‘Firmness and humanity' in immigration rules

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33094, 8 December 1972, Page 13

‘Firmness and humanity' in immigration rules

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter—Copyright) LONDON, December 7. The British Government must maintain tight control over immigrants, but would try to strike a balance between firmness and humanity, the Minister of State at the Home Office (Viscount Colville) assured the House of Lords yesterday.

Speaking in a debate, the Minister acknowledged that the Conservative Administration’s approach to proposed new immigration rules had been substantially changed by the 35-vote defeat on this issue in the House of Commons last month.

This loss came after widespread concern in Parliament

that when Britain joined the European Economic Community next year with Denmark and Ireland, nationals from Common Market States would be more favourably treated than some Commonwealth citizens, particularly from Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. Lord Colville indicated that in seeking to amend the rules —and reintroduce them in a few weeks—the Government would move cautiously and consult Commonwealth nations concerned.

He said that the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr Pierre Trudeau) who recently visited Britain, had not expressed dissatisfaction with the treatment of Canadians and he added: “We have received no representations from Australia and New Zealand on the changes in our immigration laws.”

Baroness White (Labour), beginning the debate, said that there were disparities between immigration laws covering citizens of the Commonwealth and those of the E.E.C.

“This causes great concern to many people not only in this country,” said Baroness White. “We should ask ourselves whether we can reasonably do anything further to redress the balance by improving conditions for citizens of Commonwealth countries which would make it appear

at least a little less inequitable.” Lady White said that family deportation was something many people found distasteful, and something which could be particularly hard on the wife.

In a maiden speech Lord Ballantrae, formerly New Zealand Governor-General Sir Bernard Fergusson, referred particularly. to New Zealand and told the House that people from Britain could go to New Zealand freely, yet people from New Zealand could not come here in the same way. “We discriminate against them but they do not discriminate against us,” he said. Lord Ballantrae said that he was of the opinion that people from overseas who had retained their allegiance to this country had every moral right to come in and out of Britain at will. Lord Ballantrae said: “We should ensure th? freest possible entry for such people even if it meant new legislation.

“I am talking of those who are our own kith and kin,” he declared.

An Australian-born peer, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who had tabled a short debate on the subject which was postponed last week, said: “For the last eight years in this House I have tried to improve relations between the country of my birth and the country of my forebears.” Melbourne-born Lord Clifford, a Conservative M.P., said: “In a little village I suppose 14,000 miles from here is a war memorial with the inscription ‘Ye who marked this monument faithful to her have died and rest content.’

He asked: “Have we by our actions in the past 10 years, or by our actions to be taken in die near future, upheld that faith? I do not think so.”

Another Labour peer, Lord Brockway, said that there was no doubt whatsoever that when Britain went into the E.E.C. the citizens of European countries would have greater advantages than citizens of the Commonwealth countries.

Lord Brockway said: “If I was migrating into this country I should be a non-patrial because I was born in India and my father was bom in Africa.

“I am insignificant, but the same applies to the Duke of Edinburgh. “In the next year, when we go into the European Community, then if he was to come here he would be a non-patrial because he was bom in Greece and his father was bom in Germany.

- “He would be under a further disadvantage in that he was coming here in order to be with his wife. But a woman has a right to come to this country because of

her husband, but a man has no such right to come because he is joining his wife.” The debate is continuing.