The immigration debate
Patrick Cosg rave
In considering the controversy that has recently broken out over the Conservative Party's policy towards immigration (and the — as I shall show — disingenuous response of the Home Secretary to newspaper stories about it) there are several points to be borne in mind which have been obscured both by the heat of the argument, and by the inaccuracies in the original stories. As has happened more often than not when this subject has come under discussion over the last decade and more, argument has tended to obscure whether further curbs on immigration are necessary, and concentrate instead on whether particular political proposals manifest sympathy or hostility towards the coloured immigrant community already resident in Britain. And this typical shift of emphasis is, in my view, profoundly dangerous, in that it substitutes the barely relevant for the immediately pressing.
The first thing to stress is both the so far extremely limited Conservative commitment in this area of policy and, then, the total, and even passionate, commitment of the Shadow Home Secretary, Mr Whitelaw, to it. For some time (and, as set down most recently in the 1976 policy document The Right Approach) it has been the policy of the party both to seek an immediate reduction in the number of immigrants entering Britain and to set a clearly defined limit to the number allowed entry in the future. Those two undertakings were explicitly and vehemently enunciated by Mr Whitelaw in his speech to the party conference in 1976, and anyone who has talked to him on the matter since he took up his present post will know how strongly he feels on the subject. It was nonsense, therefore, for the press (and particularly the Express newspapers) to picture him as a dove being urged on by Tory hawks. The object of policy has been for a long time clear; only the means to effect it are the subject of discussion.
Second, as regards the discussion of those means, the newspaper reports that appeared the weekend before last were wildly inaccurate. There is, as yet, no formal Shadow Cabinet paper on the subject. There was not then, and there never has been, any suggestion that the party in government would want further to restrict the right of entry of UK passport holders from East Africa, not even of those expected to be required to leave Kenya when President Kenyatta dies. There is, on the other hand, a widespread determination to ensure that when and if a similar exodus to the East African takes place from Hong Kong or other parts of Asia, very few indeed of the emigrants will have the right to settle in Britain. And, so far as the question of Rhodesians (white and brown) is concerned, discussion of which, again, has clouded the argument, it should be emphasised that the great majority of those likely to want to come to Britain were born here or are, in the definition of the 1971 Act, patrial ; and therefore have an inalienable right to come to the United Kingdom. As regards the overall question, then, three things should be stressed — the exact nature of the party's long-standing commitment; the fact that, although a great deal of work has been done on how this commitment should be implemented, no decisions on method have been made; and the — in my view and in the light of the figures — urgent necessity for the Opposition to decide on method and announce their decision.
There is another point to be made so far as the Conservative Party's commitment is concerned. It is now perfectly clear that the 1971 Immigration Act did not have any serious effect on the number. of coloured immigrants coming to Britain: the undertaking in the 1970 manifesto therefore remains undischarged, and the promise to cut immigration is still, therefore, unfulfilled. There is, therefore, nothing new or fresh or unscrupulous in continuing to seek methods of reducing the very high inflow of immigrants. The important question is whether my assertion about the 1971 Act is correct; and, even if it is, whether reduction is, for domestic social, economic, cultural and political reasons, actually necessary.
Of course, there are a number of people — activists, journalists, and politicians like Mr Alex Lyon, the former Home Office minister — who would place few, if any, restrictions on the right of citizens of New Commonwealth countries (or Pakistan) to come to Britain. Almost nobody in the mainstream of political argument is, however, of that opinion. So the debate is about how many or how few? To that question is subtended another debate, about whether humane measures can be taken to reduce intake.
First, as regards numbers generally, it can be shown that there has been no marked reduction in inflow in recent years. The average intake of coloured immigrants continues to run at the rate of about 50,000 a year. (There is still some dispute over methods of assessment, and since this dispute is itself enlightening, I will come back to it in a moment.) What has changed is the expansion of some of the categories of immigrant. In 1975, for example, some 80,000 people were accepted for settlement in Britain, including those accepted for settlement on arrival and those who,
already here, had the time limit on their stay cancelled. Of that 80,000 some 57,000 were from the New Commonwealth. It is clear, too, that while the number of completely new immigrants (i.e. workers) has fallen, there has been a considerable expansion in the number of dependants (spouses, children, and other categories) and in the number of fiancés and fiancées of those already here. I believe, in illustration of this last point, that the UK High Commissioner in New Delhi has told Mr Rees that of some 2,727 applications over a test period 2,344 were from fiancés, who have enjoyed a right of entry equivalent to that of fiancées since 1974, when Mr Roy Jenkins gave it to them. Finally, I believe that the forthcoming report of the Select Committee on Race Relations will indicate both considerable corruption in preparing applications in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, and a marked increase in the use of the Asian marriage market (through arranged marriages) to. facilitate immigration applications which would otherwise be refused.
It is worth pausing to consider the implications of all this. Of the 57,000 New Commonwealth immigrants entering Britain in 1975 certainly more than 8,000 were fiancés or fiancées, some 8,000 were spouses, and some 15,000 were child dependants. If we take the Franks Committee Report (that on miscounting of numbers) we will find a prediction that the ethnic minority population of Britain in 2,000 will be 3.8 million. (I think that figure too low, but it will serve for purposes of illustration.) If only five per cent of that total were to seek spouses overseas, Britain would be faced with an additional intake of some 200,000. Of course, it might be that not one coloured individual would do this; but the likelihood from past experience is that a great many more than five per cent would, if they were allowed. It is clear, then, that — as Mr Powell, to give him just credit, has foreseen for a long time — the coloured community has automatically found a way of endlessly increasing its numbers, in spite of any measures so far introduced, or any intentions on the part of the Labour Party. And this rolling increase is likely to become increasingly intolerable and increasingly explosive.
It is extremely useful to recall the manner in which these subjects were discussed in the late 'sixties, and the extent to which they are discussed in the same way today. In the late 'sixties, we (I say 'we' because I myself then worked at the Conservative Research Department on immigration policy, and shared these assumptions to the full) believed that moderate policies of restr iction would see a steady reduction in the number of immigrants of first instance; and that, once their dependants had been admitted (the dependants, mainly, of those first corning to this country in the early and middle years of the decade) the overall numbers would show a drastic decline. This did not happen, and it is certainly not going to happen. Furthermore, those of us on the
so-called liberal wing of the argument preferred, in those years, to calculate the number of entrants from the settlement figures (the numbers of those explicitly admitted to settle) rather than on the net figures (difference between inflow and outflow), which are generally higher. We argued, then, that the next few years would see a .stabilisation of numbers in the coloured community; and that the settlement figurps were more reliable guides than the net, unless these latter showed higher returns than the former for a long period of Years. Our expectations in both regards were disappointed; and the nub of the present argument is, therefore, that none of the measures, legislative or administrative, of recent years have had any appreciable effect. In that conclusion lies the case for early action now.
And, of course, adminstrative action could instantly be taken by any government With a mind to take it. First, under existing law, only those immigrants already here on 1 January 1973 have an absolute right to bring their dependants: so the right in practice of subsequent immigrants could be taken away immediately. Then, the concession to fiancés at least could be revoked. By these measures alone intake could be halved. It is nonsense, therefore, to say that nothing can be done, by way of further reduction.
Further measures (and I believe further measures are also necessary) could be taken by way of requiring each immigrant of first instance to register, when he makes his application, the number of dependants he Will subsequently wish to take to Britain. What he said would influence the decision to accept or reject his application, and he would not, thereafter, have any right to vary its terms. Then, one of a variety of quota Systems could be introduced which, if rigorously administered, would wholly remove the absolute right of anybody to take a wife or husband from overseas.
Franks poured scorn on the idea of a register, and nearly all liberal opinion scouts the idea of quotas although they are enforced by a great many other countries. There is, however, no inherent impracticability in either proposal, though there is a tetchy debate about whether a quota sys tem should be overtly discriminatory (i.e. clearly aimed at coloured immigrants) or covertly so (i.e. formally aimed at all coun tries, subject to our treaty obligations to the EEC but in fact, because of the much gre ater numbers wishing to come from the New Commonwealth, directed at non-whites). The latter would probably be more acceptable politically and publicly, but which system is adopted is neither here nor there. Just this proposal has come under fire from ,Mr Rees but and it is here that he is being disingenuous he at present presides over an informal quota system, in that administrative delay in processing applications in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh is now the order of the day.
It is thus not only feasible, it is actually easy, to reduce substantially the number of immigrants coming to Britain. But something else would, I think, be required. Given that all parties propose to fulfil their obligations to passport holders in East Africa, there remains the looming problem of the Hong Kong Chinese and countless other passport holders in Asia. In order both to regularise the provisions put forward above, and to meet the problem of Hong Kong and other countries before it arises, I believe we need a new British Nationality Act, which will lay down for all time or, at least, for many, many years exactly who has, and who has not, a right to settle in Britain. Our lack of clarity on this subject over the years has more than anything else produced an existing and expanding immig rant population of a size and character that virtually no one, if it had been convincingly shown it would come into existence, would have found acceptable. Inconvenience, hardship, and restriction of the right, for example, to marry who one pleases and bring one's spouse to live here when one pleases, would follow all these measures. But they would be, I submit, necessary inconveniences, necessary hardships, and necessary restrictions. And if we do not impose them, we will be ignoring, and indeed trampling on, the rights of the indigenous population, and creating the conditions for massive disruption and violence when their patience breaks. If anything, the Conservative Party is to be criticised for not grasping the nettle sooner and more firmly.
Previous page
