Oral Answers
22 JANUARY 1981
Secretary of State for Employment replied to that debate. It is our view that we should adhere to the procedure that has been followed for a long time. The figures will be announced in the usual way. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is answering questions for the first three-quarters of an hour on that day.
Mr. Foot: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on the first matter, although we do not regard his other answers as satisfactory. We shall have to see how we deal with those matters next week. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has given the handling of the British Nationality Bill great and careful study. That is shown by his replies. However, it is a controversial measure. The first Act to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was not controversial, in the same sense, in the House. The Bill is a controversial measure in that it will have an effect on the nationality of British citizens, or those who may claim to be British citizens. We do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman described it as a Bill that is not of first-rate constitutional importance. That is a matter not for Mr. Speaker but for the judgment of the House.
The Bill affects the rights of individual citizens and therefore should be fully debated. Every hon. Member should have the right to be able to raise matters concerning his own constituency. If the Bill is sent to a Standing Committee hon. Members will be deprived of the opportunity to participate in the debate on a Bill of major constitutional importance.
Mr. Pym: I have taken careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman said. The fact is that before 1948 there was no such thing as British citizenship. The 1948 Act created citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies. The Bill will divide citizenship into three categories. It is, in a sense, an amending measure of the previous Act. That is the position on constitutional importance. The 1948 Act was far-reaching in its constitutional implications, but in our judgment the Bill is not. I have described the precedents and the comparisons.
Mr. David Steel (Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles): I ask the Leader of the House to reconsider the matter, even though he has already considered it carefully. He has drawn a comparison with the 1962 Act. The Bill is of more far-reaching importance, I suggest, than that Act, which was taken on the Floor of the House. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to remain immovable he should at least undertake that the Committee considering the Bill will be larger than normal, as was the arrangement for the 1971 legislation.
Mr. Pym: I shall be quite happy to consider the right hon. Gentleman's last point. I am sensitive to what he says. In the past week I have spent some time going into the matter carefully. It is the Government's judgment that the Bill should go to a Standing Committee. That would be in accordance with what has happened to Bills of a similar sort. I am sorry that I cannot be more forthcoming to the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest): Following the murder of an ex-Speaker and Lord Lieutenant, and the murder of his son-people who were the friends of many of us--may we have a statement early next week on what is being done to improve, in concert with the Irish
Oral Answers
424
Republic, security measures on the common frontier, and what steps are being taken to deny that frontier to terrorist criminal gangs?
Mr. Pym: I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say that we were absolutely horrified by the murder that was perpetrated only recently. It is a sad event, which cannot possibly be condoned. I say to my right hon. Friend that in recent months there has been closer co-operation with the Government of the Republic of Ireland. There has been closer control of the frontiers between the two countries. That has brought a beneficial result to the work of the security forces against terrorism. I agree with my hon. Friend that this was one of the most horrific murders. I am sure that the whole House feels extremely sorry for the family, that anything so awful should have happened.
Mr. John Silkin (Deptford): I am sure that the leader of the House will appreciate that a Bill that will in some circumstances prevent a child born in our country from having British nationality is one of major original/ constitutional significance. I beg him to reconsider his position. It is a matter of great importance for those who are concerned immediately, and for our constitutional future.
Mr. Pym: It is fair to say that, in the same sense, the 1971 Act created original arrangements. I am not saying that the Bill is without constitutional significance. However, we are considering whether the Bill has far- reaching constitutional importance. I know that some Opposition Members take the view that it is. We haveconsidered the precedents and the evidence given by a number of my illustrious predecessors. I have even read the evidence given by the late Mr. Herbert Morrison and considered his view on the type of Bill that should be debated on the Floor of the House. It may be said that that view was expressed too long ago and that it is now irrelevant. I am merely saying that I have gone into the issue at great depth. It is the Government's view that the issue should be handled in Standing Committee.
Mr. Terence Higgins (Worthing): How long has elapsed between the publication of the British Nationality Bill and the date that my right hon. Friend proposes for the Second Reading?
Mr. Pym: The Bill was published yesterday, and the Second Reading debate will take place on Tuesday week. which is about the normal interval.
Mr. John Silkin: The Leader of the House has missed the point. The question that I put to him makes the British Nationality Bill something without any constitutional precedent in the history of this country. That was not necessarily true of any of the other Bills about which he has spoken.
Mr. Pym: I do not think that I have anything to add. I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but I have gone into the matter and the Government's view is that the appropriate way is for the Bill to be handled in Standing Committee.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South): In view of the radical importance of the British Nationality Bill and its great complexity, and taking account of the strong position that has been taken up by spokesmen for Her Majesty's Opposition, will the right hon. Gentleman at least consult the Opposition to ensure that we can have two days for the
213 G
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.