British Nationality

HC Deb 11 April 1984 vol 58 cc485-502 10.25 pm

Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, Small Heath)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the British Nationality (Fees) Regulations 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 230), dated 29th February 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th March, be annulled.

Mr. Speaker

I remind hon. Members that the debate on the Prayer must end at half-past 11. I ask hon. Members who do not wish to take part in the debate to leave the Chamber as quietly as possible.

Mr. Howell

These regulations must be prayed against because they are oppressive for families with children and seek to justify the most blatant profiteering from nationality applications. They write off a £3.8 million windfall profit and in their operation we see all the prejudices which the Government can display against British citizens of whom they disapprove. Nowhere is this prejudice shown more clearly than in the unique treatment of the athlete, Miss Zola Budd, whose case I shall return to shortly.

The Sub-committee on Race Relations in its report to the House on 4 May 1983 said: We believe that it is fundamental that a person who is statutorily qualified ought to be able to apply for citizenship. This is not akin to applying for a television licence. The full costs recovery principle … takes no account of this … There are serious social implications in preventing long-settled immigrants from exercising their right to full citizenship. This is particularly true when those groups feel a justifiable sense of grievance about their acceptance by our society. I believe that statement by the Select Committee was more than justified and should have been the guiding principle for the Home Office.

For 100 years that fundamental principle has been upheld for everyone who was born in this country. No one was priced out or penalised financially when applying for nationality. It is a reflection upon the Government's approach that that is still the situation in many other, countries. For example, in the United States of America the fee is £22; in Canada, it is £5; in Australia, there is no charge. The new fee of £55 for children that we are discussing represents a 57 per cent. increase in the cost of applying for nationality. That means that families with children, especially one-parent families, will have to bear a very heavy burden if they exercise their rights. Yet the Government's own White Paper claims that the new fee system will direct the benefits of the reduction in fee levels towards families". That is transparently not happening; it is transparent dishonesty.

A single person who has one child and is seeking registration under the new regulations, will pay £110, as against £105 under the previous proposals. That shows that there has been something of a confidence trick in the Government's approach to these matters.

Before 1981 there was no registration fee for minors. The registration fee for children has risen in four years from nothing to £55. That is a disgrace.

Since January 1981, certain children born here and obliged to seek registration pay the £55, but before 1981 such children did not even have to register; their rights were their birthrights. Under these proposals, they are providing a new source of revenue for the Government.

These children are the children of the least well off. They are the children of students, of refugees, of immigrants, and of single parents. Can this country descend to such a level as to impose charges of that sort for the birthright applications of the worst off members of our society? We can compare those children with the children, nearly all white, who are exempted from the huge increases under the orders—children born overseas of British fathers who have a right of abode here because their fathers are citizens by descent. Such children may have no other connection with this country than that their grandparents were British, yet the cost of their citizenship is now to be fixed at £10, compared with the £55 paid by children in the other category.

The position is wholly unfair. No one should be denied access to that most precious of all our rights, British citizenship, by an inability to meet the charges being levied by the Government.

Under any system of accounting used by the Home Office—the old system or the new one—the Home Office must have made a profit. That is the case against the whole of the Home Office policy. It would have made a profit under the old system in 1982, as well as making a profit under the new system. Therefore, there was no case whatever to come to this House in 1981 in order to put up the fees for the year 1982. Indeed, the Home Office estimated that there would be only 15,000 applications for registration in 1982–83. It was miles out when it made that estimate. There has never been such a low figure as 15,000 in any one of the previous 10 years; in fact, in 1981 there were not 15,000 but 40,000 applications.

The Home Office estimated that registrations would run at two and a half times the number of naturalisations, and on that basis—even on its own figures—it should have been expecting 35,000 applications. In fact, there were 70,000 applications, not 35,000. Because it has been working on suspect and inaccurate figures, the Home Office has made a huge profit. In addition to that profit, the Home Office has made a windfall of £3.8 million out of the change whereby applicants now have to pay in advance of registration when under the old system they paid when they received their naturalisation. What has happened to that windfall? Have the profits made out of the applicants for British citizenship been added to Treasury funds? That would be a disgrace. It would mean that when the figures were announced to the House the Home Office was working on inaccurate data.

The enormous windfall profit should have been used to reduce the fees to well below what is proposed in the regulations. We welcome the reduction in the adult fee, so far as it goes, but the windfall enjoyed by the Home Office should be reflected in the fee. It is still far too high, and we should pray against the regulations.

If the inflated fees produced a new efficiency in the processing of applications, they might be justified, but the reverse is the case. In 1977, the nationality division processed about 24,000 applications. In 1981–82 it processed 50,449, in 1982–83 79,418, in 1983–84 67,332 and in 1984–85 66,000. Those figures can be translated into the cost of a certificate, with the following result: in 1981–82 each certificate granted cost £68, in 1982–83 £57, and in 1983–84, £75. In 1984–85 the cost will be £78.

In spite of the reform of police procedures and the alleged streamlining, the cost of a certificate will be 14 per cent. higher in 1985 than it was in 1981 and 36 per cent. higher than in 1982–83. That is the main case for voting against the regulations. Costs have risen, but the delays and frustrations have increased. According to paragraph 7 of the White Paper, At times all these requests"— for information, leaflets, and forms— could not be met". That quotation is the understatement of the year. The truth is that at one stage there were 8,000 unanswered letters in the nationality division of the Home Office—5,000 unopened. The leaflets in ethnic languages which had been promised were not available until two months after they were due. Advice agencies could sometimes get supplies of nationality forms only through Members of Parliament, and the nationality division was unobtainable on the telephone for long periods to solicitors and advice agency staff seeking to look after the pressing claims of those most concerned about the progress of their registration. In the light of these considerations, the regulations deserve to be contemptuously rejected tonight.

Let us contemplate the treatment of the distinguished athlete Zole Budd in the light of the treatment meted out to all other applicants. That young lady will have no difficulty in finding the required fee for her application. The Minister of State has admitted that this young athlete has been accorded exceptional treatment because she is an exceptional athlete. In practice, that means that within 24 hours of being brought into the country by the Daily Mail, it is possible for that newspaper to offer an assurance about her nationality being granted. We have heard little in this controversy about her coach Mr. Pieter Labuschagne. What is he doing here? Has he a work permit? If so, when did he apply for it and when was it granted? May we now take it that other applicants for British citizenship will be able to bring their coaches or tutors with them? It is beyond question that the procedures of the Home Office have been prostituted at the behest of the Daily Mail. Indeed, it seems to follow direct pressure from Sir David English, the editor of that paper. The Home Office has been used to facilitate this disgraceful newspaper stunt and obscene marketing operation.

Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham, Ladywood)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real hurt in this is to all of our constituents who have been waiting in queues for years? It has now been revealed how humiliated by the system they are as, when it wants, the Home Office can grant citizenship in 10 days. This case is telling our constituents that the Home Office regards them as nothing, that it does not respect them and that it does not care about them.

Mr. Howell

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The extent of the sordid commercialism can be judged by the House when I tell it that several television programmes, including the BBC's "Sportsnight"—I know of others—have been offered an exclusive interview with Miss Budd, possibly done by the Daily Mail's chief sports writer, Ian Wooldridge, for a fee of £15,000. The agent used to peddle that deal is a gentleman named Mr. Bernard Falk and The Guardian reports today that Mr. Falk and his company, Falkman Films, will handle the world rights of the girl, now that she has British citizenship. The Guardian also reports that Adidas is anxious to become involved, that the South African newspaper Rapport has paid £25,000 for the South African rights alone, that the Daily Mail has set up a trust fund—

Mr. Jeremy Hanley (Richmond and Barnes)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howell

No.

Mr. Hanley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What does this have to do with nationality fees?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

As long as the right hon. Gentleman is relating what he says to nationality fees, as he is, he is quite in order.

Mr. Howell

I shall shortly come even closer to the obligations of the Home Office to make inquiries before taking any fees. That is a matter of major anxiety. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will contain himself. The Daily Mail has set up a trust fund which is believed to be—[Interruption.] Whether I believe it is quite a different matter from that which the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) is making from a sedentary position. The trust fund is believed to be about £200,000 and will be offset by some of the financial deals that I have described.

Under the British Nationality Act 1981, when the fees are received and before certificates are granted, the financing of such minors, their sponsorship, resources and future in Britain must be investigated. That is provided for in section 3(1) of the Act.

All these matters that I have brought to the attention of the House ought properly to have been investigated by the Home Secretary. It has been impossible for the Home Office to do any such thing within the time-scale of less than one month of this case.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)

Does my right hon. Friend not think that the speed with which the paperwork for Zola Budd's case was dealt is quite surprising? Does he not think it possible that the Home Office was in touch with the Daily Mail and with people in South Africa before Zola Budd left South Africa so that this matter could be sorted out well in advance and so that the Daily Mail would get its scoop when she finally arrived here?

Mr. Howell

That may well have been a consideration.

Whatever the truth about the role of these organisations, including International Marketing Group, Mr. Mark McCormack's organisation—whether they were involved at an early stage and then withdrew, as I believe may have been possible, where the Daily Mail's commercial interest and its secret arrangements for hiding this young lady begin and whether the Daily Mail and its staff are directly involved—all these matters have to be investigated and should have been investigated before nationality was granted.

If the Minister cannot tell us the facts tonight, he has a duty to inquire and to report back, or the House must take it upon itself to do so.

The Minister has another duty under the Act. He has to make sure that the future of any applicant lies in this country. That is something else he has dealt with in less than a month.

I have some up-to-date news on this matter which I can bring to the attention of the House. A Johannesburg newspaper is today running an interview with Estelle Budd, the sister of Zola Budd. According to that paper, Estelle Budd says that Zola told her on the telephone yesterday that she had no intention of living in Britain. She will be back in South Africa next year. That is a quote in a South African newspaper. It is not for me to believe it, it is for the Minister to investigate it.

Mr. Hanley

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I desire the lowest possible nationality fees, but I fail to see what this has to do with his prayer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is a matter for the Chair whether a right hon. or hon. Member addressing the House is in order. I say to the hon. Gentleman only that it is a very short debate, that interventions, of course, make speeches longer, and that other, hon. Members want to take part.

Mr. Howell

the point is very simply that if that has happened, if this lady has said that her sister—[SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "If."] Well, that has to be investigated, and it is the duty of the House to investigate it, never mind the Home Secretary, because, if it turns out to be true, this nationality has been mischievously granted on a false premise—the premise that this lady's home is now in this country, whereas she has been reported as saying that she will not be in this country more than a year or so. That is a very serious matter indeed. If it was the case of anyone in the constituency of any one of us, we all know that, if false statements had been made, nationality would immediately be cancelled by the Home Office Ministers, with the support of Government Back-Benchers.

Furthermore, none of this sordid commercialism has got much to do with the Olympic ethic or with the Olympic games.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must relate what he is saying to fees.

Mr. Howell

Indeed, Sir, I shall keep coming back to fees. I am saying that the Home Office itself has no right to accept fees on the basis of somebody simply participating in the Olympic games. That is exactly what has happened in this case. That is why this case is absolutely relevant to the order before us.

The Home Office action in accepting the fees from that lady is already proving divisive as Wendy Sly, a distinguished athlete, has effectively made clear in the past day or two. In the selection for the British team, which must take place before the end of May, the chances of at least three other women athletes will be jeopardised after they have dedicated years of their lives to the hope of representing this country in the Olympic games.

Furthermore, the unseemly haste to grant British nationality in this case has caused intense resentment among the 70,000 of our constituents already in the queue. I have been inundated, as no doubt have other hon. Members, with correspondence about such cases.

As we learnt today, another consequence of the Zola Budd case is that our embassy staff in South Africa have been swamped with applications as never before. The Government must be embarrassed by that.

When any Member of Parliament decides that it is his duty to raise the role of the Daily Mail he must naturally expect to be given the fullest treatment of vitriolic filth for which that newspaper is justifiably renowned. I therefore considered it the supreme accolade yesterday to be associated in one and the same article with both the late Senator McCarthy and Dr. Goebbels. Such compliments and the source from which they come may be judged by the track record of Sir David English, himself a distinguished exponent of the arts that he condemns.

Was it the same Sir David English who was involved in the Millhench affair and the forgery on House of Commons notepaper? Was it the same David English whose disgraceful allegations about Don Ryder and a British Leyland slush fund ended so abjectly? I could go on to mention the Ted Short affair, not to mention the "12 Lies of Labour" issued just before the general election, 10 of which turned out on investigation to be attributable to the Daily Mail and not to the Labour party.

Sir David English and the Home Office now say, of course, that the nationality application and fees were accepted to give the lady the opportunity to compete in the Olympic games. Yet the same Government and the same Daily Mail fought with might and main to stop any British athlete from competing in the last Olympic games four years ago.

Ministers have argued that a quick decision had to be taken because the lady was approaching the age of 18, but the regulations require only that the application is made before that age. It can be processed afterwards. The authorities must also have regard to length of residence.

The Home Office decision in this case must be judged against its own Act, under which the regulations are being made, which denies citizenship rights to children born in the United Kingdom who are stateless and unable to travel, to stateless children born outside the United Kingdom to British citizen parents, and to wives who have waited for up to three years without their husbands being able to join them until they have obtained their citizenship rights.

The Opposition are pleased when any citizen entitled to British citizenship decides to exercise that right. We would like all citizens to exercise that right, if they want to, and to be treated similarly.

If we felt, as a result of this case, that every other applicant was now to be dealt with in a month, in two months or in three months, we would be delighted, but we all know that nothing could he further from the truth. In this case, the Home Office has made a sporting judgment. It has done so uniquely, without being asked to do so by the governing body of the sport concerned. It has apparently done so without the initiative of the Minister with responsibility for sport, who seems not to have been consulted on the application.

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton. North)

rose——

Mr. Howell

I shall not give way, because of the time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Zola Budd might well be an outstanding athlete of great potential. On sporting grounds, I hope that she achieves personal success, to which every international aspires. But she is the person for whom I feel most sorry in this case. She has been exposed to tremendous pressures by the antics of the Daily Mail and the collusion of the Home Office, pressures which would be far too great for athletes with 10 times her amount of maturity. No young girl at 17 should be put in that position. Nor should she have been allowed to cause such concern to her fellow and future sports colleagues, or to become such a cause of resentment to other citizens.

At the end of the day, the responsibility for this situation lies not with the Daily Mail, but with the Home Secretary. He has made a serious misjudgment. We shall vote against the order, not least to register our protest at the treatment of that case.

10.56 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington)

Before the debate began, many people must have been wondering why the Opposition had sought it. Now they must be amazed. The Opposition are praying against regulations which prescribe significantly lower fees for the majority of applicants. For the first time since before the first world war, fees are coming down, not going up. In real terms, they are now lower than when the Government took office in 1979—back to the 1976 level, in the case of registrations, and nearly back to 1976 levels for naturalisation.

Considering that under the Labour Government the registration fee went up from £2 to no less than £37.50, an 18-fold increase, and that the fees for naturalisation went up from £30 to £90, a threefold increase, one can only be amazed at the bare-faced effrontery of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell).

The reductions made by the Government are a real achievement, bearing in mind in particular that we are keeping to our aim of recovering full costs, and are not asking for any significant subsidy from the taxpayer. Faced with such good news, I suppose one had to expect that the Opposition would try to obscure the achievement by diversionary tactics. What we were not entitled to expect was that those diversionary tactics would take the form of a petty mean-minded attack on the Home Secretary's decision to give Zola Budd a chance to qualify for the Olympics. What the right hon. Gentleman is saying—let us get this straight—is that, if he had been in office, he would have blown his beastly whistle on the girl. All I can say—I think I speak for virtually the whole country—is that he deserves to choke on the pea.

Mr. Clive Soley (Hammersmith)

Will the Minister give way.

Mr. Waddington

Let me get on for a while. The right hon. Member for Small Heath went on for a long time. If necessary, I will come back to these matters.

Let us return to the substance of the debate. It would not be appropriate for me to go further without thanking the Select Committee on Home Affairs for its report. Its work was invaluable, and in our White Paper we demonstrated how many of the recommendations have been accepted and how they helped us to formulate our strategy.

We do not accept some matters touched on in the report. The Committee alleged that in 1982–83, the Home Office made a £6 million profit out of naturalisation fees and it said that the so-called profit should be used to make registration entitlements free.

As I explained in my interim response to the Committee's report on 28 July last year, there was no such profit, and, therefore, no such sum available for use in the way suggested. Paragraph 20 in the White Paper explains why that is so, and I shall explain further.

Ms. Clare Short

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waddington

No. I will do so later, but, in view of the length of the speech of the right hon. Member for Small Heath, I intend to make some headway.

The House will recall that on 1 April 1982 we changed from a system of payment on completion of applications to one of payment on the making of them. That led to total cash receipts of well over £10 million in 1982–83, of which nearly £4 million came from applications made in previous years and just over £7 million from new applications.

Operating costs in 1982–83 were £4.5 million, so there was a cash surplus of £6.5 million. However, the Committee overlooked the fact that the £7 million received in 1982–83 came from 96,000 new applications and was required to see them through to completion—to pay not only for work done on them in 1982–83, but for work to be done on them in subsequent years.

The applications made in earlier years brought in £3.79 million, but that sum was required for the work that had already been done by the Home Office—in effect, on credit. To put it another way, there was no money coming in during 1982–83 that was not tied to a corresponding liability. To suggest that a cash surplus in one year is a profit is rather like suggesting that a man who receives a single advance payment, in exchange for undertaking a five-year television servicing agreement is right to calculate his year one profit by setting off his costs in that year only against the lump sum received—entirely ignoring his liability to service the television in subsequent years.

The White Paper and the regulations before us are the results of a thorough review of the budgetary and accounting system, which was carried out with the aim of arriving at fees that were fair to the applicants and to the taxpayer. The new budgetary system is based on an assessment of the amount of work that each category of application involves and the cost of that work. That is equitable, because no one will be required to pay more than the average cost of processing his own category of application.

We should not have been able to make the reductions if we had not gone in for a tight control of costs. I emphasise that in the past two years costs have risen less than the rate of inflation. That, and the introduction of simplified processing methods and high productivity, have made the reductions possible.

Mr. Hanley

rose——

Mr. Waddington

I am sorry, but I shall not give way. It would be discourteous to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to do so. I shall give way later if I have time.

On the matter of simplified processing, substantial reductions have been achieved in the costs of police inquiries by the introduction throughout the country of shortened inquiry procedures and pro forma reporting. The Government will continue to look for ways of reducing costs while maintaining satisfactory standards. I am also glad that we were able to accept the Committee's recommendation on the rate to be charged for police officers' time. The actual cost is now taken into account and not the rates charged to private employers.

Every effort has been made to keep costs generally to the minimum and to attribute to the naturalisation process only such costs as are properly attributable, and certainly not all those incurred in the running of the nationality division. For instance, to the extent that management and policy staff are not engaged in the processing of applications, their cost is not charged to applicants. An important point that emphasises the equitable approach and makes nonsense of yet another passage in the speech of the right hon. Member for Small Heath is that, because fees are paid in advance, credit is given for notional interest. That will be found in the accounts, in annexes (c) and (d)of the White Paper.

There are some other important points to note. The effect of the new simplified tariff will be to direct the benefit of the reductions in fee levels towards families, and the greatest reduction will be felt where the burden on families is at present heaviest. I simply do not understand the nonsense uttered by the right hon. Gentleman, who was saying precisely the opposite of what the new regulations achieve. Where several members of the family are all seeking naturalisation, the reduction in fees may amount to £200 or more. In total, the new tariff represents an overall reduction of 17 per cent. for the body of applicants as a whole.

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)

rose——

Mr. Waddington

The Government have accepted the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that the cost of unsuccessful applications should not be borne by the successful.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Waddington

I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I am not to blame for the shortage of time.

Each of the new fees, however, includes an application fee of £10, which is not returnable if the application is refused or withdrawn. This represents a small contribution towards the cost of the work done on those applications. The Government have no intention of allowing fees to act as a deterrent to would-be applicants and recognise that to charge the full cost of the work done on unsuccessful applications could have such an effect. It is therefore considered right that the bulk of the costs arising from unsuccessful applications should be borne by the taxpayer, and that means a subsidy of some £300,000 in 1984–85.

I should just explain that for technical reasons the fees regulations have to distinguish between an application fee and a registration fee, but both have to be paid together on the submission of the application. So the reader must not be misled by the table in the schedule. To the fees there set out must be added the £10 referred to in regulation 2.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Waddington

I am sorry, but I shall not give way.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Waddington

No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) knows that if the Minister does not give way, he cannot intervene.

Mr. Waddington

I have not spoken as long as the right hon. Member for Small Heath, who rarely touched on the order at all. It has been argued strongly that no fees should be paid by applicants in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement. This is something that the Government have looked at carefully, but our judgment is that concessionary fees for such applicants would be regarded as unfair by those whose circumstances were only slightly better; and there would be considerable administrative difficulties in operating a concessionary scheme.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Waddington

I shall not give way.

So here are the new fee levels. Adult applicants for registration will be charged £55, a reduction of £15, or no less than 21 per cent. on the existing fee.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Waddington

The fee for naturalisation is reduced from £200 to £160 for a single person and there w ill be no additional charge for a husband and wife. That is a reduction of 41 per cent. for the joint naturalisation of a husband and wife. When an applicant for naturalisation is married to a British citizen, the fee is reduced from £70 to £55. If that is not a record of achievement, I do not know what is. The Opposition have never in their lives reduced fees, and that is why they are so cross.

The fee regulations are the result of the most comprehensive review of fee-setting arrangements that: has ever been undertaken. The Government have responded positively to the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, and to the many other recommendations about nationality fees.

The new arrangements we have implemented will, of course, be kept under review to see whether they are capable of further improvement. If costs can be further reduced in due course, they will be.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Waddington

Most importantly, I believe that the new systems for budgeting and fee setting are fair and will be seen to be fair to applicants and taxpayers.

Mr. Denis Howell

What about Miss Budd?

Mr. Waddington

The right hon. Gentleman said, "What about Miss Budd?" I will tell him about Miss Budd, and he will regret ever having mentioned her. What upsets me about the right hon. Gentleman's approach is that it is so mean-minded. Unlike him, the majority of people have this issue in perspective.

Zola's grandfather was born here. Her South African-born father is a British citizen. That meant that he could come here frequently, and he did so. He exercised his right, because he was a British citizen, to bring his wife and daughter with him.

Mr. Doug Hoyle (Warrington, North)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With a short debate, it is obvious that there will be only two speakers on this sensitive issue. I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely, the Minister should give way, because many central issues have been raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The House knows the rules. It is for any hon. Member on his feet to decide whether to give way.

Mr. Waddington

I shall be as quick as possible. I understand that the right hon. Member for Small Heath spoke for 31 minutes. He has challenged me to reply to the questions asked about Zola Budd, and I shall do so.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. If anything is clear, it is that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Janner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Just a moment. I remind the House that the debate will finish at 11.30 pm and that such interruptions will prevent other hon. Members from having the opportunity to address the House.

Mr. Janner

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister said that he would give way later. The question is whether "later" means after 11.30——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. and learned Member knows that that is not a matter for me.

Mr. Waddington

Zola Budd's father came here, bringing his wife and daughter with him. Zola applied for registration under section 3, which gives the Secretary of State discretion to register a minor.

Mr. Corbyn

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waddington

She applied so that she could have the chance of running for Britain, if possible in this year's Olympic games. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary was asked to give priority to handling Zola's application, and he did so, for obvious reasons.

Mr. Corbyn

rose——

Mr. Waddington

If she had been left in the queue, the delay would have denied her the opportunity of competing for a place. I do not have the slightest doubt that the cry then would have been that Home Office bureaucracy was depriving a 17-year old girl, possessed of an apparently exceptional talent that she wished to put at this country's disposal, of a great chance.

Mr. Janner

rose——

Mr. Waddington

It is now, of course, for the sporting authorities to judge Miss Budd's talent. The Government have not let bureaucracy stand in the way of them making that judgment.

The right hon. Member for Small Heath has the sheer effrontery——

Mr. Hoyle

rose——

Mr. Waddington

—to talk about this application when not so long ago he was pleased to write a foreword to a book called, "The Precious McKenzie Story" published by Pelham in 1975. This is how that foreword reads: It was my privilege some years ago to be of some small service to him"— Precious McKenzie— when he was establishing himself as a British citizen. I have enjoyed the tremendous satisfaction of being present"—

Mr. Corbyn

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister, when describing Zola Budd's application, not to give details of when it was received?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If it were out of order, I should have said so.

Mr. Waddington

— when he has represented our country in sport, and when he has scored some of his greatest successes. What utter humbug we have heard from the right hon. Member for Small Heath tonight, and how proud we in the Home Office should be——

Mr. Denis Howell

rose——

Mr. Waddington

—of giving this girl a chance to compete in the Olympic games.

Mr. Howell

The Minister will know that there is no——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister is not giving way; he has finished his speech. Mr. David Alton.

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)

rose——

Mr. Howell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There is no truth in anything the Minister has said about that matter. Had he given way I should have put the record straight, as I did in the Press Gallery today. There is no truth in the suggestion——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I call Mr. David Alton.

11.17 pm

Mr. David Alton (Liverpool, Mossley Hill)

I listened with interest to what the Minister said. It takes us back to the debate on 5 March when we were considering these matters. I am sad that we do not have time to discuss the issues more fully. I suspect that part of the reason for the anger and frustration felt by the Opposition results from the fact that there is so little time left.

The Minister said this evening that the regulations would result in lower fees for the majority of people. I welcome that and believe that all hon. Members should welcome it. He also said that the regulations were a response to the Select Committee's report. In fairness it has to be said that the Select Committee made a number of other points to which the Minister has not responded this evening.

One of the matters about which the Select Committee complained, and to which the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Small Heath (Mr. Howell) referred, was that the accounting methods—creative accounting, some might call it—which talked about£6 million profit were at the heart of our discussions in the House in March and are at the core of what we are discussing this evening.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants contends that the profit was real and was not concealed because of bookkeeping. The council says that the Minister has failed to take account of a grossly inaccurate estimate of applications in 1982 and 1983, which was used to inflate the fees from April 1982. It also claims that a windfall profit of £3.8 million has been written off and that the Government have failed to provide accounts for 1982–83 and are therefore able to deny the existence of profit for that year. The council says that if the old or new accounting systems were applied to 1982–83 it would be seen that the nationality operation clearly made a profit. That point is worth making in view of what has been said this evening about profit and loss. It is a shame that citizenship should be seen in terms of a profit and loss account.

Ms. Clare Short

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which the Minister talked about British citizenship, as though it was the same as renting a television set, belittles our country, our citizenship, the Government and everyone who seeks to apply for that citizenship?

Mr. Alton

The analogy with the television licence was one of the most unfortunate analogies that I have ever heard in the House. It was inappropriate to put citizenship into that context.

Citizenship is not a commodity like a special offer in a supermarket. It is not about discounts, driving a hard bargain or getting a good price. It should not be seen through the eyes of a profit and loss account. It devalues the currency of citizenship to link it in that unseemly way to television licences or to see it as part of a Klondike claim. However, that is what has happened since 1981, when 100,000 people have been scared into rushing into getting citizenship because they were frightened that if they did not apply they would lose all chance of being British citizens. Many people are worried that if they do not get their claim in before 1987 they will have no chance of getting citizenship. Many people genuinely cannot afford the chance to become British citizens.

Mr. Janner

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the part of the city of Leicester that I represent many people cannot get citizenship now? They include Mr. Vasani, who is blind and unemployed, and Mr. Ruparelia, who has lost his job.[Interruption.] Much as Conservative Members may jeer at that, we are talking about human beings who are excluded from British nationality because of the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to follow the unanimous report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester. East)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for me to present a list of my constituents in my part of Leicester——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We have little time left. Such interventions prevent the debate from continuing.

Mr. Alton

The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made the valuable point that for many individuals it is difficult to become a British citizen. If people are unemployed or on social security, it is difficult to meet the fees, whether it is the original £70 or the present £55.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett (Derby, South)

Will the hon. Gentleman also acknowledge that the Minister was being somewhat deceitful with the House when he referred to what had happened in the past without drawing our attention to the fact that in the past many individuals had no need to claim nationality? Children born in this country had the right to British citizenship. Many people felt secure about not needing to apply for registration, but under the present Government they have to do so.

Mr. Alton

I refer the House to an example of a constituent of mine who has been in this country for more than 40 years. He came to fight for this country in the last war. He came from Jamaica; he is a black citizen. He now has to apply for citizenship. He feels demeaned by that process. He says that he cannot afford to pay the fee. His children are here, and he is a British citizen. It is worth bearing in mind that a comparison should be made——

Sir John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to suggest that the Minister is being deceitful with the House, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) did?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I did not hear that.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

It was unparliamentary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If any hon. Member was accusing the Minister of being deceitful with the House deliberately, that is not in order, but I did not hear it.

Sir John Biggs-Davison

But that is what the hon. Lady said.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Alton

It was not I who said it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I did not hear it. If any hon. Member made such an accusation it should be withdrawn, but I did not hear it.

Mr. Alton

It would be difficult for the hon. Lady to intervene again in my speech to make a withdrawal, so I shall continue.

It is outrageous that this country should charge £55 as a fee, and although I am pleased that it has been reduced from £70, it will still be difficult for many people to pay it. I give the example of a single parent wishing to register himself or herself and the child. It will now cost £110 instead of £105. There is also the matter of non-returnable deposits. Every applicant will have to apply by sending in a £10 deposit. Many people who apply unsuccessfully will lose their £10. That will add to the profit of the Home Office. What has that to do with citizenship?

Mr. Harry Cohen (Leyton)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Home Office has rejected the reconuneridation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that those on supplementary benefit and those on family income supplement should not have to pay any fee? That affects many of my constituents, and those of many other hon. Members, who want citizenship. Is it not a disgrace that the Home Office is discriminating against the poor?

Mr. Alton

That is the point that I have been making. I think that this speech will go down as having had a record number of interventions. I shall try to finish rapidly.

The fees that are charged in other countries are nothing like those charged here. In the United States, for instance, the fee is £22, in Canada it is £5, and in Australia it is nothing, and that is what it should be here. It should cost nothing for people to become British citizens.

No hon. Member could resent Zola Budd having obtained citizenship. I wish her well. However, I want the same right for my constituents and for those of every other hon. Member. Otherwise, the system of nationality application will be brought into disrepute. It is important that the Government make it clear that the rules that were applied in the Zola Budd case will apply in any other case.

It is also important, in view of the other issues that this raises about apartheid in South Africa, that the Government reiterate their commitment to the Gleneagles agreement and their condemnation of apartheid in South Africa and of those countries which discriminate against some sportsmen and sportswomen purely because of the colour of their skin.

Mr. Corbyn

Is it not disgraceful that the Minister should have spoken at great length about the Zola Budd case and apparently ignored the plight of many who are waiting nationality applications and, above all, failed to inform the House what discussions, negotiations and correspondence went on with the Daily Mail, its editor and the people in South Africa before Zola Budd arrived here, and to reveal the date on which her application was first received by his office and why it was processed so quickly? Should not this information now be made public?

Mr. Alton

I agree with that. It is unfortunate that the Minister did not give way so that he could answer such questions. I shall happily give way if the Minister wants to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Robert Litherland (Manchester, Central)

rose——

Mr. Alton

I am afraid that I do not have time.

These nationality fees and regulations create great insecurity in the black community. If the Government and the Minister do not believe that they can give back to those who paid into the profit and loss account the £6 million which the Committee estimated was paid in nationality fees, perhaps they could return it in kind. It is time that the Government looked again at the way in which section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 operates towards non-Commonwealth citizens, particularly the black citizens, in our inner city areas. If they did so, some of this money in the profit and loss account could be used to the advantage of immigrants—many of them fourth and fifth generation citizens.

Mr. Hoyle

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should not have talked about the petty objection to Zola Budd coming here, when there have been objections from the Church of England, the Bishop of Leicester and the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—all people who understand? What they are demanding is equal treatment for other immigrants. We have not had that guarantee from the Minister.

Mr. Alton

Like the British Nationality Act 1981, which in the view of the Church of England Synod offends all Christian ethics, these regulations are totally unacceptable not only to the hon. Member for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle) but to myself, my hon. Friends and my colleagues in the SDP. For that reason, we shall vote against the Government.

11.29 pm

Mr. John Carlisle (Luton, North)

We have been treated to the most disgraceful episodes on the Opposition side of the House, and a gross violation of the House——

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)).

The House proceeded to a Division:

Mr. Janner

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there no way in which the Chair can protect Back Benchers against the Government Front Bench using so much time in such a short, vital debate on an issue of crucial importance to our constituents when so many people have been forced to give up their right to British nationality because of the regulations which neither side of the House has had the chance to discuss? Mr. Deputy Speaker, I ask for your protection for the sake of those of our constituents whom we come here to serve.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that the rules under which these matters are taken are drawn up by the House; they are not drawn up by me. My job is to see that the rules are observed.

Mr. Corbyn

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Minister, in refusing to give way, also to refuse to answer questions on a matter of great public importance?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Whether or not the Minister gives way is not a matter for me.

Mr. Hoyle

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Should the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) not have announced his interest and his connection with South Africa?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Would the hon. Gentleman mind repeating his point of order?

Mr. Hoyle

(seated and covered): Should the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) not have announced his interest, particularly his connections with South Africa?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman concerned, not for me.

Mr. John Carlisle

(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask your advice as to whether it is in order for an hon. Member to make a gross accusation against me as to my interests in South Africa. To put the record straight, I have none, Sir, but I think that it is a gross violation of the use of the House that such an accusation should have been made.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In all the noise I did not hear all the exchanges that were taking place.

The House having divided: Ayes 84, Noes 165.

Division No. 247]	[11.30 pm
AYES
Alton, David	Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Ashdown, Paddy	Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)	Haynes, Frank
Banks, Tony (Newham NW)	Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)
Barron, Kevin	Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Beckett, Mrs Margaret	Home Robertson, John
Beith, A. J.	Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)	Hoyle, Douglas
Bermingham, Gerald	Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Boyes, Roland	Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Bruce, Malcolm	Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)	Janner, Hon Greville
Campbell-Savours, Dale	Johnston, Russell
Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)	Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Clarke, Thomas	Kennedy, Charles
Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)	Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Cohen, Harry	Kirkwood, Archibald
Corbyn, Jeremy	Lewis, Terence (Worsley)
Craigen, J. M.	Litherland, Robert
Cunliffe, Lawrence	Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Dalyell, Tam	McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)	Marek, Dr John
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)	Meadowcroft, Michael
Deakins, Eric	Michie, William
Dixon, Donald	Nellist, David
Dobson, Frank	Parry, Robert
Dormand, Jack	Patchett, Terry
Douglas, Dick	Pavitt, Laurie
Dubs, Alfred	Penhaligon, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.	Pike, Peter
Eastham, Ken	Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Evans, John (St. Helens N)	Prescott, John
Fatchett, Derek	Redmond, M.
Fraser, J. (Norwood)	Rooker, J. W.
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald	Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
George, Bruce	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Godman, Dr Norman	Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Harman, Ms Harriet	Skinner, Dennis

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)	Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Soley, Clive	Welsh, Michael
Steel, Rt Hon David
Strang, Gavin	Tellers for the Ayes:
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)	Mr. Allen McKay and Mr. David Winnick.
Tinn, James

NOES
Alexander, Richard	Couchman, James
Alison, Rt Hon Michael	Crouch, David
Amess, David	Currie, Mrs Edwina
Ancram, Michael	Dorrell, Stephen
Arnold, Tom	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Ashby, David	Dunn, Robert
Aspinwall, Jack	Durant, Tony
Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)	Evennett, David
Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)	Eyre, Sir Reginald
Baldry, Anthony	Farr, John
Batiste, Spencer	Favell, Anthony
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony	Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Bellingham, Henry	Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Benyon, William	Fox, Marcus
Berry, Sir Anthony	Franks, Cecil
Biggs-Davison, Sir John	Freeman, Roger
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter	Gale, Roger
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Galley, Roy
Bottomley, Peter	Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)	Garel-Jones, Tristan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)	Goodhart, Sir Philip
Brandon-Bravo, Martin	Goodlad, Alastair
Brinton, Tim	Gow, Ian
Brooke, Hon Peter	Gregory, Conal
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)	Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Bruinvels, Peter	Ground, Patrick
Buck, Sir Antony	Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Bulmer, Esmond	Hampson, Dr Keith
Burt, Alistair	Hanley, Jeremy
Butterfill, John	Harvey, Robert
Carlisle, John (N Luton)	Hawkins, C. (High Peak)
Carttiss, Michael	Hawksley, Warren
Channon, Rt Hon Paul	Hayes, J.
Chope, Christopher	Hayward, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)	Heathcoat-Amory, David
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)	Henderson, Barry
Colvin, Michael	Hickmet, Richard
Conway, Derek	Hind, Kenneth
Coombs, Simon	Hirst, Michael
Cope, John	Holt, Richard

Howard, Michael	Moore, John
Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)	Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)	Moynihan, Hon C.
Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)	Neale, Gerrard
Hubbard-Miles, Peter	Neubert, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral)	Newton, Tony
Hunter, Andrew	Nicholls, Patrick
Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey	Norris, Steven
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)	Onslow, Cranley
Jones, Robert (W Herts)	Ottaway, Richard
Kershaw, Sir Anthony	Page, John (Harrow W)
Knight, Gregory (Derby N)	Pawsey, James
Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)	Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Knowles, Michael	Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Lang, Ian	Powell, William (Corby)
Latham, Michael	Powley, John
Lee, John (Pendle)	Proctor, K. Harvey
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)	Rathbone, Tim
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)	Rifkind, Malcolm
Lightbown, David	Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Lilley, Peter	Roe, Mrs Marion
Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)	Rowe, Andrew
Lord, Michael	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Luce, Richard	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Lyell, Nicholas	Silvester, Fred
McCrindle, Robert	Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
McCurley, Mrs Anna	Soames, Hon Nicholas
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)	Speller, Tony
Maclean, David John	Spencer, Derek
Major, John	Steen, Anthony
Malins, Humfrey	Stern, Michael
Malone, Gerald	Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Maples, John	Taylor, Rt Hon John David
Marland, Paul	Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Mates, Michael	Trippier, David
Mather, Carol	Waddington, David
Maude, Hon Francis	Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick	Wheeler, John
Merchant, Piers	Young, Sir George (Acton)
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Miller, Hal (B'grove)	Tellers for the Noes:
Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Douglas Hogg.
Mitchell, David (NW Hants)
Moate, Roger

Question accordingly negatived.