Immigration Bill may alter U.K. labour force

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32777, 30 November 1971, Page 24

Immigration Bill may alter U.K. labour force

(By

PETER EVANS,

'The Times," London, through N.Z.P.A.)

LONDON.

There is no better issue than immigration to illustrate the radical change in Britain’s international posture.

Historians will see 1971 as the year when Britain put immigrants from the Commonwealth almost on a par with aliens, and, through negotiations to enter Europe, opened the borders to workers from the European Economic Community.

The consequences, in this respect, of entry into Europe must be seen alongside the new Immigration Bill. As Mr David Stephen, the director of the industrial unit of the Runnymede Trust, has illustrated, a coloured man from Guadaloupe, in the French West Indies, may walk into Britain straight into a job, whereas a Jamaican will need an entry certificate. This is because if Britain and other candidate countries join the European Economic Community, those enjoying free movement of labour into Britain will include citizens of those candidate countries as well as citizens of the present European Economic Community, whatever their place of permanent residence. In practice, however, the number of people living outside Europe is very small, involving mainly French citizens in the French overseas department's, which include Guadaloupe. The aim of the European Economic Community is also

to offer to the community’s workers positions falling vacant anywhere within the bloc in preference to those from outside. The establishment of the central clearance machinery to do this may take several years and Mr Stephen foresees that this will mean nonpatrials—the vast majority of coloured Commonwealth people outside Britain—taking lower priority. Moreover, the Community nationals coming to Britain to work will be in a privileged position compared to non-patrial Commonwealth workers entering this country. The European may find it easier to get a house, for instance, than a Commonwealth worker, who, under the new Immigration Bill is in Britain in a particular job in a particular place for a particular time. Mr Stephen forecasts that Turkey and, eventually, Greece will become the main suppliers of cheap labour to Britain. ‘ The new Immigration Bill, ‘ which is expected to receive ’ assent in October, retains most of the provisions which 1 have caused grave misgivings 1 among many students of • Community relations. ' Registration objection Attempts to change the ' requirement that workerentrants register with the police have so far failed. There is a strong feeling that relations between the police and coloured immigrants are already sensitive enough. Registration, and the limiting of entry permits to a specific post with a specific employer—which were among provisions to which the Community Relations Commission objected—have been unamended in committee stages in both houses: the bill now goes to its report stage in the House of Lords. But when a liberal amendment in the Lords to remove the need for registration of any kind was rejected, Lord Windlesham, Minister of State at the Home Office, said that he would consider the question with the Home Secretary (Mr Maudling). The main change in the bill has been to the “patrial” provision, which gives people right of abode in the United Kingdom and freedom from immigration control. Originally patrials included Commonwealth citizens who had a parent or grandparent born in the United Kingdom. The provision was obviously intended to forestall criticism from the old white Commonwealth, already sensitive over the Common Market issue. Original ‘Patrials’ As the bill was originally framed, Patrials were to be people with direct personal or ancestral connection with the United Kingdom. They were:—

1. All people who are citizens of this country (United Kingdom and colonies) by being born here, or who became citizens of this country by adoption, registration, or naturalisation in the United Kingdom, or who have a parent or grandparent who was bom here or acquired citizenship by adoption, registration or naturalisation. 2. Citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who have come from overseas, have been accepted for permanent residence, and since acceptance, have resided here for five years.

3. Commonwealth citizens who have a parent or grandparent bom in the United Kingdom.

Definition amended

The most spectacular objection to the Patrial provision came from Mr Enoch Powell. When the bill reached the committee stage in the

Commons, he voted in favour of an amendment defeating the Government over the provision. By 19 votes to 16, the committee struck out the part which would have given a “right of abode” to Commonwealth citizens who had a grandparent bom in the United Kingdom. Another significant amend is to give right of appeal to a person whom the Home Secretary decides should leave the United Kingdom because his continued presence would not be conducive to the public good. But it will not give a right of appeal in such cases, if the Home Secretary bases his decision of non-con-duciveness on political or security grounds. In the case of someone whom the Home Secretary decides should leave Britain on non-conducive, political or security grounds, there will be a procedure for three "wise men” to look into it and advise the Home Secretary. The advice will not be binding, is non-statutory, and there will be no legal representation. Amendments also ensure that the rights and status of Commonwealth citizens already in Britain are unchanged by the new bill. Those in the United Kingdom before July 31, 1971, will be free from deportation after they have stayed five years. In the intervening years, such a person cannot be deported by the Home Secretary on the grounds that his presence is not conducive to the public good.

Changes suggested The issue of deportation has caused anxiety. A humane change is that dependants of someone being deported can be given the opportunity of going of their own free will to avoid stigma. There has been another amendment to the powers to deport the dependants of a non-Patrial who is to be deported. Anxiety has also been expressed about powers to remove from Britain any nonPatrial receiving treatment for a mental illness. An

amendment ensures that the Home Secretary must be satisfied that it is in the interests of the patient to remove him. The Government is still considering what, if any, further changes should be made.

One may be the distinction, said to be unfair, between Commonwealth citizens who are Patrials because only their mothers were bom in the United Kingdom, and those whose fathers were British-born. The latter could claim citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies by descent; the former could not.