RIGHT TO REGISTRATION AS CITIZEN OF THE BRITISH DEPENDENT TERRITORIES BY VIRTUE OF FATHER'S CITIZENSHIP ETC. (Hansard, 2 June 1981)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Richard Luce)
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Speaker
With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 37.

§ Mr. Luce
The principle of the new clause was discussed in the context of new clause 1, which made provision for the circumstances in which the continuation of a registration system akin to consular registration should lead to British citizenship. The clause sets out the circumstances in which a parallel registration entitlement would, if exercised, lead to the child becoming a citizen of the British dependent territories.
The clause applies to any person born in a foreign country within five years after commencement, provided that application is made within 12 months of the birth. The Secretary of State must be satisfied that the child's father meets certain requirements. The first is that the child's father was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent before commencement who became a citizen of the British dependent territories at commencement or would have done so but for his death. He must also have remained a citizen of the British dependent territories throughout the period from commencement to the date of application unless he died first.
The Secretary of State must further be satisfied that the child's father was married to the child's mother immediately before commencement and was ordinarily resident in a foreign country at that time.
The final requirement is that the child, had he been consularly registered before commencement, would have become a citizen of the British dependent territories at commencement by virtue of the provisions of clause 20(1)(b). That paragraph sets out the connections with a dependent territory through a parent or grandparent by virtue of which a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies would become on commencement a citizen of the British dependent territories.
820 I hope that the House will accept, for the same reasons that it accepted new clause 1, that it is reasonable to allow a process equivalent to consular registration to operate for a further five years from commencement in these cases. The clause does no more than preserve, for future citizens of the British dependent territories, the same possibility as they have now of securing citizenship for their children on consular registration. The only difference is that the result of the registration would be that the children became citizens of the British dependent territories by descent instead of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent.
Amendment No. 37 is merely consequential, to insert a reference to the new clause in clause 22, which defines who will become citizens of British dependent territories by descent. I commend the clause to the House.

§ Sir Charles Fletcher-Cooke (Darwen)
I accept that the machinery provided here is necessary as a complement to the new clause that we have just passed, but it raises once again the question of the nature of citizenship of British dependent territories; that is to say, whether it is a single citizenship or whether it is 20 or so different citizenships, as described in schedule 6. When the United Kingdom Secretary of State registers someone who qualifies under the clause, does he register him as a citizen generally of British dependent territories, or as a citizen, say, of the Turks and Caicos Islands, as opposed to a citizen of the Virgin Islands?
The importance of this is that if he registers such a person in general terms as a citizen of British dependent territories, in spite of what has been said in previous proceedings on the Bill, my belief is that in international law if such a citizen gets into grave trouble a third country could deport him to any one of the 20 or so dependent territories listed in schedule 6.
If I am wrong about that, and if it is the intention of the United Kingdom Secretary of State that the citizen shall be restricted to one or other of those islands or dependencies in circumstances such as I have mentioned, is my hon. Friend satisfied that that is in accordance with the practices of international law, and that third countries would be wrong and illegal if they sent such a malefactor back to a dependent territory different from the one in which he is registered by the United Kingdom Secretary of State? It gives the United Kingdom Secretary of State the remarkable power of being able to allot to any one of those 20 or so islands exclusive rights of the person concerned. It looks far more like an independent citizenship than a single citizenship. Are not the Government seeking to have it both ways?

§ Mr. Luce
I suspect that this question marginally comes within the terms of reference of the clause. The whole question of composite citizenship for British dependent territories is a matter that we decided to introduce after a great deal of debate. The Green Paper did not recommend that, but we decided to introduce composite citizenship because we felt that dependent territories were in a special relationship with the United Kingdom and that it was right and proper to introduce a third type of citizenship, which is composite and applies to all the territories.
As my hon. and learned Friend implied, dependent territories have their own immigration ordinances and immigration rules. We have been in touch with all the 821 governors of these territories, and the objective is that these territories, with one major exception, should bring their ordinances into line with the general criteria on citizenship, so that immigration rules and citizenship laws should as far as possible be brought into line.
The Secretary of State's power can be delegated to the governor, so that governors in various dependencies will be able to deal with the problem of registration. I have no evidence to support the suggestion made by my hon. and learned Friend that there is here a breach of international law. If he wants a more detailed assessment of our obligations, in international law, to these dependencies and third countries, I shall be pleased to give him more details later on.

§ Mr. Alexander W. Lyon
This matter was not argued in Committee, and I should be interested in the answer.
Each colony will have its individual ordinances, but what is the position of a citizen of a dependent territory deported from France whose normal place of abode is the Turks and Caicos Islands and who is returned to Hong Kong? Is he to be admitted by Hong Kong in those circumstances because in international law it is part of the citizenship of dependent territories?

§ Mr. Luce
I hesitate to give a detailed answer when talking about international law and obligations. Obviously, I must get my facts right, and I have already assured my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) that I will clarify the matter.
Under international law we have obligations to look after the interests of citizens of British dependent territories in relation to third countries. I cannot say how we would deal with the question of deportation, but I will write to my hon. and learned friend and to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). We have important obligations and they are not weakened by the Bill.