In the 1960s Parliament was passing laws against racial discrimination. At the same time, some powerful voices were pulling the other way. This lesson looks at three barriers to change in race relations: a famous speech, a political movement and a law.
Sign up to access the complete lesson and track your progress!
Unlock This CourseEnoch Powell was a Conservative MP for Wolverhampton and a member of the Conservative Party's Shadow Cabinet, the senior MPs who speak for the party when it is in opposition. On 20 April 1968 he gave a speech to a Conservative meeting in Birmingham. He said that immigration from the Commonwealth was happening on too large a scale and warned that it would cause serious conflict between races. He wanted immigration cut sharply and called for immigrants to be helped to return to their countries of origin. He ended with a vivid image, borrowed from the Roman poet Virgil: "like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood'." The newspapers soon nicknamed it the "Rivers of Blood" speech.
The speech came just as Parliament was debating the Race Relations Act of 1968, which Powell opposed. It split the country.
Key terms:
The Conservative leader, Edward Heath, sacked him from the Shadow Cabinet the next day. Many politicians, church leaders and newspapers condemned the speech. They said it would stir up hatred and make life harder for Black and Asian families.
Hundreds of London dockers marched to Parliament in his support. Powell received huge numbers of letters, and an opinion poll found that about three in four people agreed with him.
This shows why Powell was such a barrier. His words gave open prejudice a respectable voice, and some Black and Asian people reported more abuse after the speech. It also made it easier for politicians to argue for tougher controls.
The National Front was formed in 1967, and in the 1970s it grew by playing on fear of immigration. It held marches and rallies in areas with many immigrants, and it wanted non-white people sent out of Britain. Its marches often led to violence. Anti-racist groups organised against it, including Rock Against Racism (1976) and the Anti-Nazi League (1977). In August 1977 anti-racist protesters and the National Front clashed in Lewisham, south London.
The National Front never won a seat in Parliament. Its importance was different: it made racism more visible, it frightened ethnic minority communities, and it gave politicians a reason to talk about immigration control.
The Conservative government of Edward Heath passed the Immigration Act in 1971, and it took effect on 1 January 1973. It replaced the voucher system of 1962 and ended the special position of Commonwealth citizens. Now:
The Act did not mention race. But in practice it made it far easier for white Commonwealth citizens, such as Australians, to come, because many had a parent born in Britain. It made it much harder for Black and Asian Commonwealth citizens, whose families were less likely to have such links. This is why many people saw it as a barrier to change. After it, the number of Commonwealth workers coming to settle fell sharply, although wives and children of people already settled still arrived.
In 1962 the Commonwealth Immigrants Act had first limited entry, using vouchers. In 1971 controls went further. So, even while the Race Relations Acts tried to remove discrimination inside Britain, immigration law tightened at the border. The two trends ran side by side.
This is a Paper 2, Section B type (a) question. Explain two ways, and for each one write about both sides of the comparison. One way alone can score at most 3 of the 6 marks.
Explain TWO ways in which the Immigration Act (1971) was different from the Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962). [6 marks]
Remember: the 1962 Act used vouchers (Categories A, B and C), and a Commonwealth citizen with a voucher could come to work and settle.
One difference was how workers were admitted. In 1962 Commonwealth citizens could apply for a voucher, in Category A, B or C, and then settle in Britain with their families. By contrast, the 1971 Act replaced vouchers with work permits, which were given for a particular job and a limited time and did not automatically give the right to settle.
A second difference was who had the best chance of entry. In 1962 Commonwealth citizens were treated the same whatever their race, and the only difference was the type of voucher. Under the 1971 Act, patrials, those with a close family link such as a parent born in Britain, had the right of abode, while everyone else needed a permit. Because of the family link, this favoured white Commonwealth citizens over Black and Asian ones.
What lifts it to the top level: each way states a fact about 1962 and a fact about 1971 and compares them directly.
Start each way with "In 1962 ... whereas in 1971 ...". If you only give facts about 1971, you cannot get past the middle level.