BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL (Hansard, 12 March 1964)

§ LORD ALPORT
When I ventured to intervene during the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend the Minister pointed out that I was barking up the wrong tree. After examination, I think he was right, and I think that I was barking up the wrong tree. But after further examination I found there was a cat in the tree and that it bore a very considerable similarity to the one that I happened to be chasing. I might explain shortly, in view of the lateness of the hour, the point that I am making.
As I understand it from the Minister's explanation, Clause 1(1)(b) refers back to the words earlier in the clause: shall be entitled to registration … as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies … That is to say, if the man who has renounced citizenship has the qualifications set out in Clause 1(2) he is entitled, as of right, to be registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies—provided, presumably, that he can show he renounced his citizenship originally in accordance with Clause 1(1)(a). In addition, as I understand it the Secretary of State may so register any person who would be entitled thereto if he had such a connection. I understand that to mean that he can, at his discretion, register as a United Kingdom citizen someone who does not, in fact, qualify under Clause 1(2). If that is the case, this is a fairly wide discretion; and, from such experience as I have had of nationality legislation, it seems to me that this is somewhat wider than has previously been the custom. It gives the Secretary of State fairly wide discretion in judging cases of hardship where the qualifications set out in this Bill do not apply. If that is the case, I welcome it.
I assume equally that this power will be administered, as has been the practice, by High Commissioners—acting on the advice of their experts on nationality legislation, who are the consular officers working under them—or, in certain cases, at a later stage, possibly Ambassadors. In these circumstances, presumably some instruction will be given by the Government with regard to the interpretation of this particular important provision in this Bill. I think that must be so, because it is not clear at present. I assume, for 607 instance (and I do not want the Minister to give me a direct answer on this point, because he would probably not wish to give a decision on a particular and hypothetical case), that if a man has renounced his British citizenship and taken on the citizenship of another country, and then dies within a short time afterwards, any children that he leaves—possibly being educated in Britain and having every conceivable connection with the United Kingdom—will be eligible for registration. Because although they do not qualify under the Bill, as I understand it, they would in every sense of equity and reality be entitled to be considered for registration as United Kingdom citizens. In fact, it might be most important for them that they should do so.
If that is the sort of case that conies under this particular provision, may I ask the Minister whether he can give to the Committee some indication as to what interpretation the Government are putting on to this provision and what sort of instructions will go out to High Commissioners and, therefore, to their officers with regard to their consideration of cases brought before them? I would remind the Committee that there is no appeal to the court. Under the original Act of 1948 a man who has his application turned down by a High Commissioner or the Secretary of State or a Governor—as I think is the wording of Section 26 of the Act of 1948—has no appeal to the courts. Therefore, in fact, the High Commissioner himself is the sole judge in this matter, although I have no doubt that it might be raised with the Secretary of State subsequently.
In these circumstances, it seems to me most important that clear guidance should be given to the officers administering this, and that that guidance should express the spirit in which this particular legislation has been introduced. I would remind the Committee that the consequences of this piece of legislation, or rights established under it, may not be used by persons concerned for a passage of years—perhaps five or ten years, and perhaps much longer. By that time the spirit in which this legislation has been passed by both Houses of Parliament will have faded from the minds of those administering it; indeed, in dealing with applications they may be adducing quite 608 different considerations from those intended by this House in passing this Bill.
It is perhaps inevitable (I am not making a criticism) that legislation of this sort should be very general and I think that adds to the difficulty. At the same time I am sure that the Committee would wish to be assured, before passing this clause, that the intention of this particular subsection is set out clearly by the Minister, so that when the instructions are issued to those who will have to interpret the provisions, at a distance of time and space, they will act in accordance with what was intended by the Committee on this occasion.

§ LORD DERWENT
I am particularly grateful (because this is a very complicated subject) that my noble friend indicated beforehand the sort of question he was to raise on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. It has been very helpful. We are talking about Clause I, subsection (1)(a), and subsection (1)(b) and there are two classes of people who will come under this clause and under those two subsections. There are, first of all, those people who qualify under (a) and under (b). They will, as of right, be entitled to claim resumption of their United Kingdom citizenship. These are the people for whom authority will be given to High Commissioners overseas to register for resumption of their nationality.
The second class are those who qualify under paragraph (a) but not under (b)—in other words, the marginal cases. It is the intention that these should be dealt with, not by the High Commissioners' staff overseas, but by the Home Office in London. This is not a matter of law but of discretion and it is of the utmost importance that they should all be dealt with so far as possible on the same lines, though each case will differ from the others. It is impossible to say in advance in what types of case resumption of nationality will be allowed. The essential thing is that applicants must have a strong connection with the United Kingdom. If I may, I would give one simple example. If a man's father or grandfather was born in this country, he would be entitled to resume his citizenship. But it may well be that a man's great-grandfather or great-great-grandfather was born in this country, but not his father 609 or his grandfather and that he may still have strong connections with this country—business connections, or children at school here—and such a case would undoubtedly be viewed sympathetically. Speaking without tying anyone down for the future, I imagine that almost certainly such an applicant would be allowed to resume United Kingdom citizenship. I cannot go into more detail, because every case will be dealt with separately and specially in London.
The Home Secretary will be the final arbiter, but it is important to realise that everyone will be dealt with on the same lines. I can assure my noble friend that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary of to-day—and I am quite certain that. Home Secretaries in the future—will treat very sympathetically all applicants coming in these exceptional circumstances.

§ LORD BOOTHBY
My Lords, I do not dispute what the noble Lord has said, but will this not add a tremendous burden of work to the Home Office?

§ LORD DERWENT
I do not think that it will, be very large, because I think that the bulk of those affected will be entitled as of right.