RETENTION OF CITIZENSHIP OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES IN CERTAIN CASES (Hansard, 30 June 1981)

§ Mr. Christopher Price
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 30, leave out subsections (1) to (3).

The Second Deputy Chairman
It will be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 23, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

§ Mr. Price
I am sure that the Minister will tell me that my amendments are defective. It is possible that the amendments do not achieve the purpose that I want to achieve. Notwithstanding the procedures of the House in passing a Bill through in one day, there is always another place. I am sure that the Minister will accept that I want to put a principle and ask a number of questions. The Minister says that the provisions are standard with certain exceptions. Will he explain the elements which are not standard? I have had some experience of independence Bills and I find it difficult to understand what he means by "standard". Almost all previous independence Bills have made provisions which are peculiar to the particular ex-colony. The idea that there is a Home Office standard set of procedures is slightly suspect. We should scrutinise that possibility more closely.
The purpose of the amendments is to leave in the provisions relating to the right of abode. I am sure that it is not the intention to take away the right of abode from anyone who has established the right of abode here. However, clause 5 gives to many people who are living in Belize the right to retain their United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship while taking away the right from another section of the population.
I may be wrong, but I suspect that the majority of people who have achieved the right to retain their United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship are white and that the majority of people who have lost their citizenship are not white. I do not use the words "racist" or "racialist", as some of my colleagues have during proceedings on the British Nationality Bill. However, if there is such a general effect in clauses 4 and 5, the Minister should explain why the clauses are set out in such a way as to deprive certain United Kingdom citizens of their rights and to restore rights to other United Kingdom citizens.
I do not deny that the provisions in clauses 4 and 5, with the exceptions which the Minister will explain, have been enacted in independence Bills throughout the past decade from time to time. I tabled the amendments as markers rather than expecting the House to approve them—although it is up to my right hon. and hon. Friends to decide whether they divide the House.
Now that the British Nationality Bill is going through Parliament and since other territories, Hong Kong in particular, might be involved, if this is to be the pattern of independence Bills the House should discuss the principles in much greater detail in future. If I am right that clauses 4 and 5, with their convoluted terms about legitimacy, illegitimacy, fathers, fathers' fathers and where people were born are really about whether people are white or not white, it is proper that the House should discuss them. Although I am a suspicious person, I have always trusted the Minister to be fair with the House. It is proper at this point for me to listen to such words of wisdom as he may have on the matter.

§ Mr. Ridley
I am happy to respond to the request of the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) to explain the clause and comment on his amendments. I said that there had been a departure from standard practice. That is dealt with in clause 5(4), which is the only subsection that the hon. Gentleman does not seek to leave out. I shall explain that matter first.
In all previous independence Acts, if a citizen of the country being made independent had been resident in the United Kingdom for five years or more, upon his country of origin going independent he lost his citizenship of the United Kingdom because of the independence of the country of his origin. He then had to apply to have it restored and, I believe, to pay a considerable sum of money to reacquire citizenship.
That has been accepted by the Government, during the proceedings of another Bill, to be a matter which should not be necessary. It has been put right in the British Nationality Bill. However, in order that no one in Belize should be inconvenienced, the same provision has been written into this Bill in clause 5(4). That is an advantage to those who might otherwise have been disadvantaged. That is the only difference between previous enactments and this.
When the hon. Gentleman came to the rest of the subsections of clause 5 he was not clear about their purpose. With breathtaking effrontery he said that since he did not understand them they must be racialist. What a way to go about his business. What a disgraceful charge to make. I shall explain to him what they mean, because clearly he does not know.
These subsections deal with the whole variety of people who might he born of Belizean parents or have connections of any sort with Belize but who are no longer resident in Belize. Thus, on the passage of the Bill they would lose their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies and become, in some cases, citizens of Belize, which is all right. However, in the cases where they would have no citizenship, we have to grant them United Kingdom citizenship. If they were living in a third country—neither Belize nor Great Britain—and if on the passage of the Bill they lost their United Kingdom citizenship and could not claim Belizean citizenship because they were not living there, they would be without citizenship. These subsections specifically grant United Kingdom and Colonies citizenship to all those people of the various categories—if the hon. Gentleman reads the subsections he will see what the categories are—who otherwise would lose their citizenship on the passage of the Bill.
That is far from being something that is better for whites than blacks, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest. It is a procedure to make sure that no one is disadvantaged or left without citizenship as a result of this Bill. The House should take note that, without understanding one word of the clause, the hon. Gentleman saw fit to assume that it must be directed against people of black origin. I think that he should apologise for using this very good Bill to give a country its independence as a vehicle for trying to peddle racial prejudice based on his own ignorance.

§ Mr. Christopher Price
I can only attribute the Minister's intensity to the time of night. Why was not the Bill cast in a form that made clear to whom the new 822 Government of Belize would grant citizenship? Why is there nothing positive in the Bill about who will gain citizenship?

§ Mr. Ridley
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report of the Belize constitutional conference, Cmnd. 8245. It is couched in simpler language than the Bill. It lists, in para. 18, all those who will achieve Belizean citizenship on the day of independence. It is in the Bill, but the legal language is often not so simple to understand as is the straightforward report of the conference. All of these provisions are properly contained in the Bill, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to seek them in plainer English I recommend that he reads the report.

Division No. 239]	[12.36 am
AYES
Campbell-Savours, Dale
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Tellers for the Ayes:
Race, Reg	Mr. Bob Cryer and
Rooker, J. W.	Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Major, John
Benyon, W. (Buckingham)	Marlow, Tony
Blackburn, John	Meyer, Sir Anthony
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Brinton, Tim	Murphy, Christopher
Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)	Neale, Gerrard
Buck, Antony	Newton, Tony
Bulmer, Esmond	Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)
Butcher, John	Page, Richard (SW Herts)
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Patten, John (Oxford)
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Rhodes James, Robert
Chalker, Mrs. Lynda	Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Cope, John	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Dorrell, Stephen	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.	Speller, Tony
Dover, Denshore	Squire, Robin
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Stanley, John
Fairgrieve, Russell	Steen, Anthony
Fenner, Mrs Peggy	Stevens, Martin
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Stradling Thomas, J.
Glyn, Dr Alan	Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Goodlad, Alastair	Thompson, Donald
Gow, Ian	Waddington, David
Gower, Sir Raymond	Watson, John
Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)	Wells, Bowen
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Wickenden, Keith
Lang, Ian	Wolfson, Mark
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Le Marchant, Spencer	Tellers for the Noes:
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Mr. Carol Mather and
Lyell, Nicholas	Mr. Selwyn Gummer.