HC Deb 23 May 1978 vol 950 cc1505-34

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price (Lewisham, West)

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert shall remain a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies until he becomes a citizen of the Solomon Islands or takes out other nationality whereupon he shall cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies".

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

With this we may take Amendment No. 2, in clause 4, page 4, leave out lines 3 to 7.

Mr. Price

I do not want to detain the Committee for long. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, in spite of the howling mob below me, I wish to draw attention to some of the important principles that lie in the Bill and the manner in which the Bill finds itself before us tonight, which is unprecedented in my experience in the House of Commons.

A Business Statement was slipped in when no one was listening—it was unquestioned—on Monday. The Government should not be allowed to get away with that sort of thing. If they intend to make the citizenship provisions of the Bill a precedent for future debates on a Green Paper followed by a White Paper, and, no doubt, on a Bill on citizenship, for various reasons the Bill before us is crucial for the future principles for deciding British citizenship and the various options in the Green Paper. It is for that reason that I tabled the amendment.

I understand that it is the desire of the Government, especially the Home Office, never to be faced again with a Ugandan Asian or Kenyan Asian situation of the sort that has faced us in the past few years. I also understand the real desire of the Solomon Islanders when they came to make the settlement to get independence on their terms. Their terms, because of the historical make-up of the population in the Solomon Islands, excluded certain citizens from automatic citizenship, as, I understand, the British Government would have wished. Therefore, as has been said in another place, the settlement is regarded as not very satisfactory to the Government but one that they accepted because of the great desire of the Solomon Islanders to have a settlement on that basis.

The issue is why the Government are insisting, for almost the first time in history, on potentially taking away the citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from a group of citizens who may not apply for citizenship, as is their right to apply, by 1980. If we do not discuss the issue and get things right, we may have trouble for ourselves in future. Therefore, I make no apology for raising the matter this evening.

My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will no doubt reply that it is only a small number of individuals who may be affected by the amendment. However, the amendment provides that, instead of turning all those citizens who might not have applied for citizenship by 1980 into British protected persons and taking away the citizenship that in previous independence settlements we have always allowed those who do not take the citizenship of the country in question to retain, we should allow them to keep it and follow precedent instead of starting a new precedent.

Will the Minister explain the difference between the two statuses of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, on the one hand, and British protected person, on the other, into which category the Government want to turn these people? We shall not know how many there are until 1980.

I understand that there are only two substantial differences. One is that a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies can transmit his citizenship to the nth generation if he registers in a proper way, whereas a British protected person can do it only once, so his grandchildren cease to have that privilege. A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who comes here is allowed to vote in our elections, whereas a British protected person is not.

It may be said that there is very little difference between the two statuses. The Minister may ask why I should be making such a fuss. I am making a fuss because we are breaking precedent at a time when, if we are to break precedent, we should do so in an orderly manner by discussing the Green Paper and the White Paper and then legislating on citizenship instead of sliding something into a Bill such as this which may be quoted as a precedent. If the Minister uses that argument, it works both ways. I could ask: if there is so little difference between a British protected person and a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—the status that I want these people to keep—why not give way to me?

Next, will the Minister confirm that this will be the first time that, in giving a country independence and in leaving a residual minority, however small, in a situation where those people may become stateless—citizens of nowhere—we have taken away citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies?

I want an absolute assurance from the Minister, if the amendment is not to be pressed, that the Government will not quote this Bill in future as having preempted the Green Paper on nationality with regard to dual and single nationality. If the Government were to do that, it would not be the first time. Therefore, I think that we should discuss citizenship properly. We should not have something lumbered on us by means of a Business Statement on Monday and sitting into the middle of the night on Tuesday. I contend that we can read the clauses relating to citizenship in the Bill only in conjunction with the paragraphs relating to nationality and British overseas citizenship in the Green Paper.

The Green Paper suggests that if in future we are to have a new transitional status of British overseas citizenship, both the statuses about which I have been talking should be included within it. If so, why pre-empt it? Why make the jump now? Why not do what we have always done in the past?

We do not know how many citizens are involved. They might number 500 or 1,000. It is intended that instead of their having their present status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies they shall be given the status of British protected person. What does that status give them? It gives them almost nothing. They will be able to get a British passport, but that will not give them a guarantee that they can go anywhere in particular on that passport.

If a time should come when Britain decides that it is too expensive to keep representation in Honiara, the capital of the Solomon Islands, it will be of even less help. There is no point in being a British protected person if there is no British representation to protect one.

I am sure the Minister will say that we are being generous by giving these residual citizens the status of British protected person. I suspect, however, that that does not amount to much. It could amount to a good deal less in the future.

I move the amendment because, if the Minister is right and the numbers involved are small, in view of the last hundred years of history of the Solomon Islands when they have not had a particularly square deal from the so-called protectorate, we might as well be generous and give them the slightly more favourable status. We should do nothing in independence negotiations to pre-empt the discussions that we shall have on British nationality law.

I apologise to my hon. Friends if I have spoken for a long time, but this is an important problem. I shall listen carefully to the Minister, particularly for his guarantee that we are doing nothing tonight that will be quoted against us in the future. The Solomon Islands are the last protectorate of Britain. Most of the protectorates came from the German colonies after the First World War. If we are ridding ourselves of our last protectorate, why on earth do we increase the number of British protected persons in the world instead of reducing them? I shall need convincing about the proposal.

Sir Bernard Braine (Essex, South-East)

The Committee should be grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) for raising this matter in the way that he did. Normally, when an independence Bill is discussed both sides join together in congratulating the Government on achieving a settlement which enables a former dependency to become a sovereign State. It is normally an occasion for congratulations and good wishes.

However, it would seem that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office thinks that hon. Members are not interested in the details, believes that it can slip these odd proposals through and that we shall accept them without question. That is an unfortunate attitude. But two of us questioned the Minister. The more we questioned him, the more doubtful we became about the Government's intentions.

I said on Second Reading that I wish the Bill a swift passage and I have no intention of taking an undue time now. I wish, however, to raise a slightly different aspect of the matter from that which has been quite properly raised by the hon. Member for Lewisham, West.

The first thing that disturbs me and should disturb the Committee is that the Government have reached an independence settlement without tying up satisfactorily the question of the status of all the people who are domiciled in the Solomon Islands. One would think that after all our sad experience in Uganda, Tanganyika and Kenya over the Asian settlers, we would have learnt the lesson that thereafter we should go into independence negotiations determined that there shall be a complete and satisfactory agreement on the question of nationality before legislation is presented to the House. The opportunity to reach such an agreement has not been taken in this case and the Minister's explanation of the Bill's provisions on Second Reading certainly did not satisfy me. The fact that our own citizenship law is in a mess, as the Green Paper makes clear, is no excuse for leaving unresolved the status of people in a British dependency which is moving to independence.

In the case of East Africa, Conservative Ministers and their advisers assumed all too readily that if there were Asians who did not opt for citizenship of their new countries, they would not wish to come here, but would go back to India. That was a facile assumption. Anyone who knew East Africa at the time knew that the ties of many of these people were more with this country. Many of their children had been educated here. One would have thought that this matter would be taken care of in the case of the Solomon Islands.

Instead, we have perpetuated the notion here that some people are British subjects without citizenship, some are British protected persons, and where both are regarded as potential citizens of their new country, there is no clear idea of what will happen if they do not opt for citizenship of the Solomon Islands.

Neither of these two categories has any right of entry into the United Kingdom. But what happens to them if they do not take Solomon Islands citizenship and are unable to find citizenship in any other country? If circumstances changed and they felt obliged to leave the Solomon Islands, where would they go? What rights have they? They have no automatic right to entry into the United Kingdom, yet the Under-Secretary told the House on Second Reading that they would not be left in a limbo, that we would take care of them. What does that mean?

Surely a solemn obligation rests upon the British Government, particularly after all the angry debate on the subject of immigration, to say what they mean. Do they mean that if these people are left without Solomon Islands citizenship and cannot get citizenship anywhere else, we have an automatic obligation to take them into Britain, even though their status is said not to allow that to happen? If that is what is meant then the Government should say so. The British people and Parliament should be told. Yet it was left to three of us to extract these facts from the Under-Secretary, line by line, question by question. That is not the way for the Government to treat the House of Commons.

There is a matter of principle here. There are, I understand, about 5,000 citizens of European and Chinese descent. We should like to have the exact figures. It is a great pity that we have to drag them out of the Under-Secretary. They should have been given on Second Reading. When the Under-Secretary tells us that these people would not be left stranded, what does that mean?

The Under-Secretary did me the courtesy of writing me a letter after the debate, trying to explain what would happen to Gilbertese settlers in the Solomon Islands. I never raised that question. I never mentioned the Gilbertese. The hon. Member for Lewisham, West did so. I did not. The letter was the wrong letter, written to the wrong person. It was as irrelevant and as meaningless in relation to what I had said as everything else that the hon. Gentleman said on this subject in the debate.

12 midnight

The hon. Gentleman spoke of 5,000 people of European and Chinese extraction. What happens if those of them who do not apply for Solomon Islands citizenships have to leave? Presumably, at a pinch, the Chinese might be accepted into Singapore or Hong Kong. But what of the Europeans who cannot get entry anywhere else? The only conclusion that one can draw from the Under-Secretary's statement is that they will be permitted to come here.

It is no use the Home Secretary shaking his head. If that means that they cannot come here, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is open to precisely what the hon. Member for Lewisham, West has been saying, namely, that there is a possibility that we are consigning a number of people who have hitherto enjoyed British protection to the limbo, with no right of entry to anywhere, if they cannot obtain citizenship in any other country. The Government cannot have it both ways. The House is entitled to an explanation of Government policy.

We should bear in mind that there are still 2.6 million citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Hong Kong and 190,000 more in Malaysia, India and Africa. We really must have this question tidied up so that we know where we stand. We must be told what are the limits to the residual obligation to take in such people if they are displaced by political circumstances.

Clearly, this opens up the whole question of nationality law. I think that it is unfortunate that this question has had to be raised in connection with a Bill which otherwise, as I have said, would have been accepted with joy on all sides of the House. The matter cannot be dealt with in any great detail here, but I wish to register a protest at the sly way—that is a correct description—in which this provision has been slipped into an independence Bill, in the hope that on a Friday afternoon no one would take any notice. There were three of us present who did take notice—only three of us. I submit, therefore, that the Under-Secretary must come clean and explain these matters, or else the wrath of the House of Commons will descend upon him.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (York)

I rise to support the amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) only in the sense that it is better than nothing. The real answer is that Clauses 2 to 6 ought never to have been included in the Bill in their present form, dependent as they are upon the agreement with the Solomon Islanders, which is set out in the White Paper issued by the Government last year, which the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) did not read and I did not read. I suspect that that is as much our fault as the Government's fault.

I think that the Government are to be criticised not on a sly way of getting something through but on the total mismanagement of the negotiations with the Solomon Islanders on this issue. It is that to which I wish to draw attention. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if I stray a little wide, you will forgive me, in the light of the fact that I shall not speak again in any Clause stand part debate.

The thing that astonished me was the last paragraph of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts in the other place, when he said: Even if it did, everything in this Bill—and here I must speak frankly to the noble Lord —it is always as well for Ministers to speak frankly— relating to nationality and citizenship, citizenship is there at the request of the Solomon Islands Ministers and leaders. This is how they wanted it. They wanted the two categories. I do not want to enlarge upon this, but they wanted it in this way; that the indigenous would automatically on Independence Day become Solomon Islands citizens, but that the non-indigenous, including the categories which the noble Lord quoted to me, would have to apply, and I had no recourse but to agree to what the Solomon Islands leaders wanted." [Official Report, House of Lords, 27th April 1978; Vol. 390, c. 2016.] I just do not understand that. Anyone would think that if there were two parties to an agreement, one of them—and that the most powerful, with the power to pass this legislation to enable the Solomon Islanders to get their independence—had no power in the negotiations to make an agreement which would have been more fair not only to the Solomon Islanders but to this country.

It is clear that we have done again what we did in East Africa, which was the cause of the difficulties which arose in relation to the East African Asians. We have done again what we did in India, which created British subjects without citizenship. When I hear the Minister tell us in due course, as no doubt he will, that the Solomon Islanders have given solemn assurances that the people that we are talking about—5,000 of them as he says, 20,000 on other figures—will be allowed to take the citizenship of the Solomon Islands after independence by registration, all that I can say is that the most solemn assurance were given by East African Governments before they became independent that all people in their countries would be entitled to take citizenship there.

Of course there were some who were reluctant, but there were also some who wanted to take citizenship but found it very difficult because all kinds of devices were put in their way.

The reason that there are 110,000 United Kingdom subjects in Malaysia who are still to some extent our responsibility is that the Malaysian Government have made it difficult for them to take citizenship, even after the most solemn assurances. The reason that we have the status of British subjects without citizenship—a most absurd status—is that the Indian Government gave the most solemn assurances that after independence they would be allowed to take the citizenship of India—but they never have. As a result, they are to some extent our responsibility, in the same way as the East African Asians were.

My hon. Friend has assured me that we are talking only about 5,000 people. For that reason, I do not intend to divide the House, either on this or on any other question, although it had been my intention to do so if it had been a more important issue in this case.

What we have done is continue a pattern that we have followed since 1948 of making decisions about citizenship for the former inhabitants of our colonies which will call for responsibility by the British Government at some future date. We have signed a post-dated cheque. In doing so we have laid ourselves open to taking on responsibilities which at the time we have to take them on we may find a great embarrassment. Five thousand may not be many, but if 5,000 people were thrown out of the Solomon Islands before 1984 and we were asked to take them into this country, there would nevertheless be a major political outcry.

We could have avoided that by making an agreement with the Solomon Islanders that would have ensured that on Day I everybody living there was a citizen of the Solomon Islands. It would not be a breach of the agreement set out in the White Paper if we were not to include that aspect in this legislation.

It is interesting to not that the agreement is very different in phraseology from the Bill that is before us. The agreement says: Citizenship of the Solomon Islands shall be acquired on the date of independence by every person who is a member of a group, tribe or line indigenous to the Solomon Islands and every person whose application for citizenship is in accordance with the naturalisation process.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop (South Shields)

I am following my hon. Friend's argument with interest, but how would he ensure that an incoming Solomon Islands Government would stand by any guarantee that they would ensure automatically at a certain date that such persons would continue to have citizenship?

Mr. Lyon

I suggest that my hon. Friend reads the Bill. That will tell him who is to be a citizen of the Solomon Islands. We here are deciding who will be citizens of the Solomon Islands—not in respect of future legislation from the Solomon Islands Government. My complaint is that we are deciding this matter on the basis of what the Solomon Islanders want, and not on the basis of what we want. Because that attitude was adopted in 1948 in the British Nationality Act and in subsequent independence legislation, in every case what was decided was that the people who were taking independence should decide the nature of their own nationality law. We have an interest, but at the time we did not think so. We should have made the matter clear then, and perhaps we did not have that foresight to do so. We now know from experience what is wrong.

If this Bill was based on the indepedence legislation for Hong Kong, I can only say that I would have divided the House on it, because there would have been the most serious implications. We know that in this case only 5,000 people are involved. I am now simply putting up a marker. I am saying to the Government that we can let it go for the Solomon Islands. I still think that the 5,000 people whose status will be ambiguous after this legislation is passed are too many. Nevertheless, it is a small number—and, if the worst came to the worst, it is a number that we could accommodate.

Of course, that would not happen in the case of Hong Kong. The arguments there is that there is no small group in Hong Kong who could be treated differently from the Chinese in Hong Kong. Therefore, an anomaly of this kind is not likely to arise.

I do not know enough about the separate nature of the population of Hong Kong to rebut that, but it may be that there is a difference between the Chinese who have lived on the island and the Chinese in the New Territories and their origins that may cause the future Hong Kong Government to take a line about giving citizenship to all the inhabitants of the New Territories who might well feel that they have to draw the kind of line which the Solomon Islands Government are trying to draw in this legislation.

If we were to have an argument about that, we would have a crowded House, and such a proposal could not be passed at 12 o'clock at night. It would be a serious issue. The Foreign Office should have that in mind when we come to conduct future negotiatins. In future, the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will not be allowed to tell the other place "We are sorry, we could not get what we wanted, but the Hong Kong Government had to have their way." That may be the case with the Solomon Islands, but not with the Hong Kong Government. If we had been as firm in 1948 and in the independence legislation for the East African Territories. It would never have led to the immigration difficulties that arose thereafter.

12.15 a.m.

When we were pursuing the working party report on which the Green Paper is based, we examined all the possible commitments which this country has to accept in regard to the people who could not be accommodated within any sensible definition of British citizenship and yet have some kind of citizenship that gave us some kind of liability for them. They are the transitional people, who became our responsibility only because in 1948 we did not have a clearly defined citizenship of the sort that every other independent Commonwealth country took.

There is real difficulty in meeting those cases. We met the difficulty with the East African Asians by allowing them to come here, but there are still 25,000 of them in India about whom the Government have to make up their mind. But that is a commitment that we have to decide. After that, however, there are 110,000 citizens of the United Kingdom in Malaysia whom we have to decide about in the future. Are they to be British citizens under the new legislation or not?

In the Green Paper it is proposed that they should become British overseas citizens. But there are many people in this country who find that idea nauseating and take the view that what we are doing is what we did in 1968—abandoning our commitment to people whose only citizenship is one connected with this country, who have no citizenship of any other country, and who, if we make them British overseas citizens, will have the right of entry into no country whatsoever. It would be a matter of some moral criticism if we were to take that course.

But I believe that we have to take that course. It was my judgment that, in relation to those people, we have to say that we cut them adrift up to the point where we give them a citizenship which does not entitle them to entry into any country. But what we are doing here tonight is adding to their number. We are putting those 5,000 on the total, and when we come to make the decision about the new British nationality Act, these 5,000 will be added to the 110,00 in Malaysia, the 25,000 or so in Singapore and the several thousand in the Mediterranean. They will all be added together, and people will say "We must take them because we have the moral commitment" or "We must not do so because it would be too great a liability for our immigration commitments to take these people on".

Here tonight, here when everything else has happened, here when we have through the whole immigration story, we are still making the same mistake. Why? Because, Lord Goronwy-Roberts says: I had no recourse but to agree to what the Solomon Islands leaders wanted."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27th April 1978; Vol. 390, c. 2016.] "All I can say is that I wish someone else had been doing the negotiations. It is intolerable that we should have been put in this position yet again. I take the view that I take—making this speech with no vote thereafter—only, because so few people are involved, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had better be warned for the next time.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) has done a service to the Committee by putting down this amendment. Indeed, it follows the questions raised by my noble Friend Lord Avebury in another place. It was in answer to those questions that the remarks quoted were made by Lord Goronwy-Roberts.

There is perhaps a danger that the remarks of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will be misconstrued in some quarters as implying that we were seeking in some way to influence or control the future of the Solomon Islands Government, but I am sure that that is not what he intended. I agree with his intention to make it clear that there is one issue on which we in these matters do have a very important say, that is, what responsibilities we will retain when we grant independence to what will be a new sovereign State.

The one matter that must be crystal clear in any independence negotiations is which citizens we are subsequently responsible for and which citizens the new sovereign State is subsequently responsible for. It is to me a matter of very great regret that in the negotiations it was not possible, or does not appear to have been possible, to get over to the Solomon Islands leaders that from the beginning of their new sovereign State they really ought to take responsibility for those who have made their home in the Solomon Islands.

Mr. Christopher Price

I take the point that both the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) have made, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the situation in Solomon Islands was a very special one. Many of the 5,000 were imported into Solomon Islands against the wishes of Solomon Islanders by the British Government in a particular crisis.

I had some small part in trying to bring the two sides together in the middle of the negotiations. It was a question either of the negotiations breaking down and the Solomon Islands not getting independence at all or of the British Government giving in the way they did. The situation was a little more complicated than has always been apparent, and before more odium is heaped on the head of poor Lord Goronwy-Roberts I think that some of these facts ought to be made clear.

Mr. Beith

I think that no one would underestimate the difficulties which these negotiations encountered, but there can scarcely be a sovereign State to which we have given independence over recent years which has not contained within it some group of people or other who have been brought there at the convenience of British Governments or British interests in the past, and about whose position there was some domestic concern. There is a very long list of States in which that problem has arisen. Many of them are the very States with which we now have difficulties over groups such as the East African Asians.

Sir Bernard Braine

Does the hon. Gentleman recall that there is no better example of what he is saying than the island of Mauritius, where people from Europe, Asia and Africa were brought together under first French and then British colonial rule? When independence approached, this very point was made, but the ultimate settlement was that on the appointed day all those living in Mauritius were deemed to be Mauritian citizens. That was the model. That was the lesson learned from East Africa. Why has it not been applied ever since?

Mr. Beith

My speech is in danger, Mr. Godman Irvine, of becoming a compendium of erudite interventions, but I wish to underline the point that the one legitimate interest that the British Government have, and are entitled to pursue to a very great degree in any negotiations of this kind is in ensuring that they are not left responsible for citizens who can legitimately claim that their home is in the country to which independence has been given, and who have a rightful claim on citizenship of that country.

The end result that the Bill presents—and the source of the complaints which have come from all sides—is a very unsatisfactory position for any group of people to be put in, that of the British protected person. What are we inviting these people to become—the latter-day Don Pacificos, the people who have a moral claim upon British Governments but whose passport entitlements are more limited than any other category one can think of?

I am bound to say that I cannot imagine the British Government being able in future years, if they were confronted with a group of such people being dispossessed of the right of citizenship by a country such as Solomon Islands, being able to resist the moral force of the argument "You left these people in this position. You must now do something about it". We had better face that fact now.

The hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) posed it as a dilemma. I should be very surprised if any group of British Ministers could resist the force of the argument "You allowed independence to be arrived at in this territory and you left a group of citizens who had no secure claim upon the citizenship of that territory. There is no one else upon whom they can make a claim but you, the British Government". How could we resist the force of that argument in future years? Had we better not admit that now? But that calls to mind all the problems associated with British nationality which we are now mulling over in the context of the Green Paper and the general intention to try to get a new British nationality Act. The precedents are frightening but the particular instance created here is frightening.

Assurances have been given as to the apparent near certainty that applications made by people in this group will all be granted and processed within the time available, but none of this seems to me to obviate the prime responsibility of the British Government to ensure that on the outcome of any independence negotiations they know who their citizens will be in the future, that they know to whom they have effectively transferred citizenship in another country, and that those concerned know upon whom they have claims and the extent of those claims. This does not seem to apply to this group of people, and I believe that it leaves us trouble in store for the future.

Mr. Richard Luce (Shoreham)

There should be no misunderstanding—I am sure that there is not—that, despite the fact that we are debating some rather sensitive citizenships problems with regard to the Solomon Islands, there is nevertheless, a great deal of good will on both sides of the Committee with regard to the future of the Solomon Islands and their proceeding towards independence as soon as possible. Indeed, Mr. Goodman Irvine, I believe that I am right in saying that you yourself know the Solomon Islands. I am sure that you have taken a great deal of interest in these proceedings.

As the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) so rightly highlighted, the problem stems from the unusual nature of this independence Bill, in that the the request of the Solomon Islands, and with the consent of the British Government, we have allowed these clauses to be inserted in the Bill which means that certain existing non-indigenous citizens, or people living in the Solomon Islands, will not automatically be able to become citizens overnight when the Solomon Islands obtain independence. Equally, we are discussing this matter against the background of the confusion of our citizenship laws, about which we all know.

I should like to ask the Minister to clarify two points. The first concerns the scale of the problem. A figure of 5,000 people has been mentioned from several sources. This emanated originally from another place. I should like the Minister to tell us what proportion of these 5,000 non-indigenous people are potentially British protected persons once the Solomon Islands have proceeded under present law to independence.

As I understand it, of the 5,000 people about 2,500 are Gilbertese who, if they did not opt for citizenship of the Solomon Islands, would presumably go back to the Gilbert Islands. We are then left with about 2,500 other people of whom perhaps 1,400 are Europeans, Australians or New Zealanders and perhaps 500 are Chinese. It would help the House if the Minister were to say precisely what proportion of these people would potentially be British protected persons under this rather unusual category of people, so that we knew exactly the scale of the problem about which we were talking.

The second question I should like to ask has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price), namely, what precisely are our obligations to these British protected persons? As I understand from the Green Paper on British nationality law, about 274,000 people at present are British protected persons, of whom the large bulk come from the Solomon Islands and Brunei. I assume this means that the citizens of the Solomon Islands will, on independence, automatically stop being British protected persons. Therefore, the actual number of British protected persons will diminish very substantially indeed.

However, I should like the Minister to clarify this matter and to make it quite clear that this is a unique problem. Will he tell the House precisely what obligation we have to the residual number of people who are likely to be British protected persons? Regrettable though it may be, I believe that even at this stage the Committee should express the hope that as many non-indigenous people as possible will commit themselves to the future of the Solomon Islands. I hope that they will for their sakes and for the sake of those islands. It is important to know precisely what obligation we have to those who fail to obtain citizenship. What does it mean when the Minister says that in the last resort we have obligations to them, for example, under the "statelessness convention"? That was the term he used during Second Reading on Friday. What precisely does that mean?

It is most important that the Minister should clarify these points both for our sakes—because it is our responsibility to determine this matter—and for the sake of those who live in the Solomon Islands.

12.30 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard)

May I deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Sir B. Braine), who suggested, without any justification, that the Government had attempted to slip through these provisions in what he described as a sly way. If he reflects on it he will realise that that was a grossly unfounded charge and I hope that he will be willing to withdraw it.

As has been pointed out, the fact that these provisions were likely to be in the legislation was apparent in the White Paper published a year ago. Secondly, these provisions were debated at length in the House of Lords recently. The hon. Member will be aware of this if he has followed the proceedings. Thirdly, we arranged to have the Second Reading of the Bill last Friday, at which the hon. Member was present, and when any other hon. Member could have been present. Finally we provided for a Committee stage this evening. I do not see how that was not perfectly reasonable, enabling all hon. Members to raise points of the kind that have been raised. It is totally unjustified to say that we were trying to slip this through the House of Commons.

Sir Bernard Braine

The only conclusion I can draw, if this was not a sly device, a means of getting something through in the hope that the House would not notice it, is that the Government's conduct is inept.

Mr. Luard

That remark is as unjustified as the hon. Member's earlier remark. It has no basis in fact. We are having a normal debate on an independence Bill and it is open to any hon. Member to raise any point he cares to raise. To suggest that we are trying to slip this through without hon. Members noticing is to cast a reflection upon the hon. Member's alertness and awareness of what is going on. I must reject that charge, and I hope that the hon. Member will not revert to such accusations.

The amendment seeks to ensure that inhabitants of the Solomons who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who secured that status because of their connection with the Solomons shall not lose that status unless they have already secured some other nationality, either that of the Solomon Islands or some other State.

I deal first with the question of numbers. The number likely to be involved is a small proportion of a total of about 5,000 people who are mainly of three different kinds—Gilbertese, Chinese and European. Of this number, about 2,500 are Gilbertese. They will not be affected by the provisions that have caused concern because they will remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of their Gilbertese origins, until the Gilbert Islands become independent. Therefore we are concerned with perhaps fewer than half, about 2,000—

Mr. Christopher Price

When my hon. Friend says with such confidence that these 2,500 will not be affected because they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, is he not making that statement on the assumption that they will apply for citizenship? Surely, as the Bill stands, if it should happen that any of these Gilbertese are not citizens, because they did not apply or could not apply for whatever reason, after 7th July 1980, and if they do not want to go back to the Gilbert Islands and take what will probably, but not certainly, be their Gilbert Island citizenship—assuming that the Gilbert Islands are independent by 1980—they will become British protected persons, because that is what it says in the Bill.

Mr. Luard

They would have that opportunity to do so, but for the moment they would remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and the assumption would be that they would eventually become nationals of the Gilbert Islands, when the Gilbert Islands became independent.

Mr. Christopher Price

That is an assumption.

Mr. Luard

It is, but it is a reasonable assumption.

We are left with 2,000-odd people, of whom by far the greater majority are likely to register and to become citizens of the Solomon Islands. We are concerned, therefore, with a small proportion, which might be tens, scores and at worst, I would say, hundreds. Of that number, I think that one can assume that by far the greater proportion will exercise that option, because it is the natural thing for them to do. Some have belonged to the Solomon Islands for a considerable period. It is their home. Many have never seen the shores of these islands. Therefore, I think that we are reasonably entitled to assume that a great majority will register within the Solomon Islands.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

Will my hon Friend give way?

Mr. Luard

I do not want to give way too often, but I shall on this occasion.

Mr. Lyon

If the assumption that they will all register is correct, why on earth cannot we give them in the Bill, as of right, the citizenship that they will get by registration? If there is no doubt about it, we could do that. If there is a doubt, the possibility is that, if it is only hundreds, some hundreds will be in the same position as those East African Asians who received from previous Ministers assurances similar to those my hon. Friend is now giving to these people.

Mr. Luard

It is perfectly reasonable to assume that most of them will want to register as citizens of the Solomon Islands and will exercise that option. We are concerned with what will happen to them meanwhile, in case some of them do not exercise that option. That is the problem that has been posed in this debate.

This situation arises because of the attitude taken by the Solomon Islands Ministers in the negotiations. Their feelings on the matter are deeply held. They have said that while they would be prepared to confer their citizenship on the non-indigenous people they wanted them to apply for it.

I must stress that the Chief Minister and his colleagues have given firm commitments that all who apply for citizenship will be granted it. We have no reason to doubt that assurance. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that Ministers of a highly respected Government of an almost independent State who have given assurances of that kind are very unlikely to flout that obligation within the next year or so.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

It happened in India.

Mr. Luard

We have no reason to doubt that the vast majority will secure Solomon Islands citizenship by that means.

I have explained that of the 5,000 about half, who come from the Gilbert Islands, will in any case be allowed to remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies after independence, at least until the Gilbert Islands become independent, because of their connection with the Gilbert Islands colony.

Sir Bernard Braine

rose—

Mr. Luard

This is the last time I shall give way.

Sir Bernard Braine

My intervention is purely on a matter of fact. The Minister is implying that at least half the 5,000 are Gilbertese. He said specifically on Second Reading: That did not mean that they were not prepared to grant citizenship to the 5,000 other people of European or Chinese extraction."—[Official Report, 19th May 1978; Vol. 950, c. 1021.] Let us be quite clear about the figures. Are we dealing with 5,000 people of European or Chinese extraction, or only half that number? What the hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee now does not square with what he said on Second Reading.

Mr. Luard

I am trying to clarify the figures for the hon. Gentleman. If he will listen to what I say, he will find that I am giving the exact facts about this question. If one excludes the Gilbert Islanders, there will be just over 2,000 of European and Chinese origin.

Sir Bernard Braine

Then the hon. Gentleman misinformed the House on Second Reading.

Mr. Luard

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall go on with my own speech.

So that nobody would be left stateless if he or she absolutely refused to apply, the Bill proposes that even if such people have been citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies solely by connection with the Solomon Islands they should be afforded the status of British protected persons. This is an internationally recognised national status, and it would be wrong to regard anyone holding it as being virtually stateless.

I was asked to explain the difference between being a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and being a British protected person. The status of a British protected person enables the British Government to protect that person when necessary and to issue him with a passport. There is no difference in respect of immigration rights. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies themselves, if they enjoy that status as a result of their connection with the Solomon Islands, have no entitlement to enter this country, so there is no change in their immigration status. In this respect they will be in no different position from their present position.

The only significant difference is that the status of British protected person is not normally transmissible. The children of such persons will normally automatically become Solomon Island citizens by reason of their birth there. There is no reason to expect that British protected persons from the Solomon Islands will find eventually that they have nowhere to go. There is not the slightest reason to think that they may be expelled, whatever their citizenship. If it were to happen, I can only repeat what I said before—that we cannot say now what view we might take of a situation at some time in the future. It is premature at this stage to foresee such a problem. But if such a situation were to arise I have no doubt that the Government of the day would deal with it responsibly.

I was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) whether this was the first time that we had taken from any group the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This is not the first time. It has been done before in relation to certain citizens of Cyprus, and earlier still in relation to certain people in Burma. It has been forced on the British Government from time to time. However, I stress that this is an abnormal situation because of the position that was taken by the Solomon Islands Government during the negotiations for independence. In our view, this is most unlikely to be a precedent for any other case because we know of no other territory which is likely to become independent where the same situation would arise.

Nor is it an anticipation of the provisions of the Green Paper as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West. The decision reached in this particular case was entirely independent of the proposal in the Green Paper which, after all, is only a discussion document. The Government are not implementing any proposals in that document at present. What we have done in the present case has resulted entirely from the unforeseen situation that arose from the Ministers of the Solomon Islands Government taking the position that they did and expressing their unwillingness to accept these people immediately and automatically as citizens of the Solomon Islands.

As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) pointed out, there are some possibly understandable reasons for this. Many of these people have come from other territories, some in the not-too-distant past, and the Solomon Islands Ministers felt that they were not belongers in the same way as the indigenous people were.

My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) took a very different position from that taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West and the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. While they were, in effect, saying that the British Government should be accepting a greater degree of responsibility for these people, my hon. Friend the Member for York took the opposite view—that we should not have taken any responsibility for them at all, and that we should have compelled the Solomon Islands Government to take that responsibility. But it is not easy to compel the Government of a State that is virtually independent to undertake obligations which they resolutely refuse to take. We cannot coerce them. We have sought very hard to persuade them, but eventually they completely refused to accept this obligation.

We, rather reluctantly, but knowing that the number was extremely small, decided that on this occasion, as a very great exception, we would agree to take some responsibility. We did not agree to let them remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who transmitted their citizenship to future generations indefinitely, but to afford them the status of British protected persons, so that the obligation was more limited. However, that gave them a nationality, and they were not left in the position of being totally stateless. I hope that that deals adequately with—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon

rose—

Mr. Luard

I give way, but it is for the last time.

Mr. Christopher Price

We are in Committee.

Mr. Lyon

I repeat what my hon. Friend says, that we are in Committee. We can always come back to it, but my hon. Friend might as well deal with the issue now. The British protected person cannot transmit his status to his children. That means that his children living in the Solomon Islands would become stateless. The creation of the stateless person would be a breach of the convention. What do we do? In any event, we shall have to commit ourselves. We might as well leave these people as citizents of the United Kingdom and Colonies, because they have everything else apart from the ability to transmit.

12.45 a.m.

My hon. Friend does not realise the power of the House of Commons. If we had really worked ourselves up into a fit, the Bill would not have come this far. If the Bill does not pass through the House of Commons, it does not matter what the Solomon Islanders will not agree to in negotiations. The House of Commons decides what they will get. It decides that in the measure before us. If we had refused the clauses, the Solomon Islanders and the Government would not have had the Bill. We could have told them that in the negotiations. That is what I should have liked to do, and I am only sorry that we did not do it.

Mr. Luard

Obviously my hon. Friend is right when he says that the House of Commons finally decides on matters of this sort. In the final resort it would be open to the House of Commons to exercise its will. I was describing the position of the Government and the way the Government felt, in view of the firmly expressed view of the Government of the Solomon Islands: we should make a special arrangement in this instance. My hon. Friend correctly states that the British protected person cannot transmit citizenship to his children. That was the point that I was making when he intervened. As he would have heard if he had listened to what I was saying earlier, in almost every case the children themselves will acquire the nationality of the Solomon Islands.

It is true that if for any reason that failed to happen and there was a danger of statelessness arising, we would be bound by the provisions of the statelessness convention, as I mentioned on Friday and as was raised against this evening by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East. I made it clear on Second Reading that in the final resort we were bound by the terms of the statelessness convention.

My hon. Friend the Member for York made comparisons with the situations that has arisen in the past in East Africa and India. He said that we were repeating the follies of the past. I must observe that there are major differences. The most important difference is that of scale. The numbers on those occasions that were left in an ambiguous position were infinitely larger than the number we are now discussing. My hon. Friend said that we are talking about 5,000, but we are talking of only a small proportion of the 5,000. At the end of the day we may find that a small proportion have not registered and are left in a position in which they remain as British protected persons.

Doubt has been cast on whether in giving the Islanders the status of British protected persons we are not conferring upon them some sort of second class status. In almost every respect their status is the same as if they remained citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. The only major difference is the one that I have mentioned, namely, that they cannot transmit citizenship. However, in either case they would not have the right of immigration to this country. In that sense we are not changing anything. In any event, those concerned will secure diplomatic protection from this country, which is the main reason for someone wishing to acquire a passport of a particular sort.

A very small difference is that British protected persons will not have the right to vote in elections in this country. That is a right that they would have if they remained citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. However as they would not be able to come here even if they remained citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, that is not an important difference.

I hope that I have answer the major points that have been raised. I stress that we are talking about a protectorate. It has always been a protectorate. Those who come in the small category that we have been discussing have become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies only because of their connection with a protectorate. It is not illogical in that situation to give them the status that goes with a protectorate, namely, that of British protected persons. They are all put into the one category. Of course, some are already British protected persons. We are assimilating the others with that category so that they all have the same status. I hope that only a small proportion will be involved. I hope that their children will have acquired other nationalities. Therefore, we are talking about a short-term temporary problem. I hope that I have said enough to persuade my hon. Friend to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Christopher Price

I think that the last point made by my hon. Friend was not very logical: we get rid of our last protectorate and invent a new category of British protected person.

Mr. Luard

It is there already.

Mr. Price

It is not. The amendment refers to people who at the moment hold the status of citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. We are proposing that, if for any reason after 7th July 1980 they are not citizens of the Solomon Islands or any other country, they become British protected persons. I have followed this matter and I know all the reasons why the British Government, in their wisdom, have reached that decision. But it is not logical. Logic demands that we get rid of our last trust territory, our last protectorate, with the last big group of British protected persons in the world that we have. Instead, we are creating some potentially new ones.

I thought that my hon. Friend was a little bland about the Gilbertese. I agree that very few of these people would want to come to Britain. If you went to the Solomon Islands, Sir Meyer, the last place you would—

The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern)

Order. I should like to go to Millport, never mind the Solomon Islands.

Mr. Price

That was a hypothetical statement, Sir Myer. Were you to go there, I think that you would not want to come back here. The idea of someone in Melanesia, Polynesia or anywhere in the South Seas wanting to come to Britain as an escape route is rather far fetched. I accept that. But I want to pose the problem of the Gilbertese. If something goes wrong and they do not go back to the Gilbert Islands or if something goes wrong with the Gilbert Islands Bill, which is not yet on the stocks—there could be problems with the Banabans and Ocean Islands—and it is delayed much longer than the British Government want it to be delayed, the Gilbertese, the biggest of these minorities, might be in a difficult situation.

I understand that the one concession that the Government got out of the Solomon Islanders during the negotiations was that the period of registration for citizenship should be not only the two years following independence, but a period of six months before independence, so that the House could see how things were going.

I understand that of the 5,000 eligible, about 70 applications have so far come in. That is not a significant figure. My view is that if the Gilbertese applied for citizenship, they would all apply. If they do not apply, very few of them will apply. Many of these minority groups within the Solomon Islands will decide to act as groups rather than as individuals. But if something were to go wrong with the assumptions about the Gilbertese taking citizenship or desiring or willing to go back to the Gilbert Islands, they would be in this kind of situation.

The Minister says "There will be no problems, because I assume this, I assume the other". He is making assumptions. If we find that these people are in an unfortunate situation, we should give them the slightly more favourable status.

I had hoped to be wholly convinced by the Ministers' arguments. I fear that I was less than convinced. But, because I desire to allow the Solomon Islands to reach independence, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. Christopher Price

After that somewhat acrimonious short debate—which was useful because it alerted us to the Pacific independence Bills which will come before the House in the next few months and years—it is right not to leave this business without saying something hopeful and positive about the future of the Solomon Islands.

Certain strictures have been made aaginst Lord Goronwy-Roberts, to whom I was PPS 12 years ago. I should like to get it on record that these negotiations were difficult. The Solomon Islanders were justified in insisting on their side of the bargain. They said to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office "If you do not want us to be independent, you can put it off." But the brief of the Foreign Office was to make this country independent by hook or by crook. It is therefore wrong to blame the Islanders. They had clear views about the form of citizenship that they wanted. They knew that the desire of the Foreign Office to make them independent was greater than the desire to exclude future problems.

I congratulate all the Ministers in the Solomon Islands Government who came here, particularly their leader, Peter Kenilorea. I wish the new independent country well. This is the first of the last group of countries of which we are finally to divest ourselves. Most of them are in the Pacific. The Tuvalu Bill is now in the Lords. The Bill dealing with the Gilbert Islands will come next and, with the French, we must try to divest ourselves of the New Hebrides which will be the most difficult. These measures will create small independent countries of islands in the Pacific. In one way we are putting appalling burdens on them. We are expecting Tuvalu, for instance, with only 8,000 people, to try somehow to be viable, to have diplomatic representation and to make its way in the world. The same is true of the Solomon Islands.

Before we pass this Bill, we should be aware of what we are doing. With the increase in territorial limits, as the Law of the Sea Conference gradually extends the areas of national authority, these tiny islands in the Pacific become more and more important. The Russian fleet is all over the Pacific. There will be pressure on these islands to trade political influence for cash, of which many of them have very little. The Solomon Islanders are in the middle of negotiating a fishing agreement with the Japanese, who have particular connections with those islands since half of the Second World War was fought over these islands.

In wishing the Solomon Islanders well, we should not just say goodbye to them and sever any further connection. They will need all the help of the aid clauses of the White Paper for many years yet. I am very pleased that the Solomon Islands will be applying for membership of the Lomé Convention because in one curious way that convention is taking over from the British Empire a sort of parent responsibility for helping some of these countries which are not economically viable.

At the moment President Giscard d'Estaing is trying to create a sort of French Commonwealth several hundred years after we began ours, but much upon the same lines. It is regrettable that there are islands in the Pacific such as New Caledonia and French Polynesia, which the French, in contrast to our country, are flatly refusing to allow any form of independence. It would be unfortunate if the French entered a period of aggressive, linguistic neo-colonialism, in which there was rivalry in the Pacific as there is in many countries in Africa between the English-speaking and French-speaking countries.

I hope that as the second stage of the Lomé Convention is negotiated the Solomon Islanders will be associated with the negotiations to add a little more Pacific weight to the ACP—the African-Caribbean-Pacific—agreement. That would provide a growing political superstructure. Then, when, as will inevitably happen, the political pressure comes on some of these newly independent countries, as has happened with the Seychelles already, to take up a certain political stance in return for aid, there will at least be an organisation like the Lomé Convention to which they can turn which dispenses its aid with far fewer political strings than is involved with multilateral aid or direct bilateral aid from anywhere else. In leaving the Solomon Islanders to fend for themselves, it may then be possible that we are not leaving them completely on their own, but that they will have someone to turn to.

In welcoming the Bill and wishing the Solomon Islanders well in their independent status, I hope that the House of Commons will have further contact with them. I hope that some contact is maintained through the EEC, although it is an institution for which I have very little love. I left the European Parliament because I could not stand it. I have just voted against direct elections. But it is an institution within which the Lomé Convention offers some hope of helping these countries through a reasonable period of gestation as they grow to full independence.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Back to