725
British Nationality
[ 20 OCTOBER 1981 ]
The assured me that the islanders had been informed. The Governor, who is the High Commissioner in New Zealand, had despatched letters and they have three letter drops a year by sea.
But how it is that an amateur radio operator in the Nottingham area received a call on his short-wave set from Mr. Tom Christian, who sits on the council there, saying that Mr. Christian had heard that there was a Bill passing in London which might affect his community? He had heard nothing about it. I am not blaming the Government, but I ask that they try to find out a little more carefully whether consultations could have gone through in far greater depth on the commercial and emotional sides, so that these small communities are not dismissed on the basis that they are bound to accept everything that is done. There is a perfectly good short-wave radio connection with the Pitcairn Islands, and Tom Christian operates the radio for the cable service, as well as having his own amateur radio status. Yet the Government are unable to say definitely whether the Pitcairn Islanders have received a copy of the letter, White Paper and explana- tory memorandum of their Bill. I just mention this in passing, in the hope that the Government will delay the passing of this Bill and therefore delay the effects about which so many of us have so many doubts and uncertainties in which case I shall support the noble and learned Lord's amendment with great pleasure.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, first I must apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place when the debate on Third Reading started this afternoon. A very important business engagement kept me away. I think that the Government are to be congratulated on at least endeavouring to tackle this very difficult and inevitably controversial subject of nationality. Whether they have tackled it in the right way is quite another matter. There are Members of your Lordships' House, from all sides, who can speak on that topic with far more expertise than I can. However, I am particularly worried about the effect of this Bill on the Commonwealth.
Having strong connections with New Zealand and having been to a number of Commonwealth countries, in particular the new Commonwealth countries, I am concerned that this Bill at least gives the impression that there is one rule for the EEC and another rule for the Commonwealth. In correspondence which I have had and in views which have been put to me, this is the message which has been passed. Whether or not this is fair comment is for others to say. However, I am bound to say that there are some very serious anomalies in particular, for example, for the children of a family going out to a country like Tanzania. I understand that the wife's citizenship is protected but I am still quite uncertain, as I am sure many of your Lordships are, about the position of the children. This is a matter of tremendous importance for the future.
As I said at Second Reading, the real trouble with the Bill is that it is too lengthy and too legalistic. Although I am not a member of the legal profession, I have friends and acquaintances in that profession who
HL 35 G2
Bill
726
have made just that comment: that it is a very difficult Bill to understand. However, given that the Govern- ment have at least tried to seize this almost poisoned nettle of controversy and have tried to do something about overcoming the problems of British nationality, I shall support the Third Reading. But the Bill will be watched, even by those of my noble friends and others who support the Third Reading, with a certain degree of scepticism. Obviously we must have some kind of control over those who have complete British nationality, but let us not forget that throughout the Commonwealth there are those who have helped us over the years, in peace and in war, and who, through their achievements, deserve British nationality in full. Whatever happens to this Bill when it passes into law, I hope that this Government and other Governments will give this matter very serious thought.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to add a few words and to speak both to the Motion and to the arnendment tabled by the noble and learned Lord. I apologise to your Lordships for not having put down my name before- hand, but I returned from Brussels only at lunchtime today and found that the list had already been prepared. I feel somewhat like the odd man out, in that I very warmly welcome this British Nationality Bill. I think it is time that we recognise what a very great contribution it is making to British legislation. The fact is that for the first time we in this country will have a British Nationality Act which depends upon nexus with this country, regardless of colour, race, creed or religion. It is the right of every sovereign state to define its own nationality based on connection with the territory of that country. The Bill also removes about 18 different types of nationality which have de- veloped since the British Nationality Act 1948. If this Bill is considered by noble Lords to be complex, surely they will admit that the present situation con- cerning British nationality, British citizenship, is far more complex than anything which any other country or any other citizen or non-citizen has had to tolerate. I hope this point will be recognised by your Lord- ships' House.
This Bill is evidence of the fact that we are no longer an Empire, that we have very few dependencies left and that every Commonwealth country has intro- duced, in full right, its own nationality law and its own immigration rules. This fact must be taken into account, even in the example given by the noble and learned Lord regarding the situation of a child born in Malawi. It is the Malawi law which is at fault. It has nothing to do with British nationality law. If this kind of situation is to arise between Commonwealth countries, it is precisely what should be discussed on an equal basis at a Commonwealth conference, because every Commonwealth country has its own rules regarding the acquisition of citizen- ship, naturalisation and so on.
In no case that I know of is this British Nationality Bill providing harder terms than apply in any of the independent Commonwealth countries. Even the removal of jus soli, which has been practised in this country for the last 100 years--not 700 years, with