717
British Nationality
[ 20 OCTOBER 1981]
be excused for wondering whether there is any guarantee that at the end of six, seven or eight years' wait they will still be allowed to come here whether there will be a further turn of the screw with one of Mrs. Thatcher's more lunatic Right-wingers taking the place of Mr. Whitelaw as Home Secretary and battening down the hatches against people who, under this legislation will no longer be citizens of this country. Thus the Nationality Bill will be seen by those people as a preparatory step which would be necessary to the denial of entry in future so that we could not be accused of imposing restrictions on people who were our own citizens.
Similarly, with the abandonment of jus soli, the immediate consequences may be quite small in terms of the numbers of persons affected but the principle of jus soli having been violated there would be less of an obstacle in the way of any future Government which may decide to limit citizenship more overtly to those of European descent. We did not see any immediate need for legislation on citizenship although it would have been necessary in the long run to revise the schemes of the 1948 Act. So the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is wrong: there is a necessity for nationality legislation but it was certainly not overdue.
We consider that Britain should have honoured, first, the promise made many years ago to our own citizens that we would admit them to our country; we should have undertaken consultations with our partners in the Commonwealth and the leaders of the dependent territories, particularly Hong Kong, which has been so clearly lacking; and there should have been a public debate in this country based on the comments made in answer to the previous Government's Green Paper, comments which were never published. In particular, we should have been ready to listen to the clearly ex- pressed opinions of the ethnic minorities who are. alarmed by the attitudes and assumptions which shape this Bill. Because none of these things has been done and because the forceful criticisms made in both Houses have been largely ignored, we say that the country is left with a bad and unnecessarily com- plicated system of nationality law.
My Lords, we associate ourselves with the protest of the noble and learned Lord and we bitterly regret that the reasoned arguments of the Churches and of the other religions, the criticisms of the ethnic minorities and of the Commission for Racial Equality and the united force of the Opposition parties in this House have not moved the Home Office from their basic plan. One of the great leaders of the party opposite, Lord Salisbury, a hundred years ago said:
66
'By a free country, I do not mean a country where six men may make five men do exactly as they like ".
We object to this Bill which embodies that principle.
4.15 p.m.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, when I spoke in the debate on Second Reading I explained why the leaders of the Churches in this country felt that they must oppose this Bill and expressed the hope that this House would be able to remove some of those aspects which had caused the deep concern that I tried to voice. I am glad to join with others in acknow- ledging the changes which the Government have been
Bill
718
willing to make at the Committee and Report stages, notably the very substantial concessions on Clause 3 of the Bill. These changes are helpful and welcome and I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Lord the Minister on his astonishing patience and courtesy throughout these debates. But I have to say that the main criticisms of the Bill which I and others made on Second Reading still stand.
It was a complicated and bad Bill then and it is a bad Bill now; for the changes which have been made have not altered the basic principles on which the Bill was based nor removed the objections which had been put forward by those of us who felt that we must voice the fears of those, particularly among our ethnic minorities, to whom this Bill has spelt doubt and uncertainty. Someone from one of these communities said to me last week in Hackney, that concessions for Gibral- tarians and missionaries do not meet the real fears of the British members of our long established Asian and West Indian communities. That may be unfair com- ment on the scope of the concessions, and I believe it is, but it reveals how things are seen from that angle.
At this late stage I do not want to go over all the reasons why the Churches of this country have felt that they must oppose this Bill and which led the bishops in this House to support so many of the amend- ments that were proposed; but I want, once again, to place on record our deep concern that on so funda- mental a matter as nationality we seem about to pass into law a measure which, in the view of the leaders of all our Churches-and we are increasingly working together in these matters-is questionable when judged by moral principles and the effects of which will be to sow doubts in an area where reassurance is desprately needed.
This is an occasion when I speak not for a single denomination. The bishops' assertions have not been academic, theoretical or party political; nor do we claim any monopoly of moral sensitivity; but they arise from our deep pastoral concern and extensive local knowledge. History, I suspect, will judge that this was a great opportunity missed. This is a Bill of which future generations will not be proud. This could have been a better Bill if some amendments, narrowly lost in certain cases, had been passed.
I naturally regret the loss of the amendment to Clause 1 moved in the name of myself and three other bishops, to retain the principle of jus soli. A much simpler Bill it would have been if that fundamental change has been accepted. I regret particularly the loss of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, which would have treated generously those who had been British for many years but who came from colonies which have since achieved self- government and who therefore ceased to be citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies without, in many cases, realising that change in their status.
I am sorry that the modest amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the question of appeals was narrowly lost; for that would have done something to improve what I regard as one of the most serious defects of the Bill.
I want to conclude by saying a word about the future. The Churches, for reasons that I have referred to, remain profoundly unhappy about this Bill. I