J
771
[Mr. Whitelaw]
British Nationality Bill
27 OCTOBER 1981
place came to be considered by this House. There are undoubtedly powerful arguments against the amendment. But we have to reckon with the fact that, though these arguments were fully set out in another place, they did not win the day there. Moreover, though this House voted against giving people from Gibraltar special access to British citizenship, it did so only by a relatively slender margin, though here too all the arguments against such a provision were fully exposed. It is therefore clear that, after hearing all the arguments, a considerable body of opinion in this House and another place remains convinced that special access to British citizenship for the people of Gibraltar is amply justified. The Government have therefore concluded that they should not ask the House to disagree with the Lords over this principle of their amendment.
Accordingly, we do not seek to oppose the principle that lies behind the amendment, but I am afraid that we must oppose the amendment as drafted since it fails in our view to achieve its objectives satisfactorily.
Let me outline briefly the deficiencies of the Lords amendment. It provides that an unqualified entitlement to British citizenship shall be held by a person who is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of the operation of any of the pre- accession treaties listed in part I of schedule 1 of the European Communites Act 1972.
In fact, no one is a United Kingdom national for European Community purposes by virtue of any of those treaties. It is, I believe, intended that the entitlement should be held by all those who are United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of those treaties. But it is not just people from Gibraltar who are United Kingdom nationals for that purpose. People connected in various ways, with this country are nationals for that purpose. In most cases, such people will automatically become British citizens on commencement and consequently do not need the benefit of the entitlement in this amendment. The amendment thus goes far too wide.
We propose that the Lords amendment should be replaced by a simpler provision that will benefit solely those whom it is intended to help, and whom the movers of the amendments both in this House and in the Lords clearly intended to help. The new provision confers an unqualified entitlement on those British dependent territories' citizens who are United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of the Community treaties. British dependent territories' citizens who derive that status from their links with Gibraltar are the only category of such citizens who fall to be United Kingdom nationals for the purposes of the Community treaties and, therefore, they alone will be able to benefit from this provision.
Lords amendment No. 29 would mean that those registered under the Gibraltar amendment, if this House sees fit to accept it, would be British citizens by descent. They would, therefore, be unable-unless they were in Crown service or other service relevant for the purposes of clause 2 to transmit their British citizenship automatically to a further generation born overseas.
The principle that lies behind this is surely right. After all, those who are registered under the Gibraltar amendment will in most, if not all, cases be born outside the United Kingdom. They will also normally be resident abroad, since the entitlement does not depend on a period
British Nationality Bill
772
of residence in this country, and need have no intention of coming to this country at any time during their lives. Their links with the United Kingdom are therefore comparable to those of other British citizens born abroad, and it seems only logical that they, like these other British citizens, should be British citizens by descent and should be able to transmit their citizenship—and the right of abode in the United Kingdom-to their children born abroad only in specified circumstances. To do otherwise would be incompatible with the Government's general approach to the transmission of citizenship and could only cause resentment amongst other British citizens born and resident abroad who have close links with this country.
However, Lords amendment No. 29 cannot stand as it is, since it is intended that the Gibraltar provision, as amended by this House, should appear after clause 4 instead of clause 9, as at present. This change will be made by the Public Bill Office. This has affected Lords amendment No. 29 in two ways. First, its place in clause 13 had to be changed, since the subsections of this clause follow the sequence of the clauses to which they relate. Secondly, the reference to the Gibraltar amendment in Lords amendment No. 29 has to be altered so that it refers to that provision if, as I ask, it is amended by this House.
We have decided to accept the principle of the amendment proposed and carried substantially in another place, and we have made the necessary technical adjustments to make sure that the amendment does exactly what the movers of it and others who voted for it in the House of Lords wished. That is the position, and I hope that the House will accept it.
Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Edge Hill): I welcome the words of the Home Secretary and the fact that the new, clause will be accepted in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 29. However, it is arguable that in accepting these changes the Government expose further the Bill for the discriminatory legislation that it is.
I am all in favour of Gibraltarians being able to register as full British citizens, but the House should consider the illogicality of refusing such status to other dependent territories, too. With or without the Bill there are safeguards in the EEC treaties, but this new clause elevates those safeguards to a status that Liberals would argue should apply to all citizens of British dependent colonies.
For many Falkland Islanders and Hong Kong residents it is perceived as an attack on their status and an attempt to downgrade them to second class citizens. But they are now third class citizens or, more crudely, as suggested by commentators in Hong Kong and elsewhere, sheep, goats and more goats. In Hong Kong, this legislation is viewed as a covert measure to evade the responsibility that should accompany territorial and colonial acquisition. This new clause proves that their view is correct.
Some people may regard the new clause as a step in the right direction, but it is simply a device to placate a powerful white lobby with which the Government have sympathy. [HON. MEMBERS: “Rubbish":] The fact that the new clause is to be included shows how ready yet again the Government are to concede ground to groups with emotional appeal and political clout. That should be contrasted with their willingness to listen to the fears and anguish of our black and ethnic minority groups and to citizens in colonies that have less patriotic appeal than the Rock of Gibraltar. It is proof again, if proof were needed, that the Bill is mean-minded, nasty, divisive and racist.
394