Australian High Commission, London, 23 November 1972
18921. Restricted
Immigration into Britain
The Government was defeated in the debate tonight on a motion rejecting the statements of immigration rules for control and after [EEC] entry, by 275 votes to 240.
2. Wilson, calling the question ‘a major constitutional issue’, demanded the Government’s resignation, but the Prime Minister said that the rules would be withdrawn and introduced again at a later stage.
3. It was a dull, rambling debate, in which the Tory ‘Revolt’ received little forceful expression.
The two opening speeches are summarised in a separate cable. 1
The Home Secretary performed poorly.
The Foreign Secretary, winding up, held the House until towards the end, when he became rattled by heckling and lost his authority.
A good many of the speeches raised detailed queries about the meaning and application of the statements that the two Government spokesmen were unable to answer or to answer convincingly.
In this respect the debate highlighted not only the complexity of the rules, but the mess that has developed over the years in British legislation on citizenship.
4. I shall not attempt to summarise the debate in this cable. As so often, Enoch Powell2 went to the heart of the matter when he said that the realisation (now that EEC membership was approaching) of what the rules would mean had created a deep sense of public dismay, which had crystallised around the position of the citizens of Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
‘It very often happens that such deep public emotion as this latches on to the wrong provisions in the relevant legislation and the public gets the small print wrong … But they often get to the heart of the matter. Public opinion is seized of the extremely important and real change that will take place from the beginning of next year. It is technically true to say that, viewed in isolation, Australian citizens will suffer no loss of status … But status is not absolute. The relative status of citizens of (the old Commonwealth) will fundamentally alter from January.’
5. Many conservative speakers, as well as expressing misunderstanding or distortions of the rules, stated their strong concern that old Commonwealth citizens would in future be worse off as regards entry, employment and settlement than EEC nationals.
They called for equal treatment for people of British stock, who, as one speaker put it, had ‘come when we needed them’ (in war).
6. In an effort to allay concern, the Government spokesmen emphasised the relative lack of change in Commonwealth status (Home quoted Mr Gorton in this respect), the extension of the patrial provision, the preferred civic status of Commonwealth citizens over all foreign nationals, the very small number of them refused entry and the tiny percentage of entrants that actually sought regular employment. They undertook to examine and answer fully all questions about the rules.
They denied that there would be a first preference to EEC nationals in employment recruitment and that there would be a flood of such nationals seeking employment in Britain.
They announced a firm decision to have four gates at points of entry and to take further rigorous action to ensure that Commonwealth visitors were courteously and liberally treated and inconvenience and irritation reduced. […]
They also announced that they would hold senior ministerial consultations on the immigration question with Commonwealth countries (apparently to be limited to old Commonwealth countries, which drew some criticism) and Home said that a ‘limited reciprocity’ in immigration (a subject that has come up in recent comment[)] could then be considered.
7. All this clearly failed to satisfy Tory feelings.
8. In a sense, we are now in a position where ostensibly Australian (and New Zealand and Canadian) attitudes, concern, requirements have been enunciated and pressed by British Tory Backbenchers.
Much of this springs from sentiments we share and value. However, their position is essentially an expression of their own concerns and desires, pangs about the Europeans, a flood of conscience and emotion about the Commonwealth (old).
As I suggested yesterday, it is a less than adequate statement of the Australian position and in some respects goes farther than we may wish to ourselves.
The proposal for reciprocal immigration arrangements that the Tories can say they have won for us clearly raises questions and implications of our own interests that would need close study.
9. At this late hour I do not wish to add to the assessment I have sent to you.
However, you will, I hope, realise that we are being pressed hard for comment and I again request your early guidance.
We are saying ‘no comment’ tonight, but shall need to take a position from then early morning onwards (i.e. from the beginning of Thursday, November 23rd). May I have your instruction please.
1 See NAA: A 1838, 67/1/3 part 6.
2 Conservative Member for Wolverhampton South West.
[NAA: A1838, 67/1/3 PART 6]