§ 3.37 p.m.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"A discussion document on possible changes in our nationality law, which I have presented to Parliament, is published today.
"Our present law on nationality has for long been outmoded and difficult to follow. Accordingly, w hen the present Government took office my predecessor set up a working party under my honourable friend the 573 Member for York, who was then Minister of State, to examine the whole question as we had promised in the Labour Party Manifesto of February 1974. The discussion document is based to a large extent on their work.
"I emphasise that the document is a set of ideas for discussion. It is not a set of proposals for legislation. The Government do not intend to introduce early legislation. Nationality law affects all of us and thousands of people living overseas, so before we embark on change there must be a full opportunity for people and representative organisations to express their views.
"The main suggestion canvassed in the document is that we should have two citizenships—a British citizenship for those with close ties in this country, and a British overseas citizenship for the remainder of those people who are now citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. British citizens would have an unqualified right of free entry to the United Kingdom, while the right of entry to a dependency would be reserved to those who are British overseas citizens by virtue of a connection with it. The question who should obtain which of the citizenships on the coming into force of the new law is discussed in some detail.
"In addition, the document contains, for example, some discussion about the distinction in the treatment of men and women, both in the transmission of citizenship and in the acquisition of it through marriage. It also mentions possible changes in the requirements for the grant of naturalisation which have remained largely unchanged for many years.
"An important point to keep in mind is that the changes discussed in the document would not affect anyone's existing right of entry to the United Kingdom. In particular, the obligation which successive Governments have assumed towards holders of United Kingdom passports from East Africa would be maintained, and the special voucher system would continue.
"As I have said, the Government do not intend to introduce a Bill in the near future. The purpose of this document is to invite views from honourable Members, private indivi- 574 duals and representative bodies. We will want to study very carefully what is put to us and in that spirit, therefore, I commend the discussion document to the attention of the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
§ Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONEMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating that important Statement. I must be careful not to fall into the temptation of initiating a debate in the midst of a discussion on agriculture, especially as I have not yet had the opportunity of reading the discussion paper, which we will all want to study very carefully. However, this is a matter upon which I have been urging action for very many years, publicly, when the Labour Party was in office and less publicly when our own side was in office. So far I have achieved nothing.
When I was a boy, the human race could be divided for this purpose into two categories. There were British subjects and aliens. That was rather nice and simple and there was a modification in time of war when aliens were subdivided into enemy aliens and friendly aliens. Since the war, the matter has assumed the most appalling complexity. In place of two rather simple categories, we have British subjects who are members of the Commonwealth and who have Commonwealth citizenship; there are British citizens of the United Kingdom of Colonies, subdivided into those who have patrial rights and those who have not; there are British subjects who live here with the right of entry and there are EEC nationals who are governed by the Treaty. That makes five or six different categories of human beings, all with different packages of rights.
I do not at all complain that, in these appalling circumstances, the Government have not produced anything better than a discussion document. In view of the intractability of the subject, I feel it would be captious of me to complain. However, I must warn the Government—and I speak only for myself and do not know whether I speak for any others of my noble friends—that, in point of fact, however much discussion takes place about this subject, we shall not make it simple nor shall we achieve unanimity. Sooner or 575 later a Government must come forward with the intention of passing a law to simplify this matter. However long we wait, that law will not be non-controversial. It will bristle with controversy from beginning to end. But my belief is that the longer we fail to grasp the nettle, the bigger the muddle we shall get into in the end. I therefore wish the discussion paper all success and I hope that whatever Government are in power they will, after a reasonably short time, have the courage to grasp the nettle and make some sense of a legal situation which is intolerably complex.
§ Lord WADEMy Lords, on behalf of my colleagues, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having repeated this Statement. We shall, of course, have very carefully to study this discussion document. Many of us recognise that, in 1948 and subsequent years, the basic problem of British nationality was not tackled and that that is part of our trouble. As a result, the law has became more and more complex and with each change the anomalies and hardships have been added to. That being so, I welcome the Statement that has been made today. But I have one question and one suggestion.
The question is this. I heard the noble Lord say that the changes discussed in the document would not affect anybody's existing right of entry to the United Kingdom. Does that mean that there will be no change in the concept of patriality and place of abode and the many other expressions whose value I personally doubted when they were introduced? Is that ruled out? Surely, we must consider that in discussing this subject.
Secondly—and here I am perhaps a little more optimistic than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham—will Her Majesty's Government consider the possibility of setting up an all-Party Committee, drawn from both Houses, with, say, a Law Lord in the Chair? This would be an attempt to look at the subject as objectively as possible and to endeavour to reach as much common ground as possible. If that could he done, it would be a very important step forward.
§ 3.45 p.m.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I am very grateful for what the 576 noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, have said in response to the Statement, and for the manner in which they did so. I should like to deal first with the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He is quite right of course. The existing situation is appallingly complex and anyone like myself who does not deal with this matter on a day to day basis (for instance, briefing myself before this afternoon's Statement) must feel bound to confirm the view that the noble and learned Lord has of the existing law.
In a glossary to the Green Paper there is a list of the various terms and expressions used in the British Nationality Act, which governs the existing law on this matter. They range from "British subject" and "Commonwealth citizen", through "citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies", "British subject without citizenship", "British subject by virtue of Section 2 of the British Nationality Act 1948", "British subject by virtue of Section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1965", "British protected person" to "alien That gives an indication of the complexity of this matter and of the formidable problems that arise in trying to deal with it. Nevertheless, we have made a start in dealing with the problem and I am sure that that will be widely welcomed.
The noble and learned Lord added that, sooner or later, a Government would have to come forward with legislation. I entirely agree with him. I believe that the state of the law is profoundly unsatisfactory. That is why we have come forward with the Green Paper at this time. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is concerned, the only comment that I made in the Statement was that dealing with the problem which would inevitably arise in making a Statement of this sort; that is, that there was some likelihood or possibility that we intended to withdraw some existing rights. I only want to indicate that there is no question of doing that.
As regards the second point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, when he suggested an all-Party Committee, consisting, I understand, of Members of both Houses, we have made a start with the publication of the Green Paper. I 577 do not know whether that will take us any further but, certainly, I shall draw the suggestion of the noble Lord to the attention of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
§ Baroness GAITSKELLMy Lords, there is no doubt that the laws in question are very complex, but should we not all the same be proud of the liberal laws we have had up to now? They are better than the laws of any other country in the world.
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, I am sure that Governments of different persuasions have done their best to administer the laws in a liberal and reasonable manner. I agree entirely with what my noble friend has said, but the existing law is so complex that it is inherently unsatisfactory and it is for that reason that we have come forward with the Green Paper.
§ 3.49 p.m.
§ Lord FOOTMy Lords, it is my recollection that, when Mr. Alex Lyon, who set up this Working Party, was Minister of State at the Home Office, he gave an indication that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Citizenship Bill during this Parliament. That is my recollection of what he said when he was Minister of State. Bearing in mind what the noble and learned Lord has, in my respectful opinion, quite properly, said about this problem only becoming more complicated the longer we postpone tackling it, can the noble Lord give us any indication as to whether it is the intention of this Government—if they last long enough—to introduce this legislation during the present Parliament?
§ Lord HARRIS of GREENWICHMy Lords, to answer that question, one would have to know how long this Parliament was going to last. I am quite sure it will last for a significant period of time and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, would welcome that expression of view. As I indicated, the position is that we cannot give any indication as to when we can come forward with legislation. This is a very complicated matter. Having published the Green Paper and invited comments, we must clearly await the receipt of those comments. I feel that it 578 would, for instance, be quite unrealistic to assume that there was any question of legislation in the next Session of Parliament.