{་༔
y
ld
5,
ns
he
ke
ng
the
in
shy
e a
ntly . In
n is
tem.
and
5 not
949
British Nationality Bill
28 JANUARY 1981
BILL
NATTUNAYYY
ME écessarily solve all problems? In a sense, I would be delig if it did. If people accepted the verdicts of the appeals system, it would make life much easier. Will the right hon. Gentleman think a bit more about the implications of an appeals system?
Mr. Hattersley: We shall soon, if necessary on a Supply day-
Mr. Marlow: Answer the question.
Mr. Hattersley: I was about to answer it. We shall soon-if necessary on a Supply day-discuss the general question of immigration control and the appeals system. At present the appeals system is wholly unsatisfactory. The point that I was trying to make did not concern the appeals system, but the Minister's discretion in individual cases. The hon. Gentleman well understands my opinion on the way that he has used his discretion over the past 18 months.
The Home Secretary said again today that the Bill removed all discrimination between men and women, because a woman's automatic right on marriage to British citizenship had been replaced by a three year rule, and the man's five year residence qualification had been replaced by a similar three year rule. The removal of the woman's immediate and absolute right and its replacement with a three year rule is a simple example of levelling down. There is an analogy to 1928—I think that that was the date-when discrimination against women having the vote was removed on the premise that it was wrong that men should be able to vote at 21 when women could not vote until they were 35. The argument continued along the line that equality would be achieved by giving everyone the vote at 30. It is an extraordinary way of providing equality.
My main objection is not the levelling down, but the residence qualification. I feel very strongly about the way in which immigration control has been implemented during the past 18 months. It is impossible for wives and husbands to join their wives and husbands here. It often takes up to three years before a wife can get an interview in her country of origin. It often takes another two years before a judgment is made about whether she can enter Britain. After five years of waiting, she may then have to wait another three years before she qualifies for British nationality. The entry qualifications clearly discriminate against one of the sexes. Any basis of nationality that is dependent on residence, must, in itself, be discriminatory.
I have described some of our specific criticisms of the Bill. They imply the type of citizenship or nationality Bill that we should like. The Government propose to create three major classes of British citizenship: British citizens, citizens of British Dependent Territories and British overseas citizens. Even allowing for the qualifications that I have given, the first would enjoy full citizenship. the third category would have virtually no citizenship rights. We should like to see the formulation of a principal main class of British citizen. That citizenship would, or should embrace everyone born or adopted in the United Kingdom, and everyone born or adopted overseas whose parents are United Kingdom citizens. In addition the wives or husbands of British citizens would gain that right- automatically on marriage. It would also include those who pass an objective test and who become naturalised or registered citizens. United Kingdom citizens, British protected persons and British subjects without citizenship who are resident here would also be included. The
+$
.
British Nationality Bill
950
3471
to51
ARK Government believe that we special obligat immigrants under the special voucher shareCaty that scheme should, and will be continued When special voucher entrants come into the United Kingdom, they TRY should also have an auto INDEX and immediate night to Taken British citizenship.
Those whom the Government would make citizens of dependent territories will-if the bill is enacted have a generalised citizenship. That is wrong. We should like individual citizenship to be granted to the individual dependencies. Gibraltar is a special problem. I look forward to discussing this issue tommorrow afternoon with the Gibraltarian Chief Minister and some of his colleagues. I hope that I shall be allowed to return to that special subject in Committee, as it would not be sensible-let alone polite-to offer an opinion until those welcome conversations have taken place.
The third category is that of British overseas citizenship. It is not so much a status as subterfuge. The provision would include citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who live in former colonies. However, it offers them virtually nothing. Many of those who live in Commonwealth countries have rights of permanent. settlement. The Government should take the initiative and should arrange discussions with the Commonwealth countries in which those people now live in security and happiness, in order to clarify and regularise their status. After those discussions, I hope that many of those citizens will acquire the full citizenship of their countries of residence. But I have no doubt that those who remain without adequate security should also be offered British citizenship.
!
The policy that I have put forward would extend British citizenship. As a result it would have an effect on immigration. However, even in theory, it would not have a substantial effect. In practice, the additional immigration would be negligible. some people—and perhaps some of those hon. Members who sit below the Gangway-will seek to argue that it is virtually an open-door policy.
What I have said would provide nothing of that sort. It is simply a nationality policy that is completely free from racial bias, and the immigration policy that flows from that. If, by enunciating that as clearly as we can we lose some votes, so be it. We have no alternative but to describe what we believe to be true. as a result our opposition to the Bill will be unremitting. Hugh Gaitskell described the reason why far better than could, in a debate that took place nearly 20 years ago. He spoke about the Commonwealth Immigrants Bill and said:
"the test of a civilised country is how it behaves to all its citizens of different race, religion and colour. By that test this Bill fails, and that is fundamentally why we deplore it.”—[Official Report, 16 November 1961; Vol. 649 c.802.]
We shall oppose the Bill. It fails by the same test, and we shall fight it in the same way.
Several Hon. Members rose-
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I should tell the House that 30 hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak in the debate. There is no 10-minutes rule, but speeches that take more than 12 minutes will debar one onmore of those 30 hon. Members.
5.20 pm
Sir Paul Bryan (Howden): I speak in my capacity as chairman of the all-party Hong Kong group. I am grateful
483 R
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.