(M
не)
British Nationality
2 APRIL 1981
Those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who come here under the special voucher scheme now are in a similar position. It has been similarly repre- sented that they should have a better access to British citizenship after coming here than is provided for by naturalisation. As the Committee knows, these people will become British overseas citizens. The Government agree with this, so the clause covers them, too. I noted in the debate that a number of hon. Gentleman's wel- comed this decision..
Also covered in the clause are those categories known as British subjects without citizenship and British protected persons, for such persons from East Africa may also come here on special vouchers. Having served in East Africa, I shall explain the position. I am sure most hon. Members know that part of Kenya was a Protectorate and that the former Tanganyika was a Protectorate. Therefore, certain categories of East African Asians come under the title of British protected persons.
The other category is British subjects under section 2 of the 1948 Act, namely, the Irish who elect to remain British subjects.
The granting of comparable treatment to all these categories living in the United Kingdom was fore- shadowed in the Green and White Papers. This new clause seeks to cover that aspect.
I now respond to other points raised by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central. The second part of the new clause which affects people serving the Crown dependencies stems from a feeling in dependencies- again I stress Hong Kong because of the numbers. The Bill made provision for discretionary grant of British citizenship to someone who served the Crown overseas under an agency of the United Kingdom, for example, a diplomatic service mission or a Miinstry of Defence establishment overseas. Although that provision would be used only sparingly, the total exclusion of Crown servants of dependency Governments was unjustified. Again the dependencies feared that this represented a weakening of their links. The second part of the new clause responds to this representation and has been similarly welcomed in Hong Kong. My hon. Friend and the hon. and learned Gentleman made the point forcefully in their speeches about the importance of this aspect.
As the point was raised whether this provision applied only to Hong Kong, I must stress to the Committee that it applies to every dependency.
The importance of the clause to the dependencies is, as I have explained, the recognition of their special position and the avoidance of the feeling that the pro- visions of the Bill are directed against the dependencies. As one hon. Member put it, the effect on morale is considerable.
These questions can cause considerable anxiety when the dependencies are under the impression, however misconceived, that the Bill weakens their links with the United Kingdom. As we have made clear, the Bill in no way alters the relationship between those territories and the United Kingdom, nor our obligations and mmitments to the dependencies. The importance ~~~h to our relationship with them remains
;r.
10.45 am
Standing Committee F
940
A number of hon. Members have asked how the Home Secretary will apply the second part of the clause,j which relates to Crown servants, and the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central asked what we meant by the word "sparingly". It is impossible to state it in figures. I does not mean that a certain percentage of Crown; servants or applicants will be successful. It means that it will not be common for a person in Crown service. overseas, whether working for a dependency Govern ment or for the United Kingdom Government, to be granted British citizenship. One can only judge indi vidual cases.
The new clause recognises that there can be person serving the Crown in overseas dependencies, as else where, who, by dint of this particular Crown service and in other personal ways, become so closely connected with the United Kingdom that it is proper that they should be given British Citizenship. In this opening fo marks about new clause 9, my hon. Friend the Minister of State highlighted those whom he would regard a having done particularly deserving service. I must stres that such cases-both my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe and the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, West took the same view-will not be numerous but will come within the criteria that I have! sought to describe.
દર
A wide range of questions was asked, and the Comar mittee was anxious to have more information. I am in. the Committee's hands about how far it wants me to go but I shall attempt to answer some of the main questions asking for practical information. It would perhaps be helpful if I did so by extending my remarks a little.
First, on the question of numbers, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, the discretion under subsection (4) and (5) of new clause 9 would be used only sparingly, point which I reinforced. It is impossible to say how many people in this category would benefit from the new provisions. But I should like to clarify the figures, of those who, broadly speaking, come into the various statuses. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) asked whether I would give the numbers of these people. In round terms, 3 million people will become citizens of the British dependent territories, about 1 million will be British overseas citizens, roughly 140,000 are British protected persons, about 50,000 are British subjects without citizenship and about 120,000 are Irish citizens who have made formal claims to remain British subjects under section 2 of the 1948 Act. There will of course be further opportunities to debate that matter.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central asked how many people were in Crown service in dependencies. I cannot give precise information, but in round terms the figure is 150,000. I am talking about all dependencies, but the bulk are in Hong Kong, However, I must make it plain-particularly in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North-that the numbers who can actually come here are limited by immigration policies. I am sure that most hon. Members grasp this important point.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Minister confirm that, if they are all dependent on immigration policy, not one of them has a right to come, but they may apply under the rule?