ACQUISITION BY DESCENT

HC Deb 27 October 1981 vol 10 cc735-43

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 2, line 42, at end insert ; or (c) is a British citizen and is serving outside the United Kingdom in service under a Community institution, his or her recruitment for that service having taken place in a country which at the time of recruitment was a member of the Communities.

4.30 pm

Mr. Raison

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords on the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, we may take Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32.

Mr. Raison

Lords amendment No. 5 reflects the strong feeling that was expressed, particularly in another place, that our links with the Community should be accorded more specific recognition. It equates British citizens working in Community institutions with British citizens in Crown service and service designated under clause 2(3) as closely associated with Crown service. That means that the children of such people will be British citizens automatically at birth. The children will be citizens otherwise than by descent.

The Government reached the conclusion that service in a Community institution could rightly be set apart for special treatment in the way proposed. Our links with our Community partners under Community treaties are special and different in character from the other international organisations of which we are members. We have only to consider the impact of Community legislation on our domestic legislation. It can have a direct effect. Moreover, service in a Community institution, provided recruitment for the service took place in Community territory, is a certain criterion to enable citizenship to be transmitted immediately at birth without a registration process.

Lords amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are minor amendments essentially consequential on amendment No. 5, which I have just explained. If the House wishes me to elaborate on them, I shall do so.

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I cannot allow this amendment to be passed without pausing to regret that, in deciding that it was necessary to apply these provisions to British citizens working for the European Community, the Government did not extend the same provisions to people working for the Council of Europe, the Western European Union and other international organisations. The terms of service, although not the pay, of staff working for the Council of Europe and the Western European Union are comparable with those of people working for the Community. There is much in common in the activities of the two bodies. It is fair to say that the European Community might not exist if it had not been for the pioneering work of the Council of Europe. There is also the vital continuing work of the Council of Europe in areas such as the European Commission on Human Rights and so on. British citizens give full and active service to bodies of which we are members.

It is regrettable that the Government did not respond to the equally strong pressure in another place by my noble Friend Lord Avebury and others to include the Council of Europe and the Western European Union. The Government are doing a disservice to British citizens working in such institutions. They should at least set on record that they do not regard such service any less favourably than service in institutions of the European Community.

Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North)

I sat on the Committee with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for many long hours, but this matter was never raised. It is said that their Lordships were anxious that the matter should be brought forward. Why were they so anxious? Was it, perhaps, on direct orders from Brussels and that our budget refunds would not be forthcoming if we did not introduce this provision? Was it some sort of diabolical harmonisation measure? Do other Community countries have this provision, or will it exist solely in United Kingdom legislation? Perhaps it has something to do with the amour propre of that fifth column for the greater glory of Europe and subjection of the United Kingdom—the Members of the European Assembly. It is puzzling to hon. Members who sat on the Committee. It did not seem necessary before, but it seems to be necessary now.

What problems will it build up for the future? I shall give the House an example. Let us take a transient member of the Community, such as Greece. Suppose my sister married a Greek gentleman and decided to make her life in Greece. Suppose she had given birth to his children, and they had been brought up in the Greek way of life, taught to speak the Greek language and had not spoken English at school or done very much about their English culture or nationality. They would, of course, have been entitled to British citizenship. Suppose one of those children, a daughter, then married a Greek, had a child and at some stage in her career worked in the library of the EEC in Athens. Under this provision, as I understand it, that child would be entitled to British citizenship. That may or may not be reasonable.

What about the many other people who in similar circumstances might wish to claim British citizenship? Might they not suggest that they had been through such processes? How shall we in the United Kingdom be able to validate or verify such claims? In other words, we are putting decisions on our citizenship in the hands of other institutions—some of which we have a degree of control over now, but over which in future we shall have no control which may not have an adequate system of recording to enable us to guarantee that claims for British citizenship by people who have little claim to it are valid.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

Some, if not all, of the anxieties of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) are well founded. If one reads the amendment in the context of the clause, it is clear that it treats service to the Community as equivalent to service to Her Majesty. In so doing their Lordships have fallen into an absurdity. Of course, the expression recruitment for that service having taken place in the United Kingdom. is logical in clause 2(1)(b) because we are seeking to ensure that service to the United Kingdom is directly related to the belonging of the person to the United Kingdom. The words have their logical position in the clause as unamended.

However, it is absurd to say that service to the Community by a British citizen shall be treated as equivalent to service to the Crown for the purposes of this clause, provided that that person was recruited in one of the Community countries. If he was recruited in Portugal, not Luxembourg, we say that Community service is not equivalent to service to the Crown, although the individual is a British citizen and all the arguments about our connection with the Community adduced by the Minister of State are equally valid. This is a thoughtless and ill-considered extension of the notion of national service abroad by British citizens.

I do not suppose there will be a sufficient head of steam today to reject this amendment on the grounds that I share with the hon. Member for Northampton, North. However, the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) spoke about putting certain points on the record, and I should like to put one matter on record.

There is, I am sure, somewhere on the interstices and penetralia of the Government someone who is making a note of legislation that will have to be amended when this country ceases to be a member of the EEC, as assuredly it will in the foreseeable future. He might, unless the matter was noted now, fail to observe that clause 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981, as amended by this Lords amendment, is one of the consequentials that will have to be incorporated in the legislation that will repeal the European Communities Act 1972. I am sure that the individual—I have a picture of him in my mind—who accumulates this essential drafting information is such a diligent reader of Hansard that these remarks will not have fallen upon stony ground.

Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)

I was not a member of the Committee, but I appreciate that this is a complex Bill. This amendment appears to be ridiculous and I do not believe that anything that the Minister has said has removed that sentiment.

Why has this provision been inserted? The only reason the Minister gave was, not that anyone had asked for it, but simply that the Government wanted to give a special category status to anything associated with the EEC. The whole object of the Bill has been essentially to try to clarify the law and make it sensible. As an outsider, I understood that the Government were trying to ensure that people who were British would be British citizens and that people who were eminently not British in common sense parlance would not.

It would appear to me that there is a possibility that someone who is in a foreign country and who does not speak a word of English, and who might by a series of accidents have a British grandmother or grandfather, might be able to get British citizenship simply through having a temporary job in a Community institution.

It should be borne in mind that Community institutions are mushrooming all over the place. Having paid a brief visit to the EEC, I have been appalled at the way in which it spends money like water in setting up institutions. The Government are being very careful about expenditure, yet here is an organisation which appears to spend money as though it has gone out of fashion. We have no indication of how many institutions might be set up by the EEC in the future, or of how many countries might become members in the future.

I have several specific questions to put to the Minister. Does he accept that under the amendment there will be a number of people—perhaps a substantial number—given British citizenship who are eminently not British in any respect whatever, not speaking our language, not having lived in our country, and not being British in any realistic sense?

Does the Minister accept that there could well be foreign families living abroad in which one child has become a British citizen because the mother or father were at one time working for a Community institution, but where the other members of the family would not be British citizens? The Minister has said that the object is to clarify the law, to make it sensible and to remove anomalies. In those circumstances, surely it would be ridiculous to have a family living in Greece, in Spain—in the future—or in Luxembourg, in which one child or two children were British citizens, although they did not speak a word of our language, and in which other members of the same family were not British citizens. Surely that would not be sensible in any way.

What is the position in regard to associate members of the Community? Does the term "member of the Communities" exclude associate members altogether? What will be the position if we have a new relationship for the United Kingdom which is neither full membership nor associate membership?

My next question relates to elementary justice. I find it difficult to see why we should put a provision in the Bill only because the Minister and the Government regard the Common Market as something very special, so that thereby we make foreign children who have never been in our country and who do not speak our language full British citizens. There are many people who are serving Britain abroad in different ways, who are eminently British, who speak our language, who are descended from people born in this country, who have perhaps been working for the Salvation Army or as missionaries or for banks or insurance companies, or perhaps engaged in work for British companies in the Far East, who will not themselves have an automatic right to British citizenship. Their position has to be compared with that of those who will have British citizenship just because of a grandparent who came from this country and because of getting a job in a library, a canteen, or some other part of a Community institution.

What does the Minister mean by recruitment into the service? Is he referring to first secretaries earning £20,000 a year and with big pensions, or is he referring to anyone who works in any capacity for a Community institution? Are we talking about cleaners, people who serve in canteens, people who work in libraries, and people who are major Eurocrats? Does the Minister accept that the amendment covers anyone serving in any capacity in any Community institution?

What does the Minister define as a Community institution? Is he thinking simply of the Parliament and the Commission, or is he thinking of the whole range of so-called educational or propaganda institutions that are mushroooming all the time?

4.45 pm

My feeling is that any benefit of any sort that the Government think might come from the amendment will be lost by the undermining of the basic principle of the measure. I can see no benefit of any sort coming to anyone, and it would appear that the Government have introduced it only because they want to show that we are more European than others have thought us to be.

I hope that the Minister will be able to answer those specific questions. Perhaps I shall be permitted to summarise them briefly. Does "recruitment for service" mean for any service of any sort with any institutions set up now or to be set up? Does the Minister agree that it undermines the principle of the Bill that children who are not British and do not speak our language, have never been to our country and have no relationship directly with our country, should become British citizens? Does the Minister accept that there will be what one might call mixed families, and that if someone has a job in a Community institution—working in the canteen, for example—for two or three years, some of the children will be British and some will not? Does the Minister agree that it is eminently unjust to single out those who are working temporarily for a Community institution whereas many people who are doing valuable work for Britain abroad in banks, insurance companies and businesses will be automatically excluded? Are we thinking here only of the full members or are we considering also the associates?

It would seem to be ridiculous to have an amendment that will bring in confusion when the whole object is to remove confusion from our nationality laws. Unless the Minister can give good reasons for the amendment, I hope that he will think again and seek leave to withdraw it.

Mr. Tilley

I am relieved to hear that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) believes that the Labour Party will carry out its election promises about withdrawal from the Common Market. I say that particularly in the context of last night's debate, when the right hon. Member said that he did not believe that a future Labour Government would repeal this measure. However, I am glad that he appears to be coming round more to our point of view.

The points made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), concerning various aspects of definition, were examined to some extent in Committee. Bearing in mind what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I am sure that none of us would want to snatch the bread from the mouths of hon. and learned Members who will no doubt be spending a good deal of time in the courts in deciding and defining what the measure really means. I hope that the Minister will not kill too many of the golden geese by giving too simple or too direct an answer to the various questions.

The Opposition are not particularly keen on the amendment, although we do not intend to oppose it. We are not in favour, on principle, of extending automatic succession rights beyond a second generation, which is what the amendment seeks to do. We feel that any sustained objection would be academic as the likely period ensuing between the commencement of the legislation and British withdrawal from the EEC will be so short that it is impossible to conceive that it might affect a second generation of Eurocrats or—if they will excuse the phrase—"Eurocrats". We do not think that the children of those people misguided enough to work in the Community should be penalised. After all, we do not want to have all coming back via a by-election in Warrington or in any other way.

Mr. Raison

There appear to have been two slants to the debate. First, we had the views of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who is an enthusiast for the EEC. Secondly, we had contributions from several hon. Members who seem to be rather less enthusiastic about the EEC. Indeed, some of them seem to be so convinced that we are about to depart from the Community within a very short space of time that it would seem to be hardly worth while for me to answer their questions.

I have to tell the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that I am not aware that there is any unit tucked away in the recesses of Whitehall which is clocking up amendments which would have to be repealed if, by any mischance, we were to leave the Community. On the other hand, if that moment were ever to arrive, the apotheosis of the right hon. Gentleman would come about, because he would be able to spring up in his full glory and reel off every single amendment to an entranced House without once pausing for breath. No doubt we shall rely on him in this matter, if not in many other matters.

It is perhaps not too churlish to say to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that he tabled amendments which were not selected and which were designed to achieve the intention of his speech. As a good parliamentarian, he was not deterred by that from raising the matters that he would have raised had the amendments been selected. Ultimately, one has to make up one's mind whether our relationship with the European Community is of a special nature and whether it is not rather different in substance from other important relationships and participation in other important institutions.

The key must be, for better or worse—the right hon. Member for Down, South will say for the worse—that the European Community has a direct impact on the laws of our land in a way that those other admirable institutions do not. That gives them what I believe is a genuine difference of quality. There are many other admirable organisations. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Council of Europe and the Western European Union, but one could easily put forward other organisations throughout the world with which we have a special relationship or in which we participate. In my view, the decision that was taken in the other place is the right one—that the Community is of a different, very special nature compared with all the others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) complained that the matter was not raised in Standing Committee. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that he complained that it was raised in another place. My hon. Friend felt that we behaved respectably by not discussing it. However, we cannot stop the noble Lords from raising fresh matters in another place. The justification for a second Chamber is that it brings forward fresh issues. I cannot say more than that.

My hon. Friend worked out, as he has done before, some rather ingenious relationships to test the proposition that is under discussion. This ingenious relationship of conferral of citizenship was correct. I cannot trip him up in his assumptions. It was a somewhat improbable relationship and not one that is likely to occur often, but I do not deny that it might occur. However, as always when dealing with difficult matters of nationality, if one tries to work out improbable relationships, even within the general philosophy of the Bill, it is not too difficult to find cases. It is amazingly difficult to have 100 per cent. cast-iron certainty. We have consistently tried to do our best in seeking what might be called meaningful relationships, close connections and so on, but from time to time there will be examples that point otherwise. If one admits to British citizenship anyone who is not actually born and resident in this country, such possibilities may arise. We should bear that in mind.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) asked a number of questions, which I hope that I have understood. I accept that in some cases there is the possibility of split families. I do not dispute that, but it is important to point out, as I did on many occasions in Committee, that where there are grievous anomalies and real hardship within a family and real nonsenses and a feeling among some children that they have been grossly disadvantaged, there is always the discretionary power of the Secretary of State under the important clause 3(1) to remedy such nonsenses. So if there is a hard luck case, it is perfectly possible to tackle it.

My hon. Friend asked about associated members. It is not likely that a British citizen would be recruited for these purposes in the territory of an associated State. For the most part, recruitment will take place in the area where the activity takes place, be it Brussels or elsewhere. I am prepared to give the matter more consideration, although obviously at this stage it is not possible to remedy it in legislation. However, I will look into the matter again and write to my hon. Friend when we have considered it further.

Community service was mentioned. If need be, I could give the House a full list of the different organisations which qualify for this, but anyone who has considered the Community structure will have a rough idea of what Community service entails.

Mr. Teddy Taylor

I was simply asking whether Community service included the whole range of employment. Could it, for example, include someone who worked temporarily in a canteen in Athens, as well as a leading civil servant in Brussels?

Mr. Raison

I think that the answer is "Yes", if they are full-time servants of the Community. Perhaps I can come back to the matter shortly.

Mr. Marlow

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) raised the issue of countries with associated status in the Community. At the moment certain countries have associated status, but who knows which countries will have associated status in the future? Under these provisions it is possible that masses of people could come in. This is a highly dangerous, significant, sensitive and damaging amendment. My hon. Friend is going through some of the potential difficulties and disadvantages, but he says nothing about the desirability, apart from the fact that the noble Lords have put forward this suggestion. Because the Government did not want to offend anyone in the Community or the amour propre of people with a vested interest in the Community, we seem to have become loaded with this issue. Surely my hon. Friend can see the dangers that are involved and do the responsible thing and withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Raison

The general principle of the amendment was debated fully, and it was clear from the debates in another place who was pressing the argument most vigorously. The issue attracted a great deal of attention in the other place, but it also attracted much attention outside. I am sure that many of us have had in our postbags strong and heated representations from people who are thoroughly British and who are deeply concerned about the future of our country. They said that they felt that they were working for our country, had the essential characteristics of the British, and felt that it was wrong that the Community to which we are committed through Act of Parliament, subsequently endorsed by referendum, should be treated as having some special status. It could be argued, I suppose, that the European Community will spread and spread, although broadly speaking I think that it is limited to Europe. However, it is a little unrealistic of my hon. Friend to talk in terms of an ever-expanding universe which will eventually take in everyone. We should remember that we as a country have aligned ourselves with this organisation. We should think of it in terms of a young man considering his career. He might say "I wish to serve the country by entering the Crown service here", or he might say "I wish to serve the nation by entering the service of the Community institutions." We believe that there is enough in common between the two to justify their being treated in the same manner.

Mr. Beith

Although I do not accept the rigid distinction between public service in Community institutions and service in other institutions of which we are a member, perhaps the Minister will place on record that the considerations which he has just described must have weighed heavily with Lord Elystan-Morgan in another place when he welcomed the original amendment on behalf of the Labour Benches.

Mr. Raison

It is not for me to diagnose the views of Lord Elystan-Morgan. He is a very articulate Welshman, and I am sure that he made his views clear. To be honest, I cannot remember what they were, so I had better not embark on trying to describe them.

The essential point is that one has to make up one's mind. If one hates the Community and all its works, I can well understand that one could take any opportunity to have a go at it and would regard it as being something extraneous from the main direction in which we are moving. However, as a country we have committed ourselves to this course. The amendment is in line with that.

As to the specific point of whether particular sorts of employment count, the answer is that it depends whether it is employment with a Community institution. There is not a kind of cut-off. There is nothing that says that only top civil servants or splendid chaps of one kind or another are eligible for this. If one serves in a Community institution, one is eligible.

I have tried to meet the points that have been raised. It is our firm view that the decision taken in another place to introduce the amendment was the right decision. Therefore, I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to.