To continue the story from where the earlier blog left off, when the Bill to impose racist immigration controls became the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962.

Labour had opposed the Bill throughout its passage through parliament – largely because it regarded the Bill as incompatible with the Commonwealth ideal. Moreover, such principles were apparently non-negotiable: “I do not care whether or not fighting this Commonwealth Immigration Bill will lose me my seat”, declared MP Barbara Castle, “for I am sure that the Bill will lose this country the Commonwealth.”[1] The speech against the Bill by the Labour leader, Hugh Gaitskell, was admired even by some on the Conservative benches. Yet, once Labour had won the 1964 election, the new government set about making the Act even more restrictive.

Pressures

Why should this have been so? First, there was pressure on the government from Whitehall. Bruce Paice (head of immigration, Home Office, 1955-1966) had argued hard over the years for immigration controls. Even in retirement he was unable to conceal his contempt for the immigrants who came and the politicians and civil servants who allowed them to come for so long. “How on earth people got the money to come here from places like West Africa and Barbados I’ve no idea”, he said in 1999.^[2] “They never seemed to earn anything when they were there, and most of them I think didn’t make much effort to earn anything much when they were here either.” He had tried to persuade senior officials that the solution was a simple one:

“I remember going to see Sir Arthur Hutchinson, Deputy Secretary, and I said all that was really needed was to give me the same powers about British subjects as I had about aliens. And he said in effect, ‘Oh, don’t be silly,’ he said, you know, there couldn’t be any question of such a thing.”

In 1962 Paice had his way: Commonwealth immigrants now had to queue with “aliens” for permission to enter. “The fact that I might be influencing, for good or ill, the lives of other people”, he later commented, “was to me just one of those things. It didn’t cost me any sleepless nights. Somebody has to do this kind of job, and I was quite happy to do it.”

Secondly, there was pressure from public opinion. When the debate on the Act began, support for immigration controls stood at 76%. But the Labour Party’s campaign against the Bill changed the situation: by the end of its passage through the House of Commons, support for controls had fallen to 62% (Jenkins 1999). It looked as though a strong campaign had changed people’s minds. Nevertheless a majority of 62% was still a majority – and Labour was starting to think about the next election. Even before the Bill was passed, there were signs that Labour’s commitment to the rights of free entry and settlement of Commonwealth citizens was less than firm. During the third reading of the Bill, Labour frontbencher Denis Healey hinted that controls might be necessary in the future.[3] After Gaitskell’s unexpected death the new leader, Harold Wilson, gave a further hint of change. While opposing the renewal of the Act in November 1963 he nevertheless told the House of Commons: “We do not contest the need for control of Commonwealth immigration into this country.”[4] When the election came in 1964 the Labour Party manifesto declared:

“Labour accepts that the number of immigrants entering the United Kingdom must be limited. Until a satisfactory agreement covering this can be negotiated with the Commonwealth, a Labour Government will retain immigration control.”[5]

Smethwick

If this was the case before the election, tighter controls became inevitable after it. Labour’s shadow foreign secretary, Patrick Gordon Walker, had lost his seat in Smethwick, in the West Midlands, to a Conservative, Peter Griffiths. One of the slogans daubed on walls during the campaign became notorious in British electoral history: “If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour.” Griffiths denied being the author, but added: “I would not blame anyone who said that … it was a manifestation of popular feeling.”[6] Smethwick, like many similar inner-city areas, suffered housing shortages and other problems, due not to immigrants but to policy failures both at national and local levels. But Griffiths blamed immigrants – and Gordon Walker blamed the Conservatives for letting so many into the country.[7] At an election meeting in Birmingham, Wilson did manage to identify the real issue:

“There is a very real problem of overcrowding which the Government has neglected. We are not having this immigrant question used as an alibi for the total Tory failure to handle the problems of housing, slums, schools and education in this country.”[8]

However, after the election the government set about tightening the controls.

Collapse

The Conservatives had enforced the Act fairly loosely – Commonwealth relations had to be managed and public opinion had to be nurtured. Once Labour gained power in 1964, however, restrictions were increased. From September work vouchers were only issued to people with firm job offers or specific skills. Such a policy favoured whites, as the working party in 1961 had suggested it would.[9] Vouchers granted were limited to 8,500 a year in 1965. Restrictions on dependants included “nephews and cousins and children over 16”:

“In future, dependants would be expected to produce either an entry certificate or appropriate documents to establish identity at the port of entry. This was the origin of the system of entry control which saw the posting – to those Commonwealth countries that were sources of immigration – of Entry Control Officers whose job was to validate evidence of identity and issue entry certificates.”[10]

During the ensuing period of Labour government, restrictions became tighter, to the point that in 1969 The Economist declared that Labour had “pinched the Tories’ white trousers”.[11]

In the next blog: when a “liberal agenda” masks “political cowardice”.

[1] Hayter, T. (2000), Open Borders: the Case against Immigration Controls, Pluto Press, London, p.46.

[2] Playing the Race Card, October-November 1999, Channel Four Television, London.

[3] Hayter, T. (2000), Open Borders: the Case against Immigration Controls, Pluto Press, London, p. 46.

[4] Foot, P. (1968), The Politics of Harold Wilson, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, p. 252.

[5] Ibid., p. 254.

[6] Foot, P. (1970), The Rise of Enoch Powell, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, p. 68.

[7] Playing the Race Card, October-November 1999, Channel Four Television, London.

[8] Hayter, T. (2000), Open Borders: the Case against Immigration Controls, Pluto Press, London, p. 50.

[9] Spencer, I. (1997), British Immigration Policy since 1939: the Making of Multi-Racial Britain, Routledge, London, p. 116.

[10] Ibid., pp. 135-6.

[11] Hayter, T. (2000), Open Borders: the Case against Immigration Controls, Pluto Press, London, p. 51.