HC Deb 15 November 1979 vol 973 cc1592-8

Order for Second Reading read.

7.35 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Peter Blaker)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The essential purpose of the Bill, in the words of the long title, is to Make provision in that connection with the attainment by Papua New Guinea of independence within the Commonwealth and with the membership of the Commonwealth of Western Samoa and Nauru. Before describing the contents of the Bill, I shall say why it is being introduced. When British colonies achieve independence and become members of the Commonwealth, the independence Acts in respect of them include consequential amendments to, or repeals of, United Kingdom legislation to place them on the same footing as other Commonwealth members. But when a colony or trust territory has been under the administration of another member of the Commonwealth and has been brought to independence by that State, there is obviously no United Kingdom independence Act. Separate legislation in the United Kingdom is therefore necessary to make the usual consequential modifications to our law. All these three territories fall into that category.

Papua New Guinea became independent on 16 September 1975 by the authority of the Australian Parliament and became a member of the Commonwealth on the same date. We therefore need to amend the relevant United Kingdom legislation as soon as we can.

The Bill also takes the opportunity to regularise the position of Western Samoa and Nauru. Western Samoa was granted independence by the New Zealand Parliament in 1962 and achieved full member ship of the Commonwealth in August 1970. Nauru was granted independence by the Australian Parliament in 1968 and achieved special membership of the Commonwealth later that year. Perhaps I should mention that the qualification of Nauru's Commonwealth membership as "special" means only that she does not participate in full meetings—as distinct from regional meetings—of Commonwealth Heads of Government.

All the amendments to our legislation that are provided for in the Bill flow automatically from the achievement of independence and membership of the Commonwealth of these countries. They follow a well-established pattern. But there is one particular problem that the Bill has been designed to overcome, namely, that of the national status of the citizens of Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru in United Kingdom law.

Until these countries are designated members of the Commonwealth for the purposes of the British Nationality Acts, they are foreign countries in that context and their citizens are aliens in United Kingdom law. Accordingly, there is a clause in the Bill that adds these three countries to the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Acts and thus makes their citizens Commonwealth citizens under United Kingdom law.

It would not be appropriate, however, to make this provision retrospective to the date of Commonwealth membership of each of the three countries. Retrospective provision would cause confusion by altering the status of citizens of the three countries as already applied under existing immigration laws and in other spheres. As an example, leave of entry to the United Kingdom given under the Aliens Order 1953 would no longer be valid for a person who became retroactively a Commonwealth citizen.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

What are the numbers? I understand the issue of retrospection. Has there been any pressure on retrospection—or is that an academic point?

Mr. Blaker

That appears to be an academic point. We are putting right a situation that has not in practice given rise to problems but could theoretically do so.

The Bill has also been designed to avoid the anomalous situation that births of children of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and deaths of such citizens occurring in Papua New Guinea between independence in 1975 and the date of the Royal Assent to this Bill, would have had to be entered in British consular registers that apply to foreign countries. No such register exists in Papua New Guinea, as our office there is a high commission rather than a consulate.

Normally, such births and deaths occurring in a Commonwealth country would be entered in British high commission registers. The Bill therefore provides that births and deaths of the categories of people mentioned occurring in Papua New Guinea on or after 16 September 1975 may be registered in the British high commission register there.

It is not possible to extend that provision to Nauru or Western Samoa, since the United Kingdom has no resident high commission in either country.

The Bill now before the House contains, as I have said, amendments to, and repeals of, United Kingdom legislation. The Bill does not purport to modify the laws of Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa or Nauru.

I turn now to the individual clauses. Clause 1 adds Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru to the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Act. As a result, it confers the status of British subject and Commonwealth citizens on the citizens of the three countries.

Clause 2 enables births and deaths that have occurred in Papua New Guinea since her independence on 16 September 1975 to be entered in the appropriate registers of the British high commission in Port Moresby.

Clause 3 and the schedule provide for a variety of modifications to certain United Kingdom enactments, all of which are consequential on the attainment of independence and entry into the Commonwealth of Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru. The modifications are on the standard lines when a territory becomes independent and joins the Commonwealth.

Clause 4 gives the short title of the Bill.

The Bill is a consequential measure and is long overdue. The reasons for the delay are that very few people have been affected, and those not seriously, and there has been a lack of opportunity to fit it into the parliamentary timetable.

These consequential modifications will place the three countries on the same footing as other Commonwealth members in our law. They raise no new questions of principle, and clearly should not be delayed any further. I hope therefore that the House will support the Bill.

7.43 pm
Mr. Edward Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil)

I must be one of the few hon. Members who have had the privilege of visiting Papua New Guinea and Nauru, Alas, I have not been to Western Samoa. I was the former Government's representative at the 1975 independence celebrations in Papua New Guinea, and I went to the remarkable mini-State of Nauru, which conducts its own foreign policy and international affairs. I wish that other mini-States would follow that pattern. Nauru has not set up shop all over the world but has followed the principles and qualities of a mini-State and continued to enjoy life in its own community.

We have been slow to amend our legislation to conform with actions that occurred in 1968, 1969 and 1975. However, I am not qualified to criticise that, because I was partly responsible for four years of that delay. It was never brought to my attention that such inadequacies existed. I assume that the delay has not harmed anyone or damaged anybody's position while entering and leaving the United Kingdom. I trust that no one has been wandering around as a stateless person because the Government had not amended the legislation following independence. I hope that the Minister will confirm that later.

I understand that we cannot make the Bill retroactive, but what would it mean in practical terms if we did so? Few hon. Members would quarrel with retrospection if it had any material effect. I imagine that no problems have arisen, otherwise there would be a greater sense of urgency about the Bill.

There are references in the Bill to "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen". They are part of the kaleidoscope of references and definitions within the concept of nationality and were the subject of the tortuous discussions that led to the Green Paper on nationality law. Will the Minister tell us what effect that paper will have on the terminology used in the Bill? If the Government brought in proposals concerning British nationality law, would another Bill be needed to amend the definitions now used?

In view of the lengthy delays in bringing our legislation up to date, I do not think that hon. Members should delay the progress of the Bill further.

7.46 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

Ministers from the Treasury and the Home Office and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) who perhaps knew me in a previous incarnation can heave a sigh of relief, because I shall not detain the House for long on the affairs of Papua New Guinea. I seldom open my mouth to speak on foreign affairs, especially in relation to places that I have not visited. However, the Back Bench foreign affairs committee of the Labour Party asked certain questions that are legitimate.

In The Daily Telegraph of 20 September there appeared under the headline "Four Judges Quit in Papua Clash With Minister" an exaggerated account of the problems of the Minister, Mrs. Nahau Rooney, who was jailed for contempt when she criticised a court decision. The newspaper said that she criticised the court decision on a deportation issue and asked the judges to show more discretion in their decisions. The article said that she had interfered in the sole prerogative of the Government. Apparently prisoners all over the country rioted and escaped, proclaiming that if the Government could manipulate the law to free one of their Ministers they also deserved to be free.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw)

Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will relate his speech to the terms of the Bill.

Mr. Dalyell

I was about to say that I do not want to go into the details of the matter, but clearly law and order in Papua New Guinea, outlined in an amusing article by Martin Woollacott in The Guardian of 19 September under the heading "From golf club to the battle-axe", relate to the Bill. We are entitled to ask whether there is a system of law and order in Papua New Guinea.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. That is completely out of order. The Bill relates to nationality, births and deaths.

Mr. Dalyell

I ask whether the press reports in relation to Samoa under the heading "Shades of Nixon" are relevant. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) has been to Nauru. There have been articles about the difficulties experienced in Nauru, particularly financial difficulties concerning Air Nauru. Will the Minister comment on the current problems as they affect the legislation before us?

7.50 pm
Mr. Blaker

I, too, am familiar with Nauru. I enjoyed a brief stay there, but if I ventured into the territory that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has invited me to explore I should be straying out of order.

I should also be straying beyond the limits that I ought to observe if I went into the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised about Papua New Guinea. They are not relevant to the granting to citizens of Papua New Guinea of the status of Commonwealth citizens under United Kingdom law or to the question of registration of the children of citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who live in that territory. Those are the sort of matters that the Bill is designed to deal with.

I shall attempt to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands). He asked whether problems such as statelessness had arisen. We are not aware of any problems in practice. The sort of consequence that has occurred has been that the children of citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies who have been born in Papua New Guinea since its independence in 1975 have not been able to be registered on the proper register.

There are about 150 such childern. Obviously, they are not very old because Papua New Guinea has not long been an independent State. Any problems could have been dealt with by administrative action if necessary. Perhaps that is one reason why the Bill has not been brought forward before.

On the question of retrospection, I am not aware of any disadvantage that would accrue to anyone as a result of the Bill's provisions. If we were to make the provisions retrospective in the respect to which I referred, there could be disadvantages to individuals. For example, some people may have been admitted to this country under the Aliens Act, because these territories were not regarded under United Kingdom law as Commonwealth countries. That is the only way in which those people could have got into this country, and if they were to be treated retrospectively as Commonwealth citizens their admission under the Aliens Act could be regarded as having been invalid.

On the question of nomenclature in connection with the Green Paper on nationality law, the Bill does not deal with matters that would be central to any legislation that may be produced on that subject. If there is any change in the description of citizens on the lines that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil suggested, it would presumably be a general change affecting many countries and would apply to other countries as well as the three with which we are concerned.

The Government felt that if we delayed the Bill further it must lose its place in the queue again. We have an opportunity to get it through, and I am sure that we are right to proceed.

The Bill must be one of the least contentious measures of recent times and is probably a good deal less contentious than some Bills that we shall be considering shortly. The three territories are good friends of Great Britain and valued members of the Commonwealth. It is right that the House should ensure by the passage of the Bill that the few remaining provisions in our legislation necessary to acknowledge that status are put into force.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Mather.]

Committee tomorrow.