ア
1,
1
с
d
#:
OSK
n
ċ
mmmittee. F
HOUSE OF COMMONS
31 ATAKCH 1931
"Stimang "CoMMET
rial statement. We would then be able to decide er we wanted to push those amendments. I admit that many of the amendments are, if not probing amendments, first-sight ideas of things we might want to change or to probe. For example, some of them are intended purely to get information, and if the Minister gave the information in his speech or in further discussions in the Second Reading debate, we would be able to dispense with them altogether. If we moved them in the course of the Second Reading debate it would get messed up. Because of the shortness of time and because there is so much new material, I prefer that we have the Second Reading debate and then move the amendments in the groupings which, having seen them this morning, I was happy to accept. Indeed, I have prepared notes based on the groupings. It would he difficult if the procedure was changed.
The Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point of view. The Minister is ow making his mini- sterial speech on Second Reading in opening. I am simply trying to be helpful to the Committee so that we do not have to go over the ground again. However, if it is the Committee's wish, we will proceed as outlined.
Mr. Jin Marshall (Leicester, South): 1 do not wish to be unhelpful. I have a great deal of sympathy with with ay hom Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley),
Can I raise a different point of order? New clausę 9 mentions two new forms of citizenship, namely those, of the British dependent territories and those of British hoverseas citizens. The Committee has not yet had an opportunity to discuss those definitions because they fall in two later parts of the Bill. I am sure you will pappiccinte. Miss Boothroyd, that it will be extremely 'difficult for us to discuss the merits or lack of merits of new clause 9 without referring to those two new cate- gories of citizenship. I would like a guarantee from the Chair that that will not pre-empt any discussion on those two new forms of citizenship later.
This new clause begs many questions. It states that people who are created British overseas citizens will be able to register as British citizens if they have been resident in this country, but it makes no provisions for the children of British overseas citizens who are born in this country. The new clause makes it clear that the British overseas citizen who is in this country must be free of any immigration control in the twelve months prior to his registration. The British overseas citizen will not be legally settled in this country if he falls within immigration control.
If that is the case, the Bill makes no provision for citizenship for children who are born in this country to that category of people. They will not be eligible for citizenship of the country from which their parents came. They will not be eligible for British citizenship because the parents are not legally settled in this country. They will not be eligible for British overseas citizenship, except at the discretion of the Home Secre- tary, since British overseas citizens are not able to transmit their citizenship.
I suggest that the new clause leaves a big loophole and will create statelessness. Before the Minister gives his ministerial statement he 'should also make a state- ment to close this loophole, which could put the United
^,
British Nationality Bill
British Natlonky Bill
100
りい?
Kingdom in contravention of the provisions relating to statelessness.
The Chairman: Many of the points that the hon Gentleman has made are not points of order for the Chair. Obviously the Chair would not want to pre-empt or curtail discussion. I believe that an undertaking has already been given on the point made by the hon Gentleman."
Mr. Raison: Before the Division in the House I was talking about the way in which the discretionary power embodied in new clause 9 would be used. It is not possible to give an estimate of the numbers which might be involved. Each case would have to be looked at on its merits. The Home Secretary would have to consider, in the circumstances of each application, whether there were special circumstances justifying the exercise of the discretion in that ease. Obviously the eases in which he would so decide would not he numerous. There is no question of this being part of the regular emoluments of Crown servants in the depen- dencies. But we think that it is right that the 'new clause should indicate that Crown service in the dependencies could in some circumstances be recognised in this way as benefiting the United Kingdom itself.
I should just say a word about the people who are covered by the discretion in subsection (4), As sub. section (5) indicates, it is not only Crown servants who are involved. The subsection also applies to people in paid or unpaid service as a member of any body established by law in a dependent territory, menabers of which are appointed by or on behalf of the Crown. This brings in people who may not be Crown servants but are playing a crucial part in the government of a dependent territory.
I should like to say that in almost all cases people who would qualify for registration under clause 7 would also qualify under new clause 9. That is why we do not wish clause 7 any more to stand part of the Bill.
1
accept that
cases can be cited where someone would qualify under clause 7 but not under the new clause, These are the cases where sonicone settled before commencement might subsequently complete five years' ordinary residence but not meet the requirements of the new clause, which is based not on ordinary residence but on actual presence in this country for five years. subject to specified periods of absence.
Ordinary residence might entail more than 450 days' absence in five years or more than 90 days in the last year. Those cases will be rare and so do not seem to the Government to justify two clauses covering the same ground running side by side. But I now undertake that transitional cases which do not meet the new clause's residence requirements but which would have qualified under clause 7's ordinary residence criteria will be dealt with under the discretionary provisions of new clause 9. The relevant provision of that clause is subsection (3)(a), which permits the Secretary of State to accept, in the special circumstances of a particular case, that the residence requirement is met if the period of absence is more than 450 days in five years or more than 90 days in the last year of the five.
For these reasons, I hope that the Committee will agree that it would now be sensible to drop clause 7 and to accept new clause 9 in its place.