Storm gathering over U.K. immigration bill

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32541, 26 February 1971, Page 9

Storm gathering over U.K. immigration bill

(NZ.P.A.-Reuter—Copyright) , LONDON, Feb. 25. ' A chorus of criticism ; from minority groups is rising today against the British Conservative Government’s proposals for tough new controls on immigration. The majority of future Commonwealth immigrants will come in for strict job restrictions and police checks under the Government’s proposed bill, published yesterday. In drafting the new law, the Government has been careful to keep British citizenship a matter quite separate from the right to enter Britain. This is why the Home Office has resurrected from the depths of old dictionaries the word “patrial” for those to whom the main restrictions do not apply. “Patrials” are those people who were bom in Britain, or who have taken British citizenship, or who have a parent or grandparent who was bom in Britain or obtained citizenship here. All these “patrials” will be exempt from immigration control. ‘No colour bar’ Most objectors to the bill have opposed the “grandparent” provision, but the Home Secretary (Mr Reginald Maudling) has said: “This bill has no colour bar of any kind. Surely any country has the right to give special recognition to anyone who has the connection of ancestry.”

In a statement, Mr Maudling said that the bill carried out faithfully the policy of the Conservative Party manifesto for the General Election last year. “The bill’s tougher control of large-seal- immigration for permanent settlement is needed as long as people believe that there is a further danger of another large wave of immigration,” he said. "Our duty as a Government is to the British public as a whole, including all those whom we have accepted as immigrants to come and live with us here. It is our duty and our policy to ensure equality of opportunity and treatment in every area of the national life. “But if we are to achieve a

society of tolerance and mutual acceptance, we must ensure both that all who live here are properly treated, and that no further strain is put upon community relations by any more large-scale immigration. This is the purpose of the bill.” A storm of protest, however, has broken among Opposition members of Parlia- , ment and civil rights groups ’ who fear that the bill must ' discriminate between black and white immigrants. The freedom of entry proposed for “patrials” will apply for the most part, to people from New Zealand, Australia and Canada. But the majority of Commonwealth citizens, who can- ; not claim family links, will , no longer have the right to ; settle in Britain, and will be ' treated as aliens. 1 The bill proposes that i people in this category will not be able to enter without , a one-year work permit for a ; specific job; will not be able to change their job initially ' without official permission; ; and will have to register i with the police. They will also have to apply for an extension of ' their permit to stay every year for the first four years, before being allowed to remain permanently. But unlike aliens, they will be allowed to vote during this period.

‘Blatantly racialist’ Mr Mark Bonham-Carter, chairman of the Community Relations Commission, said today that the bill would adversely affect harmonious community relations. “It will acutely increase the insecurity which coloured people living here already feel,” he said. Mr David Steel, an M.P. in the minority Liberal Party, described the bill as “blatantly racialist’” a flagrant concession to Pdwellism, and an insult to the Commonwealth; and added: “The measure gives opendoor entry to people whose grandparents may have left Britain 150 years ago, while introducing unspecified powers . . . to restrict the freedom of other, mainly coloured, Commonwealth immigrants.” The police requirements have drawn fire from 1 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the chairman of which (Mr Anthony Smythe) said: “This is a disaster for the police, and for community relations as a whole. ... It is placing coloured people on trial in the streets.” But the Right-wing Monday Club has described the proposed legislation as a step in the right direction, saying that its effectiveness will depend on how it is administered.

Objection to the bill from black countries is expected to be substantial. The main protest will be that the rules of police .registration may lead to some form of "pass” control; and black countries do not like the extended provisions in the bill for the assisted repatriation of Commonwealth immigrants who want to go home.

So far no date has been announced on which the act will take effect, but it will be several months at least before it goes through Parliament, and January 1 of next year is being considered. The measure will probably be debated in Parliament next week. The Labour Party’s Shadow Cabinet agreed last night that the bill warranted deep consideration and that it would be studied carefully before a decision was made whether or not to

oppose It on the second reading.

The “Guardian” says in an editorial today that three questions should be asked of the bill: Is it non-discrimin-atory? Does it strengthen or weaken the rights of individuals against the State? And will it help or harm community relations? "On all three tests, the bill fares badly,” the “Guardian” says. “The Government may defend the ’grandparent rule’ on the ground that some people living abroad *belong’ to Britain more than others, but the fact remains that the dividing-line is largely racial.”

"The Times” describes the bill as being symbolic as well as practical; though the bill has substance, it says, it conveys an element of political sleight-of-hand by appearing to frighten off immigration.