§ Bill, as amended (in Standing Committee), again considered.
§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a second time.
I was saying that 20 or 30 years ago the citizens of those countries were still of the essence of our national status. In making this change, almost an inversion, we must provide a transition. Registration, in the context of the new clause, is essentially transitional. It is transitional from British subject or Commonwealth citizen as the basic status to citizen of the United Kingdom as the basic status.
In a recognition of the fact that there is that transition we allow time—in the Bill it is usually set at five years—for those who have hitherto had a status equated with our own to be able to give reality to that old equation. But it is an old equation, which it is in the Bill's purpose to abolish. Therefore, the new clause runs essentially counter to the purpose and principle, as I understand them, of the Bill.
There is no limit of time upon the facilities provided in the new clause. The whole argument put forward by the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) is that we should recognise, and in the terms of the new clause recognise permanently, that special relationship. The special relationship that existed in 1948 has now become so tenuous as to be scarcely perceptible. It is now only a relationship between independent nations—our own on the one part and more than 30 on the other—whose recognition and status as independent nations are, tc some extent, owed to the work and the legislation of the House.
The Opposition are asking, through the new clause, essentially for a negation of the purpose of the Bill. They are asking for the equivocal or obsolete equation of Commonwealth citizen and British national to be maintained indefinitely and, in the case of nationals of Pakistan who are not within the Commonwealth, to be artificially extended.
In a sense the clause could be described almost as a wrecking clause. It has its uses, perhaps, in that it helps by lucendo lucus a non lucendo to illuminate the purpose and the reality of what we are bringing about by the nature of the Bill, namely, giving ourselves a national status in the United Kingdom which hitherto, in both the Commonwealth and the world, we have lacked in law.
§ Mr. Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
Not for the first time, I disagree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). It is an unusual feature, however, that we disagree about the factual history of how the position has arisen. We would both agree that in 1948 Parliament missed a great opportunity to settle the issue of British citizenship when other Commonwealth countries decided that they would take citizenship. We would both agree that from that major error has flown much of the difficulties in administering a sensible, just and humane immigration policy. We may disagree about what the policy should be, but we agree that that major fault has lain behind the sorry spectacle of successive immigration Acts.
However, on this issue I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in error. We are not getting rid of British subjecthood in the Bill. We got rid of British subjecthood in 1948. We decided in 1948 that there would not be universal subjecthood. We used the term "Commonwealth citizenship", but it had no real meaning. The real meaning was attached to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Those who did not have that citizenship when they came here, even though they were Commonwealth citizens, were entitled to claim the type of citizenship that we enjoyed. We created a new system of acquiring citizenship called registration, which was different from naturalisation which applied to aliens. Aliens had to ensure that they were of good character, that they could speak English and that they had been here for a certain time. I think that in those days it was one year, but the period was extended to five years.
Registration was automatic after a year in those days, but the period was extended to five years. However, registration was automatic for Commonwealth citizens after that period of residence until the inception of the Immigration Act 1971, when registration was made subject to the same test as naturalisation—namely, good character and the language test. If a person came here after 1973 from the Commonwealth, he had to be here for five years, he had to be of good character and he had to be able to speak English sufficiently well to make a police officer understand. If we accept the new clause, we shall go back on the position that has obtained since 1973.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) introduced his new clause, I understood him to say that we should keep the automatic right to registration which existed in 1973 and which existed for those who came before 1973. That was the case we argued in Committee.
I am glad that the new clause was drafted as it appears before us. In my view, this is the most important issue that we shall discuss on Report. Equally, it was the most important issue that we could have discussed in Committee. That is because the Bill affects us all. For the great majority of us who are by definition under the 1971 Act patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, it occasions not very much difference from our existing position.
The Government's purpose in drafting the Bill has been to ensure that patrial citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies retain all their present rights. That reassurance can be given to 95 per cent. of the population. the majority of the population are casually indifferent to the Bill. 870 However, for 5 per cent. of the population the Bill is a threat to their status and they wonder what it will mean for them.
The Minister says that undue alarm has been fermented among minority groups by those who are encouraging them to believe that something that is not in the Bill may be true. It is equally true that there are provisions in the Bill that have caused justifiable alarm in the minority community. I am sure that the Minister will accept that all the alarm, irrespective of whether it is justifiable, exists among about 5 per cent. of the population. They are worried about what the Bill will mean for them.
If the new clause were accepted, that anxiety could be allayed on a wide scale. That would mean that anyone who has settled here—that would be most of the 5 per cent.—regardless of whether he came before 1973 or after 1973 or whether he came from the new Commonwealth as it is now constituted or from Pakistan, would be entitled to register automatically as a citizen of the United Kingdom. Such persons would not even have to have a period of residence. If they were here two months, they would be able to register as citizens on the commencement of this measure.
When I was first asked to consider nationality when I was a Minister, my view was that we should give citizenship automatically to everyone who was settled here, because that would have the reassuring effect for which I am arguing here. I was dissuaded from suggesting that because it meant for some people, such as those from India, who could not have dual nationality, that their rights as nationals in another country would have been taken away by the automatic nature of the Act when they might not have wished that. Therefore, it would be wrong automatically to make them British citizens if, for various reasons, they did not want to become British citizens.
The new clause meets that point. It says that it will be left to the individual to decide. Surely, that is the most effective way which we could devise for reassuring the minority community that their rights, entitlements and wishes to be a stable part of our community are safeguarded under the Bill.
If we were to pass the new clause, much of the anxiety which has been generated in this country about the Bill would be alleviated. For that reason, I suspect that we shall not pass it. It would go further than the Minister has wanted to go. However, the truth is that it would not hurt anyone if we passed it. Those people are settled here. That means that unless they commit an offence they cannot be sent away.
It is true that if those people went out of the country for more than two years they would lose that entitlement. However, they can safeguard that position by not going out of the country for more than two years. The fact is—it may be against what some hon. Members wish—that those people will remain here until the day they die if they want to do so. If that is so and they are working here, paying taxes and are part of the community, why on earth should we not allow them to become citizens here? Why should we not give them the automatic right which is included in the clause?
It would be reassuring for race relations in this country if those people could choose to be identified with us and to become part of our country. The right hon. Member for Down, South is always saying that they do not wish to do so. Here is yet another hon. Member who will say the same thing.
§ Mr. Mr. Nick Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)
It would be much easier for those people if we did not retain a system of dual nationality.
§ Mr. Lyon
I shall be happy to argue the case on dual nationality when we come to that clause, which I think is about to be called.
If we pass the new clauses, those people would have the right to choose to become British citizens. It would be up to them whether they wanted so to choose. We shall come to the issue about dual nationality in due course. The hon. Gentleman knows my views on that.
If we want to put an end to the uncertainty in race relations in this country, this is the most effective way of doing that. I hope that the House will accept the clause.
§ Mr. Edward Lyons
The provision in the Bill which the new clause is designed to counteract provides that wives of British citizens shall be able to obtain British citizenship as of right without having to pass a language test or having to go through other paraphernalia. The effect of the Bill is to say for the first time—it was not so in 1948—that if wives who are in this country do not apply within five years of the date of the Act, they will have to pass a language test.
§ Mr. Mr. Lyons
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that I have. It refers to the wives of citizens of the Commonwealth or Pakistan whoshall be entitled on application for …registration as a British citizen,provided that were settled in the United Kingdom at commencement. It covers clauses 5 and 7 and includes wives who are already settled here. They are given five years in which to apply for British citizenship.
Wives have always had the right to obtain citizenship by registration. That right will be withdrawn unless they comply with the requirements within five years. They have an accrued right. In Committee, the Government did not suggest that Britain had come to harm through wives of British citizens being able to obtain citizenship by registration.
As my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) pointed out, if the Government attack an accrued right the suspicion arises that such rights are not sacrosanct. It is unsatisfactory for the Government to take away such a right.
The Government's original proposal in Committee was for a two-year grace period. As a result of an amendment tabled in the names of two Conservative Members and myself and supported by the official Opposition, the Government increased the period to five years. More than that, the Opposition, of virtually all shades, did not want the Government to take away any accrued rights. My amendment to extend the period to eight years was defeated.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell
Would it not perhaps be helpful for the hon. and learned Gentleman to inform hon. Members who have not read the full proceedings in Standing Committee that an amendment in my name that would have preserved the accrued rights of all wives permanently was thrown out?
§ Mr. Mr. Lyons
The House has heard the right hon. Gentleman.
The new clause works mainly against wives. Since 1973, Commonwealth citizens who have come here have had to pass a language test, so there are fewer of them left to apply for British citizenship. Wives who have come here up to 1981 at present have the right to apply for citizenship and get it automatically if their husbands are British. Those who come here after the Bill becomes law will not have that right, and those who have the right and have not made use of it will have it taken away from them after five years.
At one time, the Government considered two years appropriate. That was the magic figure, although for South Africans it was eight years. They now agree that five years is appropriate. With the numbers involved, and accepting that accrued rights should remain, the Government should reconsider the matter and allow permanent rights to obtain citizenship to those who have an accrued right. Failing that, they should bring forward an amendment in the House of Lords to increase the limit from five to eight or 10 years.
If the Government interfere with accrued rights of minority groups in one respect, people will suspect that they may interfere with other accrued rights upon which they depend for their security.
§ Mr. Raison
In moving the new clause, the hon. Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Tilley) seemed to argue that the purpose of the new clause was to remedy the loss of the indefinite right to register by certain groups, namely Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and their wives. The new clause, however, goes well beyond that and would open up a whole new category of entitlement. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, in some ways it would be a negation of the purpose of the Bill.
The hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) seemed to recognise that the new clause went far beyond what the hon. Member of Lambeth, Central implied but argued that we should nevertheless accept it on the ground that it would end the alarm that he believed had been created by the fact that the indefinite right to register would no longer exist. I cannot accept that argument. I believe that the alarm will die away as people understand the true nature of the legislation and that the claim is a temporary phenomenon largely produced by propaganda. I believe that as people come to live with the Act they will see the rubbish that has been talked about it for the rubbish that it is.
The hon. Gentleman should also recognise that in these matters it is not enough to think only of the interests of the ethnic minorities. They are very important, of course, and we have shown in Committee that we understand them because we have taken certain steps—not always popular ones—specifically designed to meet their anxieties. Nevertheless, I believe that if the new clause were accepted it would arouse a good deal of resentment among other people in the population and would not necessarily serve the cause of race relations in the way that the hon. Gentleman argued.
§ Mr. Jim Marshall
The Minister has again raised the question of propaganda, with the implication that certain individuals may be attempting to mislead certain groups. I must point out again that that is not so. If there is 873 misunderstanding, it is not all on one side. An academic born in Sri Lanka has recently been made chairman of a prominent Conservative group. It may be the Bow Group. He is under a total misapprehension about the Bill, because he really believes that it will affect the rights of Commonwealth citizens resident in this country to become Members of Parliament or serving officers in the British Army. If misunderstandings of that kind exist in the Minister's own party, how does he intend to clear them up?
§ Mr. Mr. Raison
I dare say that there are misunderstandings in my own party. I do not deny that for a moment. I know that the Bill, like all previous nationality legislation, is complicated. I never sought to conceal that throughout the Committee stage. My argument is that, with time, people will increasingly understand it and know the truth as opposed to the fiction of the matter and will come to recognise it as a statute of major importance that is completely fair and just.
The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central asked why we should take away these indefinite rights. On this, I echo what I said earlier to my hon. Friends in relation to amendment No. 89 because some of the arguments that I put then, although my hon. Friends did not entirely go along with them, apply in the same way to this issue.
The argument is essentially this. We believe that in due course we should move to a new scheme for the granting or award—however one likes to describe it—of citizenship. We believe that there should be a new structure for citizenship. That, in its essence, although not in its whole, means moving towards a system of naturalisation. If we maintain the existing situation indefinitely, we shall put off well into the next century the day when we arrive at the state of affairs which we believe to be right in this matter.
Both in the case of consular registration—which we argued about earlier—and in the case of entitlement to registration of Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and of wives, we have adopted the view that it is right to have a five-year transitional period, during which the existing entitlements continue. In the case of Commonwealth citizens settled here before 1973 and of wives, that gives a fair opportunity to anyone who wishes to acquire citizenship. The five-year period will begin only at commencement. There will be a period between now and commencement. In addition, in almost every case such people have already had a substantial period in which to exercise that entitlement to register. Therefore, they are being given a fair opportunity. When we changed the extension from two years to five years we seemed finally to put paid to the argument that there was something unsatisfactory about the measure. On that point, we are acting entirely fairly.
§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
That argument would be understandable if the Minister had not introduced a new clause in Committee which gave an automatic right to citizenship—after five years—to citizens of dependent territories, British overseas citizens and British protected persons who have not yet arrived in Britain. Surely that undermines the hon. Gentleman's basic argument that we must create a symmetrical new edifice for the future.
§ Mr. Raison
We took a different view about citizens of the British dependent territories and others who fell 874 within the category of British citizenship, because they are slightly different. We are talking about Commonwealth citizens. We have close historic links with Commonwealth citizens, which we are anxious to preserve. Nevertheless, there was something special about the citizens of the British dependent territories. We saw a distinction between their status and that of Commonwealth citizens.
The new clause would mean that any Commonwealth citizen or citizen of Pakistan settled here immediately before commencement would be entitled for the rest of his or her life to British citizenship—and the right of abode in this country—on application whenever he or she chose. Where the person settled here was a man. his wife would also have an entitlement to British citizenship, and possibly—although I am not quite clear about the meaning of the clause—even if she had never been to this country. The children born abroad to such a person, after he or she had acquired British citizenship, would be British citizens too, and would have the right of abode here.
The measure would extend our citizenship and the right of abode very widely indeed. Any concept of a meaningful citizenship based on a real tie with this country would be very greatly diluted, particularly since a Commonwealth citizen, or citizen of Pakistan, settled here at commencement could have been resident here for only a limited time—in some cases, such as dependants, only a very limited time indeed. Provided that the citizen was settled at commencement, he could re-enter freely—for however long he might go away—for the rest of his life.
These arrangements are far more generous than those which other Commonwealth countries, to which people from this country might wish to go, would be prepared to extend. They are in many respects more generous than those for Commonwealth citizens in the British Nationality Act 1948, as originally introduced, and which reflected a very different relationship between this country and the members of the Commonwealth and Pakistan from that which prevails now.
As the hon. Member for York said, the British Nationality Act 1948 has in fact already been amended so that apart from those who are patrial, the only Commonwealth citizens who are currently entitled to registration are those who have been settled here since before 1973. In a sense, the amendment seeks to turn the clock back by conferring a similar entitlement on those who have been accepted for settlement since 1973, provided that they are still settled at commencement.
We have sought in clause 6 to ensure that those Commonwealth citizens who are settled here at commencement and who have an entitlement to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, should have these preserved for a transitional period, but it would not be right to go beyond this.
I turn to the position of people who lost their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the dependency from which they came became independent. The hon. Member for Lambeth, Central raised this point. I accept that there will be some people settled here from former dependencies who will have lost citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies when the dependencies from which they came here achieved independence. Others will lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if their dependencies become independent before the commencement of the Bill. Such people would not have been able to register before independence since they would have been citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies 875 already. Since losing that citizenship, however, I accept that they will have had less time in which to exercise their entitlement to register than those citizens of independent Commonwealth countries settled here since before 1973.
The extension of the transitional period in which Commonwealth citizens with an entitlement to register may claim that entitlement will have greatly helped those people. That is one of the reasons why the Government accepted the amendment that lengthened the transitional period. It means that everyone from a Commonwealth country that achieves independence before commencement will, if settled here since before 1973, have five years at least in which to register. Those who are not settled before 1973 can still count any time here towards the qualifying period for naturalisation.
This leaves countries that achieve independence after commencement. It has hitherto been the effect of successive independence Acts that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who acquire the new citizenship lose our citizenship, and with it the right of abode here, if they have it. Clearly, the implications of the Bill will need careful thought when it comes to legislating for independence after the new nationality legislation comes into force, but the precise arrangements to be made can best be considered in the context of the independence legislation.
The question that the House has to answer is why all those settled CUKC or Commonwealth people here should have the automatic right to citizenship on commencement. It is not a question of simply continuing an existing entitlement. It is true that they have shown that they want to be here by virtue of the fact that they are settled here, although often for only a short while, but they do not meet the other criteria that we think appropriate for the granting of citizenship. They have no necessary intention to remain here, they will not have passed the language test, they will not have met the behaviour test and, in the case of Pakistanis, they will not have belonged to the Commonwealth for getting on for a decade. In many cases they will have been here for only a very short time.
All that does not add up to the kind of commitment to this country for which we are essentially looking in the conferment of citizenship, so the case for what would be a uniquely privileged position has not been made out by the Opposition, and I call on the House to reject new clause 5.
§ Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 226, Noes 289.879
|Division No. 196]||[10.32 pm|
|Abse, Leo||Callaghan, Rt Hon J.|
|Adams, Allen||Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)|
|Allaun, Frank||Campbell, Ian|
|Anderson, Donald||Campbell-Savours, Dale|
|Archer, Rt Hon Peter||Canavan, Dennis|
|Ashley, Rt Hon Jack||Cant, R. B.|
|Ashton, Joe||Carmichael, Neil|
|Bagier, Gordon A.T.||Carter-Jones, Lewis|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Cartwright, John|
|Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)||Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)|
|Beith, A. J.||Conlan, Bernard|
|Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood||Cook, Robin F.|
|Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)||Cowans, Harry|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Craigen, J. M.|
|Booth, Rt Hon Albert||Crawshaw, Richard|
|Brown, Ron(E'burgh, Leith)||Crowther, J. S.|
|Buchan, Norman||Cryer, Bob|
|Cunliffe, Lawrence||Lambie, David|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington S)||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Cunningham, Dr J. (W'h'n)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Dalyell, Tam||Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)|
|Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Litherland, Robert|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)||Lofthouse, Geoffrey|
|Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechf'd)||Lyon, Alexander (York)|
|Deakins, Eric||Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)|
|Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)||Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson|
|Dempsey, James||McCartney, Hugh|
|Dewar, Donald||McDonald, Dr Oonagh|
|Dixon, Donald||McKay, Allen (Penistone)|
|Dobson, Frank||McKelvey, William|
|Dormand, Jack||MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor|
|Douglas, Dick||McNally, Thomas|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||McNamara, Kevin|
|Dubs, Alfred||McTaggart, Robert|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Magee, Bryan|
|Dunn, James A.||Marks, Kenneth|
|Dunnett, Jack||Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)|
|Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.||Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)|
|Eadie, Alex||Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)|
|Eastham, Ken||Martin, M (G'gow S'burn)|
|Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)||Maxton, John|
|English, Michael||Maynard, Miss Joan|
|Ennals, Rt Hon David||Meacher, Michael|
|Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)||Mellish, Rt Hon Robert|
|Evans, John (Newton)||Mikardo, Ian|
|Ewing, Harry||Millan, Rt Hon Bruce|
|Faulds, Andrew||Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)|
|Field, Frank||Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)|
|Flannery, Martin||Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)|
|Foot, Rt Hon Michael||Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)|
|Ford, Ben||Morton, George|
|Forrester, John||Moyle, Rt Hon Roland|
|Foster, Derek||Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon|
|Foulkes, George||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)||O'Neill, Martin|
|Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald||Orme, Rt Hon Stanley|
|Freud, Clement||Palmer, Arthur|
|Garrett, John(Norwich S)||Parker, John|
|George, Bruce||Parry, Robert|
|Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John||Penhaligon, David|
|Ginsburg, David||Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Prescott, John|
|Graham, Ted||Race, Reg|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Radice, Giles|
|Grant, John (Islington C)||Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)|
|Grimond, Rt Hon J.||Richardson, Jo|
|Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Harrison, Rt Hon Walter||Roberts, Allan (Bootle)|
|Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith||Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)|
|Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy||Roberts, Gwilym(Cannock)|
|Haynes, Frank||Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)|
|Healey, Rt Hon Denis||Rooker, J. W.|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Roper, John|
|Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)||Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)|
|Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)||Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)|
|Home Robertson, John||Rowlands, Ted|
|Hooley, Frank||Ryman, John|
|Horam, John||Sandelson, Neville|
|Howell, Rt Hon D.||Sever, John|
|Howells, Geraint||Sheerman, Barry|
|Huckfield, Les||Sheldon, Rt Hon R.|
|Hudson Davies, Gwilym E.||Shore, Rt Hon Peter|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Short, Mrs Renée|
|Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)||Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Skinner, Dennis|
|Janner, Hon Greville||Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)|
|Jay, Rt Hon Douglas||Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)|
|Johnson, James (Hull West)||Soley, Clive|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby S)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Jones, Barry (East Flint)||Stallard, A. W.|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Steel, Rt Hon David|
|Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald||Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)|
|Kerr, Russell||Stoddart, David|
|Kilroy-Silk, Robert||Straw, Jack|
|Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley||Whitlock, William|
|Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)||Wigley, Dafydd|
|Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)||Willey, Rt Hon Frederick|
|Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Williams, Rt Hon A. (S'sea W)|
|Thomas, Dr H. (Carmarthen)||Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)|
|Tilley, John||Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)|
|Torney, Tom||Wilson, William (C'try SE)|
|Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.||Winnick, David|
|Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)||Woodall, Alec|
|Wainwright, R. (Colne V)||Woolmer, Kenneth|
|Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'caster)||Wright, Sheila|
|Watkins, David||Young, David(Bolton E)|
|Welsh, Michael||Tellers for the Ayes:|
|White, Frank R.||Mr. James Tinn|
|White, J. (G'gow Pollok)||and Mr. James Hamilton.|
|Adley, Robert||Dunlop, John|
|Aitken, Jonathan||Dunn, Robert(Dartford)|
|Alexander, Richard||Durant, Tony|
|Amery, Rt Hon Julian||Dykes, Hugh|
|Ancram, Michael||Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)|
|Arnold, Tom||Eggar, Tim|
|Atkins, Robert(Preston N)||Elliott, Sir William|
|Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)||Emery, Peter|
|Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)||Fairbairn, Nicholas|
|Banks, Robert||Fairgrieve, Russell|
|Beaumont-Dark, Anthony||Faith, Mrs Sheila|
|Bendall, Vivian||Farr, John|
|Benyon, W. (Buckingham)||Fell, Anthony|
|Best, Keith||Fenner, Mrs Peggy|
|Bevan, David Gilroy||Finsberg, Geoffrey|
|Biffen, Rt Hon John||Fisher, Sir Nigel|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)|
|Blackburn, John||Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles|
|Blaker, Peter||Forman, Nigel|
|Body, Richard||Fowler, Rt Hon Norman|
|Bonsor, Sir Nicholas||Fox, Marcus|
|Boscawen, Hon Robert||Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh|
|Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)||Fraser, Peter(South Angus)|
|Boyson, Dr Rhodes||Fry, Peter|
|Braine, Sir Bernard||Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)|
|Bright, Graham||Garel-Jones, Tristan|
|Brittan, Leon||Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian|
|Brooke, Hon Peter||Glyn, Dr Alan|
|Brotherton, Michael||Goodhart, Philip|
|Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)||Goodhew, Victor|
|Browne, John(Winchester)||Goodlad, Alastair|
|Bruce-Gardyne, John||Gorst, John|
|Bryan, Sir Paul||Gow, Ian|
|Buck, Antony||Gower, Sir Raymond|
|Budgen, Nick||Gray, Hamish|
|Bulmer, Esmond||Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)|
|Burden, Sir Frederick||Grist, Ian|
|Butcher, John||Grylls, Michael|
|Butler, Hon Adam||Gummer, John Selwyn|
|Cadbury, Jocelyn||Hamilton, Hon A.|
|Carlisle, John (Luton West)||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)||Hampson, Dr Keith|
|Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)||Hannam, John|
|Chalker, Mrs. Lynda||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul||Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hawkins, Paul|
|Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)||Hawksley, Warren|
|Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Clegg, Sir Walter||Heddle, John|
|Cockeram, Eric||Henderson, Barry|
|Colvin, Michael||Hicks, Robert|
|Cope, John||Hill, James|
|Corrie, John||Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th"m)|
|Costain, Sir Albert||Holland, Philip (Carlton)|
|Critchley, Julian||Hooson, Tom|
|Crouch, David||Hordern, Peter|
|Dean, Paul (North Somerset)||Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey|
|Dickens, Geoffrey||Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)|
|Dorrell, Stephen||Hunt, David (Wirral)|
|Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.||Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)|
|Dover, Denshore||Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)|
|Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick||Porter, Barry|
|Johnson Smith, Geoffrey||Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)|
|Jopling, Rt Hon Michael||Prentice, Rt Hon Reg|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)|
|Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine||Prior, Rt Hon James|
|Kimball, Marcus||Proctor, K. Harvey|
|King, Rt Hon Tom||Pym, Rt Hon Francis|
|Knox, David||Raison, Timothy|
|Lamont, Norman||Rathbone, Tim|
|Lang, Ian||Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Latham, Michael||Renton, Tim|
|Lawrence, Ivan||Rhodes James, Robert|
|Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Lee, John||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark||Ridsdale, Sir Julian|
|Lester, Jim (Beeston)||Rifkind, Malcolm|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey|
|Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)||Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)|
|Loveridge, John||Rossi, Hugh|
|Luce, Richard||Rost, Peter|
|Lyell, Nicholas||Royle, Sir Anthony|
|McCrindle, Robert||Sainsbury, Hon Timothy|
|MacGregor, John||St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.|
|MacKay, John (Argyll)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Macmillan, Rt Hon M.||Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)|
|McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)||Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)|
|McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)||Shelton, William (Streatham)|
|McQuarrie, Albert||Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)|
|Madel, David||Shepherd, Richard|
|Major, John||Shersby, Michael|
|Marland, Paul||Silvester, Fred|
|Marlow, Tony||Sims, Roger|
|Marshall, Michael(Arundel)||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Marten, Neil(Banbury)||Speed, Keith|
|Mates, Michael||Speller, Tony|
|Mather, Carol||Spence, John|
|Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus||Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)|
|Mawby, Ray||Sproat, Iain|
|Mawhinney, Dr Brian||Squire, Robin|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin||Stainton, Keith|
|Mayhew, Patrick||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Mellor, David||Stanley, John|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Steen, Anthony|
|Miller, Hal (B'grove)||Stevens, Martin|
|Mills, Iain (Meriden)||Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)|
|Moate, Roger||Stokes, John|
|Molyneaux, James||Stradling Thomas, J.|
|Monro, Hector||Tapsell, Peter|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Taylor, Robert (Croydon NW)|
|Moore, John||Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)|
|Morgan, Geraint||Tebbit, Norman|
|Morris, M. (N'hampton S)||Temple-Morris, Peter|
|Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)||Thomas, Rt Hon Peter|
|Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)||Thompson, Donald|
|Mudd, David||Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)|
|Murphy, Christopher||Thornton, Malcolm|
|Myles, David||Townend, John(Bridlington)|
|Neale, Gerrard||Townsend, Cyril D,(B'heath)|
|Needham, Richard||Trippier, David|
|Nelson, Anthony||van Straubenzee, W. R.|
|Neubert, Michael||Vaughan, Dr Gerard|
|Newton, Tony||Viggers, Peter|
|Onslow, Cranley||Waddington, David|
|Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.||Wakeham, John|
|Page, John (Harrow, West)||Waldegrave, Hon William|
|Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)||Walker, B. (Perth)|
|Page, Richard(SW Herts)||Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.|
|Parkinson, Cecil||Wall, Patrick|
|Parris, Matthew||Waller, Gary|
|Patten, Christopher (Bath)||Walters, Dennis|
|Patten, John (Oxford)||Ward, John|
|Pattie, Geoffrey||Warren, Kenneth|
|Pawsey, James||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Percival, Sir Ian||Wells, Bowen|
|Peyton, Rt Hon John||Wheeler, John|
|Pink, R. Bonner||Whitelaw, Rt Hon William|
|Pollock, Alexander||Whitney, Raymond|
|Wickenden, Keith||Younger, Rt Hon George|
|Williams, D. (Montgomery)||Tellers for the Noes:|
|Winterton, Nicholas||Mr. Spencer Le Marchant|
|Wolfson, Mark||and Mr. Anthony Berry.|
|Young, Sir George (Acton)|
§ Question accordingly negatived
Mr. Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)
I understand that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) wishes to move new clause 7 and that it will be convenient for the House to take with it new clause 6—Provisions of section 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome —and the following amendments:
No. 21, in clause 9, page 8, line 43, at end insert—
`(c) or had the right of abode in a British Dependent Territory, to which the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, under Article 227(4), apply.'.
§ No. 86, in clause 46, page 34, line 32, at end insert 'and Gibraltar'.
No. 53, in page 35, line 24, after 'territory', insert
`and including any British Dependent Territory to which Article 227(4) of the Treaty of Rome applies.'.
§ No. 84, in Schedule 6, page 51, line 41, leave out 'Gibraltar'.
§ I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has agreed to this procedure.