Canberra, 12 January 1962
Confidential
The United Kingdom Government’s Commonwealth Immigrants Bill
The Commonwealth Immigrants Bill was presented in the House of Commons by Mr R.A. Butler on 1st November, 1961.
2. The purpose of the Bill is to control immigration into the United Kingdom from Commonwealth countries. Hitherto, this has been quite unrestricted. The primary aim-of the Bill is to secure control over the influx of unskilled immigrants from West Indies, Pakistan, and India. To avoid any appearance of discrimination, however, the legislation is to apply to immigration from all Commonwealth countries.
3. I believe we should not gainsay the right of the United Kingdom to introduce whatever legislation they may feel best suited to meet the present situation and to minimise problems they can see developing in the future. On the other hand, introduction of restrictions on the entry of Commonwealth citizens will put an end to the traditional policy of free entry into the United Kingdom which has always been taken for granted throughout the Commonwealth. This seems bound to have some political impact. The more so as the British Government has now decided that there will be no restrictions on the entry of Irish citizens into the United Kingdom. It will bring home also the extent to which Australia’s traditional relationship to the United Kingdom is changing.
4. The Bill provides in relation to immigration control that unless a Commonwealth Citizen (other than a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies) can satisfy an Immigration Officer at point of entry into the United Kingdom that:–
(a) If wishing to enter for employment in the United Kingdom—he holds an appropriate voucher issued on behalf of the Minister of Labour; or
(b) If not wishing to enter for employment in the United Kingdom–he is in a position to support himself and his dependents, if any, in the United Kingdom, without taking employment, he may be refused entry.
5. Even if the requirement in (a) or (b) above can be met the traveller may still be refused entry if:—
(a) He is believed to be suffering from mental disorder or it is considered that it is otherwise undesirable for medical reasons that he should be admitted; or
(b) It is believed that he has been convicted in any country of any crime, wherever committed, which is an extradition crime within the meaning of the Extradition Acts, 1870–1935; or
(c) In the opinion of the Secretary of State, his admission would be contrary to the interests of national security; or
(d) He is a person in respect of whom a deportation order is in force.
6. A confidential memorandum handed to us by the United Kingdom authorities, prior to the presentation of the legislation stated inter alia:–
‘The proposed legislation will apply equally to immigrants from all territories in the Commonwealth, independent and dependent. It is envisaged that the form of controls will be on the following lines:–
Commonwealth citizens who can show that they are coming to Britain for a visit or as students, or can prove that they can maintain themselves without taking work, will be allowed to enter, though the Immigration Officer may impose conditions, for example, a limit on the duration of a visit. Commonwealth citizens who intend to go to Britain to take up work will be divided into three broad categories:–
- those with jobs to go to;
- those who possess qualifications useful to Britain;
- others.
These people will have to apply for permission to enter. They will then be given application forms to complete. (They will of course also have to substantiate their statements). These application forms will enable the Ministry of Labour to allocate the applicants to their proper categories. Those permitted to enter will then be sent employment vouchers which will serve as a sort of entry permit. It is contemplated that the Ministry of Labour will send vouchers to those in categories (a) and (b) without restriction. A quota will however have to be set on those in category (c). This quota will have to be determined periodically in the light of conditions in Britain and the numbers permitted to enter under categories (a) and (b).
Subject to these, vouchers will be sent to people in category (c) on a ‘first come first served basis’.
7. The memorandum also emphasised that the action now proposed had been forced on the Government in order to reduce the risks of social strains and the consequent danger of impairing Commonwealth relations, and that the controls imposed will not discriminate on the grounds of race, but that the Bill should not have any effect on the inflow of immigrants from countries such as Australia.
8. Subsequent to the circulation of this memorandum, we were informed of the administrative arrangements contemplated, to give effect to the legislation. These did not underline the optimism expressed in the memorandum quoted above that Australian immigration to Great Britain would be unaffected by the measure. In fact, this advance notification of the form of the arrangements then proposed made it quite evident that in varying degrees immigration control over all Australian travellers would be exercised.
9. It could well be that when the legislation was framed it was intended that control over Australian travellers would not amount to more than a formality. The controversy which the Bill gave rise to, however, has probably emphasised the need for non-discrimination in its application, and as a consequence the earlier more favourable position to be enjoyed by Australians has had to be abandoned.
10. In general, Australians proceeding to the United Kingdom may be grouped into three main classes:-
(a) Persons proceeding as tourists, businessmen, etc who in any event would not wish to take up employment in the United Kingdom. (These would be largely middle aged or older people);
(b) Persons proceeding as tourists but really on working holidays, or to gain further experience, for whom employment of some kind is essential for maintenance purposes while overseas; (These would be mainly the younger age groups).
(c) Full-time students.
11. Those travellers constituting group (a) do not need to obtain entry approval prior to arriving in the United Kingdom, but they must satisfy an Immigration Officer on arrival that they will be able to support themselves without employment. The difficulty foreseen for these is the absence of reasonable certainty before departure that they will not encounter difficulty about entry on arrival in the United Kingdom. In practice, it is not expected that travellers in this class would suffer restriction of any kind. Nevertheless, distances and cost of travel between Australia and Britain are great, and such people might validly claim that they are entitled to have before their departure some form of authorisation—perhaps a passport endorsement—which will guarantee their admission (subject to usual safeguards) at the termination of the voyage. Unless this is forthcoming, anxiety will be natural, particularly in marginal cases—those who are by no means affluent, but who at the same time do not intend engaging in employment during their visit unless required by circumstances to do so.
12. The second class affected is made up of members of the younger age groups travelling as tourists but with the intention of working at least part time to maintain themselves. These constitute a substantial part of the annual movement from Australia, and it is on them that the administrative arrangements contemplated to give effect to the Bill will bear most heavily. As we see it now, each will need to apply for and be granted a work voucher (or permit) before entry will be permitted, or for that matter, because of the liability of passenger carriers provided for in the draft legislation, before even a travel booking will be accepted from them in Australia. An additional burden is that application for the work voucher can only be made in London. (There is at this stage no indication of decentralising the issue of these vouchers).
13. No question would appear to arise about full-time students.
14. The uncertainty and inconvenience confronting Australian travellers could be lessened considerably if in its administrative arrangements the British Government could be prevailed upon to make some modifications. In the interest of our own people it would seem imperative that Australia should strongly advocate:—
(a) That those visitors not intending to seek work can be given an endorsement in their passport before leaving Australia that will record formally their right to entry. (If the provision of such an endorsement is acceptable to the United Kingdom, then we should press strongly that the Australian authorities be empowered to provide it as agents of the British Government).
(b) That in the case of the second group affected, category ‘B’ of the proposed United Kingdom administrative arrangements— ‘those who possess training skill or educational qualifications likely to be useful to Britain’ —should be liberalised in practice as to incorporate the bulk of that group of younger traveller who is seeking experience abroad, but who could not qualify as tourists or students as classified by the United Kingdom. Additionally, that authority to issue work vouchers in respect of category ‘B’ be delegated to the British High Commissioner in Australia to avoid the protracted delay of application to London.
15. The draft Bill, and later the administrative arrangements contemplated in relation to it, have been the subject of useful and detailed discussion between officials of the Prime Minister’s Department, the Department of Immigration and the British High Commissioner’s Office here. The Australian viewpoint has been canvassed vigorously. Our officials have referred to the difficulties for Australians intending to enter the United Kingdom foreshadowed in the preceding paragraphs. Doubtless these official views have been transmitted accurately and fully to the CRO in London. The question arises whether, and if so what, further representations should be made to the United Kingdom either in Australia or London.
16. In a memorandum dated 20th November the United Kingdom informed us that category (b) (see paragraph 6 of this submission) had been amended to read ‘those who possess training, skill or educational qualifications likely to be useful to Britain’ and went on to say that category (b) might include:–
- persons with university degrees or technical or professional qualifications;
- skilled craftsmen;
- persons who have training or skill in a particular occupation in which there is a persistent shortage, e.g. experienced railway workers and shorthand writers.
The memorandum also asked whether:–
‘ Some system of checking that persons applying under category (b) do possess the qualifications they claim to have, will be necessary. The most suitable arrangements would seem to be that the application form should in such cases be endorsed by a local Labour or other appropriate Department of Commonwealth Governments. It is very much hoped that they will be prepared to co-operate in this way.’
17. I am told that the Department of Labour and National Service is examining this request.
18. I am informed that Sir Grantley Adams, the Prime Minister of the West Indies Federation, has suggested to Mr Macmillan that the movement of persons within the Commonwealth should be a matter for discussion at a Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Meeting. 1 Mr Macmillan has authorised Sir Grantly to use the following formula in public statement:
‘The question of movement within the Commonwealth was discussed between Sir Grantly Adams and the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister did not exclude the possibility that the general subject of immigration might be discussed at a Commonwealth Prime Ministers’ Meeting. But he explained that no meeting was at present in prospect and that the subjects of discussion were matters for agreement between all Commonwealth Prime Ministers.’
Sir Grantly Adams has been asked to regard this formula as confidential until Commonwealth Governments have been informed.
1 See UKNA: PREM 11/3664; see also Document 161.
[NAA: A446, 1970/95739]