London, 22 August 1972
Confidential
Immigration from the ‘Old’ Commonwealth
1. When we recently discussed the question of streaming of ‘old’ and EEC citizens entering this country, you expressed concern about some possible solutions of that problem (and about the substantive new immigration rules). […]
2. Since immigration control was introduced for Commonwealth citizens in 1962 it has been based on (and bedevilled by) the principle that there should be no discrimination in its application on grounds of race or colour. The practical effects on Australians and New Zealanders have been partly mitigated in various ways. In particular the working holiday scheme caters especially for those countries. More than so if those Australians (593 out of 1160) and New Zealanders (147 out 282) who in 1971 applied for work permits were in fact granted them. Thus the strictest provisions of the Immigration Acts affect Australians and New Zealanders to a relatively minor degree. And of course about 1,400,000 Australians and about 750,000 New Zealanders were born in Britain or had fathers born here and have thus always been entitled to UK citizenship and exempt from all controls.
3. Nevertheless increased formalities and the appearance of being treated both less favourably than UK citizens and on a par with Asian Commonwealth citizens, have especially rankled with Australians. The New Zealanders say less but certainly feel the same. Hitherto this situation could, however, be defended on the basis of our determination to preserve non-discrimination.
4. In the discussions that led to the 1971 Act the concept of patriality was specifically designed to avoid the dilemma. In its original form (when patriality covered those with parents or grandparents born here) it was estimated that about 3.7 million Australians and perhaps 2 million New Zealanders would qualify as patrials and be exempt from immigration controls. When the Bill was amended, and patriality limited to those with parents born here, these estimates fell to about 1.7 million and 1.1 million, most of whom already qualified as UK citizens under previous legislation (the only new exempt category being those with mothers born here). This seriously frustrated the attempt to avoid imposing unnecessary restrictions on ‘old’ Commonwealth citizens. But Ministers eventually agreed in June 1971 that no alternative method could be devised to achieve the desired result.
5. Adverse reactions by Australians and New Zealanders were foreseen at the time but what was perhaps not generally realised, and was not considered specifically by Ministers, was the effect that entry into Europe would have on the whole basis of our defence to the old Commonwealth of the existing system.
6. The need to accept the free movement of labour clauses of the Treaty of Rome was clearly seen and accepted in its own context. Its potential implications for our labour market, and thus for the level of Commonwealth work permits in future, were no doubt recognised. But it is only recently that attention has been focussed on the fact that one of the main justifications of our policy will, from next January, be hardly tenable. Instead of the Commonwealth generally receiving ‘most favoured nation’ treatment in immigration matters, all Commonwealth citizens will now be, and feel themselves, discriminated against by comparison with EEC nationals. Despite our claims to the contrary the ‘new’ Commonwealth has no doubt long felt discriminated against on racial grounds. The ‘old’ Commonwealth will now find themselves in fact discriminated against for the first time on grounds of national (indeed racial) origin. People of British origin will be differently, and in some ways worse, treated than Germans et al. Their resentment will be increased if the discrimination is openly visible at the entry points. They will feel, with a good deal of justice, that our policy is hypocritical. We can also expect to be accused of having thrown non-discrimination to the winds: and we shall have no logical, or even colourable, defence.
Conclusion
7. We have insisted that apparent discrimination against citizens of the ‘old’ Commonwealth at points of entry should be avoided and will continue to press this point in the correspondence between Ministers about ‘streaming’. There seems to be no prospect, short of new legislation, of avoiding the element of discrimination, particularly in relation to employment, which will exist from the date of Accession. I fear I can see no other means of countering inevitable, and in my view justifiable, criticism from the ‘old’ Commonwealth. I suggest, however, that we should at least ensure that Ministers realise in advance the situation which will exist next year. I have discussed this with Mr Downing who tells me that there will be an opportunity to do this when the regulations under the 1971 Act have to be tabled early in the next sessions of Parliament. You may think, however, that an earlier opportunity should be found.
[UKNA: FCO 68/442]