663
British Nationality Bill
26 OCTOBER 1981
I welcome the motion and the intention that it conveys that the Bill should be passed in this Session, but there are certain reservations that one has about its content. When the Bill first appeared before the House it was in a form - that received the acceptance of most of us, albeit because it appeared to be a balance between the claims of Britons resident overseas-who perhaps through generations had been born overseas and therefore were no longer entitled as of right to British citizenship—and the rights of those who had come to this country comparatively recently and had thereby acquired a right to British citizenship. It was a balance between those two considerations, and it was supported by myself and by many other Conservative Members.
As time went on, many concessions were made by the Government to the Opposition and to those who said that the Bill was racially discriminatory. It is discriminatory only in the sense that it purports to draw a ring around the people in the United Kingdom and say that they shall in future be basically British citizens and that people coming from outside who wish in future to be British citizens shall have to pass certain tests.
That is the only way in which it is discriminatory, and in that respect it follows the nationality laws of almost every other country. However, because of that opposition and those objections the Government saw fit-I did not agree with them and I voted against the provisions in Committee-to make concessions to those who thought that there should be extra provisions to enable people from overseas and foreign countries to take up citizenship without any restriction whatsoever.
It means, of course, that the Bill leaves certain anomalies and some injustices. For example, it is impossible for a British citizen by descent to upgrade his citizenship so as automatically to pass his own citizenship on to his children. That remains central feature of the Bill. It means that no matter how long a British citizen by descent lives in this country he may not automatically pass his citizenship on to his children if they happen to be born abroad. So there is discrimination against people of indigenous stock in this country who happen to have been born abroad.
The merits of the Bill and the advantage of having a legal definition of what is a British citizen, a Briton, are so great that they easily outweigh the disadvantages.
The Bill as it has returned from the other place is in a different form. I welcome the alteration that has been made for citizens of Gibraltar. It is true that it would not have been right to allow the immigration law of Gibraltar, decided by the authorities in Gibraltar, to determine the right to British citizenship. The Government are right to make such provision as is necessary to ensure that that does not happen.
The consideration given to the Bill in the other place has, on the whole, been beneficial, but there are one or two aspects of the Bill that are rather ridiculous. For example, there is the change that is proposed in the nomenclature of citizens of British dependent territories. That is the description of people who are entitled to the citizenship of British dependent territories. In my view, that is entirely logical and grammatical. I understand that. However, as a result of a rather emotional plea in the other place, it is now proposed by the Government, I understand-that the nomenclature of such people should be changed to British dependent territories' citizenship.
(Allocation of Time)
664
That appears to be somewhat illogical, ungrammatical, inelegant and not worthy of the House. However, I understand that it is a concession to those who think that because the word "British" does not appear at the beginning of the title of the citizenship, it is in some way a secondclass citizenship. So it is necassary for the word "British" to be at the beginnng, as it is for British citizenship and British overseas citizenship.
That is a rather silly amendment, which we shall be asked to approve tomorrow. In my view, it is not one that should command the support of the House. On the other hand, of course, I understand that the Bill arouses the emotions of people and their purported representatives, who think that there are apprehensions and misunderstand- ings about the measure among people in this country and therefore some concessions should be made.
I heartily approve of the amendments otherwise. In particular, I approve of the amendment that has been made in another place
Mr. Stan Thorne (Preston, South): On a point of order Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order I was just about to raise a point of order myself. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) should be dealing with the motion on the Order Paper, not with the merits of any amendments to the Bill.
Mr. Stanbrook: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The point is that consideration of this sort of amendment is likely to be so prolonged and to cause so much discussion in this place that it is obviously necessary that the motion should be passed. That is why I am trying to emphasise the importance of agreeing to the motion. This sort of amendment and some of those that have been made in the other place involve matters that ought not to be considered when we are dealing with the Bill as it stands.
It is desirable that this country of ours, which for centuries has never had its own citizenship or a definition of what constitutes a British citizen, should have such a definition. That is what the Bill seeks to achieve. I believe, therefore, that the motion is necessary, so that we are able to get that definition and have it enacted into law before the end of this Session.
In this country we have an extraordinary situation. The British people who occupy these islands off the north-west coast of Europe have occupied them for many centuries. Some of our people have spread out all over the world and founded fresh countries and formed fresh Governments, and influenced the culture and provided the language for many countries, but they have never themselves had the benefit of a definition of who they are and what they are in terms of a qualification for their citizenship.
That is precisely what the Bill intends to achieve. That is why it is most important for the definition of our British identity that we should be able to pass the Bill this Session. That is why I support the motion.
10.52 pm
Mr. Edward Lyons (Bradford, West): This is a major constitutional Bill. I share the objections of those who feel that in such a Bill there should be no room for a guillotine.
339