Barriers to change and the 1962 Act

What the specification asks for

“Barriers to change, including the significance of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962).” — examined through change and causation. Incandio is aligned to specification 4HI1; it is not published by, endorsed by or affiliated with Pearson.

1 · Understand it

Why the law changed

Pressure for control built through the later 1950s. The disturbances of 1958 made immigration a national political issue; some Conservative members had been pressing for restriction for years; and the argument was made in terms of housing, schools and public services in particular districts rather than in terms of race, which is how the case was principally put in Parliament.

That argument should be stated at its strongest because a candidate has to answer it rather than dismiss it. Arrivals were concentrated in a small number of cities with severe housing shortages left by wartime destruction and inadequate building, and local authorities had no additional resources for the districts absorbing them. Some who supported control argued that good relations required limiting numbers first.

Against that stands the fact that both major parties had accepted the 1948 settlement for over a decade, that the migration was economically useful and had been solicited, and that the restriction was drafted to apply to Commonwealth citizens rather than to the Irish, who had free movement and were also arriving in large numbers. The Labour opposition, led by Hugh Gaitskell, opposed the Bill on precisely those grounds.

What the Act did

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 removed the automatic right of entry for Commonwealth citizens and replaced it with a system of employment vouchers in three categories: those with a job to come to, those with specified skills or qualifications, and an unskilled category which was quickly reduced and then effectively closed.

The Act preserved the right of entry for dependants of those already settled, which had a consequence its authors did not intend and which is examinable. Migrants who had previously moved back and forth, treating work in Britain as temporary, now had to choose between leaving permanently or bringing their families. Very large numbers chose the second, so a measure designed to reduce settlement increased it.

The most striking consequence came before the Act took effect. Announcing the restriction produced a surge of arrivals by people determined to enter while the right still existed: the numbers arriving in 1961 and early 1962 were far higher than in preceding years. A control measure increased the migration it was designed to reduce, which is documented, counter-intuitive and exactly the kind of point a strong answer uses.

The pattern of British immigration politics

The 1962 Act established a pattern that recurs. A restriction is proposed in response to public pressure; it is opposed by the other party; it is passed; and the party that opposed it then retains and extends it in office. Labour opposed the 1962 Act and in 1965 issued a White Paper reducing the vouchers further, and in 1968 passed a Commonwealth Immigrants Act restricting entry for East African Asians holding British passports.

The consequence for the option's larger argument is important. Britain legislated against discrimination and legislated to restrict entry in the same years and often by the same governments: the Race Relations Act of 1965 and the White Paper reducing vouchers belong to the same administration and the same twelve months.

That is not hypocrisy so much as a stated policy, and it was stated: the argument advanced by Roy Jenkins and others was that integration required both — good treatment for those settled here and limits on further arrivals. Whether the two halves are compatible is a genuine question, and it is the kind of judgement the sixteen-mark questions on this option are set on.

2 · Learn it — the notes

The dates that earn marks

1958

Disturbances in Nottingham and Notting Hill make immigration a national political issue. Why this date: It is the event that moved restriction from a minority position to a mainstream one.

1961–62

Announcement of the coming restriction produces a surge of arrivals before it takes effect. Why this date: A control measure increased the migration it was designed to reduce, which is the strand's most useful fact.

1962

The Commonwealth Immigrants Act introduces employment vouchers and ends automatic entry. Why this date: It reverses the 1948 settlement fourteen years after it was made.

1965 and 1968

Labour, having opposed the 1962 Act, reduces vouchers and then restricts entry for East African Asians. Why this date: It establishes the pattern by which restriction, once introduced, is retained and extended by both parties.

The figures, and how far to trust them

• Three voucher categories — The system created by the 1962 Act, of which the unskilled category was quickly closed. (Voucher numbers were reduced repeatedly, notably by the 1965 White Paper.)
• A surge before commencement — Arrivals in 1961 and early 1962, far above preceding years. (Precise figures vary by source and by whether short-term arrivals are included.)
• Fourteen years — The interval between the 1948 Nationality Act and the 1962 restriction.

The people to place

• Rab Butler — Home Secretary who introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill in 1961.
• Hugh Gaitskell — Labour leader who opposed the 1962 Act in Parliament.

How historians disagree

Attributed interpretations, never voiced — the AO4 seam.

• The 'invitation withdrawn' reading: People holding British passports who had been recruited to work in Britain were made subject to controls written specifically to exclude them, and the sequence from 1948 through 1962 to 1971 is the fact that matters rather than any single Act. Contested by The reading that governments were responding to genuine pressure on housing and services in particular districts, that the 1948 Act had not been intended to produce large-scale migration, and that restriction was a response to an unforeseen consequence..

What students say — and what is actually the case

Not this: The 1962 Act reduced immigration immediately.

This: Announcing it produced a surge of arrivals before commencement, and by making circulation impossible it encouraged permanent settlement and family reunion afterwards.

Not this: Only the Conservative Party supported immigration control.

This: Labour opposed the 1962 Act and then reduced vouchers in 1965 and restricted entry for East African Asians in 1968. Restriction became a bipartisan position within six years.

Two things students merge

Blurred: Restricting entry and reducing settlement.

The distinction: The 1962 Act restricted new arrivals and preserved dependants' rights, which converted temporary workers into permanent families. The two objectives pulled against each other.

Blurred: Commonwealth citizens and aliens.

The distinction: The 1962 Act applied to Commonwealth citizens, who were British subjects, and not to the Irish, who retained free movement. The selection is the fact that any assessment of the Act's purpose has to address.

What a Grade 9 answer holds here

A Grade 9 answer shows the 1962 Act producing the opposite of its object twice. Announcing it brought a rush of arrivals before it took effect, and preserving dependants' rights turned men who had been travelling back and forth into families who stayed — so a measure intended to reduce settlement increased it, first by anticipation and then by design.

3 · How it is examined

This strand is genuinely set through: Paper 2 Section B (a) (6 marks — “Explain TWO ways in which … was different from ….”); Paper 2 Section B (b) (8 marks — “Explain TWO causes of ….”); Paper 2 Section B (c)(i) or (c)(ii) (16 marks — “How significant was … in …, in the years …? / How far were … responsible for …, in the years …? You may use the following in your answer: • [prompt] • [prompt]. You must also use information of your own.”).

What earns marks: The pre-commencement surge. It is counter-intuitive, documented, and it demonstrates a consequence of policy rather than a description of it.

The cap that bites here: The 6-mark question is capped at 3 marks for a single explained difference.

4 · Prove it — the questions

Answered inside Incandio, where a marker checks what a correct answer must contain and tells you which half was missing. The marking stays in the app; the questions are here.

1. Explain TWO ways in which the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 was different from the British Nationality Act of 1948. [6 marks · Paper 2 Section B (a)]
2. Explain TWO causes of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962. [8 marks · Paper 2 Section B (b)]
3. Explain TWO causes of the increase in permanent settlement after 1962. [8 marks · Paper 2 Section B (b)]
4. How significant was government legislation in the treatment of immigrants in Britain, in the years 1914–2010? [16 marks · Paper 2 Section B (c)(i) or (c)(ii)]
5. How far were British governments consistent in their treatment of immigration, in the years 1948–1971? [16 marks · Paper 2 Section B (c)(i) or (c)(ii)]

Carry on through the option

• Previous lesson: Windrush, Commonwealth immigration and Claudia Jones
• Next lesson: Guttmann, Wolfenden, Butler and the NHS
• Key topic 3 · Consequences of war and the end of empire, 1944–62 · Diversity, rights and equality in Britain, 1914–2010 · the option's timeline · Incandio History
• The other key topics of Diversity: The fight for recognition, 1914–1928 · The impact of Depression and war, 1928–45 · Changes in civil rights, c1962–1986 · Changes in opportunity and culture, 1986–2010