Lords clash on immigration

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33093, 7 December 1972, Page 13

Lords clash on immigration

fN.Z. Press Assn.—Copyright) LONDON, Dec. 5.

An Australian-born peer has refused to proceed with a House of Lords motion on Commonwealth immigration because, he said, an Opposition amendment proved that the Labour Party was interested only in embarrassing the Government.

“With the object of exposing this, and of denying them the opportunity of inverted racialist propaganda, I am not now moving the motion,” Lord Clifford said. His motion had called for a debate on arrangements for entry into Britain “which enable or encourage Her Majesty’s subjects from the old Commonwealth countries to be insulted, and which do not recognise their ties with us and our responsibilities and affection towards them.” The amendment was for the world “old” to be deleted. Lord Clifford said he put down his motion because he was angered by the treatment of an Australian by immigration authorities. “PAST DAMAGE” “My object was to get a message to members of the old Commonwealth to repair, if possible, some of the damage done to our relations with them over the last 10 years by our, to my mind, insulting immigration rules,” said Lord Clifford.

"By agreeing to a slight change of words, the Government indicated that it would support the motion.” The Opposition amendment "completely negated” the object of improving relations between Britain and

the old Commonwealth, he said. “I cannot allow more of this wounding propaganda to go out-” The annulment proved to him that some of the Opposition had no interest in the old Commonwealth, but were interested only in embarrassing the Government. “If the amendment were passed or achieved a substantial number of votes, it would only add insult to injury where I was trying to ‘cool it’,” said Lord Clifford. OTHER VIEW A Labour peer, Lord Walston, who tabled the amendment, said: “I would oppose very strongly any system which allowed some to come in with V.I.P. treatment and others as second-class citizens.” The Commonwealth must be multi-racial and non-dis-criminatory, he said. On Lord Clifford’s statement that Australia and New Zealand were the “old Commonwealth,” Lord Walston gave the dates when present Commonwealth countries were first settled by Britons —Bermuda, 1609; Barbados, 1625; and Jamaica, 1695. "If Lord Clifford really means ‘white’ he should say so and then we can have a discussion on a racialist theme,” said Lord Walston. WAR EFFORT Lord Clifford and his friends often talked about standing behind Commonwealth people who fought for Britain during the last war. “It is worth remembering that there were 2,750,000 Indians (including Pakistanis), 700,000 Canadians, 600,000 Australians, 228,000 East Africans, 150,000 New Zealanders, and 164,000 West Indians in the war,” said Lord Walston.

"Although we are enormously grateful to the white Commonwealth members who fought with us and for us, there was an even larger number of coloured people,” he said. Lord Clifford said that he

and his friends would return to the attack very soon. Among his supporters are believed to be several peers, including Lord Ballantrae, a former Governor-General of New Zealand, and Lord De L’lsle, a former GovernorGeneral of Australia.