personal protection pistols, they showed incredible restraint in using them only to fire a warning shot in the air.

"In the face of this outrage and the others in the week, the first and immediate objective is to bring to justice those responsible. In respect of the Milltown cemetery attack, a man will shortly be charged with these murders, and also a number of other serious offences. In respect of the killing of the soldiers, two men are already in custody. In addition, a massive murder investigation is under way, in which all possible resources are involved, to identify all those responsible.

"The next issue that I wish to address is that of the approach of the RUC to the conduct of these funerals. Large funerals and processions arc arguably the most difficult events from a public order and terrorist threat point of view that the security forces face. They have been used quite unscrupulously by paramilitaries for propaganda purposes.

"The chief constable, in determining the most appropriate method of policing any funeral, takes account of all the relevant circumstances in reaching his decision. Clearly a prime consideration has been that they should be conducted within the law and without paramilitary display. He also would have regard to the degree to which other elements would seek deliberately to exploit the presence of the police to provoke violence and disorder.

"There have been suggestions made that the arrangements for the funerals were the consequence of a political directive and that there had been some interference with the operational independent responsibility of the chief constable. This is quite false. The chief constable has asked me to make quite clear that he takes full responsibility for the arrangements for the funerals, and that these were policing decisions, taken after the most careful assessment of all the relevant circumstances. I emphasise that I fully support the decisions that he took in these matters, and in which the initial outcome had clearly been successful. However, clearly the two incidents that subsequently occurred are wholly unacceptable and require immediate review in regard to policing to be followed at any future funeral. The chief constable has informed me this morning that he is carrying this through as a matter of urgency.

"This task I know that he will carry through with great integrity. But the House knows well how difficult it is to ensure that funerals can proceed in good order and within the law when there are elements who have absolutely no scruples or respect for family feelings in the way in which they will exploit them.

"Faced with the appalling violence of the last weeks, not only in Belfast, but with the vicious murders of Jillian Johnston in Fermanagh and Constable Graham in the Creggan only this morning, the House may remember the words I spoke last Thursday about the desperate need to break the awful cycle of violence and retaliation and end the suffering and heartache that is achieving nothing but more misery for all. This is now urgent, and it is the time when every person with a spark of human decency must determine to give their full support to the fight against terrorism from whichever quarter it may come. The security forces will take the lead as they have done so bravely over the years, but they must have the whole hearted co-operation of everybody in the Province, in the island of Ireland, and throughout the United Kingdom, in their task. I saw this morning Archbishop Eames, Cardinal O'Fiaich, the Moderator and Secretary of the Presbyterian Church and the President of the Methodist Church, on the need for all in the Province to take their share of responsibility and to condemn violence in all its forms.

"It is vital that we help the community in any way to support the fight against terrorism, and in this connection we arc improving significantly the confidential telephone system. Very shortly indeed we shall be supplementing the present system with a single and easily memorable free phone number usable right across the Province. I have asked the broadcasting authorities to publicise this number and they have agreed. This will be a valuable strengthening of the present facility, which is in fact being used by a considerable number of people in their horror at the events of Saturday.

"The fight against republican terrorism must be waged also beyond the confines of Northern Ireland and particularly raises major challenges for the Government of the Republic of Ireland. A significant number of steps have been taken to help improve our cross-border co-operation, and we particularly appreciate the amount of weapons and explosives that have already been recovered by the Garda. We have to keep working to improve this co-operation in our common interest in defeating terrorism, and I have this morning agreed with Mr. Lenihan that there will be a further meeting of the inter-governmental conference this week, in which we shall be discussing cross-border security cooperation, and which will be attended by Mr. Lenihan and myself, as co-chairmen, by Mr. Collins, the Irish Minister of Justice, by my right honourable friend the Minister of State and by the chief constable and the commissioner of the Garda.

"Mr. Speaker, the common phrase this weekend is that the troubles of Northern Ireland had plumbed new depths of horror. That was the phrase at Enniskillen, at Milltown Cemetery and in the Andersonstown Road on Saturday. And the truth is that there will be new depths again so long as this awful and violent campaign of terrorism and revenge continues. It has got to stop in the name of humanity and if there is to be any decent future for the people of Northern Ireland and all those living in the island of Ireland and if the evil shroud of terrorism is to be lifted from the United Kingdom as a whole.

"We all have our part to play, whether in actively combating terrorism, whether working to build bridges across communities, whether in deciding we do nothing in our words or actions that can increase the tensions. We all have our part, and the duty we owe to all the tragic victims of these outrages is to play that part to the full."

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, we thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I come to the Dispatch Box for the second time in four days to condemn atrocity in Northern Ireland, Obviously we on these Benches join unreservedly in the condemnation of the horrific murders of the two young soldiers in West Belfast last Saturday and we express our utmost sympathy with the bereaved relatives. We also condemn the murder of yet another policeman in Londonderry earlier today and extend our sympathy to his family.

On Saturday the television camera captured the depth of bitterness and hatred that accompanied the murderous attack on the soldiers. We were all shocked, alarmed and sickened at the savagery which was unleashed before our eyes. We associate ourselves with the remarks of the Secretary of State about the action of the police in keeping their distance during the funerals last week. It was inevitably a complicated decision for the chief constable. We are told that the chief constable is now studying urgently whether that decision was correct or whether it needs to be modified. We suggest that in evaluating that decision the police will also have to consider whether the violence would have been even greater if they had not kept their distance during the funerals.

We note from the Statement that the Secretary of State is absolutely satisfied that the two soldiers had no reason to be in the vicinity of the funeral. They were not on the route of the funeral as part of any undercover operation or to spy on the funeral. We regret deeply that somehow the young soldiers drove into the funeral route and became entangled with it, in breach of their instructions. We agree with the Secretary of State that, whatever the reason, nothing can conceivably justify the outrage which occurred.

I have only one question for the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Can the Minister tell the House whether the helicopter personnel promptly summoned assistance from the security forces or police and, supplemental to that question, was the help dispatched without avoidable delay? That is a matter which is not referred to in the Statement.

We realise that on Saturday emotion and tension were particularly heightened and that some people may possibly have feared a repeat of the savage attack in Milltown Cemetery. But the fury, violence and depth of hatred which we saw in Northern Ireland last Saturday is an indication of the magnitude of the problem which faces the people of Northern Ireland and the two Prime Ministers.

In conclusion, we urge as strongly as we can that the Inter-Governmental Conference, with the active involvement of the two Prime Ministers, should come up with measures that will at least prevent a worsening of the position in Northern Ireland. Is that too much to hope for?

My Lords, in thanking the Minister for the Statement, perhaps I may associate my noble friends and colleagues on these Benches with the shock which he has expressed at the horrific events which the Statement describes and with his sympathy with the families of the two fine young men who were so savagely lynched by the crowd. A lynching mob is one of the most disagreeable manifestations that society can reveal. To see it on one's own television, as many of us did, is something that we all hoped would never happen in our lifetimes.

I should like to express our relief that the statement from Gerry Adams, which was reported in the newspapers and may not have been correct, that the two soldiers were members of the SAS was an ordinary untruth based on no facts and that the facts arc quite different; that they were members of the Signal Corps on reasonable business which need not have taken them to the area and that nobody knows why they were there. The Secretary of State's unswerving denial that they were in any way engaged in surveillance of the funeral seems to me obviously correct. I hope that everybody will accept it, including Mr. Gerry Adams.

I have only one question for the Minister. Am I right in having gathered from the newspapers that the IRA claims responsibility for that disgusting scene? I think I saw that they were. If they are, I think that we ought to know.

I accept the chief constable's view as to what is the right thing to do over the surveillance or non-surveillance of funerals. I do not think that opinions from Whitehall are of the slightest interest. There is a very experienced group of security people—both army and RUC. They cannot always be right in a situation which leads inevitably to clashes, but I shall be very happy to continue to accept without further criticism their views as to the right way to deal with this situation.

We were appalled to hear of yet another constable—Constable Graham—being shot this morning. Will it never end? I do not think it ever will. I believe one thing is absolutely certain—that the situation will get worse before it gets better.

The Minister referred to the Churches. I am very glad that the Secretary of State has been talking to them. They have not been blameless always but certainly in situations of this kind I think that they are behaving as they should. They are one of the sources which can provide some help.

The other development which is very encouraging—and which was always effective right back in the 1970s when I was in Northern Ireland—is that of the freephone system. I am very glad that that will be used, because it gives people who suddenly can stand the situation no longer an opportunity to ring up and give information.

The last point I wish to make is that I believe things will get worse. I believe that the Secretary of State will have very difficult decisions to make. I think that he has the best advice possible, and we shall back him in any decision that he makes in trying to control the situation.

My Lords, perhaps I may briefly reply to the very helpful comments and sympathy that have been expressed by the two noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, proffered sympathy and stressed the words of the Statement. I am sure that we are all particularly grateful for his comments about the duties of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and how they carry them out in this very difficult area of the policing of funerals. The policing of such processions and funerals is entirely an operational matter for the chief constable. With the full support of my right honourable friend, he considers each funeral according to its particular circumstances, having regard both to the wish for peace and dignity and to upholding the law.

As to the question why the two soldiers were in that particular location, that is something we shall never know. As I have stressed, the two soldiers were not on surveillance duty. They were returning to their headquarters at Lisburn and the route that they took was one of many possible routes. We shall never know why they happened to be in that particular location at that particular time.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked me about the helicopter seen on television overflying the events on Saturday morning. I should like to stress first that the situation on the ground was very unclear and, as I understand it, the helicopter was at some height and distance away at the onset of these events. Secondly, the helicopter was not able to give assistance to forces on the ground who could not have moved sooner without possibly being accused of some aspect of recklessness. It would appear that preliminary surveillance gave no reason to indicate involvement of soldiers nor, indeed, of the nature of this appalling disturbance.

The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked about the Provisional IRA. Whatever the IRA may have had to say in the media, I am sure that all noble Lords—indeed everyone—will treat those comments with the contempt that such remarks and justifications deserve. The facts are that those two soldiers, as I have described in the Statement, were brutally beaten and shot. I stress again that the soldiers did not have anything to do with the SAS. We shall never know why they were in that particular location.

Once again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, for his comments on policing and also for his helpful remarks about the freephone, which we believe will be of assistance. It seems that it has been of some assistance since the ghastly events of Saturday. We hope that the measures I have announced today will be of help.

My Lords, I am sure that we all abhor the bestiality of the West Belfast terrorists as witnessed on our screens over the weekend. I believe that it was pressure from Sinn Fein, the Roman Catholic Church and the Government of the Republic that determined the change in security policy at Provisional IRA funerals. It was a mistake, I believe. Had the policy not been changed, those two young men might have been saved and alive today. Indeed, they might not even have strayed into the danger area. Moreover, at the previous funeral that madman might not have got through the security ring to hurl his bombs. It was a mistake.

I hope the House appreciates that the Provisional IRA fixes its own propaganda settings and scenes. When it appeared that it was going to be denied the opportunity to fire a salute over the coffins of the three Gibraltar bombers, its men, who were in uniform and armed, went secretly before the funeral into a quiet side street and fired shots over the photographs of the three Gibraltar bombers. That was done in cahoots with the British television media who did not inform the security forces. The terrorists got their propaganda before the funeral took place. Therefore, Parliament in the first place, and then the Home Secretary and the Northern Ireland Secretary, should ask the chiefs of television whose side they are on.

Further, if no security forces are present at the funerals of terrorists, who takes charge? It is the terrorists. They organise the programme. They oversee the funeral march. All the young men of West Belfast look upon them as possessing the authority of the state; they do not look to the authority of the Government. That gives credence to the terrorist leadership.

I appeal to Her Majesty's Government for the policy to be changed. There should be no "no go" areas in any part of the United Kingdom and especially not in Northern Ireland. Secondly, at some time the Government must consider whether they will allow the media, and television in particular, to make secret arrangements with terrorist leaders and take secret photographs of them, inferring that the terrorists are operating widely in the Province, and then to display them on national and international television while the authorities stand by and freely allow it.

The Republic does not allow it; it has not done so for years. It has passed legislation. No member of any terrorist group may appear on television or radio in the Republic. Terrorist propaganda has been cut off. If we are to beat the terrorists, then we must consider doing the same.

My Lords, I am sure that noble Lords will be very grateful for the forthright comments of the noble Lord who has considerable experience of activities in Northern Ireland. With that in mind we should all respect his views.

The noble Lord mentioned pressure from three separate quarters as regards the policing of funerals. I should like once again to stress that the chief constable considers each funeral according to its particular circumstances. It is a decision for the chief constable which, as I stressed in the Statement, is fully supported by my right honourable friend. That is a matter of known policy.

Secondly, at the time of the funerals in the past week, and especially the funerals on Saturday—at least the second one which gave rise to these appalling events—the chief constable took account of appeals for a low security presence from clergy and local community leaders, not all of whom are terrorist leaders, as the noble Lord will know. The chief constable considers each case individually. It was his decision that low security was justified in those cases.

Thirdly, had there been a heavier security presence on Wednesday or Saturday it could easily have had other penalties given the Provisional IRA's wish to provoke disorder and the constant danger to the security forces when they are at close quarters with terrorists. I want to stress to the House and to the noble Lord that there is no question of "no go" areas. With his knowledge of Northern Ireland I hope that he will accept that statement. The security forces continued to operate in the areas around both funeral processions on Saturday. That was the policy, and it will continue.

As regards the noble Lord's comments about television coverage and the media, that is not a matter for the Government. Certainly, we are aware of the noble Lord's experience in Northern Ireland. We note everything that he says, as I am sure, also, will the House.

My Lords, I do not want to say anything that may make matters more difficult for the Government in a very sensitive and dangerous situation. However, I should like to put one question to the Minister which may have a bearing on the nature and magnitude of the problem. Would he care to comment on an assertion made during an interview this morning on the BBC seven o'clock news when the interviewee, speaking in general terms, claimed that the crowds at Catholic funerals are there under duress and pressure from the IRA? Would he care to comment on that assertion?

My Lords, in one word, no. However, out of courtesy to the House and above all to the noble Lord, perhaps I may say that we would have no means of knowing why crowds turn out at these events, processions, funerals or whatever. Certainly it has been the case that at all the funerals during the past week there have been fairly large crowds. But they varied in size and location. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will know that crowds tend to vary in composition on these occasions which sometimes give offence, although sometimes they do not.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the remarks made by Pearse after the 1916 uprising: "But the fools, the fools, the fools, they have left us our Fenian dead"? Would it not have been possible not to have given the bodies back in Gibraltar but to have buried them with decent Christian burial there as opposed to unchristian burials, when the lady was compared to Christ? We would not then have had the funeral processions or the provocation. We would not then have allowed the IRA political propaganda and the general mayhem that has resulted in Belfast.

My Lords, my noble friend's suggestion might possibly have its attractions, but I am afraid that I am not sure of the legal procedures in Gibraltar, let alone in the United Kingdom, over the state of bodies and to whom they belong. Perhaps I might make inquiries and write briefly, and I hope expeditiously, to him. As far as his first point is concerned, I am aware of what he says but I am afraid that I have not read all the words.

My Lords, reference has been made during this Statement and questions to the Minister to the role of the Churches. I am sure that we all recognise that they have a part to play. One thing for which we can be profoundly grateful is the increasingly good relationships between Christian leaders in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, although the bitter divisions between the communities are still all too apparent. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the struggle against terrorism, which has to go on constantly, is in any way going to impede the search for political solutions, because we realise that this is fundamental to the whole tragic situation in Northern Ireland.

My Lords, I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for his support and above all for everything that the Church leaders in Northern Ireland are doing today. As my right honourable friend pointed out in the Statement, he met the various Church leaders this morning. I understand that there will be a further announcement later on this afternoon.

The right reverend Prelate asked whether political steps were being taken. This is the case, and we proceed in this way in Northern Ireland and the whole of Ireland. Discussions between the Government of the Republic and the United Kingdom Government in tandem cover both political attitudes and the problems of terrorism and security. However, we are very grateful for the thoughts that have been suggested by the right reverend Prelate.

My Lords, I have known the fury of the IRA mobs in Northern Ireland over many years. They invaded my home and had it not been for certain circumstances, I should not be here to address your Lordships' House. I express my deepest sympathy over those who have died, particularly the two young soldiers who met such a savage death at the hands of my former constituents. As I and my wife watched those terrible scenes on television we were vividly reminded of a mob with exactly the same motivation which attacked my home many years ago, in 1976.

Perhaps the Minister will accept that I find it deeply offensive to see the IRA paraded on television, firing shots either over shrines or anywhere else and wearing the cowardly Balaclava helmet to prevent identification. Will he make representations to the broadcasting authorities that in no circumstances should the people in these islands be allowed to witness this terrible and provocative scene of the IRA firing shots in furtherance of their cause? We find it deeply offensive. As one who has spent his political and personal life in Northern Ireland under the threat of the IRA, I no later than this morning would have given an undertaking to the House to prevent those scenes being shown on television.

My Lords, all of us in your Lordships' House admire the continuing courage of the noble Lord, not just for the courage that he showed in his duties in West Belfast 10, 15 or 20 years ago. He knows West Belfast better than anybody in the House. He can stress the horror and outrage that is felt about these appalling scenes, above all of hooded gunmen firing salutes.

Certainly I cannot of my own volition stop these scenes appearing on television or elsewhere in the madia. However, I shall certainly make the noble Lord's views and the views of several of your Lordships who have spoken this afternoon, known to my right honourable friend. I hope that we might be able to make progress. I hope that he will accept that it is not in my power, nor indeed in the power of the Government yet, to take the action that he so much desires.

My Lords, I wonder whether it is possible for the Minister to give some indication of what further steps he proposes to take to curtail the existing spate of violence. We had expressions of regret and appeals last week from the noble Lord and his Minister to the IRA not to continue with the violence. They have clearly not worked. Surely, we are in grave danger at the moment of both sides escalating the violence. It seems to me that the feeling is running very much higher. Surely there are steps which should be taken to try to ensure that the rule of law is carried out all over the Province.

There are steps that can be taken. Having had three sons who have done more than one tour each in the Province, I understand that the security forces could do more if they were allowed to. I wonder whether the Minister could give any indication as to what steps the Government propose to take in this respect.

My Lords, I can certainly indicate to my noble friend that my right honourable friend, in conjunction with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable of the RUC, continually take steps to try to reduce this appalling level of violence that has been endemic in Northern Ireland for 20 years.

There is a danger that murders and retaliation will continue. I have nothing further to add, especially today, to the Statement that I have made this afternoon. I stress to my noble friend that the RUC carries out its duties all over the Province. We admire each and every one of its members for carrying out policing duties in situations which all of us have seen on television over the weekend. This is the climate. I should like to pay my personal tribute, and I believe the tribute of all of your Lordships, to each and every member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to their families, who share this appalling burden of policing Northern Ireland. Certainly they carry these duties out everywhere. The main security role is carried out by the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and that is the way it will stay under this Government.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 6, at end insert ("but the immigration rules shall be so framed that children of parents with the right of abode in the United Kingdom shall be no less free to enter and remain in the United Kingdom than if section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 had not been repealed").

Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can explain the following. His Amendment No. 2 reads:

"but the immigration rules shall be so framed that children of parents with the right of abode in the United Kingdom shall be no less free to enter and remain".

It would clarify the position if he were contemplating that even when the parents are not here and have not exercised their right of abode nevertheless the children shall be let in under his amendment.

If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Renton is making a very valid point, as is not unusual. I am taking it for granted in the wording that it is not only a right but a right which is exercised. I think the noble Lord has in mind a rather peculiar position. That the parents have the right of abode and they make the application is one case. If the parents have the right of abode and so not make the application but the children claim the right even though the claim has not been made, that would be a very odd situation. Perhaps I may have to alter this at Report stage to make the principle quite clear. Where there is the right of abode and the parents endeavour to use that right to get the children over here is the case I have in mind.

First, may I say it really is a joy to listen to the noble Lord. He is so lucid, clear and fair and never seems to refer to a note or an authority. He has the advantage over most of us in that respect. I particularly appreciated what he so kindly said about me when replying to the Government statement on the previous amendment.

Having said that, perhaps I may make this rather silly point. This amendment and each of the next three all start with the word "but". From the point of view of the noble Lords opposite, no doubt they would like all four of those amendments to be added to the Bill to be carried. We should then have four amendments starting with the word "but". That is a matter which could be adjusted.

Now may I use the word "but" and ask, "But what about Amendment No. 2?" Even if one has sympathy with the intention underlying it—and I do not see how one can avoid having some sympathy with it—I wonder whether it is really necessary. If we look at subsection (4) of the 1971 Act, which is not being repealed, it provides for rules regulating the entry of people not having the right of abode and says that those rules shall make provision for admitting,

"dependants of persons lawfully in or entering the United Kingdom".

Therefore, to the extent that Amendment No. 2 applies to the dependants of people already lawfully here, it would not seem to be necessary.

Before the noble Lord sits down, in reading subsection (4) he left out, though certainly not on purpose, the following words, which occur in brackets in subection (4):

"(in such cases and subject to such restrictions as may be provided by the rules, and subject or not to conditions as to length of stay or otherwise)".

Quite obviously, the intention of subsection (4) was that these dependants will be subject to conditions which can be laid down. Subsection 1(5) of the 1971 Immigration Act made this right unconditional. That was what I was pleading for. I beg to move.

The noble Lord has a valid point. However, my answer is that the words in brackets provide for exceptions to be made in unusual cases where perhaps there has not been a proper clearance from the consulate—as the case used to be, and I think in some instances still is—at the point at which the immigrants, or would-be immigrants, left their own country. To the extent that the children to be admitted are going to join people lawfully already here, and subject to the exceptions covered by the words in brackets—which I think would be rare—a great part of the noble Lord's amendment is already covered in a law not being repealed.

In this Bill do we wish to go the stage further that the noble Lord has elucidated in answer to the question that I put before he sat down? Do we wish to have arrangements for those cases where the parents have a right of abode, and the children want to come here whether the parents wish them to or not? We are talking of young people under the age of 18. Is this country to be regarded as a sanctuary for children under 18 who have not got on with their families and who think that a good way of getting away from their families is to exploit the parent's right of abode by exercising a right of entry into this country? That is the situation into which this amendment might lead us.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, described the purpose of this amendment as a save-the-children fund. I appreciate the reason that he has put down the amendment. It puts us in difficulty because the amendment permits the repeal of Section 1(5) but it then adds extra conditions. This would create a new category of people who would be entitled to come here freely. The concept of right of abode—and these are the words used in the amendment—means that someone who has this right is free to come and go as he pleases.

All British citizens have the right of abode, and no conditions can be placed upon their entitlement to come here. Anyone who was not born a British citizen, but who has subsequently become one through naturalisation, at the same time automatically acquires the right of abode. Any children born to that person after he becomes a British citizen will themselves be British citizens and will have the right of abode. However, this right of abode does not extend to children who were born before that parent himself acquired the citizenship. If the parent also wants these children to become British citizens and to have the right of abode, he has to take a conscious decision to make the necessary application on their behalf.

The amendment proposes that the children of anyone with right of abode, who do not themselves have the right of abode—perhaps because their parent chose not to register them as British citizens, or for some other reason—should nevertheless be entirely free to come and go to and from this country. The effect would be to create a new category of people who are theoretically subject to immigration control but who, in effect, enjoy many of the benefits deriving from possession of right of abode.

As the amendment is drafted, those affected would continue to enjoy this favourable position throughout their lives. We could be faced with so-called "children", aged 20, 30, 40 or older, who claim a right of entry to this country many years in the future simply because some years earlier one or both of their parents had had that right of abode. It is by no means a compelling argument to say that such people, who have either not been registered by their parents or who have been left abroad for many years at their parents' choice, should be given extra rights of admission over others who are also subject to immigration laws. One either has the right of abode or one is subject to the immigration laws.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, would create a new category—a category without the right of abode but whose members were able to enjoy many benefits associated with the right of abode. I do not believe that that would be right.

The noble Lord stands at the Dispatch Box producing new difficulties out of his sleeve, or from behind his hat, rather like a conjuror. I feel that the Committee would have very much more sympathy with him if he were to say that the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is a reasonable and proper one and that he would get together with the noble Lord to fine tune the wording if it is not 100 per cent. right at the moment. Can the noble Lord, put himself in that position?

Will the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, consider the final point that I made? This amendment would allow children of parents living in the Commonwealth—the parents having the right of abode—to come here even though the parents did not want them to do so, and would perhaps be alarmed at their leaving home.

It is not for me to speak for the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but I thought that he made it transparently clear that he took on that point in the first place and that he was referring to the children of parents who are already legally settled in Britain.

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, wanted me to say something more. I rather fancy he did. He invited me to say that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was an excellent amendment which we would be happy to accept, subject to a little redrafting. I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that I could not do that for the very reason that I gave him: it creates a new category of people. It alters the effect of right of abode. The repealing of Section 1(5) has nothing to do with the right of abode. The immigration rules contain very generous provision for the admission of children in a whole range of circumstances, subject primarily to the requirement that the child's parent should be able to show that there is adequate support and accommodation for the child. This is not an unduly onerous requirement. It is one which is as much in the interest of the child as in that of immigration control. It can hardly be in the child's interest that he or she should be brought to the country, if when he or she arrives here there is nowhere for the family to live and no means of support available. It would not be easy to incorporate this amendment because, as I have told the Committee, it creates a new category.

I am finding a little difficulty in following the Minister because I do not see from where this new category comes. The wording of the amendment states that,

"children of parents … shall be no less free to enter and remain … than if section 1(5) … had not been repealed".

In other words, the situation for them remains as it has always been. I cannot see from where this new category is springing. Therefore, I think that we return to our original arguments. This is about the bringing together of families, in particular those who are affected by the situation where housing is not available. There are a good many families where, since not all the children are present, the house available for the family is not sufficient for the larger number, but it is for the smaller number. There is no way in which more children can come into the country because they are not eligible for larger housing until they are present in this country. That is the Catch-22 situation to which Members referred in the debate at Second Reading. The intention of this amendment is to overcome that situation. I am confused by the argument put forward by the Minister.

With all due respect, I do not think that the noble Earl would wish to leave this amendment in a purely negative way. As the right reverend Prelate has said, we are dealing with those people who were previously covered by Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act. In spite of assurances and undertakings, and their decision to put this issue in statutory form, the Government decided that that provision should be repealed. The repeal means that those who were settled as defined in theAct will no longer have the benefit of that subsection. I am trying to save the children from being subject to that repeal and that is all that the amendment asks.

The noble Lord, Lord Renton, said—as he is entitled to say—that in strict accordance with the wording of the amendment, one could have children under the age of 18 applying to come to this country but who do not wish to be with their parents and whose parents do not wish to have them. From any part of the Commonwealth they could argue that they have proof of the fact that their parents comply with the provisions of the 1971 Act and are deemed to be settled here, and that they are subject to Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act. I admit that that extraordinary situation had not occurred to me. It is possibly an academic point but it has been made quite validly.

In answer to the noble Lord, I said freely and frankly that I did not intend the amendment to cover the children of parents who do not want them. This is the Committee stage of the Bill and I am fighting for the principle of admitting those children whose parents want them here to unite the family and who would previously have been protected under Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act. If at the Report stage an amendment is required to cover that contingency which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, properly brought to the attention of the Committee, I shall be more than willing to alter the wording so that that principle is complied with.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made a remark which I hoped would meet an answering chord in the noble Earl's mind. It was that this is obviously a worthy principle; worthy of any humane government and of any government that wish to produce the kind of social conditions which we all want in this country. The noble Lord also said that, while conceding that principle, although the Minister may consider that there is something wrong with the wording—and there is no question of admitting a new group of people and circumstances; I am trying to save something from the total repeal in order to help the children—perhaps he can say that he sees that a case has been made out for trying to save the children from exemption from the privileges of Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act. In that case, I would respond immediately by saying that if something can be done between now and the Report stage to help the children, I shall not now press the matter to a Division. I invite the noble Earl to agree to that appeal from the Cross Benches out of sheer humanity.

I am in some difficulty. I should love to respond to the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. However, he knows that Section 1(5) creates a dividing line between what happens to children born before that date and those born afterwards. The right of abode which a parent correctly has is conferred on those children born to that parent after he has accepted the right of abode. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to be saying that that right of abode should also apply to those born before the date but who have not been to this country. One could find oneself in the position of having people coming to this country from the East for the first time and saying "We can come here. Although we have never been here before, our parents had the right of abode. We think that we should have that too".

I do not believe that that is right or reasonable; I believe that it creates a completely new category. I tried to explain that belief but the noble Lord slightly brushed it away saying that that was not intended. In fact, that would be the effect. I shall look carefully at what has been said by Members of the Committee; but it would be wrong for me to give the impression that I have misinterpreted the amendment because I do not believe that I have done so. The noble Lord appears to wish to preserve the right of all children who at present benefit from Section 1(5). That would not be acceptable because such children would be placed or retained in a privileged position in comparison with the children of Commonwealth citizens. We are entering difficult waters, but I shall look at what the noble Lord has said.

I believe that Members of the Commitee will not think me unreasonable in trying to clarify the situation. One is perfectly prepared to try to rescue even a part of the amendment to ensure that positive action is taken. The amendment seeks to provide that those who were permitted entry under Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act shall still be permitted entry if their parents apply for that and if they are entitled, but for this repeal, to have the children here. I am prepared to limit the children to those who are under the age of 18 when the application is made. I am trying to be as reasonable as possible in order to save something from the repeal of this section which I do not believe is to the Government's credit. It does not aid immigration policy which I believe all Members should support on a bipartisan basis. It is, if possible, to turn into good citizens those who are here but who, deprived of family relationships, may turn into citizens who are not good, either because of a sense of grievance or because of the social disability that they have.

Having regard to the limitations which I have put on the amendment, I ask the noble Earl to be good enough to say that he has some sympathy with it and that he will look into the matter to discover whether action can be taken. I shall then withdraw the amendment and not divide the Committee because I believe that to be the wish of the Members.

Before the noble Earl replies, will he note that the children about whom we are speaking will already be aged approximately 15. I believe that they had to be born before a certain date in 1973. Therefore we are talking about a very small, limited category of children.

That may well be so but Section 1(5), as we saw earlier, in fact creates divisions within a family. The noble Lord shakes his head but it is true.

I do not deny that.

If the noble Lord would wag his head up and down rather than from side to side it would be more obvious what he was indicating. Section 1(5) creates divisions. Where a person comes in who was born before 1973, he is subject to certain requirements and where he is born after 1973 different factors apply. We are only repealing Section 1(5) because of the European Court of Human Rights and a number of other conditions.

This amendment seeks to preserve a distinction and it is not a question of splitting up families. All that is required is that those who are born before 1973 and who have not now taken advantage of the facilities that were open to them should be in the same position as their brothers or sisters who were born after 1973. I do not believe it is a question of splitting up families. I shall consider very seriously what has been said. However, I repeat that I do not think it would be reasonable to say that there is a clear reason here for continuing a distinction.

There is a real issue here because again we must go back in time. Many of the children about whom we are talking are the children I mentioned earlier who are on the Indian subcontinent and who are trying to come here, but the officers have been denying that they were the children of the people of whom they claim to be the children. We now have an advance in that. Because of the DNA test it can be proved conclusively that they are those children. We want to preserve the measure so that those children can now come here.

What is more, it is necessary to carry that out in this way because otherwise we are failing the parents who were living here when the 1971 Act was passed and who were promised that they would be allowed to bring in those children. There are many such people. It is not that they were not trying to do that. They were living here and were trying to bring their children here. All sorts of arguments have been put forward that the children were not really their children, but there is now a possibility of proving beyond any doubt that they are those children, and we want them to be able to bring their children here.

The reason why Section 1(5) matters is that, if those children are brought here under any other condition and if it so happens—and it can happen—that the father has been down on his luck, has worked in low-paid jobs (which happens quite frequently) for 15 years, has now lost his job, is unemployed, is receiving unemployment benefit, housing benefit and supplementary benefit, and if in fact the house in which he is living is not large enough for the children, then he will have difficulties. However, if we safeguard the rights by saying that it should not be any more difficult than it was before 1973, he is safeguarded. Even though we may repeal Section 1(5), we have made it possible for those children to join their parents.

I wish the Government would give some thought to those matters. It is all very well to say that there is a discrimination here; of course there is. Any time a line is drawn, those who are above the line have the rights and those below do not. The Government are saying that to equalise the matter the rights should be taken away. However, taking away the rights has certain consequences which could be unpleasant. Therefore we say—and for the moment I am assuming that Section 1(5) is repealed—all right; let us see how we can safeguard those children. In effect the point of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, could have been met by a clause stating:

"so framed that the children of parents with the right of abode in the United Kingdom whose parents have applied to have them join them in the UK".

That provision could have been included in the clause and that would have restricted the matter. There are ways and means of meeting this point. Therefore I wish the Government would look at the matter in that way and not keep deliberately putting obstacles in the way of uniting those families.

There are two points which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made which will arise again and again unless we deal with the matter at this moment. He speaks as though the worst thing in a Bill of this kind is an anomaly and that an anomaly is something which must be abolished at the first opportunity.

I tried to argue earlier that nationality Bills and immigration Bills inevitably create anomalies between different types of person. The Nationality Bill 1981 creates a distinction between those born before 1983 and those born after 1983. That is done consciously and deliberately. The Immigration Bill 1971 creates an anomaly between those born before 1971 and those born after 1971. That is also done absolutely deliberately and consciously. Therefore, it is not very convincing to say that something must be stopped because it is an anomaly, as if that were a sufficient reason in itself. A better reason than that is needed to justify depriving people of rights which they had hitherto.

The noble Earl then goes on to say that it is not a question of splitting up families. I agree that it is not a question of splitting families but the point about the immigration rules which applied to those born after 1971 but not to those before 1971 is that they were designed to make it more difficult for those people to come here and have made it more difficult for families to unite. Therefore let us not become involved in a terminological dispute about splitting or not splitting.

As I understand it, this amendment seeks to try to reinstate rights which the repealing of Section 1(5) have taken away. It tries to mitigate the consequences of that and, in particular, tries to mitigate those consequences by removing obstacles which have since been imposed on the unification of families. Those are the issues which this amendment tries to rectify.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that we should not use the expression "splitting or not splitting". I do not want to be like the proverbial schoolboy, but I did not start that. We were told that the Government were splitting families. The noble Lord says that we are depriving people of rights. The position is that if you have a right of abode, you have a right to come and go. If you are a British citizen, that right goes to the child of that marriage automatically. The problem here is what happens before 1973.

It is not a question of whether children should be able to come and go, but Section 1(5) enables the children of boys who could have been aged one in 1973 to come here but those children might not even be born now. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, cannot say that that was what was intended in 1971. Everyone knows that that proviso was included in the 1971 Act in order to allay the concern of those people who were quite rightly concerned and were then resident in the United Kingdom.

It is wrong to say that we are, to use the words again, splitting families, because we do not accept that the children born here of boys (not of girls!) who were aged one in 1973 can come here—and those children are not yet born! Are we to be accused of acting unreasonably when we say that in our view that is extending the rights of entry into this country too far?

It is with deep regret that I listen to the noble Earl. Our approach was to ask him to do something to save circumstances from arising after the repeal of Section 1(5) of the 1971 Act and to do it for the sake of the children and, I repeat, uniting members of the family.

I invited the noble Earl—and I hope I did so in respectful language—at least to say that the Government have some sympathy in this and will consider whether there could be a meeting of the ways. He used certain words from which I hoped to extract a promise to do that very thing. I am afraid that I did not get the response from the words he used that I was seeking to evoke.

May I get one point absolutely clear? Is the noble Lord saying that I should go back and consider whether it is correct to give rights to children who are not yet born but who may be born to children who might have been aged one in 1973? Is that what he wants me to consider? If it is, I am bound to say that, in fairness, I cannot. However, I shall consider all that has been said in case I am wrong.

What I am asking the noble Earl to do—and I should like to be precise in my language—is this. I am saying that children who had certain rights, together with their parents, of being united are being robbed of those rights by a total repeal of subsection (5). I am asking the noble Earl whether he is prepared sympathetically to consider some limitation of that repeal so that some rights remain for children who otherwise would have been protected by subsection (5). I do not ask it under this amendment for spouses or for any other relations or dependants but purely for the children.

I ask the noble Earl, in all solemnity and still with some amount of optimism, to at least be prepared to consider whether the Government can meet that requirement, not necessarily in totality but to come some way down the road with some sort of offer to save for some of those children the benefit they had under the old subsection. If the noble Earl merely says that, I will withdraw the amendment. If he cannot say that, he gives me no alternative but to take a certain course.

I feel as though I am about to go to the execution block when the noble Lord says that. I can only say to him that I shall consider what has been said. However, the noble Lord asks me to consider giving certain rights to people who have had certain rights removed from them. We are repealing a certain section of the 1971 Act and it is repeal of some importance. Therefore, I could not say to the noble Lord—no, I could not—that I agree there is something we will do. What I am prepared to do, if the noble Lord finds it of satisfaction, is to say that I shall consider what has been said but without any undertaking to agree with it.

I take it for granted that the noble Earl and the Government will always consider what has been said in this Committee. I am afraid that gets me nowhere and with great reluctance I ask that the opinion of the Committee be taken.

had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 6, at end insert ("but the immigration rules shall be so framed that men shall be no less free to enter and remain in the United Kingdom than women seeking to enter or remain in accordance with the immigration rules in force at the passing of this Act").

had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 4 and 5:

Page 1, line 6, at end insert ("but the immigration rules shall be so framed that British citizens and other persons settled in the United Kingdom shall be able to exercise in the United Kingdom the right to marry and to found a family guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms").

Page 1, line 6, at end insert (" but the immigration rules shall be so framed that members of the family of persons settled in the United Kingdom, subject to subsection (2) below, are no less free to enter and stay in the United Kingdom than the members of the family of European Community nationals entitled to enter or remain in the United Kingdom by virtue of an enforceable Community right or of any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.

(2) Subsection (1) above shall not prohibit the immigration rules from requiring the family members to obtain entry clearance and leave to enter the United Kingdom.").

Here again, I believe that if a debate took place I should be saying exactly the same things all over again. That does not seem to me to be a useful way of spending the time of the Committee on an important Bill of this kind. I do not propose to oppose this Question.

I propose to make a short comment as I believe was made in the course of Second Reading debate. This is a provision where we presumably express our horror at polygamous marriages wherever they may take place and even if they are perfectly proper, legal and respectable in the countries in which they occur. I hope that in dealing with a situation which involves a maximum of 25 cases each year, the Committee, in passing this clause, will have in mind an improvement in our own moral standards in this country relating to marriage and divorce and many such similar issues. If we can, with sanctity, pass this clause I hope at least it will have that effect.

At Second Reading I suggested to the Government a basis on which they could discriminate fairly against polygamous wives if that is what they want to do. I suggested that they should make it impossible for new wives to enter this country—that is, wives who have not been married previously to the person in question. However, the second or third existing marriages of people already here could be admitted (as they might well be entitled to) under Koranic Law.

I hope that none of the Members of the Committee has any doubts about this clause despite the fact that not very many people are affected by it. If people want to have the advantage of coming to live in our civilised society, I believe they should accept our standards. They are the standards of those who practise the Christian and Jewish religions. As regards the Moslem religion, only today I was told by a High Court judge from Pakistan that bigamy and polygamy are now unlawful in Pakistan unless the first wife gives her consent to the marriage to one other woman. It is fact that among Hindus and Moslems it has become gradually the custom that there should be monogamy among all the better Hindus and Moslems. That is a good thing that we can record.

Difficulties have been caused with the occasional polygamous marriage in this country. There was a case reported in the press over the weekend of a man from Bangladesh. He had two wives one of whom was aged 43 and the other 26. Between them they have 11 children and their ages range from just a few weeks to 19 years of age. They had to be accommodated by the local council. The man was out of work. The local council had to spend, it was said, £40,000 to enable them to have a house which was large enough. If we did not pass this clause then we would have that kind of problem magnified fairly often, I believe, despite the fact that polygamy is on the way out.

I wonder whether the Committee can allow that serious speech by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, to pass without comment. There is a high-and-mighty attitude that polygamy is awful and that we in this country have made it unlawful. On the other hand, multiple marriages are common and increasing; cohabitation between unmarrieds is increasing and common; one-parent families are increasing in number and are common. If we are to pretend that we are so superior to the 25 people a year who may come here—the noble Lord admits they are a diminishing number for economic as well as religious reasons—I believe we are carrying the popular idea of English hypocrisy rather too far.