§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonI beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 8, line 38, leave out paragraph 7.
§ Mr. LyonThis is an amendment to remove paragraph 7 from the effect of the schedule. We have already passed clause 6, which makes the schedule have effect.
I am not arguing with the Chair, but I should have thought that we had jumped the gun. However, that matter having been ruled upon, my purpose, as I indicated in an intervention, is to raise the matter of registration. Because the Government have taken the decision, wrongly in my view, to remove Commonwealth status from Zimbabwe from the beginning of independence until the Government of Zimbabwe decide to come back into the Commonwealth, this affects the right of patrials of this country who are not citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
As the Under-Secretary of State has indicated, this involves about 70,000 of the 150,000 people living in Zimbabwe who would be entitled to come to this country. If the Government had taken the course that I suggested, they would not be placed in this difficulty. There would be no risk to those 70,000 people. They would be patrial. The Under-Secretary would be right to say that all that he is doing is to reinstate the law as it was. I have always objected, as did everyone on the Opposition side, to section 2(1)(d) of the 1971 Act, which makes a person patrial even though he is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and 1473 colonies. We should now say that if the Government have taken this step it should not be reversed, to allow those 70,000 to enter in the 12 months following independence for Zimbabwe.
Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who has now left the Front Bench, said that he did not think that there were great immigration implications in this move, I am not sure that that is so. The Under-Secretary of State indicated that the earlier amendment might affect only a few hundred, and I accept that, but this amendment affects about 70,000 people.
If the Government elected in Zimbabwe in the course of these free and fair elections are a Government whom the whites in Rhodesia like, they may want to stay. If a Government are elected whom the whites do not like, they may want to move. Where will they move to? There are 150,000 who have the right to come here and not to go anywhere else. It is conceivable that South Africa, Australia or Canada may be willing to take them, but they would have to qualify under the immigration rules for entry in those countries. They would not have to qualify under any rules allowing them to come to this country because they have the status of patriality under the 1971 Act.
There is nothing that we can do about the 80,000 patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The only definition at the moment of British citizen is "British citizen". No one can take that away from them. That test was put in the 1971 Act to allow whites, but not blacks, to come in, and it is the nub of the racist case for the Act.
A lacuna has opened up because of the way in which the Government have drafted the Bill, and we ought to be careful about allowing it to be closed for 12 months for the 70,000 who can choose to stay if they like the look of the new Government or come here as partials—without even having to apply or qualify tinder the immigration rules.
11.45 pm
Only a week ago the Government passed the most nauseating, racially discriminatory rules in order to keep out 4,000 people, on the basis that they were primary immigrants—men who could take our jobs. What is to happen to the 1474 70,000 whites who will be allowed to come here within the 12 months during which they have to exercise their rights under the schedule? Areas of Eastbourne and Bognor Regis will be swamped. Some Conservative Members may think that that will swell their majorities, but some of the expressions of political affiliation that I have heard from whites in Rhodesia lead me to think that there may be a substantial National Front vote there. Hon. Members will need to be careful about their seats.
I hope that all the 70,000 do not go to Reigate. I should not like to see the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner) have to give up his seat to the National Front—though perhaps there would not be that much difference.
§ Mr. LyonThere is a serious question about what we would do with 70,000 people who would want jobs and homes in this country and would therefore be in competition with those already living here. The lacuna has opened up and I do not believe that we should allow the Government's proposals to pass.
§ Mr. LuceThis is the second or third time that we have discussed the citizenship provisions in the Bill. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) seeks to raise again the question of the 70,000 people who, at the moment, have rights of entry into the United Kingdom on the ground of patriality. I can only reiterate my previous argument that the provisions are necessary because, until the Government of the new Zimbabwe decide to the contrary, that country will be outside the Commonwealth.
We are providing a year's grace in order to overcome what would otherwise be problems of individual hardship and to clarify and give a greater degree of certainty to the position of that category of people.
It is wrong to suggest that there is likely to be a massive panic and a massive exodus from Rhodesia. The purpose of the efforts of recent months, leading up to the Bill and the arrival of the Governor, has been to help to create conditions in which black and white people will feel that they want to stay in Zimbabwe, make a future there, 1475 contribute to their country and share as equal citizens in its future.
I do not think that it helps to talk about the dangers of a massive exodus at a time when we are trying to achieve the very opposite. We wish to persuade as many as possible to stay in Rhodesia. If we do not provide for one year of grace, there could be created a greater degree of uncertainty and unease among the 70,000 during the next three months, during the pre-independence period. If they do not have adequate time to think about their future and to see how things settle, that could lead to a greater degree of unease about their position in Rhodesia and exacerbate the situation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to see that happen.
I hope that the Committee will reject the amendment.
§ Mr. Alexander W. LyonI beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 2 agreed to.