OPERATION OF EXISTING LAW (Hansard, 30 June 1981)

§ Mr. Christopher Price
I should like to raise the issue of clause 3(3). The Minister has a duty to answer my question. Subsection (3) states: Subsection (1) above"— that is a reference to the chunk above— shall not apply in relation to the British Nationality Act 1981. Hon. Members know that there is no such thing as the "British Nationality Act 1981". I know that the Minister has been furnished with a great chunk of precedents. However, it is still wrong to enact a Bill that mentions a non-existent Act. The British Nationality Bill is before the other place. Who knows what will happen to it? There could be a general election. All sorts of people could drop dead. The Social Democrats could take over the country. Many things could happen.
To enact a Bill that mentions an Act that does not exist is not wholly unconstitutional—I have studied the precedents, and would not deny them—but is extremely dangerous. Ultimately, the Bill may receive the Royal Assent despite the fact that it mentions an Act that does not exist. My hon. Friends are awaiting the next debate. I do not know what they will do about the clause stand part motions. It is possible to vote on them. I do not want to divide the House.

§ Dr. M. S. Miller
Would it not have been better to leave out any reference to the non-existent British Nationality Act 1981? Would it not have been better—and does it not justify my hon. Friend's claim that the Bill should not have been discussed in only one night—if two opportunities had been given for debate? We could leave out such matters today, and discuss the other points at a later stage, if the British Nationality Bill is enacted.

§ Mr. Price
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend that that would have been the proper procedure to adopt. However, as the Minister properly stated, these things are subject to the "usual channels". Far be it from me to say that the foreign affairs usual channels have other matters on their minds and are distracted. The usual channels appear to have agreed that this matter should go through. As is well known, we humble Back Benchers have little standing in the House.
It is right to raise this issue. The Minister should give a proper, considered reply. He can cite the precedents if he likes. What is the Government's intention, as regards the coincidence, or otherwise, of the Royal Assent being given to the two Acts. It would be unconstitutional and improper for the Royal Assent to be given to this Bill before it is given to the British Nationality Bill. I am sure that the Minister, who has satisfied me many times in my life, will be able to do so on this occasion. I look forward to his comments in reply to that point.

§ Mr. Ridley
I am always willing and eager to satisfy the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) if I can. On this occasion, I think that I can. I do not know how the usual channels come into this matter. It was not discussed through the usual channels. It is an issue of some complexity and perhaps a draftsman's paradise. It is our expectation that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent very many weeks before the British Nationality Bill. That is our intention.

§ Mr. Price
Before?

§ Mr. Ridley
Before. The nationality provisions in the later clauses of this Bill that the hon. Gentleman seeks to amend are based on the existing law. The British Nationality Bill does not apply to the nationality clauses because we anticipate that this Bill will become law certainly before the British Nationality Bill becomes law and even more certainly before the provisions of the British Nationality Act come into force, which will be later than its enactment.
It is a necessary device of the draftsmen. The use of the words "British Nationality Act" in clause 3 do not preempt the passage of the British Nationality Bill. They are there to guard against the possibility of the new nationality legislation coming into force before the Belize Bill. That is not our intention and it is very unlikely. However, if it were to happen it would be necessary, if clauses 4 and 5 are to operate as intended, for the consequences of the new nationality legislation to be disregarded in this context.
If, as is extremely improbable, the new nationality legislation were not to become operative ever, clause 3(3) would not have any effect and no harm would be done. I am therefore glad to have had the privilege of satisfying the hon. Gentleman once again.