357
raise
British Nationality
13 OCTOBER 1981]
to the extent of the original repeal, particularly as reads the meaning of "British subject" in the 1948 Act's repeal schedule. It is highly important that it should be absolutely clear who can be members of the Privy Council and who can stand for Parliament. I think that the effect of the amendment puts it beyond doubt. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the amendment retains the existing position? I am most grateful to him. Does that mean that dis- tinguished Canadians, for instance, would be able to stand for membership of the House of Commons, as they have done in the past?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that that is the case, but if by any chance I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 159: Page 63, line 2, leave out (“ 44(2) ") and insert (“ 44 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment, but it is important to make it. It con- cerns the amendments made by Schedule 7 to the West Indies Act 1967 in so far as that Act concerns nationality decisions in the last associated state, that of St. Christo- pher and Nevis. Our relationship with the associated state is reflected in the fact that special provision for nationality matters is made in the 1967 Act, rather than in the principal nationality statutes. Essentially, however, our law applies in the associated state as administered by a designated officer or the holder of a designated office. It so happens that, as the Bill stands at present, it applies subsection (2) of Clause 44, but not subsection (1). Subsection (2) says that reasons may not be required for discretionary decisions, nor may they be questioned in the courts. Subsection (1) is the subsection which says that decisions must be taken without regard to an applicant's race, colour or religion. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the designated officer or office holder in St. Christopher and Nevis should be bound by subsection (1) as well as having subsection (2) apply to his decisions. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10.44 p.m.
Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 66, line 21, at end insert-
("Deep Sea Mining (Temporary ProvisioNS) ACT 1981 (c. 53)
**
I. In section 1 (prohibition of unlicensed deep sea mining)- (a) in subsection (4), for citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies substitute "United Kingdom national"; (b) in subsection (5)(@), for “ citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" and “such citizens "substitute respectively "United Kingdom nationals and such nationals"; and
17
(c) in subsection (6), for the words from "and references'
onwards substitute-
66.66
United Kingdom national means-
(a) a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent
Territories or a British Overseas citizen;
(b) a person who under the British Nationality Act
1981 is a British subject; or
Bill
358
(c) a British protected person (within the meaning of
that Act).".
2. In section 14(3) (persons who may be guilty of offences under regulations), for a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" substitute a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent Territories or a British Overseas citizen ".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely technical amendment which in effect changes the citizenship references in the Deep Sea Mining (Tempo- rary Provisions) Act 1981 in the light of the changes made by the Bill. It is on all fours with the other entries in Schedule 7, and its late arrival is explained by the fact that the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981 was only recently passed. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, may I ask what I hope is a very simple question with respect to paragraph 1(c)(a) of this amendment? I should add that my question also refers to page 64 of the Bill, lines 25 to 28, and page 66 of the Bill, lines 15 to 18. If a United Kingdom national-or, as in the case of page 66, lines 15 to 18, a national of the United Kingdom-means a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent Territories or a British overseas citizen, would it be correct to say that each of a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent Territories or a British overseas citizen is therefore a United Kingdom national?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think I shall have to think about that one. This, of course, refers back to an amendment which the noble Lord moved at the very beginning of our proceedings today, Amendment No. 118, on which the House has already reached a decision.
Lord Geddes: Indeed, my Lords. I do not want to detain the House any longer; I was merely trying to draw the analogy-
Lord Belstead: With the leave of the House.
Lord Geddes: I beg your Lordships' pardon. My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was merely trying to draw the numerical analogy that if three equals one plus one plus one, then presumably one plus one plus one equals three.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if indeed the House will give me leave, I think the technical answer to my noble friend's point is that this is just a drafting device for the purposes of that particular Act only. It does not have a wider application, which I think was rather the hope of my noble friend.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, surely that cannot be entirely correct. It has an application in relation to two or three other Acts which are referred to in the schedules to the Bill and to which my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones referred in the course of the debate earlier this afternoon. So now that we know that this wording applies to at least three Acts of Parliament, I think the question that Ministers should apply their collective mind to is whether or not it would not have been appropriate after all to have
:Page 151