Lords Sitting of 13 July 1981

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Litter Bins in Lay-Bys
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether local councils have been instructed to remove litter bins from lay-bys on main trunk roads to save expense, and if so whether they will revoke this instruction as being a self-defeating exercise.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, while my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has issued no such general instructions, the department has requested the removal of litter bins from trunk road lay-bys in North Yorkshire, and sanctioned this practice in a number of other counties, in order to reduce the cost and nuisance of litter in lay-bys. The difficulty with litter bins is that they can lead to indiscriminate dumping of refuse for which they were never intended. This is unsightly and can be a hazard to health. The department is therefore examining the alternative of withdrawing litter bins and requesting the public to take their litter away.
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which makes it rather difficult to ask my supplementary question because I appreciate the point he has made. None the less, will he not agree that the absence of litter bins on main trunk roads will inevitably lead to an increase of litter spread on the roadsides in the country and on the verges of main roads, therefore making it more costly and rather more hazardous for it to be picked up?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, this is an experiment which is going on at the moment. The Government have discovered, in relation to litter bins in North Yorkshire, that there has been no increase in litter as a result of removing these litter bins. Depending on how the results continue to be monitored will be whether the Government make up their mind to give firmer advice.
Lord Grimston of Westbury: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that it would be wise to ask car manufacturers to install a small litter bin in all their cars so that at least the occupants can be encouraged to take away their litter?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, that is an interesting question which no doubt motor-car manufacturers would like to study.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, will my noble friend please ask the local councils to advertise where their dumps are, so that inhabitants of towns can take their rubbish to them?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that supplementary question. It sounds a good idea, but it is slightly wide of the litter bin question.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in the country a great deal of dumping of litter occurs in hedges, ditches and fields? If some litter bins are provided there is some hope that people may put their litter into them.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, although I agree with my noble friend, it is equally the case—a point which I made in an earlier reply—that people actually bring litter to dump in litter bins, which is not what they are meant for.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that the Forestry Commission adopted a policy of displaying large signs saying, "Take your litter home", and stopped providing bins, and that in many areas it was a huge success?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for underlining my earlier reply.

VAT Exemptions: Organisations
2.42 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to list the classes of organisations subscriptions or contributions to which would be exempted from the payment of VAT in compliance with the Sixth Directive of the European Economic Community; and which classes of organisations at present enjoy such immunity in the United Kingdom.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the provision in the Sixth Directive for exempting membership subscriptions from VAT is limited to non-profit-making organisations with aims of a political, trade union, religious, patriotic, philosophical, philanthropic or civic nature. The exemption is subject to the proviso that it is to be applied only where it is not likely to cause distortion of competition. This proviso would exclude from the relief clubs which provide facilities such as accommodation or catering.
Our own law is to be found in Section 45(3) and Group 9 in Schedule 5 to the Finance Act 1972 (as amended). It is of course these provisions and not the Sixth Directive as such which govern the position in the United Kingdom. In principle, we regard them as in line with the Sixth Directive.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for this reference to the Finance Bill,

995
which is, of course, my bedside reading, may I ask him to confirm whether, of all the wide variety of organisations covered by the Sixth Directive, only professional associations and trade unions receive the concession which the directive suggests?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, my noble friend has raised two points. The provision, in fact, is to be found in the Finance Act 1972, and not in the Finance Bill at present before another place. Secondly, the exemption is set out at length in the schedule to which I have referred, and it applies to a wide range of bodies which satisfy the stated condition.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is this not an example of the undesirable legislation which traditionally stems from the EEC? Would it not be a very good idea if we were to secede from this organisation and thus save ourselves all the consequences of belonging to it?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that it is no such thing. As regards the United Kingdom, the provision is to be found in the Finance Act 1972, while the Sixth Directive was not passed until 1978.
Lord Derwent: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend this question, rather unusually, purely for information: Is the British Legion exempt? If so, under what heading and, if not, why not?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I should be happy to write to my noble friend about that particular question.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, to what extent are these directives of the EEC binding on Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a most intricate point relating to EEC legislation. Broadly, the position is that in case of a directive, as opposed to a regulation, member states are expected to ensure that their own legislation is in line with the directive. That is why I stated specifically in reply to my noble friend that the provisions of the 1972 Finance Act were in principle in line with the directive.
Lord Spens: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what is the situation about educational arrangements, in view of an article which appeared in one of yesterday's papers saying that the Commissioners of Customs and Excise are now clamping down on arrangements for school travel, and things like that, because those matters are no longer being subsidised by the local authorities?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, this is an intricate matter which relates to the question of whether the arrangements in question are primarily for educational purposes or whether they are primarily for holiday purposes. Perhaps I might write to the noble Lord about this.

Small Businesses in Rural Areas
2.45 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their instructions to local authorities to assist in the setting up of small businesses in rural areas are being followed.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, answered an earlier Question from my noble friend Lady Sharples on the subject of small businesses in rural areas on 23rd February last. He referred to the policies set out in my department's circular, "Development Control—Policy and Practice", which encourage the formation of small businesses in rural areas. The department is monitoring the effects of the circular mainly through planning appeals which are made to the Secretary of State. We also make use of informal feedback from applicants and local authorities. The Department is aware of no significant deviations from the policies which specifically relate to small firms in rural areas.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that small business people—in other words, one man or one woman—wishing to start up are very unlikely to appeal to the Minister if he, or she, is turned down by the local council?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Baroness has put her finger on the point here, that it is difficult to monitor these cases. If she has any instances we shall be pleased to look into them.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that before one can establish small or large businesses in rural areas one must have the adequate infrastructure? Is he further aware that the infrastructure costs a great deal of money? In addition to the scheme he is now describing, which is welcome, what plans have the Government to ease the real financial problems of the local authorities in rural areas to enable them to help small industries so that jobs can be found, which I think is of primary importance?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, there has been an increase in the small industries in the last two years, which has indeed helped in the unemployment situation. Local authorities will be free to assist small businesses in any way they wish provided that they remain within the overall cash limits presented by their capital expenditure allocation. However, the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, for example, contributes its views on structure and local plans at the draft stage when it thinks that the interests of small industries in rural areas are affected, and they also have money available.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that any stimulus to local authorities in this field is

997
particularly welcome, particularly when it comes from my noble friend Lady Sharples, as the district councils, at any rate, give the highest priority to facilitating the growth of new businesses, both in town and country? Would the noble Earl agree that the terms in which her Question is framed possibly lead to a misstatement of the constitutional position? Local authorities do not take instructions from central Government. They derive their powers and their duties from Parliament, and they are answerable to their own local electorates.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that advice. I would not in any way do anything but underline it. I am sure that the airing this Question has had in this House will be most helpful.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is as disturbed as I am to hear that an authority was automatically turning down planning applications for rural workshops in an area of outstanding natural beauty? Would my noble friend not agree that if such a policy is to be followed it will fossilize and eventually destroy village communities, whether they are in a green belt or not?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, there is a general presumption against most kinds of development in green belts, and the circular I have spoken of emphasises that the policies which it contains do not override green belt policies. If the noble Lord has a specific case in mind and would let me know of it, I should be happy to look into it.

Delayed Pensions: Difficulties of Pensioners
2.48 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is not an unjust penalty that pensioners who do not receive their pensions because of industrial action by civil servants should be unable to claim for any extra bank charges that they might thereby incur.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, as the House knows, I deplore this action by a small group of civil servants, and the Government have the greatest sympathy for any pensioners who are being caused distress and financial inconvenience. But pensioners are, I fear, only one of many groups who are incurring additional charges as a result of industrial disruption. But the noble Baroness may be assured that where there is a legal entitlement to compensation we shall meet it.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that helpful reply. I think he would acknowledge that a great many of these people have small pensions, and if they are unable to get a loan from the bank, of if they do get a loan have to
998
pay interest, it is adding to their difficulties. I should be grateful if he would look into that matter.
Lord Soames: My Lords, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, we have gone to considerable pains to invite those who are in financial difficulties as a result of this action to write in and, given the constraints imposed on us by this industrial action, we shall do our very best to meet them.
Lord Plant: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to say why the management of the Paymaster-General's office has refused the staff's suggestion that they should manually prepare the pensions documents?
Lord Soames: My Lords, a number are being manually prepared. That is the whole point; that when individuals write in to the Paymaster-General's office pointing out that this is causing them personal financial difficulties, the effect is that that case is handled manually.

Business
2.51 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available today at the usual time. The Committee stage of the British Nationality Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for a short period. During that adjournment the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1981 and the Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1981 will be taken.

New Towns Bill
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, this is one of four consecutive consolidation Bills in respect of each of which, unless any noble Lord objects, I shall move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged. In none of them, I understand, has any amendment been set down and no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, in respect of the first of these Bills, the New Towns Bill, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Trustee Savings Bank Bill
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in like circumstances, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Compulsory Purchase (Vesting Declarations) Bill
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Acquisition of Land Bill
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move in respect of this Bill that the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Re-commitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Nationality Bill
2.54 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 2 [Acquisition by descent]:
Lord Spens Lord Spens moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 2, line 36, at end insert ("either both parents are British citizens or").
The noble Lord said: There seem to be five ways in which British citizenship can be acquired: by birth within the United Kingdom, which is what we were discussing last week under Clause 1; by birth outside the United Kingdom for some children having British blood in their veins, called citizenship by descent; by registration; by adoption; and by naturalisation. I believe there may be a sixth way, and I shall mention that later.
Clause 2 deals with the acquisition of British citizenship by descent for children born outside the United Kingdom with some British blood in their veins. Jus sanguinis, compared with jus soli, which is what we were discussing last week, to my mind means that British blood is, or should be, thicker than the mere accident of the place of birth. However, Clause 2 as drafted is very narrow and seems to give an advantage to the children of parents who themselves have obtained British citizenship only by adoption, registration or naturalisation, while children of parents where many generations of British blood have come through into their veins may not necessarily have the right to acquire such citizenship by descent. That seems to me to be the effect of Clause 2(1)(a) which reads:
"A person born outside the United Kingdom after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth his father or mother … is a British citizen otherwise than by descent".
I thought at one time that my own daughter would
1000
be subject to that because she was born in Germany while I was serving with the British Control Commission in that country, but it appears that she is covered by Clause 13(2) and (3) which let out the children of certain people serving abroad:
"A person born outside the United Kingdom before commencement is not a British citizen 'by descent' if his father was at the time of his birth serving outside the United Kingdom in service of a description mentioned in subsection (3), his recruitment for the service in question having taken place in the United Kingdom".
The description of service referred to in subsection (2) is:

"(a) Crown service under the government of the United Kingdom; and

"(b) service of any description at any time designated under section 2(3)".

I think my daughter comes under that proviso, although all it says is that she is not a British citizen by descent. What it does not say is of what category she is a British citizen.
I believe this is where, possibly, a sixth category comes in, that category of British citizens who at the commencement of this new law are British citizens and therefore carry on being British citizens no matter what their parentage. That covers most Servicemen, so there is no trouble there. However, I believe there are large numbers of British citizens abroad who are having children abroad and who are not covered by Clause 2 or the proviso in Clause 13. They are children with British parents on both sides with 100 per cent. British blood in their veins, but because their parents have been working abroad, possibly themselves have been born abroad and have had their children abroad, those children do not qualify under Clause 2 to become British citizens. I do not know what their numbers are but they must run into thousands. I am told there are 30,000 British citizens working in the Middle East, at least another 80,000 working in the Common Market, and I do not know how many are working in other countries all over the world. So this is not a specialised situation. It is a situation where a large number of children with 100 per cent. British blood in their veins are not automatically to be granted British citizenship.
If we look at the other side of the coin, we see that a large number of children with only a modicum of British blood in their veins will be granted British citizenship after being born abroad. Let us consider the example of a person who was granted naturalisation only last week. He might go abroad, become a father, and the child immediately becomes a British citizen. The person in question might in fact marry a foreigner, one who is not British. The couple might go abroad and spend the rest of their lives abroad, but their children would be British citizens, because under Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill the father is a British citizen other than by descent.
This is really a charter for a multiracial society, but, as I see it, at the expense of the truly British citizen. The effect of my amendment would be that Clause 2(1) of the Bill would read as follows:
"A person born outside the United Kingdom after commencement shall be a British citizen if at the time of the birth either both parents are British citizens or his father or mother … is a British citizen otherwise than by descent …".
If the words of my amendment are approved, they will I believe cover a large majority of these cases. I beg to move.
Viscount Hanworth: I wish very strongly to support the amendment. It seems to me extraordinary that whereas in the past we encouraged people to go out to various parts of our empire and today we encourage them to earn foreign currency abroad, nevertheless we treat them in the way that we have heard about. I appreciate the problems regarding the Bill. We are trying to make the situation absolutely fair for people immigrating to this country, but important though that is, we have a right to look after our own people first as far as we can. To kick them in the teeth—and that is the only way to describe it—for giving service to this nation and to make them or their children possibly into second-class citizens is simply not acceptable.
Lord Carver: I, too, wish to support the amendment. I sympathise with the Government in two aspects of what they are trying to do through the clause. First, they are trying to bring some order into the fantastic situation into which British nationality has fallen, in particular in relation to those born outside this country. Secondly, they are trying to avoid creating an entire new group of people who are entitled to British citizenship by descent but who do not really intend to be runtime citizens of this country. I am very grateful that the armed forces are fully covered by the Bill, and I have no complaint on that score. But like the noble Lord who moved the amendment and the noble Viscount who has already supported it, I believe that in their attempt to draw a line somewhere the Government have drawn it a little too tightly. Here I think of two examples, one of which is a personal one. I recall some years ago when, in the middle of Nepal on a trek, arriving at a most admirable place, the Shining Hospital, in Pokhara. I am fairly certain that the hospital was not manned through any support from the British Government. The devoted doctors there were not working for any organisation which could be said to have a connection with this country. All over the world, including many places where I have been, men and women devote their lives—I do not know what the situation would be in regard to missionaries—to help people of other countries, in particular those of ex-dependent territories, to improve their own lives economically, culturally, spiritually—in fact in every way.
My own son works for the Botswana Development Corporation. He did work for Her Majesty's Government, but now he would not come under any of the categories in the Bill, and so as I see it, if he has children in Botswana, his children would not be entitled to British citizenship. It he wished to establish British citizenship for his child, he would have to return to this country for at least three years during the period of the child's minority. That might not be at all convenient for his employers or for many other people. I cite that example because I know of it from personal experience.
Having served in Asia, Africa, and elsewhere, I know that there are thousands of such people, and I am sure that we should encourage men and women of this country to be prepared to live abroad, to devote their lives to the service of other people and to helping what is sometimes called the third world, without having any worry as to whether or not their children
1002
should be entitled—not at the discretion of the Secretary of State—to British citizenship. I should have thought that the modest amendment proposed by my noble friend seated behind me should provide the Government with a perfectly adequate safeguard against opening the door to a completely new group of people entitled to be citizens of this country.
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: I do not rise to support the amendment, because with the very greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, I do not think that he has got it right. If one has a point to make, it is extremely difficult to know on which amendment to speak, and since I wish to ask my noble and learned friend the Minister a question, I thought I would choose this occasion; you pays your money and you takes your choice. So I shall get my question in now, if I may.
Like many other Members of your Lordships' Committee, I have been made aware of the considerable amount of worry that certain clauses of the Bill are causing British nationals working abroad. For instance, people who are working for the EEC have formed a body called the Association for Rights of Britons Abroad. One of their concerns relates to the fact that children born to them while they are abroad are citizens by descent. I hope that I have been correct in telling them that these children are citizens by descent as of now. They have become so due to the fact that their parents registered their births at the nearest consulate. When the Bill becomes law applications to the Secretary of State will take the place of registering at a consulate for purposes of registration, as stated in Clause 3.
However, a further point arises. What is the position of a girl and a young man, both citizens by descent—I emphasise the word "both"—who marry and have a baby? They might, for instance, be the children of two families whose work is with the EEC. The young couple might well be students at a foreign university and their baby might well be born abroad. I shall be grateful if my noble and learned friend can tell me what will be the nationality of the baby. Would the situation regarding the baby's nationality be changed if the young couple returned to England for the actual birth? The Bill will prevent the babies of foreign students in this country from obtaining instant British nationality, but I shall be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Minister can clarify the situation regarding babies born of British parents who are both citizens by descent and who happen to be born abroad.
Lord Somers: I rather feel that I support the amendment, though I am a little uncertain because, quite frankly, the Bill is so confusing that I cannot quite make out what are or are not the conditions. I, too, should like to ask the noble and learned Lord a question. My two sisters were born in America. My father was naturally an English citizen. However, my mother was American, and I am not certain whether or not at the time she became an English citizen by having married an Englishman. I think that at the time I was given to understand that she did become an English citizen, but as a child I was given to understand many things which later I discovered were entirely untrue. So what would be the position of my

1003
two sisters, they having been born in America and then finally coming back to England to live?
Lord Milverton: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in his amendment. It seems to me a very reasonable one; and I think that the noble Lords opposite who have spoken in his support have made their position clear. It is complicated—like many others, one finds it very complicated—but I believe they have a point concerning the children of whom they are thinking. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will give earnest consideration to this amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and to what has been said in support of it by the other Peers who have so far spoken.
Lord Geddes: I, too, should like to support, perhaps not the exact wording of the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, but certainly the principle lying behind that wording. Indeed, I personally mentioned, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Spens, did, on the Second Reading of this Bill, the situation of the generation three child. On further research it appears, just to anticipate my noble friend on the Front Bench, subject to Clauses 31 and 35 and possibly, therefore, Schedule 2, that unless this Bill is materially altered in the context of the right to British nationality in this respect, those thoroughly British children born overseas beyond generation two not only would be (and I use a rather emotional word) disinherited, in that they could not of right claim British nationality, but if they happened to be born in one of a number of countries—I have here a list of 19 countries, and I will mention just one or two by way of illustration—then they would be stateless. So not only have you the position of these children not having British nationality as of right, but they would have no nationality.
Those countries, in no particular order, include Japan, the Philippines, the People's Republic of China, Malaysia, the Bahamas, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, the Solomons and Saudi Arabia. I think it is an appalling position (to paraphrase the words of the noble Lord, Lord Spens) that genuine British children of genuine British parents could face the situation of disinheritance.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: From these Benches (and I speak for myself only; one never speaks for another bishop), I would hope that the Minister can assure us that this point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, is covered in the Bill as it is—and I have tried to work it out, translating it into the Latin to make it clearer. I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Spens.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Avebury: In answer to the noble Lord opposite, the provisions for reducing statelessness in Schedule 2 are indeed inadequate in the case that he put; and there ought to be provision in the Bill for ensuring that where children of British descent are born in countries which do not have jus soli, then they do retain the British citizenship of their ancestors. I go that far with the noble Lord, and I think that in underlining that point he shows the evil consequences that would follow if a
1004
large number of countries departed from the rule which Great Britain has so sensibly had in the law for the last seven centuries.
The noble Lord mentioned some countries where it is unlikely that any very large numbers of children of British descent are likely to be born, such as the People's Republic of China and Saudi Arabia. I think that anybody who had a child in Saudi Arabia would be very unwise; and British citizens living and working there would probably be sensible from the medical point of view and come back to the United Kingdom for that purpose. But leaving that aside, the noble Lord has a point in principle: that if the number of countries which did not confer citizenship on children born within their territory were to increase—and we are setting a very bad example in this Bill—then the number of stateless children of British ancestry would, of course, increase as well, bearing in mind, as has been said, the very large number of British citizens who will be living and working abroad.
But I see one fundamental objection to the amendment that we have in front of us; and I think, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that his case can be taken care of by a combination of other amendments later in the Marshalled List. The objection which I see is this. Provided somebody born overseas continues to marry only a person of British descent, then British citizenship can transmit itself over an unlimited number of generations; and so we shall get building up again, as we have in the past, communities of people overseas who enjoy our citizenship but who have no connection, as the White Paper has it, with the United Kingdom.
I am thinking, for instance, of the community of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who live in Argentina and Chile, where many of them do not even speak any English. There was the tragic case, your Lordships will remember, of Miss Claire Wilson, who was tortured in Chile and who came forward to give evidence to the embassy in Santiago. Miss Wilson could not speak a word of English. When I was in Buenos Aires on behalf of Amnesty International in 1976 I went to the women's prison at Villa Devoto, where I met a young lady of British descent with a British name. I had to speak to her through an interpreter.
So I think that if the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, were to be accepted, there would be these communities growing up all round the world of people who did not have any real tie or connection with the United Kingdom; and, therefore, subject to the proviso that the noble Lord opposite has made, that we do not want children finishing up stateless, there has to be a limit on the number of generations of transmission of citizenship by descent to children born overseas. I think this point has not been taken care of by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, but I have a great deal of sympathy with the general principle of his amendment.
Baroness Gaitskell: I should like to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Spens. Any Bill which is so muddled, so complex and so unfair to its own citizens must be bad essentially. I speak as a first-generation immigrant—and I am British three times over, from the days when Britain was great. I am British by naturalisation, and I am British

1005
twice by marriage. Those were the days when, as I say, Britain was great. I completely support the noble Lord, Lords Spens, in this amendment.
Baroness Elles: Before the noble Lord replies, I know that probably many of us will have interests to declare and I have a grand-daughter to declare who was born in Brussels. She is very small at the moment, but her position will come out when we deal with the amendments that my noble friend Lord Bess-borough and I have on the Marshalled List. I wonder whether my noble friend, when replying, would answer this question. Surely the amendment as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, while I fully appreciate the sentiments behind it, would in fact apply equally to British citizens who have been naturalised and registered, and would not in fact have the effect which he desires it should have?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: Before the Minister replies, I wonder whether I might ask him to include in his reply, if he is able to do so, the answer to one question. In drafting this Bill, and following the discussions in another place, have members of the Diplomatic Corps been consulted?—because I have had personal experience of members of the Diplomatic Corps who are very concerned about the future, particularly, of their grandchildren. As the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has pointed out, there are many British citizens in different parts of the world who are doing excellent work, and the value of that work may well be reflected in the desire of their families to settle in those countries, at least for an extended period. What is the position of the grandchildren of a present member of the Diplomatic Corps in many parts of the world, particularly those grandchildren who may marry indigenous spouses and thereby at least put in doubt their claim to a continued citizenship of this country?
Lord Mishcon: My heart goes out to the noble and learned Lord the Minister after listening to this discussion and my heart also goes out to the whole of the nation. This discussion and others like it show this Bill to be an absolute maze. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Minister would not only consider taking this amendment back and looking at it but would care to take the whole Bill back and look at it again?
3.21 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): In the nature of things any Bill which attempts to deal comprehensively with the subject of British nationality is bound not to be readily understood at a cursory first reading. The subject is necessarily a complicated one and obviously a great number of related questions have to be considered at the same time. It is my hope—and I am sure the hope of the Government—that the discussions which the Committee have had and will have will help to make the Bill even clearer than it is at the present time. Of course, the Government will pay very close attention to all that is said here, and if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, means by taking the Bill back, then of course I readily undertake to do so.
The amendment that has been moved by the noble
1006
Lord, Lord Spens, concentrates on one particular problem: the child both of whose parents are British citizens by descent. The intention of the amendment is to enable British citizens born abroad to transmit their citizenship to their children born abroad if they are married to British citizens. It is obvious that the main beneficiaries would be British citizens by descent who marry British citizens by descent. Where for instance a man who was a British citizen by descent married a woman who was a British citizen otherwise than by descent—say a British citizen by birth in this country—then children born overseas to such a couple would automatically acquire British citizenship under the Bill as it stands by virtue of the citizenship of their mother. In the next amendment the whole question of principle about the extension of British citizenship abroad will be raised, and it may not be wise for me therefore to attempt to go over the whole ground at this stage. It may be better if I try to concentrate on the problem which this amendment raises.
The Government have taken the view that British citizenship should be transmitted automatically, on equal terms by men and women to the first generation born overseas, but that British citizenship—which carries with it a right of abode in this country, which is a most important matter—should be transmitted to the second and subsequent generations born overseas only where there is a real and tangible link with this country—say where the parent of the child has ties with this country through his or her work. We believe that British citizenship which carried with it a right of abode should reflect a real tie with this country—a tie which is substantial enough to justify the unrestricted right to enter this country freely. We accept that people born abroad to those who hold British citizenship by direct ties with this country can be assumed to have such links, but we do not believe that it is right to assume that the second and successive generations born overseas will necessarily look to this country in quite the same way—indeed, that has already been pointed out.
This amendment, however, would extend British citizenship automatically to successive generations born overseas provided both parents of the child concerned were British citizens. No further qualification would be required. No other tie with this country would be demanded beyond the citizenship of the parents, and it would be quite possible for a child to acquire British citizenship in this way who had only the most remote ancestral connection with this country, and it would happen absolutely automatically. The ties of such a child's family with this country in terms of real attachment and links could be negligible. Yet such a child would have British citizenship and the right of abode in this country automatically.
There is another factor which we should bear in mind and that is the nature of marriage today, based as it is in most cases on a free choice of individuals who seek equal status within marriage. We have recognised elsewhere in this Bill that it is no longer appropriate to confer citizenship simply by virtue of marriage, and it follows, in our submission, that it is not right either that marriage alone should confer special privileges as regards the transmission of citizenship. After all, many of our citizens have married

1007
foreign spouses. But they are not less loyal to this country in consequence, and often continue to have very real links with the country through living overseas.
Surely such persons who have married a foreign spouse could reasonably argue that they are placed at a disadvantage in transmitting citizenship because of their choice of marriage partner, if this amendment were to be approved. As my noble friend Lady Elles has pointed out, this amendment would apply to cover persons who were British citizens originally by virtue of naturalisation. Many questions have been raised and some of them—for example, the question that my noble friend Lady Trumpington asked—will be more appropriately discussed in relation to amendments which raise the EEC situation. Perhaps Amendment No. 71 would be the most appropriate one.
Questions have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Somers. As I understood the situation, the ladies in question, having been born overseas to a father who was a British citizen by birth, would be British citizens by descent assuming that the provisions of this Bill apply. Regarding the question of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, the persons to whom he referred, if they are connected with this country in the manner specified, under either Clause 2 or 3, would have the opportunity of passing the citizenship on. There might be cases where these provisions would not apply. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is concerned, the question which he raised is best answered by saying that the consular staff association have been consulted about the provisions of this Bill. As I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, the position of the members of the consular service is regulated by the latter part of Clause 2 of this Bill.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, raised a question with regard to missionaries. The situation is that they are certainly persons who may well qualify under the provisions of Clause 3 to transmit citizenship to their children. The various questions which have been raised in relation to this matter indicate the difficulty of fixing a satisfactory boundary for citizenship transmission, but in my submission none of them would justify discriminating between a citizen by descent who marries another British citizen by descent on the one hand, and a British citizen who marries a foreign national on the other hand. In my submission that would not be a safe line to take, and I therefore invite the noble Lord not to press this amendment. As he will no doubt appreciate, the full answer to the way in which the Government have developed this particular method of describing citizenship is something that we shall have to return to again in later amendments to this clause.
Lord Spens: I must certainly study what has been said by the noble and learned Lord the Minister this afternoon. I do not propose to press this amendment today. I should just like to make one point. The noble Lord talked about discrimination, but surely discrimination is there already? Discrimination is there when a person who was naturalised last week can go abroad and live abroad for the rest of his life, marry a foreigner and their children will become British. I should have thought that that was more
1008
discriminating than any discrimination against 200 per cent. British citizens who happen to be abroad when they marry. Surely an accident in the place of one's birth is much more of an accident than anything else. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 2, line 38, leave out ("otherwise than by descent").
The noble Lord said: I tabled this as a probing amendment, in order to find out the true effect of the words: "otherwise than by descent". It is an important matter on which your Lordships' Committee is of course entitled to the usual clear and careful explanation which we have come to expect from my noble friends. I have no intention of dividing your Lordships on this matter. Indeed, after the discussion on Amendment No. 21, which was fairly wide ranging, I wondered whether I really needed to move this amendment; but as some noble Lords may have thought that this was a substantive amendment on which they wished to make representations, I thought it would be wrong of me not to move it, at least fairly briefly.
In order to find out what the Bill does about acquiring British citizenship by descent, one has to consider no fewer than six pages of text in the Bill. Those six pages cover Clauses 2, 3, 8 and 13 and indeed one or two cross-references as well. May I say in passing that I am not blaming parliamentary counsel. One should never blame parliamentary counsel unless one has some idea of the instructions which have been given to him. I do not know what instructions were given to parliamentary counsel about this Bill, but one realised from past experience that it could not be a simple matter and that somehow the Bill had to be dovetailed into previous legislation so that when it came into force it would cause the minimum of chaos or hardship.
As I see it, the essence of this matter if acquiring British citizenship by descent is that the opportunity to do so is limited to one generation. That is the fundamental point. It is that point which is established by using the words referred to in this amendment, which are: "otherwise than by descent". But there are important exceptions. Some of them have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, but perhaps I could just summarise them. As I understand the matter, there are three exceptions. The first exception is for the children of those in Crown service. The second exception is for children of those in service associated with Crown service, to be designated by the Home Secretary under the power given to him in Clause 2(3). The third exception is for those in other employment involving a close connection with the United Kingdom as widely defined in Clause 3(3), which will also allow citizenship by descent to be acquired. I will not attempt to define that subsection, but the exception applies if the subject is in "relevant employment" as defined in Clause 3(3).
When the Bill was first introduced, and before I had time to fathom it—and I do not claim to have fathomed it completely even now—I was anxious,

1009
like the noble Lord, Lord Spens, lest what I can only describe as traditionally British people serving overseas and doing this nation a great deal of good by so doing, might find that their children were born either as foreigners or stateless. As we have very properly and decisively abandoned at an earlier stage in your Lordships' Committee the jus soli, surely it would be right for us to ensure that the jus sanguinis operates to a fair and reasonable extent without creating the kind of nonsense to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred when speaking to the previous amendment; or indeed without providing, as it could, an indirect way of circumventing immigration controls. That is a perfectly legitimate point and one that should be considered.
There are these two conflicting problems which arise on this amendment and on the limitation to one generation in the acquisition of British citizenship by descent. The problems are that, on the one hand, we want to give fair play to the jus sanguinis by enabling the children born abroad of those British citizens who serve abroad to retain their connection with this country, and, on the other hand, we do not want to return to the kind of nonsense which this Bill is designed to prevent. I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say by way of explanation, and I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for putting down this amendment and thus affording us an early opportunity, in consideration of the amendments relating to Clause 2, to give fairly general consideration to the situation. I should like to begin by seeking to describe the current arrangements for the transmission of citizenship, because they appear to be both anomalous and confused.
Our present law places no restriction on male citizens born, naturalised or registered in this country from transmitting their citizenship to their children born abroad. But women citizens have no such rights. Beyond the first generation born abroad, male citizens—and male citizens only—may transmit their citizenship to their children born abroad, but they may do so only in certain circumstances. They may do so where, for example, the father is in Crown service at the time of the child's birth, or if the child is born in a foreign but not a Commonwealth country and the child's birth is registered within a limited time at a British consulate.
There is no limitation on the transmission of citizenship to further generations born abroad in these circumstances but, as mentioned in connection with the last amendment, it is important in considering citizenship now also to consider the position with regard to the right of abode. At present the right of abode under the Immigration Act 1971 does not extend beyond the second generation born overseas. So, for instance, though a child born, say, in France or Egypt to a male citizen whose grandfather was born in this country can be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if his birth is registered at a British consulate, that child will not have the right of abode in this country and will be subject to immigration control.
It is a most important part of the policy behind this Bill to bring together nationality, British citizenship and the right of abode in this country. The
1010
Government believe the time has come to put the arrangement for citizenship by descent on a more rational basis and one which will ensure that where people born abroad have real links with this country they are able to secure British citizenship and the right of abode. Accordingly, the Bill proposes a scheme for citizenship by descent on the following lines. British citizenship will be transmitted automatically to the first generation of children born overseas. Women citizens will be able to transmit their citizenship equally with men, and so the chances of a child born overseas having a parent from whom he can derive our citizenship will be enormously increased. It must be the case that very many of the people who are concerned at the ending of consular registration have nothing to fear, because the wife will have been born in the United Kingdom or their children will marry wives who were born here. The extension of transmission rights to women therefore is not just a piece of window-dressing; it has a very marked practical effect on the extent to which our citizenship may be passed on.
So far then, automatic passing on to the first generation; beyond the first generation overseas, a child born overseas to a British citizen who is himself or herself born overseas will be able to acquire British citizenship on application while the parent of the child is in various forms of overseas employment. The Government have considerably widened the ambit of these in another place, and we believe that any parent who is a British citizen born abroad and who has a reasonable connection with the United Kingdom through his employment will now be able to secure citizenship in this way for his or her children born abroad, and there is no limit on the generations in such cases.
Where the parent is in Crown Service under the Government of the United Kingdom and has been recruited for that service in the United Kingdom, then the child will be a British citizen. In the Government's view, this is reasonable, since in many cases the child will be barred from local citizenship by the nature of the parent's employment and the parent will normally be only on a short-term assignment to the country of the child's birth before returning to the United Kingdom or moving to another posting elsewhere.
The Bill also provides a further avenue for a child born overseas in the second and subsequent generations, where the British citizen parent does not have ties with this country through his work; where the child returns to this country with his or her family and lives here for three years, then the child will be entitled to British citizenship on application.
We believe that these provisions are at least as generous as those which apply at present. They are certainly much more generous than those which apply at present to children born in Commonwealth countries where there is no provision for consular registration. When all the provisions I have mentioned are taken into account they are arguably no less generous than the current facilities for citizenship by consular registration in foreign countries.
However, we are very much aware of the concern that has been felt among our citizens in such countries about the ending of these facilities. We do not accept that this justifies the indefinite continuation of these

1011
arrangements. Those concerned, in our view, have no grounds for expecting that the current arrangements should continue indefinitely. As I have made clear, it is already the case that, while citizenship may be transmitted through successive generations by consular registration, the right of abode is not, and ceases after the second generation born overseas.
None the less, in order to ease the fear of people who may be affected by the termination of consular registration, we have been prepared to continue citizenship by consular registration to a limited extent. As with other entitlements to citizenship which are to be discontinued, we think it is right that those who had a reasonable expectation of acquiring citizenship in this way should not face any special difficulty because of a sudden end to these arrangements. Accordingly, Clause 8 of the Bill preserves for five years the effect of the current arrangements for consular registration for those married men resident in foreign countries at commencement who, but for this Bill, had a well-based expectation of being able to transmit their citizenship to a child who would be eligible for British citizenship.
There are similar provisions which enable children to be registered as citizens of the British dependent territories or as British overseas citizens. We shall have an opportunity to consider those further at the appropriate time and I do not wish to go into details of them now. However, they are a further indication of the efforts we have made to ensure that citizens by descent do not suffer as a result of this Bill.
We cannot perpetuate the inequities of the present system of citizenship by descent. There must be a more logical and rational basis which, however, avoids hardship and ensures that where there is a real link with this country British citizenship and the right of abode which is now to go with it is extended generously. We believe that the Bill achieves that.
As my noble friend Lord Renton has explained, this amendment was put down with the purpose of enabling the position to be explored. We believe that the amendment itself would have very serious consequences, particularly for immigration, because of course it would carry with it to all generations the right of abode in the United Kingdom. I believe it would also seriously devalue British citizenship by conferring it automatically on people who had only very distant links with this country. I believe that the arrangements for citizenship by descent in the Bill which I have sought to outline are much more in keeping with a citizenship that is to be based on a real link with this country and which, by virtue of such a link, carries with it the right of abode in this country. And, of course, we must not forget, when we are thinking of our own citizenship, the situation so far as citizenship of other countries is concerned. It may well be that British citizens by descent would like their children to be linked more closely with the country of their birth rather than with the country of origin of the parent, perhaps at a considerable ancestral distance.
I hope, in the light of what I have said, that your Lordships will feel the basic scheme for citizenship by descent which this Bill embodies is a reasonable and fair one, and that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: I moved this amendment because I felt that your Lordships, and, indeed, many thousands of other people, were entitled to a full explanation from the Government as to the implication of limiting the right of citizenship by descent to one generation. We have had that full explanation, and a very clear one, from my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("citizen") to end of line 42.
The noble Lord said: This amendment, which is in my name and in the names of my noble friends, covers much the same ground as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has covered, and on which he has given us a great deal of information. But I feel that the many thousands of British families abroad, some of whom have written to Members of this House, should have an opportunity of knowing exactly where we stand on this issue.
The truth is that, at the moment, without the exceptions and exemptions that can be put into the Bill as now drafted, no child born abroad of British parents will be British unless one of the parents has been born in this country. Therefore, it is quite likely that, after the commencement of the Act, grandparents in this country will have grandchildren born abroad who are stateless. I have said, and I shall repeat, that there is an opportunity for the parents to take some action to prevent that happening, but the children could be stateless, because many countries do not have the jus soli principle from which we ourselves have, unfortunately, departed. Those children would have no state of their own when born abroad, though they may take the opportunity of becoming naturalised in that other country.
It is a problem that is worrying many thousands of people who are working—and working for this country —abroad. By tradition, over the centuries many families have been employed abroad and their children have come to this country for their education. This was true in the days when we were much more active in India than we are today. But it was wrong then, and it is wrong now, that the second generation—as they are now described—of children born abroad should not automatically be British, though many will, undoubtedly, take the steps which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has adumbrated to enable them to become British citizens. The White Paper, and the Green Paper of the former Administration, had very little difference between them on this problem of second generation children, because they both rejected the idea of extending British citizenship to them.
I know that my amendment is faulty. In fact, no amendment drafted by a layman to any Bill has yet been correct. Although my amendment would suggest that British citizenship is passed on indefinitely, I can assure noble Lords that the objective of my colleagues and myself, at this stage at least, is to extend it only to the second generation, so that the grandparents of children born abroad after the commencement of the Act will realise that those children are British. It may

1013
be that they will decide to stay in that other country. It may be that they will marry in that country. Those are personal decisions which they must take.
I do not intend to take up any more time, as the whole matter was discussed fairly adequately on the last two amendments. This is a long Bill and we have a long way to go. But if the noble and learned Lord will give me an undertaking to look at the question of the second generation, and no further than that, I shall gladly withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who moved this amendment, has clearly indicated, we have already discussed the ground to some extent. The question of where one stops in the automatic conferment of citizenship by succession overseas is certainly a difficult one. But the Government have given very full consideration to it and I fear, therefore, that I am not in a position to give any undertaking that we will reconsider that in any meaningful sense.
It is, of course, clear, as the noble Lord himself has said, that his amendment goes far beyond the second generation and means that British citizenship would be transmitted indefinitely, as would the right of abode. In a sense, that kind of difficulty may be the very reason why it is so vitally important to have citizenship and right of abode together, so that people do not misunderstand and do not get the impression that, because they are citizens, they have a right of abode when that is not the genuine situation. Accordingly, this Bill has as one of its most important objects to make citizenship and the right of abode coterminous, so far as British citizens are concerned. This amendment would mean that the right of abode was carried to all generations born overseas, and I certainly could not invite the Committee to support it.
Lord Aylestone: As I said earlier, I appreciate that the amendment is very widely drawn, but I should have hoped that the noble and learned Lord would be able to say that he would take it away and look at it again. I wanted an assurance that the second generation, which is the grandchildren of grandparents who may be living in this country at the moment, who are born abroad would not be rendered stateless, in some cases, and would always have the right of abode in their homeland. As the noble and learned Lord is unable to give us that assurance, I really must divide the Committee.
3.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 23) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79; Not-Contents, 108.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Birk, B.

Ardwick, L.

Bishopston, L.

Avebury, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Aylestone, L.

Brockway, L.

Bacon, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Banks, L.

Byers, L.

Barrington, V.

Carver, L.

1014

Chitnis, L.

Mayhew, L.

Clancarty, E.

Milverton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Mishcon, L.

Collison, L.

Molloy, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Newall, L.

David, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Derby, Bp.

Oram, L.

Diamond, L.

Peart, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Perry of Walton, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Gifford, L.

Plant, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Gosford, E.

Reilly, L.

Grey, E.

Roberthall, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Hughes, L.

Sligo, M.

Hunt, L. [Teller.]

Southwell, Bp.

Ilchester, E.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Jacques, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Janner, L.

Stone, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Strabolgi, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Strauss, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Thurso, V.

Lawrence, L.

Truro, Bp.

Leatherland, L.

Underhill, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

White, B.

Loudoun, C.

Wigoder, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hunt of Tanworth, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Hylton, L.

Alport, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, V.

Avon, E.

Killearn, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Barnby, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Bellwin, L.

Long, V.

Beloff, L.

Lothian, M.

Belstead, L.

Luke, L.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Caccia L.

McFadzean, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Clwyd, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Minto, E.

Daventry, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Davidson, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

De L'Isle, V.

Mountgarret, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Dormer, L.

Moyne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Norfolk, D.

Effingham, E.

Northchurch, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Northesk, E.

Elles, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Exeter, M.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Faithfull, B.

Redmayne, L.

Ferrers, E.

Reigate, L.

Fortescue, E.

Renton, L.

Gainford, L.

Richardson, L.

Geddes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gibson-Watt, L.

St. Germans, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Sandford, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gowrie, E.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Sharples, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Soames, L.

Halsbury, E.

Somers, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Spens, L.

1015

Stamp, L.

Trenchard, V.

Strathcarron, L.

Trumpington, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Vickers, B.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Terrington, L.

Wynford, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Young, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Aylestone Lord Aylestone moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 2, line 39, leave out from second ("is") to end of line 42 and insert—
("employed in overseas employment.
(2) For the purposes of this section "overseas employment" means employment under the terms of which the employee ordinarily works outside the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: I am afraid that this amendment has been rather widely drawn. Its purpose is to ask the Government to explain why they are extending the facilities for British citizenship to children whose parents are born in Crown service or service of any other description for the time being designated. I have purposely drawn this amendment wide in the hope that the Government will say frankly where this section begins and ends, because there are thousands of British people working abroad who are not in Crown service. It is true that they could be designated by the Secretary of State if the Secretary of State at that time so wished. However, it is important at this stage for the Minister to try to explain to us why it is necessary to exempt some people who are working abroad, such as those in Crown service or the armed forces, but not others. I have no intention of taking this amendment to a Division. We are moving it simply to get a clearer indication of what is in the Government's mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: Before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether I could ask him to comment upon two aspects of the clause as it now stands. Why is it that those working in the European Community institutions who are not necessarily recruited from the United Kingdom would not be covered by Clause 2(1)(a) while those sent from the United Kingdom and working side by side with those who have been directly recruited would be covered by Clause 2(1)(a)? I hate the word "discrimination". However, this seems to me to be very unfair to those who are working for Britain in these institutions but who are not necessarily sent to the Community from this country. I wonder whether my noble friend could reply to that point?
Baroness White: As chairman of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on the European Communities, I should like very strongly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I do so partly on a point arising out of the paragraph which we are now discussing and partly because the question arises later, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, mentioned, in reference to the power of the Secretary of State by statutory instrument to designate certain types of service. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is herself aware that there has been correspondence about the position of the employees of the European institutions, not only on this
1016
particular point that arises under this amendment, whether or not they happen to have been recruited in this country or otherwise, but the whole situation in relation to the employees of these institutions. The much wider matter of persons born in member states, which is raised under Amendment No. 71, is a quite different matter; it would of course subsume the problems of these particular people. But it does not, under Clause 2 and the related Clause 3, deal with their special standing.
I raise this matter because, in particular, of representations made to me as chairman of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities. I was 10 days ago in Luxembourg and was seen there by a number of people, some of them having served in the service of this House and another place, who are working there in these institutions. Also, I have been approached by members of the European Parliament, and I know the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is fully aware of this position. Some of them have been in correspondence with Mr. Timothy Raison, a Minister in the Home Office. The fact that he is in the Home Office surely does not make him ignorant of the fact that we, the United Kingdom, are signatories to the Treaty of Rome and we happen to be a member state of the European Community. I am not proposing to discuss the merits or demerits of that, but so long as we are members of the European Community it is surely proper that British citizens who take employment with the institutions of the Community, of which we are active members and under whose jurisdiction we conduct our affairs in many respects, should receive proper recognition. In response to the letter raising this matter, Mr. Raison replied, referring to this clause we are discussing, that Her Majesty's Government, unless they have changed their minds, have no intention of designating service in the European Community as appropriate service. If I may quote from his letter, he says:
"In addition to the Crown servants there is provision in Clause 2(3) of the Bill for certain types of service closely associated with the activities of Her Majesty's Government abroad to be designated by Order as if they were Crown service for those purposes. We have in mind for designation under this provision the British Council, Crown servants seconded to international organisations in the course of their careers and members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service".
This is the relevant phrase:
"We do not think it right that employees of the European institutions, who, after all, have voluntarily taken up employment overseas with an international organisation, should benefit from such a provision".
Nothing could be clearer than that. What do Her Majesty's Government suppose membership of the European Community means? There may be a situation, later on, when possibly the Government of the day, or the people, may decide it is inappropriate for us to remain members, but at the moment we are members and we are legislating in circumstances in which we are full members of the Community. We are, therefore, inextricably involved in the affairs and the service of the Community. We have members of the European Parliament representing British citizens who have elected them in constituencies under our laws, and who have to be serviced by some of the persons who met me in Luxembourg 10 days ago. It seems to me absolutely incredible that a Minister

1017
of the Crown should reply in the terms that Mr. Raison used in reply to the communication sent to him. I cannot conceive that any Government whose Prime Minister states and restates and emphasises her adherence to the body and purposes of the European Community could possibly approve of a statement which says, "Well, if these people voluntarily go and serve in an international organisation, why should we bother ourselves about it?"
It is, of course, quite true that some provisions are referred to in the following clause, Clause 3, but as those who have communicated with me point out, Clause 3 is a different matter altogether. One cannot claim as of right; under Clause 3 there is a discretionary element which rests with the Secretary of State, against which there is no appeal. It includes certain provisos. For example, if your parent, or both of them, were run over and killed in a car accident, how could you prove that they had the intention of maintaining for you, their child, a close connection with this country?
I feel very strongly indeed about this. If we are in the least in earnest about our membership of the European Community and therefore about our involvement with the institutions, for us to say, in what I regard as the most cavalier fashion, "It is no concern of ours if they choose to go and voluntarily serve in Europe; why should be concern ourselves about the future of their children or grandchildren? ", seems to me the most un-communautaire attitude one could possibly adopt. Although this arises in various other places in the Bill, as far as I could see, in this rather complicated legislation, this is the first point at which I could raise the matter, and this is why I do so now.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I put this to my noble friend? I do not know whether this is intentional, but I get the impression from the way in which this clause is drafted that what the Government intend is that this exemption, so far as Crown service and kindred service is concerned, this facility or advantage, will only be extended where the Government have control over the parents concerned. If they are employed by the Crown or by an organisation under the Crown, or in any way controlled by the Crown, that is all right, but if they are controlled by the Commission, for example, it is not all right. In my view, this would be entirely wrong for a number of reasons, not least those stated by the noble Baroness, Lady White. I think we are in some danger of losing the sort of advantage that we have been looking for, among others, by joining the Common market. If we have a weakness in this country, it is our inability to speak languages. It is the greatest possible advantage for our citizens to be abroad learning to speak languages, learning to deal with people in the Common Market on their own terms, and, at the same time, with the Common Market not being all that far away, keeping a close connection with this country. "A close connection" will not, I hope, need to be so close that one must live here or must have a house here. I am sure that that is not what is intended, or it is certainly not what should be intended. Therefore, I put it to my noble and learned friend: Can he say quite categorically that so far as this clause is concerned the facility offered by this clause will not be extended only to parents who are actually controlled by the Government or government agency?
Lord Moyne: Following up with diffidence this complicated question, I should like to ask whether a British citizen by descent who takes up a post as a scientist researching, for example, in the United States or as a professor teaching in a foreign university, will be covered or not. If he is not covered perhaps it can be put right by registration and so on. The difficulty may not be so great. However, I am very confused and following what my noble friend has just said I should like to ask whether it is only Government appointments that will get this exemption?
Lord Mishcon: I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been so eloquently and logically advanced by my noble friend Lady White. What I do want to do is to add to her argument by saying that many of us who are associated with the EEC, and certainly with the court that sits in Luxembourg, know how important it is that people from this country should go out in the service of the EEC. Your Lordships most likely know that the Court of Justice, for example, is made up of judges who come from the respective members of the EEC, each country being entitled as of right to have a judge who sits at the court.
It is absolutely imperative that we who are so proud of our law and our lawyers and who actually have a judge there—he may, incidentally, be from north of the Border occasionally, but that only adds to his eminence as I am sure the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will say if he is to reply—should encourage our people to go out there and serve as lawyers or as aides in regard to the Court of Justice. I am giving only one example and I am sure there are other examples that noble Lords could give in departments that they know more about than I do. I really was amazed to hear, although I had in fact pre-warning of it, from a ministerial office of importance that this is not deemed to be a service closely associated with the overseas activities of Her Majesty's Government. That is a most extraordinary position. I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Minister at the very least will say that, having heard the views in this Committee, he will want seriously to consider them and certainly will not in fact turn down out of hand the comments that have been made by the noble Baroness.
Lord Gridley: I should like to make one comment on the term "Crown service". I am a servant who was appointed under the Crown and I was recruited by the Secretary of State for the Colonies for service under the Crown overseas. That is my understanding of the words "Crown service". That is all I have to say on what has been said by the various noble Lords who have spoken.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I think that it would be unfortunate if the burden of the argument on this amendment concentrated solely on the EEC. The case for the offices of the EEC has been fully and amply made. However, there are many other international organisations which are serviced by British people. In his reply to my intervention on Amendment No. 21 the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate did not really take the case that I had made about the disturbance which is being caused among the diplomatic service, not as regards their children

1019
but as regards their grandchildren. That point was not met by the noble and learned Lord.
However, do we not want British people, particularly young, British people, to be serving all over the world? Are they not going to be inhibited by the fear that if they stay abroad too long and if their families settle abroad for too long, they will risk the loss of British citizenship? Let me take two obvious examples. First, there are those who are serving with an organisation like Oxfam. Is that an organisation which comes within the purview of this Bill? I do not know and I should like to hear from the Minister whether that is so.
Secondly, let us take the Red Cross. Do we not want young British men and women to serve in the Red Cross? They may not be recruited in this country—they may very well be recruited abroad—but if they are, then they are risking, at least the second generation are, losing British citizenship. It is just not good enough for the Government to say, as my noble friend has already quoted from the Minister, that these are people who are serving voluntarily. Do we not want them to serve voluntarily? Is that not one of the purposes of our education system? Are we not urging young people to go abroad and become part of the world community?
It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, was absolutely correct when he said that this affects thousands of people. We hope that it will affect thousands more people. However, the clause that we are debating will risk at least inhibiting many people who would like to serve abroad from doing so because of the fear that the future generations of their family will risk losing British citizenship. So may we have a statement from the noble and learned Lord now that the Government have no intention of confining the conferment of British citizenship on people who are employed by the Crown or by the Government? Otherwise, surely the impression made all over the world will be that the British Government at least, if not the British people, are once again showing signs of becoming purely parochial.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord's amendment would certainly greatly extend the scope of Clause (2)(1)(b) to any kind of employment, and I do not know that I heard any good reason for that. So far as concerns the amendment which the noble Lord has moved, I would simply say that if one accepts the basic principle at all, then to distinguish according to whether or not people are in overseas employment would not seem a sound ground of distinction. However, the amendment has given rise to a number of questions about which I ought to seek to say something. The provisions of the clause are intended to deal in a special way with Crown servants and service of a description which is so closely associated with the activities outside United Kingdom of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom that it is proper to regard that service as being in the same situation from this point of view as Crown service.
With regard to the matters raised, first, by my noble friend Lady Elles and then developed by the noble Baroness, Lady White, there is no question of my honourable friend Mr. Raison, although a Minister of
1020
State at the Home Office, not being very much in tune with the attachment of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to the Economic Community.
Baroness White: It is a very odd harmony.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I can assure the noble Baroness that the harmony on that particular matter very strongly exists. However, the situation is that if, for example, a person is serving the European Economic Community, his arrangements may well come under the provisions of Clause 3, and particularly arrangements of that kind would be referred to under Clause 3(3)(d).
Lord Avebury: Then those arrangements are inferior, are they not, to the ones in Clause 2?—because they compel the parents to register the child.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: They are somewhat different from those in Clause 2. I would submit that the mere fact that registration is required does not necessarily make the arrangements inferior because, once you have the certificate, registration carries with it an entitlement which otherwise you have to wait to establish until a suitable requirement or need arises. So the mere fact that it is subject to registration procedure does not seem to me to make the arrangement inferior.
However, the important point as regards Crown service is that two matters apply. First, generally speaking, the children of Crown servants will not be able to obtain citizenship of the place where they are serving overseas. Secondly, of course, the fact of their service and the circumstances of it will certainly be very easily verifiable. As I said, the extension of that treatment to service which is closely associated with the Crown outside the United Kingdom or the Government of the United Kingdom is a very obvious and close connection which justifies the view that citizenship should descend where the parent is employed in such service.
So far as the European Economic Community institutions are concerned—and, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, pointed out, there are many other international organisations of which the United Kingdom is a member—these certainly require consideration. The Government's view on that matter is that the correct way to treat all these international organisations of which Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is a member, is to treat them by the system laid out in Clause 3, which allows for registration of children to persons employed in that service.
The position of a person who is serving the United Kingdom Government in one of these institutions and the position of a person who is serving these institutions, as it were, for his own sake is, in my submission, a difference which is important, and that is the difference which essentially distinguishes the circumstances of Clause 2 from those of Clause 3. It is not so much a question of control—and in this I seek to answer my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn—as a question of whether or not a continuation of link with the United Kingdom is immediately apparent. That is what, under Clause 2, we say exists in the matters to which Clause 2 properly applies.
Lord Mishcon: I do not know whether or not the noble and learned Lord finds this a convenient moment to resume his seat, if he is, in fact, concluding that part of the argument, but surely so far the argument has been fallacious. For example, would one say that a Member of the Parliament of the EEC is not, in fact, serving the people of this country and the Crown? Therefore, if a Member of the Parliament of the EEC is serving the Crown and is elected by this people of ours to serve the Crown and to serve the people of this country, is an employee of the EEC in any different position? Whatever may be the arguments on other employment, would not the noble and learned Lord the Minister concede that the employment is so direct in the service of the Crown, even if it goes through a parliamentary body of which we are a member, that he would want to take this back and consider whether it should be designated under Clause 2, and not under Clause 3?
Baroness White: I should like to pursue that. Surely the noble and learned Lord would agree that although we have obligations to many other international organisations, more particularly I would suppose to the United Nations Organisation—and I hate to intervene when lawyers are in dispute—our legal relationship with the European Economic Community is of a different nature from our relationship with other international organisations to which one might refer?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am sure that it is the pleasure of lawyers to welcome into their arguments noble Baronesses such as the noble Baroness, Lady White. I certainly agree that the nature of the legal relationships which membership of the European Economic Community imposes on the United Kingdom may, in important respects, be different from the legal relationship which, for example, being a member of the United Nations imposes on the United Kingdom. But I do not necessarily accept that these differences are important in the particular context which we are considering.
Baroness Elles: If my noble friend will allow me to intervene on this, will he not accept that one of the difficulties that we have had as members of the Community is precisely because we have not had enough British citizens working within the Community institutions to get us fair treatment, as other countries have jolly well seen to it that they have? Is it not time that this Government, who have been seeking to get redress—and successfully seeking to get redress—in matters of the budget and agricultural reform, should ensure that we have our best people working in the Community institutions? Is my noble friend aware that, if he and the Government take this line, the best people will not go and work in Community institutions because the best people are British and want to be loyal to Britain and want to see their country served adequately, fully and properly? Would he kindly take this discussion back to the Minister and ensure that we get a better answer next time?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I had finished most of what I was going to say on this aspect of the matter.
1022
I think that it is certainly possible to distinguish between service of the Crown and service of institutions which may serve the country generally. I think that the distinction which I was making is perfectly relevant in this context. I want to seek to answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Moyne with regard to scientists. So far as I am concerned, the situation is that if, for example, scientists are working for a British university on secondment abroad, they would certainly be covered by the provisions of Clause 3(3).
If they have gone overseas voluntarily to work for a foreign institution which itself has no United Kingdom links, they might be in a position later, if they came back, to register their children as an entitlement under Clause 3(6). Obviously the mere fact that one has gone abroad to work may, if the situation continues long enough, produce the kind of separation from the United Kingdom in this area, as in other areas, which would justify bringing to an end the descent of citizenship.
I think it would require to be answered by saying that it is a matter of circumstances; a matter of the links which have been preserved by the person going overseas with the United Kingdom in doing so. The same applies to the circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, mentioned. However, the amendment is on a much narrower front than the discussion. Certainly all of the discussion will be brought to the attention of my colleagues, including the colleague in the Home Office who has been referred to.
Lord Robbins: May I ask the Minister whether he does not recognise that his elucidations make clear that there is a penumbra of uncertainty as regards eligibility under Clause 3 which there is not as regards eligibility under Clause 2? Does he not recognise that that will tremendously cumulatively increase immobility of the citizens concerned of this country?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am obliged to the noble Lord. There is an area to which Clause 3 applies which, in a sense, has to be vaguer than the situation to which Clause 2 applies. The idea of Clause 2 is that it should apply to situations which are instantly verifiable, as it were, and surveys with the Government and with, for example, the overseas Civil Service and by Crown servants seconded to international organisations as part of their careers, and the British Council are of that character.
When one comes to consider the great variety of other possible links with the United Kingdom—and there are a great variety of them, and I am sure we shall hear more of this as the day proceeds—the criteria that one has to use have of necessity to be a bit more general. Therefore, there is, as the noble Lord says, an area of uncertainty. But the uncertainty is produced by the great variety of circumstances, and the differing results which may, on a consideration of any particular case, be properly reached. Accordingly, Clause 3, covering a much wider area, has these characteristics, and in my submission such characteristics are to be expected if one is to have a workable system which can take proper account of the facts of each individual case.
Lord Aylestone: In moving this amendment, which I said at the time was wide, the object was simply to find out precisely what the Government meant by
"service of any description for the time being designated under subsection (3)".
We got a little way in that direction. We now know that there is a possibility (we would not put it any higher) that employees of the EEC may be dealt with under Clause 3. I am inclined to think, having listened to the debate, that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was probably closer than any of us; that in fact Crown service means control; it means who pays the salary. I suppose employees of the EEC could come in under that because there is an element in the amount of money we pay to the EEC which pays salaries. However, this is much wider than we thought at the beginning. I am sure that we must return to it at Report stage, and I am particularly anxious to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has to say. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques): I call Amendment No. 25. If this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 27A to 31.
[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
4.47 p.m.
Lord Gridley Lord Gridley moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 2, line 45, after("Kingdom") insert ("or Crown service in the Colonies").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. I have done so because I wish to be assured by the Minister that former officers of the Colonial service, now that they are on pension or have left the service, will, under Clause 2 of this Bill as it now stands, enjoy the rights of British citizenship for themselves and their children, rights which they formerly enjoyed while serving the Crown overseas. I propose to refer in some detail to those rights later in what I have to say.
To me it is exceedingly important that this should be so, and that Clause 2 of the Bill should cover these rights. At page 14, in Clause 13(2) and (3) lines 33 to 43, it seems only too clear that on the coming into force of this Bill, despite the rights hitherto enjoyed by overseas officers as officers of the Crown, they are no longer to be considered as British citizens. This is a right, I must make clear, which they enjoyed when serving overseas. Let me explain. Officers serving the Crown overseas were recruited for service by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in the United Kingdom. I cannot believe that any of them did not possess a British passport at the time of their appointment, or that a qualification for their appointment was not that they had to be British subjects by birth. The procedure regarding passports was that if a British officer's passport issued in the United Kingdom expired after 10 years, and this occurred while the servivng officer was overseas, application for a British passport could be made, and was made, by the officer concerned to the Governor, or High Commissioner, in the territory in which the officer was serving, and this was granted.
I am fully aware that this is a correct statement for it occurred in my case. When I applied for a passport in these circumstances to the late Sir Shenton Thomas, who was Governor and Commander in Chief of the former Straits Settlements in Singapore and High Commissioner for the Federated Malay States, a passport was granted. When that expired I was able, on surrendering the passport in the United Kingdom to the British passport authorities, to obtain from them a British passport, with no difficulty.
However, it seems to me in retrospect that under this Bill and under subsections (2) and (3) at page 14 none of this procedure is to be recognised in the future, in spite of the fact that under that procedure I was able to obtain a British passport. I ask particularly, therefore, is it to be recognised under Clause 2; and when that passport expires shall I be able to obtain another new British passport? With reference to my four children, three were born in Malaysia and were registered as British by birth under a certificate granted locally, and as they are now of age they have subsequently, on making application, encountered no difficulty in obtaining a British passport.
According to the records we hold in the office of the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association there are 12,000 former officers of the Crown, 9,000 of whom are now in Britain and 3,000 living overseas, and all of these men are deeply concerned that under Clause 2 they and their children should continue to enjoy British citizenship which they obtained in Crown service in the colonies. That is the reason why under Clause 2(2)(a) I wish to insert "or Crown service in the Colonies", to cover the points I have made.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): I shall first deal with the wider implications of my noble friend's amendment and then come to the specific matter he has raised. The amendment would enable a British citizen by descent to transmit his citizenship automatically to his child born overseas if at the time of the child's birth he was in Crown service under the government of a dependency and had been recruited for such service in the United Kingdom. The first generation born overseas of course automatically acquires British citizenship under the provisions of Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill. We do not think it would be appropriate to extend British citizenship automatically to children born to such officers in these circumstances, great though our regard for their work is, and let me explain why. For one thing, these officers, unlike those serving the Government of the United Kingdom, cannot be said to have a United Kingdom base; their base is the dependency where they are employed, and they cannot be said to be representing this country in their work in the same way. Furthermore, an important reason for enabling British citizens by descent who are in Crown service under the Government of the United Kingdom and have been recruited for that service in the United Kingdom, is that in many cases children born abroad to such officers are barred from acquiring local citizenships by virtue of their parents' occupation: this is the case, for instance, with the children born abroad to British diplomats. If such children could not acquire the citizenship of their parents, they would be left stateless.

1025
But a British citizen by descent who is working for the government of a dependency will normally be working in that dependency. His children will not be barred from acquiring local citizenship by virtue of their parents' occupation; they will normally be eligible for citizenship of the British Dependent Territories. If they are not, because neither the citizen parent nor his spouse are citizens of the British Dependent Territories and they are not settled in the dependency, then under the provision of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2, the child would become a British citizen if he would otherwise be stateless. There is therefore no risk of such children becoming stateless. As citizens of the British Dependent Territories they will have, under Clause 4 of the Bill, an entitlement to British citizenship after five years' residence in the country, which they may exercise at any time. But they will also have, as a general rule, important entitlements to British citizenship in other ways, not least by virtue of their parents' employment with the government of a dependency. A British citizen by descent working for the government of a dependency who has been recruited for that service in the United Kingdom will normally have been appointed by the Crown Agents or by the official representative in the United Kingdom of that government. His employment will therefore be relevant employment for the purposes of Clause 3(2) of the Bill and he will normally be able to secure British citizenship on application for his child under that provision. Furthermore, if the family returns to the United Kingdom and lives here for three years, then under Clause 3(6) of the Bill, the child will be entitled to British citizenship on application.
The Government believe it is important to make a distinction between those who are directly serving the interests of the country and are based here and those who are serving the interests of our dependencies and are based there. British citizens who are working for the governments of the dependencies will, if they were born here, be able to transmit their citizenship to their children automatically under Clause 2(1)(a) of the Bill. Those who are citizens by descent will normally have been able to secure British citizenship on application for their children born overseas under the provisions of Clause 3, and we shall do our best to ensure that the procedure for obtaining citizenship in this way is kept as simple and straightforward as possible. The children of such people will often be citizens of the British Dependent Territories by birth and will have an entitlement to British citizenship under Clause 4 of the Bill, provided they can meet the residence requirements, an entitlement they can exercise at any time. So we do not think that in practice children born to British citizens serving the governments of the dependencies will find any difficulty in acquiring British citizenship.
Former members of the Colonial Service will have served under Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service when of course it was far more extensive than it is now. They would therefore be covered, I am advised, by Clause 2(1)(b) and their children would be citizens otherwise than by descent. They are not of course the same as employees of governments of the dependencies. I hope that those observations, and in particular the last clarification I have given, will set my
1026
noble friend's mind at rest and he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Gridley: I am grateful to my noble friend for those reassurances on the points I made. I will read everything he said with great care, and at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter moved Amendment No. 28.
Page 2, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) service in the employment of a public or private company registered in and operating partly or wholly in the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: As the Committee will appreciate, the amendment seeks to raise the question of the discrimination in the Bill as it stands between the children of those who are born overseas to members of the Civil Service and children of those who are born overseas to other British people working abroad. There is no doubt that there is a clear differentiation in treatment between those—and these must be mainly those in the Foreign and Diplomatic Service who work for the Crown abroad—who get the advantages of Clause 2 procedures, and the rest, including those who represent great companies overseas, who get Clause 3 procedures.
Some of your Lordships may recall—though it is always a mistake in your Lordships' House to think that anyone remembers one's speeches except oneself—that I raised the reason for this discrimination on Second Reading and in particular intervened in the winding-up speech of my noble friend Lord Belstead on this point. The Minister gave a reason for this discrimination and I remind the Committee of what was said at that stage. I am reported as saying:
"My Lords, does not my noble friend accept, however, that there is a distinction between Clause 2 in respect of Crown servants abroad, where the entitlement is automatic, and Clause 3 in respect of businessmen abroad where they have to apply and where there is a measure of discretion in the Home Secretary?"
My noble friend is reported as replying:
"My Lords, that is perfectly true. I agree entirely with my noble friend. But the reason for the discretion in Clause 3 is because the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that those who are continuing to transmit their citizenship shall retain links with the home country. That is the reason why the basis of the entitlement is set out absolutely clearly in Clause 3. So far as Crown servants are concerned, that is a different matter; and if for no other reason, because we know that Crown servants posted abroad will always return to live at home".—[Official Report, 22/6/81, cols. 950 and 951.]
The Official Report goes on, not altogether surprisingly, at that point to record: "Several noble Lords: No!"
Knowing from one's own personal acquaintances that quite a number of people one knows in the Foreign Service have in fact settled abroad, I tabled a Question to the Government to ask for the information on which my noble friend Lord Belstead's argument appears to have been based. I asked Her Majesty's Government how many former members of the Foreign and Diplomatic Service are non-resident in the United Kingdom, and my noble friend the Lord President of the Council, Lord Soames, replied:
"I regret to say that the information requested by my noble friend is not available".
Therefore, it is apparent that the reason given by my noble friend Lord Belstead for this discrimination

1027
between the main body of the civil servants concerned, that is the Foreign and Diplomatic Office staff and the rest of us, is not in fact sustainable by any facts or figures to support his contention that these people are different from others inasmuch as they return home.
I do not want to weary your Lordships with any unnecessary argument, but quite a number of us know members of that service who are deterred, either by the British climate, or by British taxation or by affection for the countries in which they have served, and who settle down there. Indeed, from time to time I have a lively correspondence with a former member of the Foreign Service who has settled in Majorca and who, perhaps not altogether surprisingly, writes to me regularly from that address to suggest that Gibraltar should be handed over to Spain!
I think this is a point of some substance. It is certainly so regarded by the Confederation of British Industry. Your Lordships are very familiar—and there is no need to weary you with argument about it—with the importance of persuading people to go overseas to represent the interests of British companies, to work on their behalf and to build up both the export trade in general and the invisible export trade in particular, to strengthen the British economy. I speak from experience because my own company has to do this, and it is not always easy to persuade people to leave the familiar setting of their homes in this country and to go to work for their employers, sometimes in disagreeable climates, sometimes in dangerous places, in the work which their employers think necessary for the prosperity of their companies and therefore, hopefully, for the prosperity of the country. It is not always easy to do so and if, in addition, you quite wantonly add a doubt in their minds as to whether, if children are born to them while they are so serving, those children may not necessarily and automatically secure British citizenship, you are adding one more discentive, one more discouragement, to these people to go abroad.
I wonder really why it is thought necessary so to do? It really is no use—and I say this with great deference to my noble friend—to say, "Oh well, they have the advantages of Clause 3. They can apply under Clause 3". There is a vital difference between the Clause 2 rights being secured for the Civil Service and the Clause 3 opportunities which may be offered to the businessman abroad. Clause 2 says emphatically and flat-footedly that the child shall be a British citizen. Clause 3 provides that the Secretary of State, if he thinks fit, may order them to be registered; and before he thinks fit he has to be satisfied on no less than four separate matters set out in Clause 3. I do not want to anticipate the discussion on that extraordinarily complex clause but there are then another two pages of matters which he has to take into account.
There is here all the difference in the world, and I hope my noble friend will not mind my saying that there is also the fact that all those concerned know that it is not a case of the Secretary of State being satisfied. Unless a case has gone completely wrong, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will not see the case; it will be dealt with by officials. Again I hope my noble friend will not mind my saying that it will be dealt with by officials of a department which does not
1028
have an unduly favourable reputation for sensitivity in these matters, and therefore this amounts to a very real discouragement.
So I stress that if the Clause 2 procedure is right for the Civil Service—and the Government having put it into the Bill, we must obviously accept that—it should be right also for those who go abroad on business. My noble friend may well criticise my amendment. It is a little narrow; it covers only those sent abroad by companies operating and registered in this country, mainly or wholly, and there are a number of other people who, if the Committee decides to accept the view that I am urging, would probably necessarily have to be added. The self-employed, for example; consultants, the academics who were referred to on an earlier amendment.
The important thing at this stage is to get established that we are not stopping short at the Civil Service. I was a little concerned when I heard my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern saying something to the effect that it was intended to deal in a special way with those in Crown service. Why? People outside may well say that this is perhaps another example of the capacity of the Civil Service to look after itself. At this particular moment, owing to circumstances which I shall not weary your Lordships by referring to, in people's minds the standing of the public service may not be quite as high as it was a little time ago, but one hopes that it will be again.
What argument is there for this distinction? The one that my noble friend sought to justify at Second Reading has now been eliminated, as the answer given by my noble friend Lord Soames indicated. There is no reason to believe that members of the Foreign Service come home in any greater proportion than do people who go abroad on business. That argument has gone. There are many people outside—and indeed perhaps in this House—who care about this. There is a feeling that it is wrong to provide favoured, privileged treatment only for that minority of our fellow countrymen overseas in the public service, and to ignore and give second grade treatment to that rather larger number of those without whose efforts to work for this country abroad any hope of restoring the British economy will be gone. I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Donington: Before the noble Lord sits down, in putting forward his amendment he mentioned that it might be necessary to include the self-employed. The noble Lord referred to insurance companies and such organisations; and there are medical and professional practices abroad, the partners in which would not be included within the noble Lord's definition. Is the noble Lord aware that the self-employed are in an even worse position, since they are not even incorporated in Clause 3? Therefore, some special provision would have to be made in that regard. Does the noble Lord endorse that view?
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will recall, I went out of my way to say that the amendment was deliberately narrowly drawn in order to pose the clear contrast between the employee of business and the employee of the Crown. If, as I hope, the Government can be induced to accept the amendment as it stands—and

1029
here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bruce—it would be necessary to extend its scope in order to cover the type of person to whom he refers. I certainly had not appreciated that one of the categories do not receive even the less attractive benefits of Clause 3—I am grateful to the noble Lord for drawing my attention to this point—and that would certainly strengthen the argument.
Lord Belstead: I wonder whether it would be convenient to the Committee if I were to say a few words at this stage, after which other noble Lords can speak, and then my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will probably answer the debate. First, I owe an apology to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. The words that my noble friend read out from the report of the Second Reading debate are of course perfectly correct; I said what is attributed to me in Hansard. I should have said that I was referring to people while they are affected by the provisions of the Bill; in other words, while they are involved in their working lives or their child-bearing lives; I was wholly in error in not saying that.
In making the apology to my noble friend the point I should like to get across is this. I had in mind the fact that those who are referred to in Clause 2 as being Crown servants are sent abroad on temporary postings. My noble friend made some play of the Written Answer of my noble friend the Lord President to a question that he tabled. Statistics there might not be, but I am sure that all members of the Committee would agree that members of the armed forces—my noble friend spoke of the Civil Service, but when I am speaking about Crown servants, the first people who come to my mind are members of the armed forces—are habitually sent abroad on postings, and later return home; that is part of their duty. As I understand it, members of the Foreign Service, as part of the development of their careers, are sent abroad on foreign postings and later return home. Very likely people who have been in the Diplomatic Service retire abroad, but so do other people. That is something that anyone might do after a working life or bringing up children. Therefore, I was in error in not referring to people's working lives and child-bearing lives. I consider that during such periods people in the service of the Crown are, as part of their careers, incontrovertibly under a duty to accept overseas postings, and later to return home. I think it fair to say that we cannot necessarily assume that that pattern will apply to someone who is working for a company overseas, however important the business might be. Such a person might develop a career building up a firm's operations abroad. He will come to the United Kingdom sometimes frequently, but at other times only occasionally. What we are saying in Clause 3, with a very wide scope of criteria, is that if through their work people maintain a connection with the United Kingdom while working abroad, they will have no difficulty in claiming British citizenship for their children.
My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked, "Why have Clause 3 at all? Why is it necessary?" The clause is necessary in order to prevent shams. I hope that I do not sound obsessively suspicious, but if we did not draw some form of criteria—and they are
1030
drawn very widely in Clause 3—it would not be difficult for some people to pretend that they were working abroad for British interests while in fact they were doing nothing of the kind.
My noble friend said that members of the staff of the Home Office belong to a department that is not noted for its sensitivity. I must say to him that in many cases staff of the Home Office daily spend considerable hours looking into extremely difficult personal cases, which I believe they handle with care and certainly with compassion.
That point brings me, finally, to my noble friend's amendment. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will speak in more detail, and in a much better way than I can, but I shall not suggest to the Committee that Clause 3 is in any way perfect. The clause will be closely examined by the Committee, as is the Committee's duty and responsibility. But the clause has a great advantage. It contains criteria that are very generously drawn, and as I say, when we get to the clause, we can look at them. However, I should have thought that my noble friend's amendment is drawn so wide that it would be open to misuse by people who would be evilly intended. When my noble friend speaks again at the end of the debate on the amendment I shall be interested to hear from him a little more on how he believes his amendment would work in practice. I believe that there are real practical difficulties—I shall not at the moment specify them because I think that my noble friend the Lord Advocate will do that—with the way in which the amendment is drawn.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Avebury: When he speaks about the clause being misused by people who are evilly intended, the Minister seems to equate the attempt to gain British citizenship with mugging or grievous bodily harm. I consider that that is a gross exaggeration and that the noble Lord was not thinking very carefully when he used those particular words. However, I should like to turn to the central point of what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is suggesting; namely, that Crown servants should not be in a privileged position vis-à-vis company employees working overseas and contributing to the British economy, as they are constantly being asked to do. It seems to me that if any people are to be in a privileged position, then according to the Government's own philosophy, it ought to be those who are earning money for this country. The Government are always saying that we should produce more, and the Crown servants and the others who are to benefit from Clause 2 are unproductive, they are an overhead. The situation should be the other way around: People who are employed overseas by British companies should be in a privileged position, while the "overheads" who are in the Civil Service should be in a less privileged position.
When during the debate on the previous amendment I intervened and suggested that the procedures contained in Clause 3 were inferior to those of Clause 2, I was corrected by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. As I understood him, he said that in some ways the registration procedure in Clause 3 is to be preferred in that a person who is registered under Clause 3 is then able to transmit his own citizenship

1031
to another generation. Perhaps I misunderstood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but I understood him to say that once a person was registered, in some ways he was in a better position than a person who had acquired British citizenship through the procedures of Clause 2. Prehaps it would be advisable if that point could be further explained when the noble and learned Lord replies.
The other way by which one could achieve the same objective as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is in fact to provide that the civil servants and the others who are in the designated employment of Clause 2 should be required to register their children as is required of those who are working overseas. It seems to me that one way or the other we ought to assimilate the two procedures so that there is no discrimination (as someone put it; I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, himself) between those who are working in the public service and those who are employed by companies contributing to the British economy.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I see Lord Boyd-Carpenter's purpose in moving this amendment to Clause 2, but I can think of special reasons for being selective in relation both to the armed forces and to the foreign service—and that case has been made by my noble friend Lord Belstead. They, after all, have no option; they are orderd to go. Other people, whether they are self-employed or whether they are in business, can usually exercise some choice; these others cannot. But the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter makes as so vitally important, that British personnel are not only ready but eager to do business, is I think valid, and we should therefore try to remove any obstacle which might make them hesitate so to serve.
I wonder, therefore, whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate, when he replies, could not indicate that the problem posed by my noble friend, which I think is very real, could be dealt with in Clause 3. I have not consulted my noble friend, and he may be totally unwilling to think of that. Nevertheless, I myself would, I think, deal with it in Clause 3, because I see the special case for the armed services and the foreign service and for people similarly engaged.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: One of the troubles that we have is the unease which I think exists about some of the provisions of Clause 3. I will not anticipate discussion on one or two matters that I have it in mind to raise, but where there is that difference it really makes one ponder; and I am bound to say from family experience that when you work for the great companies like ICI and others you are liable to be posted to different parts of the world, and you have no choice. At least, you have the choice of losing your job by saying "I am not going"; but it is sometimes as much of a binding commitment to go where you are posted as service in the diplomatic or the foreign service.
What is troublesome about the difference between the two is not merely the cosmetic difference, though there is a cosmetic difference, but the real difference of procedure—the entitlement in the one and the requirement to satisfy the Secretary of State, et cetera, and the problems that arise, under the other. But my own
1032
disposition at this moment is to support the views which have been so elegantly and ably stated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: May I also support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter? I spend a lot of time travelling overseas on business, and there is much concern by businessmen resident overseas, for whatever reason—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has pointed out several reasons—that their progeny may be in difficulties and could lose their entitlement to citizenship. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, took up a point made earlier this afternoon by my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, when he comes to reply, to go back to Amendment No. 24, which was argued earlier this afternoon, and perhaps confirm that the registration requirement in Clause 3 does not in any way mean that the citizenship is inferior in quality to that provided by Clause 2; because this seems to me to be the nub of the matter. If it is not, even though it may be onerous to have to register, it is the quality of citizenship which concerns these people resident overseas—and there are very large numbers of them, as there will continue to be; at least, we hope so, in order that our trade may prosper.
Lord Drumalbyn: I find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, here. As I understood what he said, he is entirely in sympathy with the attitude taken by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but there are difficulties. For one thing, has not my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter drawn his clause rather too widely? I do not think he meant to say that all employees, wherever recruited, should have the same treatment as those who are in the Civil Service or in the armed forces. I think he meant to say that those who are sent out from Great Britain to do these jobs should have as nearly as possible the same treatment as those in the forces.
We all know that in these large firms who work abroad, whether in manufacture or whatever, they have, as indeed has the foreign service, locally-employed people. I am sure my noble friend did not mean to cover those, even though their parents were British. That is quite a different problem altogether.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps my noble friend would allow me to interrupt him, because I think he has misread my amendment. What I am proposing is to put in a new paragraph at the bottom of page 2, and this, of course, would be covered by subsection (1). Therefore, there would be the same limitations as to origin, and so on, in respect of the businessman sent abroad as are already provided in respect of the Crown servant. I do not think my noble friend will find, if he looks at that, that the point which is troubling him really arises.
Lord Drumalbyn: I am not absolutely certain of that. I did have that point in mind and I did look at it rather carefully, but I thought it was liable to a different interpretation. I think that what we are all really concerned with is the very strong feeling that a great many people in this country have that they want to

1033
retain the British tradition—British citizenship for their children and their grandchildren. If this is not done satisfactorily, then fewer people will go abroad, and fewer of our better people will go abroad.
I think we shall see, when we come to Clause 3, that the limitations are so great that a great many people in this country would not take the risk. They would not accept to go abroad because of the fear that their grand-children would be disadvantaged in the end because their own children were born abroad. This is the main thing that we have to secure; but I agree with my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel that this is not the clause in which to achieve that.
Lord Gifford: I wish to follow the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in underlining the difference between the provisions of Clause 3 and the provisions of Clause 2, and to support very strongly the widening of Clause 2 which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, proposes. It is not just a question of having to apply within 12 months to get within Clause 3; it is not just a question of having to comply with the various conditions set out in Clause 3(2), although they are difficult or unclear enough. The prospective employee in overseas employment has to weigh up whether the job that he is doing involves a close connection with the United Kingdom, whatever that means; he has to weigh up whether he has been two years in relevant employment; and he has to weigh up, unless the Bill is changed in the way that I earlier proposed, whether he will be able to satisfy the Secretary of State that all these conditions apply.
But it does not end there, because the person who manages to register his son or daughter under Clause 3(2) none the less ends up as registering him as a citizen only by descent. If Members of the Committee look at the provisions of Clause 13 this becomes clear. Somebody who is registered under Clause 3 becomes a citizen by descent. Somebody who is in Crown service under Clause 2(1)(b)—the category which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wishes to widen—is a citizen not by descent but otherwise than by descent. The crucial difference there of course is whereas the citizen otherwise than by descent can transmit citizenship to his or to her children whether born abroad or not, the citizen by descent does not have that right. If we were to ask anyone to choose whether they would prefer their children to be citizens by descent, or citizens otherwise than by descent, there is no doubt that we would all prefer the security of our children being citizens otherwise than by descent, citizens in the full sense of the word. That adds to the various disincentives to which other noble Lords have drawn attention and confirms the real need for a widening of the provisions of Clauses 2(1) and 2(2).
Baroness Vickers: I should like to say a word on this amendment and support the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I should like to see this amendment in the Bill particularly because what worries me is that there is no right of appeal. This seems to me to be a very arbitrary way of doing things. Therefore I would suggest that it would be advantageous to have something on these lines—perhaps not exactly on these lines—to protect these people. They have to be in a company registered in this country. We know that a lot of people go overseas, particularly say, to
1034
Saudi Arabia. They have to come back from time to time. They always have an abode in this country because they need it, because the climate being what it is and also they have to send their children back for education. So they would get a right of appeal. What they are nervous about, so far as I understand it, is that their children could become stateless if they happen to be born, for example, in a country that does not give its nationality to those who are merely born there. They may even, in order not to become stateless, be obliged—this would be a great pity—to accept nationality of a country with which they have no real ties.
As I understand it, most European countries allow generations born abroad to retain their parents' nationality through generations and without any limit by descent. However, if it is cut off and there is a cut-off point back one generation, this reduces the difficulties that might arise. Unfortunately, we have overlooked in many ways the reasons for wanting this. We need more trade overseas and we are greatly dependent on all types of persons who have experience in working there. We have a great many firms, for example, working in India. I consider that it is absolutely essential that this work goes on. I am certain that everybody who wants to help with overseas aid wants people to go overseas. I should like to suggest therefore that all British workers abroad for short terms who have children during this period should have the same rights as those born to either diplomats or to those working in the services.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Beloff: One or two Members of the Committee have raised the question of academics and scientists working overseas. There seems to me, from listening to this debate, a very particular problem which is not covered in these clauses. That is to say that from many points of view the universities—at any rate of the English-speaking world are part of a single system. Someone may wish to take up a chair in, let us say, an American university, hold it for a few years with the hope—not necessarily the binding expectation—of coming back to a chair in this country. It would be difficult to define his intention by the circumstances of his employment to say that it is relevant employment, let us say, to be employed by Harvard or Stanford universities; yet at the same time it is obviously desirable for this country's reputation in the learned world that every incentive be given to people to have experience of this kind. The same disincentive about their children's national status would apply and is not met by the references to relevant employment.
Lord Belstead: It is not met maybe in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, thought but it is met by Clause 3(6) which specifically goes out of its way to say that if one—and the noble Lord has given the example—takes a chair in a foreign country, and then comes back with a family to take an academic chair here, the children will then be citizens—and they will be citizens incidentally by birth.
Baroness Elles: Supposing that under Clause 3(2) the person had not dared risk coming back home so soon and the child had been registered as a British

1035
citizen by descent, would they then be able to register again as a full citizen under Clause 3(6) when they brought the child home and lived here for three years in an English university?
Lord Belstead: If the noble Baroness would like to repeat her question, it would be helpful. It was very difficult to pick it up.
Baroness Elles: I apologise to my noble friend. Perhaps I should have given him notice of this point because it comes under the discussion in Clause 3, an I accept this. Since my noble friend said that under Clause 3(6) an opportunity would be available, for instance, for an academic returning to this country with his children to register them as British citizens after living there for three years, supposing this British academic, so loving his country and so anxious that his child should not remain stateless had therefore to bring it back in the boot of his car and had registered it under Clause 3(2), would he then still be able to bring that child back and register it as a full British citizen under Clause 3(6)?
Lord Belstead: I think that the answer to that question is no, but I must take advice on that.
Lord Bruce of Donington: The noble Lord referred to Clause 3(6). Will he state whereabouts the position of the self-employed is dealt with under Clause 3?
Lord Belstead: This is a very important point which is going to be the subject of two or three different amendments. I think that I am going to have the rather doubtful pleasure of replying to them when we come to them. It is not the subject of the present amendment. We are going to be in danger of finding ourselves debating the whole of Clause 3 before we have even arrived at it. I am not slipping the question; as I say, I think that I am due to reply on this particularly important point. We must wait until the right moment for that.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Home because I still feel it to be the case that the children of those people working abroad at the moment are citizens by descent now. It is their children whom one is worrying about—the grandchildren. That comes up under Clause 3. Therefore, I support my noble friend Lord Home on that point. I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that registration at consulates had had to be an annual exercise. It was not obligatory, but in the interests of the individual it was an annual exercise. If Members of the Committee turn their minds to the British residents in Iran, they will perhaps agree that citizens by descent who in future would have to register only once with the Home Secretary would stand to gain a very considerable advantage.
Lord Geddes: May I support very strongly my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and pick up the points that the noble Lords, Lord Bruce of Donington and Lord Gifford made. The only problem I have with this amendment is that it is not sufficiently wide. The
1036
wording of the amendment, as it is tabled, is narrow. I hope that the principle could be agreed by my noble friends on the Front Bench rather than the wording itself.
May I pick up a point made by my noble friend Lady Trumpington? I am not sure that I understood her correctly but when she said "now" in the context of the second generation, I believe she probably meant under the Bill as drafted. The child of a British citizen born abroad today is, as I understand it, a full citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
Lord Spens: I should like to ask that question, too, and in fact I did ask it when I proposed Amendment No. 21. I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate replied. This happened in the case of my own daughter, who was born in Germany when I was serving with the British Control Commission. Under the 1948 Act she is at present a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent. But, apparently, under Clause 13(2), when this new Bill becomes an Act she will cease to be a citizen by descent, so what does she become?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The Bill distinguishes between British citizens and British citizens other than by descent, so the question which has just been posed by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, does not really arise. So long as one is a British citizen otherwise than by descent, it does not matter by which particular route one has achieved that.
The debate on this amendment has ranged fairly wide. I should like to say one or two words about Clause 3 before I deal with the amendment because I believe that these words are relevant to the amendment, also. Clause 3(2) provides an entitlement on an application for registration, provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied on certain points. In his opening remarks, I believe that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter referred to the Secretary of State being able to do this or that "if he thinks fit". It is true that Clause 3(1), which deals with the registration of a minor, contains the phrase "if he thinks fit", but when it comes to the provisions dealing with the registration of a businessman employed overseas, if I can use that phrase in a general sense, it is intended to provide an entitlement, as the opening words of Clause 3(2) makes clear when it states, "shall be entitled".
This raises a point similar to that which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, when he spoke to an earlier amendment, in respect of what is meant by the Secretary of State being "satisfied". We have undertaken to look at that point and that undertaking will also apply in the somewhat different context of Clause 3. The intention of the Government, so far as Clause 3(2) is concerned, is that it shall confer an entitlement to registration if the circumstances set out in that clause are met. I should also like to confirm that what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that registration under Clause 3(2) produces a British citizen by descent, is perfectly correct. This might give me an opportunity to cover the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I said earlier that having a certificate is sometimes better, when a specific occasion arises, in order to prove the

1037
facts. From that point of view, the advantage of Clause 3(2) is that it provides a procedure for registration within 12 months of birth, when the facts which formed the entitlement are still reasonably fresh.
Lord Avebury: Why is that better? When speaking to the previous amendment the noble and learned Advocate said that the procedures in Clause 3 were not necessarily inferior to those which were conferred on Crown servants by Clause 2. I still do not understand how a Crown servant is in a less advantageous position when his children obtain citizenship automatically and the people who we are talking about in Clause 3 have to apply for citizenship and have to establish that five conditions are complied with.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The way that I see it is this. The conditions in Clause 2 also have to be complied with and, accordingly, a person who has any occasion to show that he is a British citizen under Clause 2 will have to demonstrate that these facts obtain. There is some advantage in a procedure for registration under which the facts which the person has to establish are established within a short time of the occurrence of the facts which are in question, whereas under Clause 2 it might be some considerable time before that investigation started. It is a small point, but it does not seem to me to be necessarily inferior to have to go through a registration procedure.
The main point which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, concerns the situation with which we are all extremely sympathetic; that of a person who is employed by a British company to work overseas in the interests of that company and thus in the interests of the United Kingdom. I am sure that my noble friend will accept my assurance that the Government are extremely concerned that this matter should be dealt with, and that it should be dealt with in an appropriate manner. The question is, what is the appropriate manner?
My noble friend has suggested that the people covered by his amendment should be covered by Clause 2. My noble friend's amendment covers
"service in the employment of a public or private company registered in and operating partly or wholly in the United Kingdom".
Perhaps I should say in passing that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn raised the question of whether, as the result of the placing of this clause, recruitment in the United Kingdom is required. As I read the clause as it would be amended by my noble friend's amendment, recruitment in the United Kingdom would be part of the conditions required.
I believe it is obvious—my noble friend has already accepted this—that if this wording were to be inserted in Clause 2 much more would have to be covered. For example, it would be quite unfair to distinguish between a person employed directly by a British company abroad and a person employed abroad by a wholly-owned subsidiary of a British company. I believe most noble Lords would agree with that. Once one begins to see the variety of circumstances under which a connection with the United Kingdom can be created by employment, one also sees (in my position) the necessity for a structure such as that in Clause 3, which sets out the criteria by which the connection
1038
can be determined. My noble friend's amendment as it stands allows the possibility of service in the employment of a company registered in this country which operates wholly here.
In other words, my noble friend contemplates giving the benefits of this clause to a parent working overseas who is employed by a company which has no operations whatsoever overseas. It is very obvious that that line is one which could quickly lead to a company whose employment contracts are a complete sham. The possibility of working overseas for a company with no operations whatever overseas makes that plain. It is practical considerations of that kind which lead the Government to think that criteria of the type set out in Clause 3 are appropriate for dealing with this particular problem. Clause 2, on the other hand, deals with Crown servants in the second part of it, and not only Civil Servants of the Crown but also the armed orces of the Crown. As my noble friend Lord Belstead has already pointed out so clearly, it is a feature of that service that people return from time to time in the course of it to the United Kingdom. There is a very real connection between that kind of service and the United Kingdom, immediately demonstrated by the existence of that service, without anything more. Further, the records of that service will be very readily obtainable. Therefore the circumstances in which a child has been born, for example, to a serviceman overseas, so far as is relevant to the clause, will be very easily understood and proved, if that should be necessary.
There is another point too: members of the Diplomatic Service and members of the armed forces serving overseas will not normally be able to confer on their children the citizenship of the place in which they are serving. In that way they are distinguished from people who are working for commercial companies. It is these practical considerations which, in out view, make it appropriate for the Crown servant and persons in a similar position, under the powers of Clause 2(3), to be dealt with in this very straightforward manner. It is a question of practicalities and the application of them to the circumstances. Therefore, I would suggest to your Lordships that the principle of having criteria to apply to the great variety of circumstances which can arise connecting a person by employment to this country, is the correct approach.
A number of special questions have been raised: rfo example, that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, about self-employment. That is a difficult problem and it raises the necessity for some form of criterion of its own, obviously. My noble friend Lord Beloff raised the question of university staffs and members of a university abroad not perhaps fulfilling the criteria set out in Clause 3(2) but still, in his view, having a connection with the United Kingdom. That just shows how difficult it is to provide criteria which encompass all the cases which noble Lords would desire to be dealt with. However, in my respectful submission, Clause 3, and in particular Clause 3(2), are the places in which that variety of circumstances is properly dealt with.
I would submit, therefore, that the kind of entitlement which Clause 3(2) gives—and I would emphasise the word "entitlement"—is a reasonable way of arranging for the passing of British citizenship by British citizens by descent to their children. This

1039
provision is required only if the parent is a British citizen by descent. The transmission is automatic if the parent is a British citizen otherwise than by descent; so we are here concerned only with persons who are working overseas and who are themselves British by descent.
Of course, I appreciate the concerns so eloquently put before us by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but I submit to him that the amendment he has proposed, making it automatic that a person employed by a company established in the United Kingdom should be able to transmit, though he himself is a British citizen by descent, British citizenship to his children, is altogether too wide and opens the door to possibilities for the kinds of arrangements for employment which I have mentioned. There is no criterion at all which limits the sort of employment even to full-time employment or to employment which carried with it any kind of link with the United Kingdom. Therefore, under the terms of his amendment, if one wants to secure transmission of citizenship to the nth generation, all one requires is to have some form of contact with some company established in the United Kingdom, and that will be sufficient. I wonder whether my noble friend's purpose will be adequately served by an amendment as broad as that, and I wonder whether, in the light of these considerations, my noble friend would feel that the amendment he has proposed requires at least some reconsideration.
Viscount Thurso: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, could I ask him to clarify something he said just now which, frankly, I do not understand? I think he said that people would be establishing a connection created by employment with British citizenship. Surely what we are talking about is a disconnection and not a connection, because Clause 2(1)(b) states—
"… if at the time of the birth his father or mother—
(a) is a British citizen …"—
and then goes on to say that he is serving overseas. What is being attempted here is to add to the categories in which you can serve overseas and get the advantages of Clause 2(1)(b). If that is the case, then there is a connection already. The person is connected by birth to a British citizen, and the service overseas is a disconnection and not a connection. The noble and learned Lord said that people would be trying to establish a connection with British citizenship by serving overseas. I cannot see how this could be done under this clause, unless his parents were incontrovertibly British before he started.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The situation, as I understand it, is this: a British citizen otherwise than by descent automatically transmits that citizenship to a child born overseas. If the parent is himself a British citizen by descent, he does not automatically transmit British citizenship to his child. Before he can do so he has to establish some further connection between himself and the United Kingdom. Clause 2(1)(b) provides some of these connections, and as I understand the intention of my noble friend's amendment it is to provide that the type of connection described by the amendment is sufficient to enable that transmission to take place. In other words, the parent is a British
1040
citizen by descent and, in addition, in order to transmit citizenship, he must be an employee of the kind described in the amendment. That is what I mean by saying that there is an additional connection required. I endeavoured to say that this additional connection is really inappropriate, for the reasons given, because it encompasses circumstances which I am sure my noble friend would not, as a matter of fact, wish to encompass.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I first of all deal with one or two of the points which have arisen in the course of this debate and say that I made no reference to the armed forces, partly because I did not feel so strongly about favourable treatment on their behalf—as the father of a serving soldier, I could hardly do so and I thought I had better leave that aspect of the matter alone—and partly because the problem is one that I think arises more in respect of the Foreign and Diplomatic Service on which, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will recall, our discussion at Second Reading turned.
I cannot pretend—and I think your Lordships will confirm that I did not—that my amendment was drafted either sufficiently comprehensively or sufficiently fully to go into the Bill as a feature of the law. I did not intend it to do so. I intended it as a vehicle to enable discussion to take place and, in particular, to enable my noble friends on the Government Bench to be told how deeply in the business world feelings have been aroused, not so much by the disparity of treatment, although that hurts a little as compared with Crown service, but far more by the substance of the treatment which is proposed for those who go abroad.
The whole Committee is in this difficulty that, inevitably, Clause 2 comes before Clause 3, as my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel pointed out. The object of the amendment—and what it would effect—is to take this category out of the harm, the damage, of Clause 3. Until we have finished with Clause 3, we do not know how intense that harm will be. I should have been happier if my noble and learned friend had indicated a little more easily that when we come to Clause 3 the Government intend to be flexible.
Clause 3, as it stands, has, as I said, aroused great apprehension among a good many of those concerned and many of us feel that that apprehension is fully justified. If the Government are prepared to exercise some flexibility on Clause 3, that will obviously diminish the desirability of pre-empting them by an amendment of Clause 2. I hope I have made that point clear to my noble and learned friend.
The other difficulty is that, though my amendment would undoubtedly resolve the problems of a limited number of those affected, it is, in my own view, as originally expressed too narrow. I was rather surprised that a noble Lord said that it was too wide. In fact it does not cover a good many of the people whom I think all of your Lordships would like to see covered.
So it seems to me that the sensible thing to do, without taking up too much of your Lordships' time is, in a moment, to seek leave to withdraw this amendment on the basis that we will see what happens on Clause 3. If it be that satisfactory solutions can be

1041
found on Clause 3, then there will be no necessity to come back to this on Report. If, on the other hand, the Government prove too inflexible on Clause 3, it will still be open to any of your Lordships to seek to adopt the solution which is tentatively outlined in my present amendment—that is, taking certain important categories of people out of Clause 3 and giving them the benefits of Clause 2—if that be necessary. But I stress that such an amendment would have to be a good deal wider than the one which the Committee has been discussing.
This discussion has been worthwhile, if only because it has shown how, in all parts of the Committee, there are very real apprehensions about the working of Clause 3 and a real understanding that, valuable though the work of the armed forces and the foreign and diplomatic service overseas is, so of equal value is that of those who serve British industry and commerce in the same areas. Also, we have done something to disabuse the mind of the Government of the idea that there is some inherent difference in the way that these people's affairs are conducted.
I could not help noting, if I may for a moment just refer to it, that one of my noble friends said that the foreign and diplomatic service comes home from time to time. So, of course, does almost any representative of a company or a business. Indeed, if he did not come home, and come home to head office for discussions there, he would cease to be of very much value in the overseas post that he was in. There is a real similarity in the problem which, with respect, is not to be shrugged off in that way. Having said that, and expressing the hope that the Government's flexibility on Clause 3 may enable one to avoid coming back to this on Report, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to point out that, if Amendment No. 29 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Nos. 30 or 31.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Hunt Lord Hunt had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 29:
Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 10 and insert—
("(b) employment with any company or association established in the United Kingdom; and
(c) employment with any company or association established outside the United Kingdom, where the employee's employment with that company or association was arranged by a company or association established in the United Kingdom; and
(d) employment with any company or association established outside the United Kingdom which is associated with a company or association established in the United Kingdom; and
(e) employment under any international organisation of which the United Kingdom or Her Majesty's government therein or a company or association established in the United Kingdom is a member; and
(f) employment under the government of a dependent territory, if the employee's appointment was affected by the Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations or by the official representative in the United Kingdom of that government; and
(g) in respect of which an agreement entered into by the Secretary of State under section 12 of the Overseas Development and Co-operation Act 1980 (power to
1042
meet expenses incurred in connection with employment in overseas territories) is for the time being in force, so long as the employee is designated under that agreement.").
The noble Lord said: I hope the Government will take it as an earnest of my desire to help them that I nearly moved this amendment prematurely about an hour and a half ago. I should thereby have spared the Committee an hour and a half's work by completely ignoring the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Gridley. But having listened to the debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I think your Lordships will have understood, and will agree with me, that I do not propose to press the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Aylestone and Lord Perry and myself.
Before begging leave to withdraw it, I should just like to make the point that during the course of the preceding debate the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and one or two other noble Lords said that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was not sufficiently widely drawn. The purpose of the amendment which is in my name was precisely to draw more widely the categories of persons whose children would, if born abroad, have the same rights to British citizenship as those in Crown service. That was the purpose of the amendment.
The second purpose, which I know came out clearly in the previous debate, was to deal with the dislike which we who put down this amendment have to the discretion of the Secretary of State or the Home Office in regard to the criteria in Clause 3. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate drew attention to those criteria and called them a variety of circumstances. I think he said that they were matters identifiable as fact. I hope the noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I have misunderstood, but your Lordships need only to look at Clause 3(2) and paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d), to see that whereas questions (a) and (b) are matters of fact, questions (c) and (d) are matters of subjective judgment. It is on those grounds that we share with others a dislike of the discretion which is left with the Home Office to designate whether the children of people employed in the categories under "relevant employment" should be allowed on application to be registered as British citizens.
Having said that, it is quite obvious from the debate that has just occurred that there is a good deal more that will be said in the course of discussion on Clause 3, and I should be very surprised if it was not going to be said on Report, because a great deal has come out with which we on this Bench are totally in sympathy. That is why we put down this amendment. Having made those points, there is no purpose in inviting the Government to rehearse all over again the arguments that have been deployed in making the case against this amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. I beg leave to withdraw our amendment—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The noble Lord cannot withdraw an amendment that he has not moved. He must move the amendment.
Lord Hunt: I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: Before the amendment is withdrawn, I wonder whether I may intervene and ask a question. I think the only place where I can profitably ask it is on the wording of this amendment, as it straddles both Clause 2 and Clause 3. It may seem a rather strange point, but I should be grateful if the Government could help me.
My concern is with those persons who are serving abroad in the service of the Church. They are sometimes called missionaries, but in fact it is no longer easy to define them as people sent from this country to another country. They are in the service of the Church overseas and not necessarily in the service of the Church here. As I think your Lordships will appreciate, the particular institution to which I am referring is a very widespread organisation, and it is difficult to know where its authority lies in this world. When this question was raised in the other House, Mr. Raison, speaking on behalf of the Government, suggested that Clause 3 of this Bill should cover missionaries, and probably did so already, but said that if necessary an amendment would be moved at a later stage to put the matter beyond doubt.
The question, therefore, which I ask, as one of those who find this Bill very difficult to understand, is whether or not the children of people serving the Church overseas are covered by the Bill? I personally married into a family in which successive generations went overseas in the service of the Church. A fourth generation is now doing exactly this. In each case the children have been born overseas. I am not quite sure what situation that puts them in, but it is a very complicated one. Are such children going to be British citizens, as they are at present, or are they not? Are they covered by Clause 2 or by Clause 3? Has the point been covered in the Bill as it stands at present, or has an amendment to be made at a later stage?
6.12 p.m.
Lord Renton: The right reverend Prelate has made a point which I was going to make on Clause 3 and I hope I shall not be out of order if, briefly, I follow him. I do not think that at the moment the Bill gives him any comfort, either in Clause 3 or anywhere else. If we turn to Clause 3 to see what is meant by "relevant employment" at the bottom of page 3, we find that it is employment
"with any company or association established in the United Kingdom".
The definition is broadened slightly in subsection (3) of Clause 3. We find that "an association" means an unincorporated body of persons. I understand that a bishop is a corporation sole. But the clergy serving overseas are not employed by bishops. It is difficult for us in this country to know exactly by whom they are employed. It may be that within the Anglican Church they get the freehold of their church, as they do in this country. The right reverend Prelate shakes his head, so I must be wrong. At any rate, this is a point which does not appear to have been covered by the Bill, and I agree with the right reverend Prelate that it should be. However, we must make sure that it applies only to established Churches and other established religious persuasions, otherwise it could be a means of getting round the provisions in the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: It would be a mistake to suggest that all such persons are clergymen. The vast majority of them will be laymen. I take the point which has been made, that there are difficulties in drafting a Bill to make sure that there are no unseemly loopholes, but the majority of persons to whom I am referring are very genuine persons who at present are British citizens. They, like other people who have gone abroad to serve, serve with great devotion the countries to which they go. However, when they retire they will come back to this country because they have gone out in the service of perhaps a missionary society or the Church overseas for a period of time. They are not intending to become nationals of that country. I hope that we shall receive some assurance on this point.
Lord Avebury: The only provision in Clause 3 which might conceivably have been in the Minister's mind when he was talking about Clause 3 in another place is subsection (6), a provision which has already been mentioned in relation to professors and other academics attending overseas universities. That provision might be appropriate for academics, providing, as it does, that a person has to be absent from the United Kingdom on no more than 270 days in any one of the three years preceding the date of application. I assume that that figure was selected with a view to bringing in the academics, knowing that the long summer recesses would enable them to come back to the United Kingdom and maintain their entitlement under Clause 3(6). It would be extremely unlikely. I take it, that a missionary who is working in, say, Africa would have such a rich employer that he would be able to send him home every single year and give him as much as 95 days' leave. While it may be very appropriate from the point of view of the academics, I do not think that the honourable gentleman Mr. Timothy Raison has quite fulfilled the undertaking which he gave at the Committee stage in another place to ensure that missionaries were covered.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I ask my noble friend whether or not this is exactly the sort of case which might be covered by Clause 3(1):
"If while a person is a minor an application is made for his registration as a British citizen, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, cause him to be registered as such a citizen".
Surely this is exactly the kind of case in which the Secretary of State should think fit.
Lord Mishcon: Everybody is trying to help the bishop, and it is right that we should. May I make a simple suggestion: that at the Report stage to Clause 3(2)(c):
"that the nature or terms and conditions of that employment involved a close connection with the United Kingdom;"
we should insert the words:
"or the Kingdom of Heaven"?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Appropriate as that suggestion is, I doubt whether it would go the whole distance. The answer to the question which the right reverend Prelate has raised must depend upon whether or not the missionary in question is employed by an association established in the United Kingdom. We understand that most of the arrangements under

1045
which missionaries are sent out from the United Kingdom would involve them in being employed by an unincorporated body of persons. Perhaps the best way to take this matter forward would be to have a clearer idea from the right reverend Prelate and the Church generally of the circumstances in which missionaries serve so that we can ensure that the provisions of the Bill, so far as appropriate, cover them. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out, Clause 3(1) provides the Secretary of State with a very general discretion to register any minor if he thinks fit. If by some oversight the position of missionaries was not properly dealt with, I have no doubt that that discretion would be available. However, it may be preferable to try to deal with it in the more substantive parts of the clause, which is what I understood my honourable friend Mr. Raison to have in mind in the reply which he gave. So far as the academics are concerned—
Lord Drumalbyn: Before my noble friend leaves that point, may I mention to him that he has spoken about the Church. Would he extend that to "the Churches"?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: In using the phrase "the Church", I certainly had in mind a very wide conception. Certainly I was not excluding—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Is there not such a thing as the universal Church?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I was hoping to be able to offer some such phrase. I had in mind the circumstances of missionaires generally, but in that connection one has to remember what my noble friend Lord Renton said.
The Lord Bishop of Southwell: May I say that I was intending my remarks to apply not just to the Church of England. I am not aware that the Roman Catholic Church sends out any missionaries who would be likely to bear children, but most of the Protestant Missionary Societies do have married missionaries. I hope the Committee realises that I am speaking for all the Churches and not just the Church of England.
Lord Hunt: I am very glad that the amendment, which I had not intended to move, but apparently had, had a useful ecumenical spin-off. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 3, line 2, leave out ("under subsection (3)") and insert ("in Schedule (Service associated with the activities outside the United Kingdom of Her Majesty's Government)
( ) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument add to or remove from Schedule (Service associated with the activities outside the United Kingdom of Her Majesty's Government); but no order shall be made under this subsection unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by each House of Parliament.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the amendment standing in my name. I would refer, first of all, to the remarks made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, when he drew the attention of the Committee
1046
to Clause 13(1)(a) which defines the British citizen "by descent" as such a citizen
"only if he is a person born outside the United Kingdom after commencement who is a British citizen by virtue of section 2(1)(a) only"
et cetera. If one looks at Clause 2 one sees that the person who is a British citizen by virtue of Clause 2(1)(b) is a British citizen otherwise than by descent. This is the important distinction we sought to bring out earlier between persons who receive British citizenship as a result of descent from a person who is in Crown service or service to which Clause 2 is applied by designation of the Secretary of State, and Clause 3 citizenship, on the other hand, which is acquired by means of registration.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, brought out a very important point: that we are not talking simply about differences in the procedure whereby citizenship is acquired when we are comparing Clauses 2 and 3; we are talking about a very real distinction in the nature and quality of the citizenship, because the person whose father was a servant of the Crown or a member of the armed forces or any of the other categories of employment to which this section applies is able to transmit his own citizenship, whereas the descendant of the person employed by the companies to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter has drawn our attention is not able to transmit his citizenship. Therefore I was right when I intervened and asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate whether there was not something inferior in the quality of citizenship given under Clause 3 as compared with that under Clause 2. Therefore it is extremely important that we should know precisely what kind of service the Government have in mind when they talk about service designated by the Secretary of State.
If I may say so, I think it is wholly unsatisfactory that an important matter of this kind should be dealt with by means of private correspondence between the Minister in another place and certain privileged individuals who have been given an indication of the kinds of service which the Secretary of State might have in mind here. The noble Baroness, Lady White, enlightened us earlier on as to what the Secretary of State thought should be employment of the kind designated. Nobody else knows that, or they would not have known it if the noble Baroness had not been good enough to convey the information which was in Mr. Raison's letter. I think the Government should have treated your Lordships rather better than this and that we should have had proper information as to kinds of employment that were going to be designated.
The reason for my putting down this amendment is to suggest to the Government that if they have decided to designate Crown servants seconded to work overseas, members of the Overseas Civil Service, members of the armed forces, employees of the British Council and employees of the Crown Agents, the categories of employment which I have heard mentioned this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady White, or others, they could be dealt with by means of a schedule so that we should know ab initio that persons in that employment were to benefit from the provisions in Clause 2, without in any way subtracting from the

1047
powers of the Secretary of State under Clause 2 to add to those categories by designation.
If we may take with this amendment the draft schedule which is in Amendment No. 86, I tried to put down some representative types of employment which I thought the Government might have in mind. Some of them I obviously guessed correctly, such as the British Council and Crown Agents. From the discussion we had earlier it is clear that the Government do not intend to extend this privilege to any of the employees of the European institutions. I think that is a great shame, because I would agree with the arguments already advanced that service with any of the bodies such as I have mentioned here should qualify. This is not meant to be an exhaustive list; I should have included the Council of Europe, of which the European Commission of Human Rights is a subsidiary body; I might have extended it to other international organisations—the International Atomic Agency, the Commonwealth Secretariat, the Inter-Parliamentary Union. One could go on extending it. I see the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, nodding. One of the arguments the Government may be seeking to advance is that you water down this privilege of Clause 2 if you confer it on too wide a circle of people. What I am suggesting is that we could at least establish, to the satisfaction of the ordinary man in the street in a common sense way, what is employment of the kind which is to the benefit of the state and is connected with the purposes of the United Kingdom.
I certainly think that, whatever else may be said, European institutions of the kind I have put down as examples, and some of the institutions of the UN, ought to be included in that category. So I am appealing to the Government at this stage, first of all to say that they will in principle be prepared to insert a schedule of this kind, not necessarily exactly the one I have here, and that they will be prepared to state from the start what employments they already have in mind as those to which Clause 2 will apply; and, secondly, that they will think once again about the very important arguments advanced that the European institutions, if no other, should be included in those to which Clause 2 applies. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: In supporting very much what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said, I should like to point out that I believe there would be an anomaly under Clause 2 as it now stands, because of course all the appointments in the European institutions are recruited in Brussels or in Luxembourg and not in the United Kingdom. Therefore, if I have understood the clause correctly, they would not fall under Clause 2(1)(b) as now drafted. Perhaps my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate would be able to comment on that when he replies.
We have, 9f course, already debated this matter at some length, but I should like to stress the need for able, willing and hard-working British citizens to work on behalf of Britain in the European institutions. I only have to draw attention to my own political group, the European Democratic Group in the European Parliament which, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, pointed out—not only ours but the other members elected from the United Kingdom—are
1048
elected precisely to serve the citizens of this country. We cannot serve the citizens of this country if we do not get the best people to help us do that job to the best of our own ability. Therefore, we draw on people who are willing to leave this country who are, of course, British by birth—I presume that they are, but anyway they are certainly British citizens, they are certainly attached closely to this country and their interests are with this country. Yet, they are now being asked to go and live in Brussels, Luxembourg or wherever—and they are young people who may have children—and they are expected to sacrifice the citizenship of their children by serving this country and us in, for instance, the European Parliament. I, therefore, strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the thinking behind his proposal and I would most earnestly ask my noble and learned friend to look at the matter much more closely than the Government have so far been willing to do.
I also had a copy of the letter from Mr. Raison to members of the Community in Brussels. They have been extremely worried by it and the uncertainty and insecurity in which they are living with their families is causing them great distress and concern. Perhaps I should declare not only the interest that I have already declared of having a granddaughter in Brussels, but also that both my son and my daughter-in-law happen to work in the European Commission. So not only is their present child affected by the results of the Bill, but also any future children that they may have. I say that only in passing because they are by no means the only people affected. Many of their colleagues, young people working with them, feel that the effects of this Bill will be disastrous for the future of their children, particularly in Belgium where, if they do not register their child, the child will be stateless. That is surely something that no British Government should allow to happen. Particularly as we are signatories to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness to expect British citizens to work for Britain and to allow their children to be stateless is surely something that this House would not tolerate.
Lord Trefgarne: I should like to begin by dealing with the last point made by my noble friend Lady Elles. Of course the Bill has special provisions with regard to the avoidance of statelessness which are set out in Schedule 2 which your Lordships will see on page 55 of the Bill. I believe that the anxieties of my noble friend on that account are not well founded.
Baroness Elles: I am sorry to intervene, but I assure my noble friend that my fears are not allayed by the way in which Schedule 2 is drafted. If we do not get a satisfactory answer at this stage of the Bill and some encouragement that the European institutions at least will be included in Clause 2, we shall raise the matter again under Schedule 2.
Lord Trefgarne: I have a little more to say yet and I hope that my noble friend will take a more balanced view of the problem when I have finished my remarks.
I turn to the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. As the noble Lord explained this set of amendments is aimed at the power in Clause 2(3) to designate by order any description of service con-

1049
sidered to be closely associated with the activities outside the United Kingdom of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom. Under subsection (4) of the clause any such order would be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either your Lordships' House or another place.
We have indicated in another place—and several noble Lords have already referred to this—the categories of service which we currently intend to designate in this way. The first is employment with the British Council. The second is service with an international organisation by Crown servants seconded to such bodies in the course of their careers. Third comes service with Her Majesty's overseas Civil Service. I would observe at this point that the new schedule which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, seeks to add to the Bill does not, in fact, cover the last category at all, although I recognise that the noble Lord agreed that his schedule might not be a perfect one. Morever, it fails to cover the second group in full, since the schedule does not cover all the international organisations of which we are members. However, I think that the noble Lord recognises that imperfection at least in what he proposes.
Although in those respects the proposed new schedule is more restrictive than the Government intend to be under subsection (3), in other respects Lord Avebury's proposals go wider. He aims, if I understand him aright, to give the children of people working for international organisations the same avenue as Crown servants' children to British citizenship at birth. The Government are by no means blind to the claims of our citizens who represent this country's interests overseas by working for an international organisation of which we are a member. Clause 3(3)(d) provides for an entitlement to registration for them where connections with this country are maintained. We are, however, doubtful whether it would be appropriate to go further than that.
I would ask your Lordships to remember that the people who benefit from the Bill's provisions for passing citizenship through employment are British citizens by descent. British citizens otherwise than by descent would be able to pass on their citizenship anyway to their children born overseas. So we are talking about the power to transmit their citizenship of people born overseas who have chosen to make their careers overseas with an international organisation. However, such employees are in a different position from Crown servants in two respects. First, their job does not dictate, as a Crown servant's normally does, that periods of one's career will be spent in the United Kingdom. I am not pretending that that is an argument which will appeal to my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, but some others of your Lordships may see the force of it. Second, access to the citizenship of the country of residence will not be barred in the same way as it is for the children of diplomats or visiting armed forces.
In these circumstances, it may well be the case in some instances that the people concerned will prefer their children have the citizenship of the country where they are living. A male citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent working say, for the United Nations in New York, has at present to make a choice whether or not he wants a child born
1050
to him there to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. If he does, he can register the birth of the child at the consulate. If he does not, the child will solely be a citizen of the United States by birth, which may indeed be more appropriate. Under Lord Avebury's amendment, however, there would be no choice. British citizenship would be acquired at birth and this could in some cases make it more difficult for the child to acquire or keep citizenship of a country where the family will now have been living for perhaps two generations.
I would, therefore, recommend to your Lordships the Government's approach. This recognises that some at least of those citizens by descent born overseas and working overseas for an international organisation may see their children's future as lying overseas rather than with this country. But where they do retain links with this country—and of course I recognise that very many of them will—then the provisions of Clause 3 more than cater for their needs. Employment with an international organisation is specifically mentioned in Clause 3(3)(d) and we have no doubt that the bodies mentioned in the proposed new schedule are all international organisations for this purpose, apart from the British Council and the Crown Agents. The former would be designated under Clause 2(3); the latter would be covered by Clause 3 since it is a company or an association based in the United Kingdom.
My noble friend Lady Elles also of course referred to the question of European Members of Parliament, but I find it hard to imagine that European Members of Parliament would not be retaining some links with the United Kingdom if they were adequately representing their constituency in the European Parliament as, of course, they all do so effectively.
I should like to mention one final point. The noble Lord's amendment recognises that no schedule specifying qualifying service of this nature could be complete. That is why the Government felt that an order-making power was appropriate here, to take account of changing circumstances such as the emergence of new organisations. Indeed, the noble Lord has provided for entries to be added to or subtracted from the schedule, after an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I venture to suggest that the Government's proposals here are flexible and suitable to the needs of the situation. It is true that subsection (4)—which I note that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has neglected to seek to omit—only provides for the negative resolution procedure. But that procedure would, I suggest, provide a more than adequate opportunity for parliamentary debate, if one is wanted. I hope that these thoughts will persuade the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, not to press his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: I very much hope that the arguments will have the reverse effect upon the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, than that for which the noble Lord the Minister has prayed, except that I thought that the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was, as usual, a very statesmanlike approach. It was that it might be very sensible to wait until one sees the final form of Clause 3, after the Government have reacted to the various amendments that will be moved,

1051
before seeing how serious the omissions from Clause 2 may be.
Having said that, may I, very frankly, tell the Committee what worries me. I must confess that I am a little worried by an answer to the plea about children being stateless, that the jus soli, one hopes, will obtain in other countries. It is rather an odd situation when the jus soli has been thrown out by the Government as being rather a wrong basis upon which nationality should be based. Apparently, we shall be keeping to the convention—to which the noble Baroness referred—that we have signed in regard to reducing statelessness, in the hope that other countries will not throw out what we have just thrown out.
But what really worries me is this, and having said it, I shall conclude. If I may say so in all humility, I am very worried that a specific amendment about employees of the EEC may have to be put down on Report unless the Government have a second thought. I think that it would be a very great shame—I want to use moderate language—if an amendment, specifically referring to membership of the EEC, is tabled—and that is a very specific case for a reason that I shall give in a moment—is opposed by the Government and, as a result of the Government asking for support from its members, is defeated in this House. I think that it would be extremely and singularly unfortunate at this specific moment—when much is being tried by the Government in regard to showing loyalty at one to the EEC and at the same time asking for reform of certain matters within the EEC—if a specific amendment was put down on this basis and was opposed by the Government.
If I may say so, it would be so easy for the Government to give in on this point of the EEC—and that is one that I am stressing—because there is no other Parliament, other than our own, to which we elect members as a result of a democratic system. Therefore, it is so easy to make an exception of that without walking into the argument that is a favourite one of Ministers, whatever their political complexion may be, that this would open the floodgates. No opening of the flood gates comes as a result of making an exception of employees in the EEC.
Therefore, I am pleading with the Government to have a very serious thought about this and to communicate their view, if they possibly can, on this question of the EEC between now and the Report stage, in order to prevent specific amendments in this connection being put down which, so far as I know, have not been put down at the Committee stage, and very rightly so.
Lord Trefgarne: The difficulty is, of course, that the noble Lord opposite is asking, me to give him a view, not on the amendment on the Marshalled List, but on some future amendment which may be tabled at some later stage of the Bill. I am sorry but I cannot give him that undertaking because, of course, I have to see the amendment as proposed. Therefore, I do not think that I could go further than that now. The amendments to which I was addressing my arguments was the wider set of amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the criticisms which I adduced of those were the ones that I ventured to put before your Lordships.
Lord Mishcon: I will not take up more than a moment of the Committee's time, but my plea to the noble Lord the Minister was directed to a specific subject on purpose. I did not ask for any statement to be made today; I merely asked for consideration of this point to be given by the Government between now and the Report stage in order to save a specific amendment being tabled, the wording of which quite obviously is well within the Minister's mind.
Lord Gifford: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, could turn his attention to the point which has now been raised both by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and by myself; that is to say, that the people who will obtain citizenship through registration under Clause 3(2), which is the avenue which he recommends for employees of the EEC and of other organisations in the list of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will have an inferior citizenship to the citizenship which is obtained under Clause 2(1)(b)? That is because it is a citizenship by descent, as has been confirmed, and not a citizenship otherwise than by descent.
The impact of that is that all the people whom the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has mentioned, who are working overseas in the service of the European Community, must face the fact that their children will not be able to transmit their citizenship. They are different kinds of citizens from those who are born in this country. They are not only different kinds of citizens, but they can never be upgraded, because the noble Baroness specifically asked whether one could, as it were, rectify the deficiency in one's citizenship under Clause 3(2) by making a second application under Clause 3(6) when one returns to the United Kingdom. The answer given was "No, you are stuck with citizenship by descent by the very fact that you have registered under Clause 3(2)", and that cannot be right. If that situation remains, it is imperative to have a wider schedule of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has proposed, so that you can be absolutely clear that those who ought to have full citizenship without disadvantages should be put into Clause 2 rather than Clause 3.
Lord Trefgarne: I am not entirely certain to what disadvantages the noble Lord refers, because the transmission point that he made is not, I am advised, strictly correct in the terms that the noble Lord expressed it. I agree that the citizenship under Clause 3, which we shall discuss in great detail in a moment—and in Clause 3(2) in particular—is, of course, different from the type of citizenship that we are now considering. But I do not necessarily accept—and nor, indeed, did my noble and learned friend accept at an earlier moment in your Lordships' discussions—that this is necessarily an inferior citizenship, although I accept that it is different.
Lord Avebury: I am really disappointed at the Minister's reply. I should like to say a few words about the arguments that he has put to your Lordships which I do not think are satisfactory at all; in particular, when he answered the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, by saying that there are no provisions for statelessness in Schedule 2. If we look at the provisions in Schedule 2, we see that in order to satisfy the requirements

1053
there you must bring the child back to the United Kingdom or to one of the dependent territories, and the child must be here for a period of three years before that purgatory has expired and the lack of citizenship can be rectified. So for the first few years of a child's life, in the circumstances that the noble Baroness outlined, that child will be stateless. As the noble Baroness pointed out, that may well happen to some of her own grandchildren. If people are to be requested to go and serve in the institutions of the European Community, of which we are supposed to be a loyal member, I think that they deserve better of Her Majesty's Government.
I am disappointed about the response of the noble Lord to the particular request regarding the EEC. I agree that my schedule is wider than that, but this is where the discussion has progressed. After all, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put a specific request to the Minister; he said, leaving aside what is actually in this schedule would the Minister at least give an undertaking to go away and consider the arguments that have been advanced from all sides of the Committee regarding the special circumstances in which people serve the institutions of Europe, and see whether he cannot come back with something on Report stage?
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was not asking the noble Lord to give a positive undertaking that he would incorporate the EEC citizens here; simply that the Government should take it into consideration and come back on Report. This is something we are always asking Ministers to do in Committee, and frequently they will say they will have a look at it. But in the absence of any assurances whatsoever, and the direct and blank refusal of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to the request put by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I feel that I have no alternative but to ask your Lordships to divide on this amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: Just before the noble Lord decides what to do, I think there may be a misunderstanding. Of course we will listen to, and look at, what has been said in the debate in this Committee. But what the noble Lord is putting to us in his amendment is something much wider. The European point raised by my noble friend and others is certainly something we can look at, but the wider point put by the noble Lord is not something that we could agree to.
Lord Avebury: I wish the noble Lord had made that point before, because if he had said that in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I would have adopted a different tone of voice. I now apply to reverse my stand entirely and say that I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for adding that, and saving us all from trooping through the Division Lobbies. We will look forward very much to seeing what the noble Lord produces on Report stage for the benefit of people working in the European institutions, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Acquisition by registration: minors]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 34.
Lord Avebury: Is it convenient to begin Amendment No. 34 now, or does the noble Lord wish to adjourn?
Lord Skelmersdale: In that case, I think I might take it upon myself to suggest that it probably is not appropriate for your Lordships to move this amendment now. I suggest that we come back to this Committee stage at a quarter to eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1981
6.55 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Meat and Livestock Commission Levy (Variation) Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1981, a copy of which was laid before the House on 19th June, be approved. This scheme amends the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme which is set out in the schedule to the Meat and Livestock Commission Levy Scheme (Confirmation) Order 1979. It provides for increases in the maximum charges leviable on each animal from 90p to £1 in respect of cattle, from 16p to 24p for sheep, and from 30p to 40p for pigs. The maximum charge of 12p for calves remains unchanged.
The setting up of the Meat and Livestock Commission has, in the Government's view, been well justified. The commission provides a wide and important range of services for the livestock and livestock products industries. These services benefit all the interests in these industries, ranging from the producer through to the consumer. They include livestock improvement work, marketing and economic services, fatstock certification, weighing and classification services, and support for scientific projects. All have played a vital part in the industry's progress and development.
Of particular interest has been the development of the commission's meat promotion executive, which was set up in 1975. From modest beginnings the executive's work has grown steadily to provide an effective stimulus to the demand for British meat both at home and, increasingly, abroad. The commission's report for the year ending 31st March 1980, which was laid before Parliament, provides detailed information on the commission's activities. For this reason, I would not wish to dwell on them further, but I should like to compliment the new chairman and the other commissioners on the way in which they have discharged their statutory duties at a time when, as with the country as a whole, the meat and livestock industry is experiencing very severe economic difficulties.
If I may, I should like to say just a few words about the commission's finances. Since Parliament approved the last levy scheme somewhat over two years ago the commission has undertaken a major review of its

1055
activities and its budgetary provision. This was stimulated by the natural concern of the industry at a time of increasing costs that the levy income should be kept within reasonable limits. The commission carried out a thorough appraisal of its activities. It concluded that significant economies had to be made, and after detailed discussions with the major interests in the industry it produced a budgetary plan for three years which received general approval as a major step forward in the financial management of the Commission's affairs.
We in the agricultural departments were kept in close touch with these developments. Some hard and even painful decisions had to be made, and I would pay a tribute to the spirit of compromise and to the determination to reach a solution which characterised the attitude of all those who were concerned. The Commission achieved reductions in expenditure which have enabled them over the past year or so to hold the levy below the maximum rates which had been provided for in the 1979 order.
In parallel with the review of the commission's budgetary plans changes in its arrangements for consultation with the industry were also worked out. The commission has set up a financial liaison committee, and also a group of joint commission/industry steering committees in order to examine particular activities and to make recommendations on such matters as the order of priorities and changes in the programme of work. The industry forum has been retained as the formal basis of consultation with all industry organisations, and the statutory consumers committee has also been retained without change. All the indications are that this new consultation structure commands the confidence of the industry and is working well.
There was general agreement that within the budgetary programme which is now being followed the commission's expenditure on meat promotion should be retained at broadly current levels allowing for inflation. It is in order to maintain, but not to increase, these levels that increases in the maximum rates of levy are now being sought. These proposed increases have been the subject of a thorough consultation with the industry during recent months. There is a wide measure of agreement on them, although, not entirely unnaturally, a few industry organisations have raised specific objections to the size and to the timing of the increase in levies which is proposed by the commission.
The Government appreciate the reasons for these objections, but we believe it essential that the commission should be able to raise the financial resources in order to continue the work which is generally supported by the industry. The purpose of the order is to raise the ceiling on levies. The precise timing of levy increases within that ceiling is of course a matter for the commission, in consultation with the industry. That the commission is very much aware of the need to minimise its demands on the industry is demonstrated by its decision to defer the actual levy increases which were planned for 1st April last to 1st October. I commend the commission for taking such a positive and practical step at this time. I am sure there is now a much greater mutual understanding and confidence
1056
between the commission and the industry and that this provides a firm base for its future development. The order will, I believe, enable it to maintain its finances on a sound basis and thereby to continue its important task of promoting the efficiency of the meat and livestock industry in this country. I ask your Lordships to support the Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 19th June be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
7.2 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister of State for those remarks in introducing the order. It is an important order which gives the House a brief opportunity to look at some of the problems facing the industry and the Meat and Livestock Commission in its important work. I am pleased that the Minister of Agriculture regards the MLC as an important body and that it has not suffered the fate of many Quangos in being slaughtered, if that is the appropriate term to use in this situation. Indeed, the industry values its work, for it provides a wide range of services for both the producer and the consumer, and not only for the home market but for the international market as well.
When an MLC order raising levels in the maximum charges was debated in another place in 1979, I was the Minister of State responsible for putting it before that House. That order followed a review of the workings of the MLC after some difficulties. Among other things, the representatives of the industry and the various interests concerned sought much greater consultation, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord make a brief reference to that. It was clear in my time that the MLC could improve its consultation procedures, and the policies for such were detailed in the report to which the noble Lord referred. I hope he will tell us a little more about the improvements in that direction.
The report of the MLC to which the Minister referred, for the year ended 31st March 1980, speaks of
"a fundamental reappraisal of its future role and programmes",
and among the other restrictions is a reduction in the levy to be allocated to general development work in 1980–81 of about 20 per cent. of the previous year's level, and raising it to only 90 per cent. of that year's level in the two following years. Reductions may be the order of the day in many directions, but one must keep a careful balance between cuts in expenditure and reductions in the amount of work, along with the needs of the industry if it is to remain competitive and stay in the leading role it has occupied for many years.
Meat promotion work was not to be affected, but general development work was expected to be cut by about £1 million in 1980–81, not allowing for the effects of inflation. The report, rather naively, I thought, claims that cuts of that magnitude cannot be made without sacrifice. Indeed, the pig testing station at Corsham, Wiltshire, was to close in the autumn and the MLC was to cease to operate its pig AI centre at West Buckland, Somerset.
The introduction to the MLC report for the year ended 31st March 1980 goes on to say:

1057
"The stringent cuts in MLCs' support for research, especially the ending of the £290,000 annual contribution for commissioned projects at the Meat Research Institute, have been made with reluctance and, understandably, concern has been expressed within the industry about the withdrawal of research funds. It is not, however, a complete withdrawal; while research sponsorship will be drastically reduced over the next three years, a small contingency fund will be maintained to enable a few approved research projects of special need to be undertaken".
That may be all very well but one must look at the effects on an industry which needs to be even more competitive in the home and international situation. The report goes on in the introduction:
"The amounts of levy allocated to meat promotion and to development work are now practically equal".
But it goes on:
"Competition in the food markets, both home and international, is intense and is likely to increase. In that context work of meat promotion must continue at a high level … The British meat and livestock industry needs to be technologically equipped in every sector to meet the increasing challenges from other countries and other foods. No industry can expect to succeed in the future without up-to-date knowledge and technical information to guide its progress".
Noble Lords will agree with the sentiments expressed very concisely in that introduction, but one wonders whether the needs of the industry can be met and whether research and development can be sustained in a situation of the limited finances available. Noble Lords may say it is a matter for the industry to find the cash in some way and that too high a levy could cause difficulties. I appreciate of course that we are not tonight discussing the level of the levy to be imposed but the ceiling which will allow the commission to act as it sees fit in the future.
While, therefore, we support the order for the revised levy ceilings, I am sure the House views with some concern the fact that the principal casualties are the research budget, the termination of the work of the evaluation of ram breeds of the past year and reductions in livestock improvement work in 1981 and 1982. This policy could in some circumstances be called the eating of the seed corn, for British livestock has been supreme in the world and can be maintained in quality and production only if we maintain, and indeed increase, the amount of money and resources spent on research and development, apart from on promotion in a competitive market both at home and abroad.
There is, as I said, no merit by itself in making cuts or reductions in expenditure because that is the order of the day. It is essential that the MLC looks at the matter very carefully to make sure there is a real balance, so that our industry—which, as I say, has been supreme—can retain its position in the international as well as the home sphere. The work of the MLC is valued by the industry and by producers and consumers, and I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to the work of the commission and all those who are engaged in that work. However, concern should be expressed at the sense of pride, or at least feeling of satisfaction, which the Minister expressed in another place when the order was debated there on 7th July and when he said that the commission had achieved reductions in expenditure which had enabled it to hold the levy below the maximum rates provided for in the 1979 order for the previous year or so. That is all very well, but it must be considered in relation to other priorities, and I should like the
1058
noble Lord to comment on the position as he sees it and whether he is sure the industry can be sustained in the way it should be in the future.
With those few comments, my Lords, I pay tribute to the MLC for the work it does. I am glad the Minister has not chopped it but, rather, is allowing it to do its work. I hope the Government will see the need for the Government themselves to sustain it as far as possible in the vital work it does and will do for the producer and consumer in the future.
7.10 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for having been so kind and so gracious to the Government on this order, because he made one or two very pertinent points. He said that British livestock is supreme in the world, which indeed it is, and it is essential that we hold this position in the world, and anything which the Meat and Livestock Commission can do to encourage that can only be to the good. He said that he was glad that as a Quango it was not cut—or not "axed", I think was the word he used.
Lord Bishopston: I said "slaughtered".
Earl Ferrers: Slaughtered—that is even worse. I hesitate to inform the noble Lord that it is not actually a Quango. A Quango is generally accepted as being a body which is financed by the Government, whereas this is financed by the industry and therefore is not truly a Quango. But the difficulty that we are in is that the noble Lord—quite rightly—wishes to see the work of the Meat and Livestock Commission continued, research and development continued and promotion continued; and in a period (which we are in) of inflation and at the same time recession, it is difficult to achieve these things without increasing the demands upon industry to an even greater extent than at present.
That is why I would pay particular tribute to the Meat and Livestock Commission for the fact that they have really had a thorough review of all that they are doing and have tried to find out how they can cut their work in real terms. They have made a substantial reduction in real terms which then, of course, has to be upgraded for inflation. The result has been a pruning of the work undertaken by the Meat and Livestock Commission, which in the lone term may not necessarily be bad. There is bound to be a balance, and something must go. If you continue to do what you have been doing previously in a period of inflation, the imposition on that industry becomes too great, and I think the balance that has been achieved is about correct.
The promotional work will continue and I suppose that the research and development work of the essential parts will continue. Inevitably, research and development is an open-ended commitment. One can do more and more, but eventually one has to put a limit to it. I should like to see more research and development work done, but in the context of the present times we have to curtail that to a reasonable extent, and I think that has been achieved by what the commission intend to do.
The last year or two has been a difficult time for the commission and indeed for the whole industry, and

1059
particularly for those who are in the business of slaughtering; they have been through a very difficult time. But the positive response to that difficult time by the commission and the readiness of the organisations as a whole to play their part in overcoming these difficulties, have been immensely encouraging.
The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked whether the efficiency of the Meat and Livestock Commission can be maintained. I have no reason to doubt that it can be maintained, but with any industry or any business at all, in times of inflation the only way that one can maintain efficiency is by being positively on the ball and aware of the difficulties which one is likely to encounter. I think the Meat and Livestock Commission are fully alert to these difficulties and I see no reason why they should not be efficient in the future. Indeed, they may well become more efficient. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his welcome to the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pool Competitions Act 1971 (Continuance) Order 1981
7.14 p.m.
Lord Sandys Lord Sandys rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the draft order is to extend the Pool Competitions Act 1971 for a further period of 12 months to July 1982. In 1971, when the Act was passed, it was limited to five years, but it contained provision for its extension by order for up to a year at a time, and it has been extended in each of the years from 1976 to 1980.
The Act was necessary in 1971 to safeguard the position of certain charitable and sporting pools then in existence. The competitions are for prizes based on the outcome of sporting events, mostly football matches. They differ from football pools in that generally speaking there is no skill involved in selecting teams each week. Competitors hold a permanent selection of numbers which are assigned each week to football teams and winners are determined by reference to the result of the matches. The Spastics Society and other medical charities and sporting organisations derive substantial income from the competitions. The promoters thought that these competitions were a lawful form of pool betting, (because the competitors had an option, very rarely exercised, of changing their selection). But a judgment in your Lordships' House in 1970 held that they were unlawful lotteries. This was because the prizes were not for making successful forecasts but for holding numbers which happened to be lucky in a particular week.
The charitable and sporting organisations concerned stood to lose a considerable part of their income if the competitions were discontinued, and they saw no prospect of replacing it from other sources. The Pool Competitions Act 1971 was therefore passed to enable the organisations already promoting the competitions to continue to do so, with a system of licensing and control established under the Act and administered by the Gaming Board for Great Britain. Although the
1060
number of bodies relying on the 1971 Act has declined, six still rely substantially on these competitions for their income. The Act was a temporary measure but it has been extended five times and has been in force for 10 years in all. When it came up for renewal last year, my noble friend Lord Belstead said that it was the intention that the Home Office hold discussions with the charitable and sporting bodies concerned with a view to finding a more permanent solution to replace what was intended to be no more than a stop-gap measure.
Useful discussions have been held. It had been thought that the doubling of the monetary limits on lotteries, which took effect on 1st July, might have enabled some organisations to dispense with these competitions, but in most cases their income from the competitions is still greatly in excess of what they could raise from ordinary lotteries. No one would wish the valuable work being undertaken by organisations such as the Spastics Society to be curtailed by cutting off this source of income. It is, however, invidious that only those organisations which were running such competitions in 1971 can continue to do so. In the longterm the choice is between banning such competitions altogether, with serious consequences to the organisations concerned, or putting them on a permanent footing open to any organisation, subject to appropriate safeguards which would prevent the general availability of such schemes stimulating a significant increase in the turnover of money expended in this way.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary now intends that his officials should pursue their discussions with the six organisations which still benefit from such competitions with a view to making proposals for permanent legislation which would enable these competitions to retain their distinctive character while making them generally available to other organisations, subject to the safeguards to which I have referred. This problem has been with us too long and needs to be resolved. My right honourable friend is taking steps to that end, although your Lordships will appreciate that it is not possible for me to say when permanent legislation can be introduced. Meanwhile, I hope your Lordships will approve the draft order and extend the Pool Competitions Act 1971 for a further year. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 21st May be approved.—(Lord Sandys.)
7.20 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will approve the order, and I should like to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for so clearly explaining its purposes. If the order were not passed, a number of significant charities would suffer considerably, as indeed would those people whom the bodies seek to help, since to a considerable extent they are dependent on money raised through the means provided under the governing Act. However it must be said—and I think that this was implicit in what the Minister himself said tonight—that it is a pity that Parliament is still having to consider annual extensions of the Act, instead of being able to rely on permanent legislative provisions. As the

1061
Minister has indicated, the Pool Competitions Act dates from 1971. It was intended to be only temporary, for five years, but with the annual extension since then it has lasted for the past 10 years. Therefore, I would wholly agree with the Minister that it is desirable to have permanent legislation, so that the charities concerned can be quite certain about their position and their future and are enabled to plan ahead properly.
I was grateful that last year the Government gave an undertaking that they would not allow the Act to lapse until there was new, permanent legislation. Although I understand that an undertaking was also given that adequate time would be allowed for the bodies operating under the 1971 Act, and benefiting from it, to consider any new proposals, I gather that the Spastics Society (to which the Minister referred in his speech tonight) which is one of the organisations concerned, up until today had not received any form of guarantee that the new proposals would include the provisions of the 1971 Act. So I would welcome what the Minister has said this evening about the Government's intentions and about their plans for further discussions, since there is now a very clear indication of the way in which the Government hope to be able to proceed towards permanent legislation.
I should like to ask the Minister whether he can say a little more about the timing of the further proposed discussions. I ask that question in particular for this reason. I was very pleased when last year the Minister's noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, told your Lordships that the bodies concerned were being invited by his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to have discussions with his department about the provision of satisfactory permanent arrangements to replace the temporary arrangements now before your Lordships. The Spastics Society has told me that there has indeed been a series of meetings (as the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has indicated tonight) but I understand that those meetings have been at the request of the society, rather than as a result of the invitation referred to last year. So I must confess that I wondered whether over the past year there had been on the Government's part as much determination as one would have hoped for in pressing ahead with the consultations and in seeking a permanent solution.
I would emphasise that I greatly welcome the very positive indication that the Minister has given tonight about the Government's intention to carry forward the discussions in a determined way, and as a result I am somewhat relieved and reassured, but I should be even further encouraged if he could say more about the speed with which the further discussions might be arranged.
I think it worth noting the extent to which bodies such as the Spastics Society depend on these competitions. In the Spastics Society's own case one-fifth of its income from general fund raising is derived from these sources, and other charities, such as Action Research for the Crippled Child, derive almost half their income from competitions of this kind. If pools competitions were stopped, the Spastics Society (to name only one organisation) would lose at least £800,000 in this year alone. Clearly this is a time when there are increasing financial pressures on all organisations, not least the charitable bodies, and so a permanent solution is all the more both necessary and urgent. However, until then, clearly the order is necessary,
1062
and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, in asking your Lordships to support it.
Lord Sandys: My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has welcomed the order, particularly in such felicitous terms, and I am grateful to him for expressing the welcome, bearing in mind the problems now being experienced by the charities and other bodies referred to. The timing of further discussions is a matter of some difficulty and I do not think that I can assist either the House or the noble Lord by making any further declaration, beyond saying that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be sending invitations to all six organisations (of which he will be aware) to participate in the discussions to be held. With regard to the actual timing of the discussions, I fear that those involved will have to await the invitation of my right honourable friend, and my understanding is that the discussions will take place as soon as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 7.45.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.26 until 7.45 p.m.]

British Nationality Bill
House again in Committee on Clause 3.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 14, leave out subsections (2) to (9) and insert—
("(2) A person born outside the United Kingdom shall be entitled, on an application for registration as a British citizen, to be registered as such a citizen if either his father or his mother was a British citizen by descent at the time of his birth, and that parent had a father or mother who was a British citizen otherwise than by descent.").
The noble Lord said: I think it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate who said earlier on that it was inevitable in the case of any Bill dealing with nationality that it was complex and somewhat difficult to understand for the layman. In Clause 3 we have an extremely long and involved set of procedures which have to be complied with by persons seeking citizenship by registration when they are born overseas other than those who are Crown servants or persons in service designated by the Secretary of State, as we have just been discussing under Section 2.
Looking at the Bill, we have three whole pages of conditions which the person born outside the United Kingdom must satisfy if he is to be registered as a British citizen by descent. I am afraid that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is right in saying that many people will not understand these provisions; they will miss the boat in the sense that they will fail to register within the period specified; they will have an enormous amount of hard work in formulating the application, and they may still at the end of the day get it wrong.
What I am suggesting in the amendment in my name, on page 3, line 14, is that the whole of Clause 3 should be swept away except the discretionary provision at the beginning, which I think we shall always need.

1063
There are going to be the cases that it is impossible to take care of within any fixed set of rules whatsoever, and I therefore think it is quite right that the Secretary of State should have this discretionary power in subsection (1); but, after that, what I am suggesting to your Lordships is that citizenship should be transmitted only to the second generation born overseas. That is to say, a person will have to satisfy the Secretary of State that his father or his mother was a British citizen by descent, and that that parent had a parent who was born in the United Kingdom.
So the tests he will have to satisfy are extremely simple ones. He will presumably have birth certificates for his parents and his grandparents. There will not be the enormous complexity of seeing whether the employment in which his parents were engaged is relevant employment within the meaning of subsection (3) as we have it here, but anybody who is serving overseas will be entitled to transmit citizenship to the second generation simply on proof of his ancestry.
There are two possible objections that it seems to me one might make to this. One is that it will unduly widen the scope of people to whom citizenship is given under the Bill. I think the answer to that has already come out in the discussions that we had earlier. Everybody is agreed that we wish to try to make provision for British employees of European institutions; everybody is agreed that we need to make extra provision to ensure that academics serving at universities overseas are taken care of; and, lastly, there is the case of the missionaries, where on all sides people have been saying that if the missionaries have not been taken care of in the Bill the undertaking which was given by Mr. Tim Raison in another place and which had apparently been forgotten should be freshly examined.
The noble Lord is shaking his head to say, no, it had not been forgotten. Certainly it was not examined to the extent that a Minister was able to get up at the Dispatch Box and say with authority that ministers of religion and other servants of the Churches who went overseas, not as employees—because we know that they would be taken care of, as the noble Lord explained—but either as self-employed persons or as employed by the foreign missions or foreign churches to which they were sent, had been taken care of, and it did not seem at all clear that they had been under the Bill.
All I am suggesting is that from every quarter of the Committee there have been pleas to take care of additional categories of persons who are not employees, who are not working for British companies and who do not qualify under any of these extraordinarily complicated provisions of Clause 3. Therefore, if the Government honour those undertakings and the numbers of persons who qualify for citizenship is widened, what I am suggesting is that by extending the concession to the whole of the second generation born overseas there would not be a great widening of the numbers who fulfil the tests.
Of course, we are only talking about the people who want citizenship. Earlier on we were discussing the case of a British employee working for the United Nations. It was suggested—although I could not quite see the logic of this—that if the person was directly recruited by the United Nations and he went
1064
to New York and had children there it might easily be in their interests that they should grow up as American citizens. The Minister was saying, however, that if the person was seconded from the service of the Crown to work in the United Nations, in some manner his children would not have any advantage in growing up as American citizens. I do not understand why there should be this distinction. I merely am pointing out that nobody is obliged under the amendment that I am putting forward to take the citizenship if he does not want it. The second generation only has a right to register. If, in the circumstances that the Minister was thinking about, it suited the child more to be a citizen of the United States rather than retain links with this country then he would be entitled to do that.
There is another argument which I seek to advance now, and that is one of expense. We have not heard about that so far. It appears to me that a very large number of civil servants are going to have to be employed in examining the claims which will be submitted under Section 3(2) and a vast amount of paper work is going to have to be filled in to establish that the parents in question fulfil the terms of paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2). This will not simply be affirmations by the parent, it will also require that the company by which he is employed submits evidence regarding the nature of the employment during the period in question and the length of that employment. In addition to the burden of work which is already far too great for the staff of the Home Office to cope with for any reasonable length of time there is suddenly going to be this enormous mass of applications being made.
I do not know whether the Minister, when he comes to answer this amendment, would care to say what provision is made in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum for the additional staff that are going to be required in Lunar House or Adelaide House—wherever these people are going to be employed. What numbers of persons are going to be required to vet the applications under Section 3(2)? Where they are going to be physically housed is an interesting question because as I understand it there is not an enormous amount of room in the Home Office buildings where additional staff could be deployed. It is already the case that applications for citizenship are taking an enormous length of time to process.
As the Minister in another place, Mr. Timothy Raison, has explained to me, since the decisions of the courts over the past few years—particularly that of Zamir—when a person applies for registration or naturalisation as a citizen of the United Kingdom, inquiries have to be made into his bona fides as a person with the right of abode here. He may have been in the United Kingdom for six or seven years, but the person who vets his application for citizenship must first of all establish to his own satisfaction that the person gained the right of entry lawfully and that he did not for instance in terms of the Zambia judgment withhold information from an entry certificate officer which might have led to a different decision being given when he originally asked to come here from, say, Delhi or Manila.
The productivity of the people examining these matters has gone down disastrously. There are many

1065
more applications being submitted for citizenship than there used to be in the old days, but fewer of them are being processed per unit of staff. I cannot see how this additional work load is going to be covered by the department within its existing labour force. It is going to lead, unfortunately, to the very thing which the Government so strenously seek to avoid—that is, an increase in the number of public servants. We all want to see public expenditure carefully controlled. The amendment I am proposing now would, I suggest, be a modest step in that direction. The test is a simple one. It is not going to require a vast increase in staff and I would have thought therefore it would very much commend itself to the Committee.
May I give two examples which occurred to me this afternoon showing how difficult these provisions are to interpret. I pose these as a test for the Minister who is to reply. If he can tell me what citizenship the children in the examples I am going to give will acquire, I shall be interested to see whether he is capable of dealing with this matter off the cuff. I do not think many of those whom I have consulted have been confident in the answers that they gave when I first put these tests to them.
First, Mrs. Jones is a British citizen by descent and is married to a United States citizen. She works for IBM France at La Gaude which is the laboratories of IBM in the South of France near Nice. Mrs. Jones is transferred for a three year period to the IBM laboratories at Hursley in the United Kingdom near Winchester while remaining on the payroll of IBM France. She does not transfer to the United Kingdom company. After she has been living in the United Kingdom for two years she becomes pregnant. When the time comes for her to have the baby she returns to La Gaude, where she was formerly resident and the baby is born there. What is its citizenship?
The second example is Mr. Smith who is a British citizen by descent. Mr. Smith works for the Gulf Oil Company, an American company. He is working as a geologist on a North Sea oil rig. Mrs. Smith, who is a citizen of Sweden, lives in Aberdeen and of course he comes home to see her from the oil rig from time to time. She becomes pregnant. Mrs. Smith goes to stay with her mother in Stockholm and she has her baby there. What is the citizenship of that child?
If my amendment were passed it would be very simple because in both cases if the parent was a British citizen by descent but he had a father or a mother who was a British citizen by birth then the grandchild in question would be entitled to registration as a British citizen under this new subsection that I am proposing. The conundrums I have just put to the noble Lord the Minister are not untypical of the kind of puzzles which officials would have to try to work out if one leaves in these immensely complex provisions, which cover three pages. I seriously suggest that in the interest of simplicity, and in the interest of a reduction in bureaucracy, one should sweep away the whole of Clause 3 and replace it with a nice, simple transmission of citizenship to the second generation as I have proposed. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: Although I have followed many of the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord
1066
Avebury, I do not feel able to go along with him on this amendment. Knowing how complex this Bill is, I may have come to the wrong conclusion, but as I read it the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is eliminating the possibility of having a British citizen by descent by leaving out subsections (2) to (9). This is because under Clause 13 it states that a British citizen is a British citizen "by descent" if and only if:
"(a) he is a person born outside the United Kingdom after commencement who is a British citizen by virtue of section 2(1)(a) only or by virtue of registration under section 3(2) or 8".
Since this amendment would have the effect of eliminating Clause 3 I rather think that this could not happen.
Lord Avebury: I accept that there would have to be consequential modifications to Clause 13.
Baroness Elles: I am glad that I passed that test anyway. My other point is that I think that there must be some connection with the United Kingdom in some way or other. Under this amendment there need be no connection of any kind with the United Kingdom. I have followed the noble Lord's arguments very closely and I have supported many of them, but I thought that I should point out that there seemed to be some very grave defects in respect of this particular amendment.
The Duke of Norfolk: The two cases which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury has just mentioned—which were curious to say the least—are typical of what happens when one abandons jus soli. May I crave your Lordships' indulgence to say that when we were debating the amendment to Clause 1 dealing with the jus soli, I made a speech in which I said that I had had conversations with the cardinal and that he was confused about jus soli and jus sanguinis. Subsequently my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter used what I had said—which was not very extreme—rather to imply that the cardinal and the Roman Catholic bishops had abandoned jus soli. It must be said today that the cardinal has asked me to say that as only one of the conference of Roman Catholic bishops, who meet only twice a year, they still stand by the nine points in their proposals and of which the bishops in your Lordships' House have taken great note. The cardinal still stands by those points and he still stands by the principle of jus soli too. The cardinal's main consideration is that the ethnic minorities should not be given cause for any worry about the security of their position in England as a result of this Bill. I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to make that comment. It is not really a comment that applies to this particular amendment but I wanted to get it placed on the record today.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I fear that we are emphasising this issue of a close association with the United Kingdom to such an extent that it is becoming almost mechanistic. Surely the noble Lord's amendment, which refers to a citizen whose mother or father was a British citizen by descent at the time of the birth and whose grandfather or grandmother was also a British citizen, in itself demonstrates that there is a close

1067
connection with the United Kingdom. I do beg noble Lords not to give the impression that the only way in which one is associated with the United Kingdom is either by living here or by working for a British company or association. As I said in reference to a previous amendment, we want our young people to work all over the world. Let me give one example, which seems to me to illustrate a score of instances.
There is an organisation with which many of your Lordships will be familiar called the Economic Commission for Africa. The Commission needs assistance from the kind of development economists that we train in this country, and they welcome them. The Economic Commission for Africa cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be said to be based in Britain or to have a special relationship with Britain, but surely that should not debar an employee—an assistant, a consultant, or an adviser—from working for that organisation. I am sure that I do not need to give any further examples to convince your Lordships that this is not an isolated case. This is the way in which the world is turning. It is becoming a multinational world. That is so in business just as it is in social, economic and political life.
The second objection that I have to what has been said against this amendment and to subsections (2) to (9) of Clause 3—although I would, of course, bow to the opinion of noble and learned Lords who know a great deal more about the law than I do—is that this would make bad law. It would make bad law because it is confused. It is bad law for the layman while at the same time, perhaps, being a feast for the lawyers. One only has to read through this clause to see how much the legal profession could make out of these three pages referring to the requirements for citizenship. What frightens me about this Bill time after time—particularly in Clause 3—is the power that is given to the Secretary of State. I believe this is also bad law. It seems to me that, if we are laying down the conditions for nationality, those conditions should be laid down clearly and decisively and should not depend upon the decision of a Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be. So I would fully support the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his amendment because it is simple, it is clear and people will know where they stand with it; above all, it will sweep away the suspicions that are raised in these three pages that the Bill is really trying to keep United Kingdom citizens in this country and tied to this country, rather than allowing them to take their rightful place in the world community, where we hope they can contribute.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: May I take up a point—because if it was in order for the noble Duke I am sure it is in order for me—which was made by the noble Duke in his reference to our Committee stage debate with respect to the attitude of Church leaders. I would say at once that I should be extremely unhappy if any misunderstanding on my part of what the noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, reported as being the attitude of his Eminence, Cardinal Hume—a man for whom I have very great admiration—caused any misunderstanding at all. I should very much regret that. The episode, as the noble Duke will remember, was one in which we were fellow-workers in the same
1068
field. We were both trying to persuade our ecclesiastical leaders to adopt an attitude of moderation. I am sorry that we both failed.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I do not know how far this inquest is going into what happened on another occasion, but at least it is most gratifying to learn from the noble Duke that the Cardinal was, if I may use an inappropriate word, impenitent about the attitude he took, which delighted us all at the time. Indeed, it is unfortunate that it may, through inadvertence, have been slightly misrepresented during the debate.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: With regard to the last matter, I am glad to know that the noble Duke himself remains of the mind he expressed on the previous occasion and that he has been able to use this occasion to clarify the position between himself and his hierarchy. So far as this amendment is concerned, I might be pardoned for thinking that it was devised in order to produce the answer to both of the noble Lord's conundrums. I think my answer, on the basis of the present Bill, is that neither of the children to which he made reference would be United Kingdom citizens, unless there are any other facts involved which were not stated. On the facts stated, that is the position. I was almost wishing myself back in private practice as I heard these examples, in the hope that finding the answer might have produced some particular result for me!
Of course, the amendment proposed is simple. It has the effect of causing citizenship by descent to be transmitted for one more generation and then come to a dead stop—and if life were as simple as that, that might be a good thing to do. But the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, pointed out that we are in a multinational world and, if I might refer to what was said by one of his noble friends earlier, world citizenship is the appropriate concept for that.
So far as British citizenship is concerned, it would surely be very unfortunate if, in all the circumstances, it were to be cut off at the second generation, because it may well be that beyond the second generation citizens by descent might have a very real connection with the United Kingdom which would entitle them to a right of abode here. Accordingly, I would respectfully suggest that the noble Lord has achieved simplicity at the expense of a practical solution to this problem. To achieve simplicity, he has extended the descent for one generation without qualification. It is a matter of judgment, but certainly we would suggest that our proposal of one generation only without qualification is right: for the second generation and beyond—and ours goes far beyond the second generation—the right thing to do is to devise reasonable criteria for determining the continuation of a real link with the United Kingdom.
It is perfectly true that people from the United Kingdom may want to go and work abroad. That is a very laudable aim and, if they continue to work abroad through many generations of their family, surely the natural result would be that the place in which they have their children would be the place where they would want to have their citizenship. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was inclined to suggest that these provisions are confused, and therefore, I

1069
thought he seemed to say, good for the lawyers. It is certainly not part of the Government's purpose in bringing forward these clauses to produce any kind of feast for the lawyers but to produce a reasonable system of criteria to cope with the many variations of circumstances in which a real connection will continue to exist down through the generations with the United Kingdom such as to justify a continuation of the citizen's link with this Kingdom.
It is also suggested that it is wrong to depend on any kind of discretion of the Secretary of State. As I explained earlier, subject to considering the formula the intention in Clause 3(2) is to provide an entitlement on the basis of criteria which are set out. In my submission, that is the correct approach. Accordingly, I would strongly recommend to your Lordships that the Government approach and what is already in the Bill is preferable to the simplification proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is a simplification that fails to take proper account of the practical situation which the case is designed to deal with. I would therefore invite your Lordships not to accede to this amendment.
Lord Mishcon: If I may make just a few observations, they really find their origin and basis in what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has just said. It must be right that if it is at all possible to have a simple principle instead of subsections (2) to (9) within this clause, it would be an admirable thing to do. I shall not repeat the remarks made by other noble Lords previously, that this is really a nightmare for the ordinary citizen to understand. I assure my noble friend that lawyers are not looking to make a feast out of any Act of Parliament: it is purely fortuitous if they happen to do so. It is not something that they seek.
But, to be absolutely serious about this, I do not follow the argument of the noble and learned Lord. If you can have a simple basis, it does not mean that you have to stop with that basis. Of course you can say: "This is the principle but there are classes where we wish to give a further privilege than would be within the principle". And so you go first of all to state the principle, but there is nothing to stop the noble and learned Lord from adding to that principle by saying that there are other classes which should have this privilege; and it has indeed the great benefit of simplicity by way of principle, in that the ordinary layman can understand it and will not need the aid of a lawyer to interpret it.
I must again emphasise, before I sit down, the terrific complexity of these provisions. It is all very well for us to laugh at the conundrums—if that is the proper plural of "conundrum"—which were submitted to all of us, and in particular to the imperturbable noble and learned Lord, as to what the position is under this Bill. The fact of the matter—and I repeat it—is that not just average citizens, but people who are trained to understand legislation, find this Bill a nightmare. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to give serious consideration to an amendment which gives a simple basis. It does not stop anybody from saying that there shall be additional provision in this Bill for those who do not come within the requirements, and it will not stop them from getting British citizenship.
1070
We can have simple terms in order to deal with those exceptions or additions.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, it is important to observe that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does not permit of any transmission beyond the second generation. If you are to have transmission beyond the second generation, then you have to bring in criteria by reference to which that is allowed, and that will bring you into the same problem. Therefore, unless this is the sole solution, the simplicity which the noble Lord Lord Avebury, prays in aid for his amendment is not achieved. Accordingly, in my submission, what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says is no more true of what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is proposing than it is true of what we are proposing, where we stop generally at the first generation and have criteria thereafter. If you stop at the second generation, you require criteria thereafter just the same, if you are going to allow it at all. So the middle course, which the noble Lord has proposed, is not open on the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has produced.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: There is one remark which ought to be made. I think that noble Lords are over-egging the pudding when they talk about subsections (2) to (9), which it is suggested be amended. I do not think that these subsections are so complicated. I find all legislation pretty complicated, by the time one has tried to find words to put into a statute which say what you really mean. It is true that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is more simple. But if this is the worst of the most intricate words that we have to use, then we do not have much to grumble at.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who has vast experience in having to interpret the law, used hyperbole to excess when he used the words he did a minute or two ago. He would be able to tell this House of hundreds or thousands of pieces of legislation which are much more intricate than this, and which deserve the words that he used. I think that this is simple. We underestimate what the supposed layman can understand, and I think that he could understand this. We must recognise how the layman can work out intricate words in social legislation which affects him. If it affects the layman, then it is understandable.
I do not believe that the extreme words which have been used about this clause are deserved. There is a wider area than the amendment would allow us to cover. Speaking as one who argues for the cause of people who are engaged in the European Community, I prefer what is in the Bill, because it leaves room to deal with borderline cases. Nor do I agree that we ought to be critical of the powers given to the Secretary of State. I can think of no better person to have a certain discretion in matters such as this than the Secretary of State of the day, whoever it is, who will have access to all the information and knowledge. This is not a bad clause, in terms of what it sets out to achieve, and the words which noble Lords have used will rob the clause of the emphasis that is needed in other parts of the Bill. The other clauses of the Bill are intricate, but this is not, and I think that noble Lords have wasted their words.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I should like to speak very briefly, because the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, worries me to the extent that it would stop dead at the end of the next generation. As an old Australian, I know that the patriality laws work very strongly against someone like myself, who has been Australian for too many generations, in terms of immigration. I make that comparison, because I do not think anything that cuts off sharp at that point is good. But in some ways there is great merit in the amendment. If the noble Lord had instead put his amendment forward in such a way that it replaced paragraph (a) of subsection (2) and replaced the word "and" with "or", and then left all the remaining qualifications and all the further detail, that would leave both aspects open.
I feel strongly on this, because the fact that the clause states that one must have "relevant employment" gives me cause for concern. I do not see why one should have to be employed at all. If you are British by descent, it is a shame if you cannot go anywhere and do anything that you want in the world without these restrictions. I speak as an Australian, whose children were all born in this country and who were all registered at birth as Australians, and yet I have never had to prove in any way that I had any connection or continuing connection with Australia. But I object to anything which cuts off in one generation, as the amendment would do. Therefore, I should like simply to replace paragraph (a) of subsection (2), but leave in the other part of the clause.
Lord Avebury: I should certainly be delighted to do anything that would satisfy an Australian, having close Australian connections myself. My sister has lived in Australia for the last 28 years and there are several Australian nephews and nieces who have no difficulty at all in travelling all over the world and working in Great Britain, France and elsewhere. It has always seemed to me that no legislation would stop Australians from moving around the world, so great is their ingenuity in getting around the immigration laws of Great Britain and many other countries, to which they add lustre by their presence.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was very generous in agreeing that we should try to take work away from the lawyers. This is an argument which I had not myself thought of. Everybody knows how, under the present discretionary rules on nationality, people go to lawyers. Whether or not it does them any good is rather doubtful. Not that I have anything against lawyers; I am merely saying that when matters are subject to discretion of the Secretary of State one does not know what one is arguing about. The Secretary of State has absolute discretion to grant or refuse somebody citizenship, and under Clause 3, he has to be satisfied that all these requirements which are laid down here are met.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has already drawn our attention to the difficulties inherent in that procedure. If you come to challenge the Secretary of State you may find yourself in difficulties, because the court may decide that its jurisdiction over something which the Secretary of State has declared he is satisfied about will be very limited indeed. But, none the less, people will employ lawyers to go to the court and
1072
challenge decisions of the Secretary of State, so that the expense which I was talking about will be caused to the individual applicants, as well as to the taxpayer who will have the enormous burden of carrying the extra civil servants needed.
I have already dealt with the argument of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in saying that, obviously, if the Committee were to accept an amendment of this kind there would have to be consequential alterations to Clause 13. I hope she will accept it from me that I did not go into the drafting of those, because I was hoping that the Government, having accepted this amendment, would themselves take on board the consequential drafting job. Even if one does dot all the "i's" and cross all the "t's", as she knows, the Government draftsmen always know better than the amateurs and they will take it away and come back with different wording. So I thought: Why bother with Clause 13, when that is something which the Government can tackle themselves?
There are two opposite arguments that have been put. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, says that the second generation may have no connection with the United Kingdom, and I am perfectly happy to concede —if it will make the noble Baroness any happier—that when we come to construe this we should provide also that the father or mother, the British citizen by descent, in order to be able to transmit citizenship to the second generation must at some time during his or her life have been settled in the United Kingdom.
That seems to me to satisfy those who think that by covering the whole of the second generation, as I am seeking to do, we fail to comply with the condition which is central to the Bill: that anybody having British citizenship must have a connection with the United Kingdom. So we are talking about somebody who goes abroad to work and has a child there; the child comes back to the United Kingdom and is settled at some point during his life; he then goes abroad again. And in the second generation I am saying in this amendment that he can transmit citizenship.
If it will help to satisfy the noble Baroness that the second generation has this continuing connection with the United Kingdom which is of such importance, I certainly agree that it could be written into the Bill at the Report stage. However, I think that contradictory arguments have been used by the Minister in trying to refute the amendment. He has not said anything against the idea of having this extension to the second generation but he said that it would be unfortunate if in all circumstances the right of citizenship were cut off at that point. That is why I said that I was not going to alter Clause 3(1). The discretionary power which the Secretary of State has there to confer citizenship on a minor upon application will still remain.
It has been accepted on all sides that as one goes down the generations fewer and fewer people will either want British citizenship or be entitled to it. There will be a few cases like those which the right reverend Prelate mentioned earlier where there is a tradition of working overseas in a particular occupation from one generation to the next. A person who goes abroad as a missionary may marry somebody overseas and have children overseas. Then, in turn, those children will go overseas and become missionaries.

1073
Such a tradition may carry on within the same family for more than two generations. I am quite prepared to accept that. However, as you increase the number of generations the proportion of that population which would be likely to want British citizenship must gradually decline. More and more people would—
Baroness Trumpington: May I ask the noble Lord why he thinks that it would become proportionately less? Surely therein lies the danger; that it will not become proportionately less.
Lord Avebury: I am accepting the second argument that was put by the noble and learned Lord, and this is where I am saying that he is a little inconsistent. He says that if people continue to work overseas for several generations—I paraphrase him—surely the natural country for them to have their citizenship in is where they live. That is what the noble and learned Lord said, having remarked in the previous breath that it would be unfortunate if in all circumstances the rights of citizenship were cut off at the second generation. I agree with the noble Lord's second proposition: that as a family lives and works overseas it gradually acquires closer and closer connections with the country to which it naturally belongs and gradually relinquishes the connection it has with the United Kingdom. The second generation may be an arbitrary cut-off point, but that is why we have the provision in Clause 3(1) to enable it to continue.
I referred earlier to the case of United Kingdom passport holders who remain in certain countries of the Southern cone of Latin America. We have seen what happens there. I told the Committee that in many cases the links that they retained with the United Kingdom consisted only of the names of their families of origin. The name "Wilson" was one which I mentioned. I told the Committee that those people had never been to the United Kingdom, that they did not speak a word of English and that the whole of their cultural and social background was in Argentina or Chile. After three or four generations one would expect this to happen in the case of people who live continuously abroad. That is why I chose two generations as what I considered to be a reasonable cut-off point, with the retention of the discretionary power which the Secretary of State has under Clause 3(1).
If, however, we are talking about the people who are not covered by Clause 3, despite the enormous complexity of subsections (2) to (9) a number of examples have been given to us which I should have thought were extremely powerful. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has just given us an additional example; the Economic Commission for Africa. One noble Lord said earlier that he had a son who worked for the Botswana Development Commission. There will be innumerable categories of employment in which people may engage overseas and which everybody wants to see British citizens doing: going out into the world, helping in particular the development of the Third World but becoming part of the family of nations and extending the good name of Britain over the five continents. If this is something which the Committee does not want to see, by all means let it retain the nine subsections of Clause 3 but if it believes, as I do, that
1074
Britain still has a major contribution to make to the development of the world then, for goodness' sake! let it pass this amendment.
8.36 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 92.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Ardwick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Aylestone, L.

Mishcon, L.

Bacon, B.

Northfield, L.

Birk, B.

Nunburnholme, L.

Bishopston, L.

Phillips, B.

Blease, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Chitnis, L.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Seebohm, L.

Collison, L.

Southwell, Bp.

David, B.

Spens, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Stone, L.

Gifford, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Truro, Bp.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Hughes, L.

Wade, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Henley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hives, L.

Auckland, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Avon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Bellwin, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Belstead, L.

Inglewood, L.

Bessborough, E.

Kemsley, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Killearn, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Kilmany, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Caithness, E.

Loudoun, C.

Cathcart, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lyell, L.

Cockfield, L.

McFadzean, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Crathorne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Marley, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Dormer, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mountevans, L.

Elton, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Faithfull, B.

Norfolk, D.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Fortescue, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Orkney, E.

Geddes, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Gisborough, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Renton, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Greenway, L.

St. Germans, E.

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sharpies, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

1075

Skelmersdale, L.

Trenchard, V.

Soames, L.

Trumpington, B.

Stamp, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Vickers, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Vivian, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Wynford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
8.44 p.m.
Lord Drumalbyn Lord Drumalbyn moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 3, line 14, after ("Kingdom") insert ("either of whose parents was a British citizen at the time of the birth").
The noble Lord said: If the Committee will allow me, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 35 and 39 together; No. 35 is a sort of paving amendment for No. 39. If does not add anything to the sense of the clause; it merely transfers the first condition, line 21, to the beginning of the subsection, and the reason for that is purely to enable a proviso to be inserted there which involves an alternative condition to the condition in paragraph (b).
We are here talking about a person born outside the United Kingdom to parents, one or other of whom is a British citizen at the time of his birth. It involves an application for registration as a British citizen provided that the application is made within a period of twelve months from the date of the birth and that the parent in question—that is, the one who is the British citizen—was employed in relevant employment throughout the period of two years ending with the date of the birth and was on that date employed in overseas employment. What my second amendment would do would be to provide as follows, as an alternative proviso, to that:
"That the mother of the person in question was temporarily absent from the United Kingdom at the time of the birth and returned to the United Kingdom within six months thereof or such longer period as the Secretary of State may consider reasonable in the circumstances".
If I may start with a real glimpse of the obvious, it is, of course, the mother who has the child, but it is the father in most cases here who will be the person working abroad; though it may be the mother. So we have two separate sets of conditions to consider: one is where the father and the mother are both together abroad, and the other is where the mother is the parent in question. It seems to me that there is no really good and sufficient reason to restrict the entitlement to register the child as a British citizen to a parent already engaged in a relevant activity overseas for two years before the child is born. I do not see what sufficient reasons there may be for that.
I would ask my noble friend who is to reply why this was inserted. It certainly leaves a gap. At a time when the patents may be young and active—a young, man going abroad to a job new with his wife—it seems almost absurd to put a restriction on the time at which they may have their first child. If the child is to be eligible for British citizenship they must wait for two years before the child is born. I should have thought that it could easily happen that the woman, or the man accompanied by his wife, may be sent abroad for quite a short time, by his employers in the United
1076
Kingdom, on an assignment that is expected to last perhaps only days or weeks, and in fact the assignment goes on for quite a long time, but possibly not as long as two years. This would obviously upset any family planning that had been done with a view to the child's becoming a British citizen. I think that that is wrong. The way in which I am suggesting that it should be overcome is by emphasising the later condition of the connection with the United Kingdom and saying that the appliction call be made provided the mother brings the child back to the United Kingdom within six months of the birth:
"or such longer period as the Secretary of State may consider reasonable in the circumstances".
I cannot understand why there should be a gap of two years. I think that, even though there is some risk of "cheating"—I think that that is how my noble friend described it—it could be checked and overcome in some other way than by imposing this two-year period of waiting before the child is born. That seems to me to be quite unnatural. If parents are really anxious that the child should be capable of being registered as a British citizen, it will be a very severe disincentive for the parents to go abroad at that time in their lives. It does not seem to me to be sensible at all.
I hope that I have made it clear that it is, in my view, inappropriate to distinguish between a child born two years after the parents have gone abroad and a child born outside the United Kingdom two days, two weeks, two months or whatever it may be after the parents have gone abroad. I have not specified in the amendment that it must all be in the course of employment and that is why the "or" is there: it is an alternative. It may not happen very often, but I suspect that it would happen in a number of cases and quite enough cases to make it worthwhile to cover it by legislation. Provided that the requirement that a close connection with the United Kingdom is maintained, the important point is to safeguard the entitlement of a child of British parents, doing a job or not doing a job abroad, to be registered as a British citizen. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The substantive amendment to which my noble friend has spoken is Amendment No. 39. Perhaps I should first emphasise that the phrase "relevant employment" which is part of the conditions does not need to be employment overseas. In order to make that plain, because a question was raised in the other place about it, there is an amendment down in the name of my noble friend Lord Belstead—Amendment No. 50—which adds in line 35: "whether or not in the United Kingdom". So provided the United Kingdom employment was relevant employment, the child that would get the benefit of Clause 3(2) can be born quite a short time after going overseas.
There is, of course, also power in other circumstances to shorten the two-year period in Clause 3(5)(b) at the top of page 5. There is the other provision of Clause 3(6) where the family comes back. That is a clause which might cover some of the situations which my noble friend has in mind. There is a last fallback as regards this aspect of the matter—namely, the registration under the discretionary power of Clause

1077
3(1). However, the main point is dealt with by the first matter which I mentioned. I hope that in the light of that explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I should be grateful, having listened to my noble and learned friend, if he could clarify a little, at least to my mind, what the reason is for the prescription of this two-year figure at all? I take note that he has said that it is not always to be insisted upon. However, what exactly is the point? What is the justification for it? Is it not just one of these further barriers which the clause puts up and which, on an earlier amendment, a good many of us thought amounted to a good deal of discouragement to people going abroad at all?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The purpose of the two-year period is to ensure a reasonably substantial period of employment. The point which I made earlier was that that employment can start in the United Kingdom and be for practically all the time before the birth in the United Kingdom. But the idea is that you cannot just take up employment of a very short duration, as it were for the purposes of obtaining citizenship for the child. Two years is a reasonable period to which the employment must conform if it is to be regarded as sufficiently substantial to give the necessary link. That is the explanation. The two-year period is, as I have said, subject to a discretion if the circumstances are sufficient to show that a shorter period was sufficiently substantial for the purpose.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Does that mean that a young married man whose wife is well on in pregnancy simply cannot accept an overseas appointment?
Baroness White: I should like to emphasise this point. This part of the clause must have been drawn up by a man.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: By a bachelor!
Baroness White: I should hope a bachelor. As the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has indicated, it is absolutely absurd. How could anybody expect to regulate their private life—and some people are not very good at it—in such a way that they could make quite sure that the birth of their child coincided with the appropriate moment of employment? How many young couples, after all, will wait one year three months before they do anything?—because that really is what is being demanded in this clause. You must be in a job and if you are married you must have a close period, so to speak, so that if you think you may be posted overseas your child does not arrive at any point before the requisite period. That does not make sense at all. You might possibly say a "total" period of employment—before and after—but to say that you must be employed for two years before you are allowed to have a child born overseas is nonsense.
Lord Avebury: The noble and learned Lord says that you cannot exclude relevant employment in the United Kingdom, and so he is trying to suggest to the
1078
Committee that if somebody has been employed, say, for 18 months in the United Kingdom and he then goes abroad for the last six months, he satisfies the test of being two years in relevant employment because three-quarters of that time will have been in the United Kingdom and only the last six months abroad; therefore, he says, the couple is perfectly safe to go overseas because they will fulfil the condition. But suppose the father and the mother have not been in employment in the United Kingdom. Let us suppose that they were students for the period before their departure and they have both just graduated and are offered a job overseas immediately after the wife has become pregnant, so they know a child is on the way? They will say to themselves, "We cannot accept this employment in Tanzania" or wherever it may be "because we have not satisfied the condition of relevant employment; we have been at the University of Strathclyde for the past 18 months and so we have not been employed at all. Therefore, if we go to Tanzania we shall only have been six months in relevant employment by the time the baby is born and the baby will not qualify". Is not that the effect of this clause? Could the noble and learned Lord correct me if I am wrong?
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I could intervene. It seems to me that we have rather a lot of unemployment in this country. I am sorry to hark back to the European Community, but surely one of the reasons for being members of the European Community is in order to benefit from the jobs available in other parts of the Community; that is, in nine other member states or foreign territories to the United Kingdom. Why is it that someone has to be employed for two years in this country or in a job related to the United Kingdom in order to have the benefit of British citizenship for his child, should the child be born abroad? Surely the whole point is that if the person is unemployed, he should be able to accept a job anywhere in the world, regardless whether his wife is going to have a child within a period of two years. In a period of unemployment, I simply cannot understand why the Government cannot see this point.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I think that it is quite plain that the Government's desire is to have a sensible criterion for dealing with this question of employment. This is why there is a special discretion in subsection (5)(b) to modify the period. One can see that if the person in question has been in relevant employment for the whole time that he has been abroad—I am taking it that it is the father just for the sake of the illustration—and that employment was relevant, then it would seem a very good case for the discretion to be exercised in terms of Clause 3(5)(b). I have already explained the idea of having the two-year period as being a requirement of a reasonably substantial connection in employment between the parent and the United Kingdom. I can certainly see borderline cases of the kind that have been mentioned, and it seems to me that a discretion of this particular kind is, in these circumstances, perfectly appropriate, particularly if the employment looked such as was likely to continue for a substantial time after the birth.
Lord Avebury: In the circumstances that have been outlined, for example, by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, where the couple have been unemployed, or in the case that I mentioned where the couple have been at university, the wife is pregnant and they are going overseas—they have the offer of a job—and the Secretary of State is asked to treat subsection (2)(b) as if the reference were a reference to, let us say, six months, the period for which they will be in qualifying employment overseas prior to the birth is within that total.
Is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate telling the Committee that in the circumstances, having got the offer of a job, the Secretary of State will give a certificate to the couple so that when they go overseas, having accepted this job, they will know that the baby will be born on the right side of the Nationality Bill blanket? That is what I want to know; that they will get this certificate before they accept the job and go overseas and do not run the risk that when it comes to it the Secretary of State may not feel like exercising the discretion given to him under subsection (5)(b).
Baroness Seear: Potentially, how many people are we talking about? Surely a very small number of people will use this. Let us suppose that everybody who is interested in working overseas "fiddles" a bit—what is the right expression? It would only amount to a very small number of people getting British citizenship who would not get it if this clause were included. Does it really matter? You do not have to plug every hole. I do not think that the problem is big enough yet to elaborate the Bill in this way.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Surely the best way to cover this situation is by discretion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Surely the noble and learned Lord will agree that what he is trying to deal with is indiscretion. Is it not bordering on the verge of the fantastic to suggest that a couple, the wife being pregnant, will hastily apply for a job overseas in order to get British citizenship for the unborn child? On how many occasions in the real world will this happen? On the other hand, by keeping this two-year provision in the clause—and I do not want to be a bore about this, because I spoke at some length on it earlier—he will add to the general apprehensions of those who the Government want to have to rely on Clause 3 for the citizenship of their child when they go to work abroad for this country. Surely the sensible thing for the Government to do is to drop this silly provision. If they do not, I hope that my noble friend will press his amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: A point which I think has not been taken fully into account here is that this Nationality Bill was to be of great help to immigrants to this country in so far as at the moment people like myself are not entitled to take jobs in the EEC without a special type of work permit. Many immigrants have now said to me how very pleased they would be because under the Bill they will have full nationality rights and have open access to the EEC and employment there.
1080
But as I understand it, we are now producing a counter-argument of all the difficulties that will occur to them if they are in a child-bearing age group and if they avail themselves of jobs in the EEC. As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Elles, it would be a great pity to prevent people going abroad who might perhaps be unemployed. This might open up a whole aspect of new jobs to them and they would be deterred from taking them because they would have had a difficult enough time in obtaining British citizenship for themselves and they might well then put it at risk for their children if they take jobs which are open to them in Europe but which are not suitably British connected.
Lord Drumalbyn: It seems to me as though it would be wise for me to say to my noble and learned friend that this is one of the cases where he should perhaps consider what has been said about this after we have finished with Clause 3. I think that a great deal of comment will take place on Clause 3 because I do not see how we can restrict this only to companies in the context of which we have been talking. We would have to take it wider, in view of the fact that my noble and learned friend has made it so clear that the employment can be with a company or association established in the United Kingdom, not as the base, so to speak, but as one of the six sets of circumstances that are outlined here, five of which relate to employment overseas and only the one to employment in this country.
It needs looking at again. I am grateful to him for elucidating this for us. It shows how easy it is to avoid seeing what is virtually staring one in the face. Nevertheless, it has been useful to raise this matter. I think it would be a mistake to divide tonight. It needs further consideration in the light of what we are about to discuss. With that, I hope noble Lords will agree to my withdrawing this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 36 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before calling Amendment No. 37, I should point out to the Committee that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 38.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 17, leave out ("if the Secretary of State is satisfied that") and insert ("provided").
The noble Lord said: In view of earlier discussion on this matter, I do not move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 37 not moved.]
9.10 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("if") to ("the") in line 18.
The noble Lord said: I move this amendment briefly. It raises the same point as the amendment just not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I am aware that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said that in connection with the phrase,

1081
"if the Secretary of State is satisfied", in this clause, as in other clauses, the Government are going to look at it again. I rise to say only that this is the sort of clause which makes the point clearly that the present formula is really not good enough because of the subjective nature of the conditions which have to be fulfilled by an applicant under this subsection.
If the applicant is turned down because the Secretary of State says, "I am not satisfied that your employment has a close connection with the United Kingdom" or, "I am not satisfied that you intend to maintain a close connection with the United Kingdom", that is exactly the sort of decision which the court would not review if the formula "if the Secretary of State is satisfied" remains. If it is deleted, I think that the applicant, or his parents, could then go to court and have a proper decision. It really makes it clear when one looks at the terms of this clause that some review is needed of this phraseology. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: This gives me an opportunity of saying something which I hope may be considered relevant to this amendment, but which I think should be said at some stage, in view of some remarks made by a noble friend of mine in an earlier debate today about the way in which the Home Office handles the various applications made for registration. I say this with due consciousness, and being very glad, that there is a former Minister of State for the Home Office sitting on the Opposition Front Bench at the moment and a former Under-Secretary of State sitting behind him, and that there are I think three or four of us on our side, not all here tonight, who have had the responsibility of, among other things, seeing what happens in the so-called Aliens and Nationality Division of the Home Office as it used to be called although I am not sure what it is called now.
I should like to place on record—and perhaps some of those I have mentioned are in a position to do the same—that the Home Office has a most excessively careful method and has had for years of dealing with these applications under the present law. I should have thought that in view of the great variety of circumstances and the complexity of some of these matters that it is a record of which the Home Office could be proud. How can that comment be tested? One must bear in mind that in the last resort when the Home Secretary is given the kind of responsibility that he is given both under subsection (1) and subsection (2) he can be questioned in Parliament and his representative in your Lordships' House can be questioned just as the Home Secretary can in another place. One knows from experience—and I had this responsibility for three-and-a-half years—that the number of questions is extremely small. When there was a doubt people did not hesitate to go to their Member of Parliament or indeed as has been said, to a lawyer, but the system does in difficult circumstances work well, and there may be others who would care to support me in saying so.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: As my noble friend Lord Renton was undoubtedly referring to an earlier observation of mine, but was tactful enough not to
1082
mention my name, I think it only courteous that I should respond. I said—and I do not withdraw it in any degree whatever—that Home Office officials were sometimes not very sensitive, or were insensitive (I forget which way round I put it), in the handling of these types of cases, and I am sorry to say that that has been my experience. I am lost in admiration for my noble friend's loyalty to his old department. That does him and the department the greatest credit, but I am afraid it has not been my experience, and in a sense we have had corroboration of it today in the terms of the letter submitted for ministerial signature which the noble Baroness, Lady White, read to us and which seemed to me quite extraordinarily insensitive in the context of those people who work for the European Community. There have also been immigration cases which have come to the courts and of which there has been criticism. I do not want to make heavy work of this but on this issue I am not prepared to accept a rebuke, even from one of my oldest friends in the House.
On the merits of the amendment, I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I do not like the form of words here which would appear, as he says—and he is a lawyer—to cut out a possible appeal to the courts. These are matters of the greatest importance to the individual concerned, and even if the officials at the Home Office were the archangels that my noble friend Lord Renton thinks they are, it is sometimes good to have a line of appeal beyond an archangel, although in the presence of the right reverend Prelate I would not like to carry that argument much further. In all seriousness, these are matters of great importance to the individual and if that individual feels he is being deprived of what Parliament has wished him to have, many of us would feel easier in conscience if he could take it to an appropriate court.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It will probably cause no surprise if I suggest that the civil servant who has to interpret and apply these provisions is bound to create and meet problems with whatever integrity and sensitivity he applies to the task; this gibberish is presenting him with an intolerable task. We will look shortly, I hope in a little more detail, at subsection (2)(b) which I am suggesting should be repealed. It presents problems of intolerable difficulty and is a nonsense.
In so far as the clause creates an entitlement for registration in the circumstances of the child who is being considered there, with one hand it creates an entitlement and with the other it apparently gives power to the Secretary of State, on his own ipsi dixit, to withdraw the entitlement. I entirely agree with what others who preceded me have said, and particularly my noble friend Lord Gifford, that clearly the provision in regard to the intervention of the Secretary of State in the situation where an entitlement is allowed will, at the very least, create doubt about the value of the entitlement and, at the most, indicate the fear that the entitlement will not be met. Accordingly, I am grateful to have heard the Lord Advocate, on an earlier occasion when we were discussing this issue, say he would consider it sympathetically, and I hope that is still his state of mind.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I may reply briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, as someone who is on the other end of the line to the Home Office, as it were, in that I am frequently making representations to Home Office Ministers in areas where they must exercise their discretion. I am afraid I do not share Lord Renton's confidence that those Ministers invariably get it right.
The honourable gentleman who deals with these matters in another place, Mr. Raison, has said that he gets 1,200 letters a month. In a speech to the UKIS annual conference last year, he said he spent between two and three hours a day looking at his correspondence. I have worked it out that if they come in at the rate of 1,200 a month and he spends two to three hours a day looking at them, then if he spends that amount of time looking at them every day of the week from Monday to Friday and he works 50 weeks of the year, taking only two weeks holiday, he is giving an average of between two and three minutes to each piece of correspondence. That is the extent of the scrutiny which at the moment the Minister is able to give to the cases on immigration and nationality which are submitted to him for his decision.
Some of them are very important cases, particularly to the individuals concerned. They may not be terribly important statistically, but consider, for instance, the case of a young woman who wants to come here to visit her father, and her sister is getting married in the United Kingdom, so she wants to spend a couple of months here from India visiting her father and attending her sister's wedding, and then return home. When that request is refused by the entry certificate officer in Delhi, and when the refusal is confirmed by the Minister—as when I made representations to him on behalf of this lady—there is no remedy which can possibly be afforded to her if subsequently (as happened) I take the case before the immigration appellate machinery and I win the case before the adjudicator, because by that time her sister has already got married and she has missed the wedding. There are numerous cases of this sort that everybody could quote concerning a decision of a Secretary of State—and I do not say that in a case of that sort he is looking at the matter himself; he has probably only just signed the letter. How could he examine it in one or two minutes? These decisions affect the lives of individuals.
I had another case which is a bit closer to this Bill, where somebody applied for citizenship and was turned down. After quite a lot of probing I discovered from the then Minister, Mr. Brynmor John, why the application had been refused. This is what it turned on. The man went for an interview and the officer who conducted the examination asked him whether he had ever been convicted of an offence in an English court. He said, yes, he had been through a red light and had come before a court and was fined. The interviewing officer asked him for his licence. He produced it to the officer and the officer said, "But this is an international driving licence. How did you come by it?" The man said: "My wife is Swedish. I go to Sweden every year on holiday and I renew it every time". The officer said, "Don't you realise that you can only have an international driving licence
1084
for one year and then it cannot be renewed?" He said, "No, I am afraid I did not realise that; neither did the authorities who issued it to me in Sweden, and neither did the court which endorsed it". So the interviewing officer said: "But haven't you ever considered taking a driving test in the United Kingdom?" The man said "Well, yes, as a matter of fact I had considered that. I had a test arranged for this coming April but it was not convenient". That was the substance of the interview.
Now the version that I had from the Minister was that this gentleman had told a lie to the entry certificate officer in that he had falsely claimed to have made arrangements for a driving test when, on inquiry to the test examiner, the interviewer found that it had been cancelled. It was a straightforward misunderstanding, and yet this man was turned down and no amount of persuasion that I could exercise on the then Minister was able to deflect him from the decision that this man was to be kept from citizenship for a period of two years, at the end of which he could re-apply; and then again it would be a matter for the discretion of the Minister.
Anybody who is in the position of dealing with the Home Office on a day-to-day basis knows that there are a host of decisions as arbitrary and unfair as the two that I have just mentioned; and even the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who is on the receiving end of quite a lot of my correspondence (although not mainly on immigration and nationality but concerning prisons) I think will confirm from the times when his honourable friend Tim Raison is away, that many cases are put to him and quite a lot of them come out in favour of the applicant. Something like two-thirds of the cases that I put to Mr. Raison I must say, in all fairness to him, are ultimately determined in favour of the person seeking leave to enter or to remain or the person seeking nationality. So there is an element of discretion which is quite properly exercised within the immigration rules and the law on nationality, but always there is the hard case where the person should have been entitled to enter the United Kingdom or to remain in the United Kingdom and was debarred. The person should have been entitled to the claim for citizenship and was refused for frivolous or inadequate reasons.
So I am not in favour of wide powers being granted to the Secretary of State and I think that the phrase in question, appearing as it does in a clause which is absolutely central to this Bill, is one that could be fraught with grave dangers, will create an enormous amount of litigation and will expand the volume of hardship which, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, Home Office decisions so frequently cause already.
Lord Geddes: It will not surprise members of your Lordships' Committee to learn that I am very much in favour of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. However, I did not move my own amendment, which beat his by a very short whisker, since there was considerable discussion on this subject on the first day of the Committee, involving in particular the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. As I understood the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate on the Front Bench,

1085
as a result of that discussion he undertook to look at the position very seriously. With great respect, it seems to me to be a slight overuse of the time of your Lordships' Committee to discuss the whole matter all over again. I have several notes on exactly the same questions as have been raised. The point has already been taken by the Front Bench and surely we should leave it at that.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am greatly obliged to my noble friend for that remark. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said earlier, I had previously expressed myself as sympathetic to this matter, and of course I remain of the same mind. As has been said, the context in which the phrase occurs here is slightly different from the context in which it occurred earlier, and that point clearly calls for particular consideration as to the proper phrase to use here. Certainly our intention is that this should be an entitlement which should be subject to appeal to the court; and that is the purpose of the clause. The exact scope of the appeal will depend on the precise phrase chosen, and we shall do our best to draw up a phrase that satisfies all members of your Lordships' Committee.
Lord Gifford: In the light of that reply I want to create unity in the Committee and not increase division. Regardless of whether the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is right or wrong, we all agree that people who are aggrieved by decisions of the Secretary of State—whether those people be few or many—should have the right to have their entitlement tested in a court of law. I add only this point. The courts of law are very reluctant to review administrative decisions. I mention that because it might help the noble and learned Lord in his consideration of the matter. There might be needed a clause that actually states that a person aggrieved by a refusal of registration shall be entitled to apply to the High Court for a declaration and the court should grant the declaration if it considers that the requirements are satisfied. Some such clause might be needed so as to give this matter the clarity which we all wish it to have. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 39A, I should point out to the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 41, 42 or 43.
9.28 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 3, line 23, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble and learned Lord said: The difficulties that the provisions of subsection (2) create in the way of the registration of the citizenship of a person born outside the United Kingdom are enormous. I think that there are seven requirements in subsection (2). First, the registration must be made within a period of 12 months from the date of the birth. We have already had some discussion on the arbitrariness—
1086
if that is the correct word—of that period and the necessity for it. We have already discussed, too, the next requirement: that the Secretary of State must be satisfied. I shall say no more about that.
The subsection then refers to certain requirements that should be complied with. It states that the requirements should be fulfilled
"in the case of either"
the child's
"father or his mother ('the parent in question')".
The next requirement is:
"that the parent in question was a British citizen at the time of the birth".
That is reasonable enough. Then we come to the next requirement; namely,
"that the parent in question was employed in relevant employment"—
we have had an elaboration of that point, and there is an amendment on it which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is to move and which we shall be discussing in due course—
"(but not necessarily the same relevant employment)"—
and it has to be an employment throughout a period of two years.
Let us suppose that the parent in question is the mother. What is required of her if it falls to her to be responsible for securing the registration of the child as a British citizen? There is a requirement that throughout the period of two years ending with the date of the birth she must have been employed in relevant employment. But, of course, a lot of the mothers concerned will not be necessarily in employment at all. They may have gone abroad merely to accompany their husbands. But if they are in relevant employment, what follows? The requirement is that on the date of birth the mother should still be in relevant employment.
Lord Belstead: No.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: This is what I understand from subsection (2)(b). Is there a provision remedying that which I thought led my noble friend Lady White to think that this was the creation of a male chauvinist pig?
Baroness White: I never use that inelegant phrase. But if my noble and learned friend will perhaps look at subsection (4)(b) on the next page he will see that the lady is allowed 180 days. If she happens to have very bad morning sickness, or some such thing, in the first three months of her pregnancy, that apparently does not give her any excuse for leaving her employment earlier.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I stand corrected. With the many paragraphs of this provision, I may perhaps be excused for having overlooked that. But this is a complexity, I submit, which has certainly aroused considerable protest from the Women's National Commission as being prejudicial and unfair to the mothers who may have to be given the responsibility of protecting the position of the child in the circumstances

1087
that are described. Surely this degree of complexity is not necessary if this legislation is to make sense. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I want to ask one question before the Minister replies to this amendment. Pursuant to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said earlier on, bearing in mind the large number of people we have unemployed at the moment, would the Minister consider expanding this requirement so that the parent in question could have been either in relevant employment during the period of two years ending with the date of birth or unemployed? Because that would then enable a person to comply with the condition if, for instance, she was unemployed for a year, then was successful in finding a job and became pregnant after, say, three months, so that she could not satisfy the test of relevant employment unless the period during which she had been out of work prior to taking this job was counted towards the relevant employment.
The noble and learned Lord had notice of this point when it was raised earlier by the noble Baroness opposite, so I hope he will have had time to consider it and that, in the appalling circumstances which we face with three million people out of work in this country, he will in fact amend this provision so as to make it easier for the women who are fortunate enough to get jobs after a period of unemployment, and who then find themselves pregnant, to take advantage of that provision.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether it is not generally accepted that if one is unemployed and is registered as unemployed then, in terms of benefits of this sort, one is looked upon as being employed?
Lord Avebury: If the Minister can give that assurance, I shall be delighted.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The purpose of this provision is to set out the links by which a citizen by descent can connect himself or herself sufficiently with the United Kingdom to transmit that citizenship to his or her child. In view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has moved this amendment, it might be right to remind the Committee that when this matter was considered by the Government of which he was a member and the Green Paper was issued for consultation, the view that was taken by the then Government was:
"The Government consider that as a general rule a new British citizenship should not be transmitted beyond the first generation born abroad, but they recognise that some circumstances might justify exceptions".
Taking that as being correct, what is being attempted here is to set out circumstances which might justify exception. The exception which is here in question is the link which the employment of the child's parent gives with the United Kingdom. Someone who is a British citizen by descent living overseas, and whose work there involves him closely with the United Kingdom, is clearly representing this country's interests. Moreover, it may well be that, but for the demands of his employment, the British citizen by descent would
1088
have been living in the country at the time of the child's birth; the child would then have been born here, and would, under Clause 1(1) of the Bill have been a British citizen at birth.
Employment is therefore clearly an important factor in assessing whether a British citizen by descent has ties with this country which are sufficiently strong to justify conferring British citizenship—and the right of abode here—in his or her child. But what kind of employment? Clearly the employment must be linked with the United Kingdom in some way, and not every type of employment overseas will be. Moreover, it is necessary to specify how long the parent of the child shall have been engaged in the eligible employment, and where. In other words, there must be some degree of substance in the employment.
That is what paragraph (b)—which this amendment seeks to remove—is intended to do. It provides, first, that the British citizen parent must have been in relevant employment throughout the two years up to the date of the child's birth. Employment which is relevant employment for this purpose is defined in Clause 3(3). It covers a range of types of full time employment. All these types of employment can, broadly speaking, be said to have some inherent link with the United Kingdom.
A British citizen by descent may hold any combination of posts in these fields during the two years preceding the child's birth, and he may be employed anywhere, either overseas or in the United Kingdom, on such work during this two years period. At the time of the child's birth he must of course be employed overseas for this to be relevant at all. If he is at home and the child is born in this country, the problem does not arise.
The effect is that a British citizen by descent who has worked for a company in this country—or indeed for different companies—during most of the two years preceding the child's birth, but who is sent overseas by his firm shortly before a child is born to him overseas, would be covered. We have introduced this degree of flexibility in the Bill, following representations to us during the passage of the Bill through another place. That intention is exemplified by the amendment to which I drew attention. We believe that the flexibility will enable many people who divide their careers between posts at home and posts overseas to benefit from these provisions of the Bill.
As I have said, the citizen parent may have been in relevant employment in the United Kingdom during the two years preceding the child's birth overseas, and this period counts, provided that at the time of the child's birth he is in overseas employment. That term is defined in Clause 3(8)(a). It means employment under the terms of which the employee ordinarily works outside the United Kingdom. This employment must therefore be relevant as defined in subsection (3) throughout the two years preceding the birth overseas, and at the time of that birth it must be employment under the terms of which the employee ordinarily works overseas.
That, in outline, is what paragraph (b) seeks to do. There are various safeguards to meet particular needs.
In the subsection to which the noble and learned Lord's attention was drawn as he proceeded, there are a number of provisions dealing with particular cases.

1089
The case where the mother is the parent in question is dealt with. There are also provisions dealing with breaks in the employment in subsection (4)(a), and, generally speaking, I respectfully suggest that the general position is well covered. So far as unemployment is concerned it does not by its very nature give a connection with the United Kingdom and therefore perhaps it is not surprising that unemployment in itself is not covered.
I would suggest to your Lordships that unless the Bill is to be excessively complicated and the circumstances of every possible peradventure—such as the misadventure mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady White—are expressly covered, the way in which to deal with rather special cases is to give the Secretary of State reasonable discretion. That is, of course, what this clause does, in subsection (5)(b); it is intended to give discretion, to cover particular cases where discretion seems to be merited.
Lord Avebury: Surely if a woman has been unemployed in the United Kingdom, such as in the example I described, and has been drawing unemployment benefit for one year prior to obtaining a job which takes her overseas, where she has a baby, then the one year of unemployment in the United Kingdom demonstrates a close connection with the United Kingdom? Therefore, why cannot the noble and learned Lord Advocate write into this subsection a provision that will either allow the woman to be employed in relevant employment or unemployed in the United Kingdom?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I can see that being in the United Kingdom, whether as an employed or unemployed person, is a kind of connection with the United Kingdom. That is well covered by the sort of discretion which the Secretary of State has. I was thinking of unemployment generally. I cannot think how unemployment generally, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere, can of itself be a connection with the United Kingdom.
Baroness Elles: I wonder whether my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate would seriously reconsider this aspect of unemployment. We all know that there are nearly 3 million unemployed in this country. Surely an individual or individuals who are offered employment abroad, even for only three or four years, should not be denied the possibliity of accepting work for fear of a wife having abroad a child who will be denied the right of British citizenship? Surely that is not unreasonable? I should be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord Advocate would at least leave the door open at this stage in the progress of the Bill, to reconsider this particular aspect.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I said earlier that it was our intention to listen carefully to all that has been said in debating this Bill. This is a difficult matter to cover adequately in every detail, but we shall carefully consider what has been said on this subject and we will see whether there can be any flexibility for altering the rule. I cannot say any more than that we shall consider the situation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: When considering this matter would my noble and learned friend examine in particular subsection (4)(a) to which he has rightly drawn our attention as being a qualification of subsection (2)(b)? Subsection (4)(a) makes mention of,
"two periods of relevant employment are separated by an interval of not more than 90 days".
That would seem to suggest that where there is an interval of more than 90 days in, say, unemployment, then the conditions are not satisfied and the application fails.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The idea is that the interval is restricted to 90 days, for whatever reason. That is the general rule. Again, the matter is capable of being covered by discretion, but that is certainly the intention of the principal provision.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I am sorry if I did not make my point too clearly. Where 90 days is laid down in the statute, unless there is some explicit indication that the statutory 90 days limit might be waived, might it not be held that there was no discretion because the statute had very clearly laid down a 90 days limit?
Lord Mishcon: How very right my noble friend was when he said in moving this amendment that we are walking into ever greater complexities than even anyone who loves a complex Bill would want. I want only to emphasise some points which have already been made in order that, when he comes to consider this matter, the noble and learned Lord will know what I believe to be the almost universal view of your Lordships' Committee.
The first thing in the world this Committee would want to do, I am sure—I am borrowing something said by the noble Baroness opposite, as I readily acknowledge—is to see that anybody who has received unemployment benefit in this country is discouraged from thinking that the receipt of that unemployment benefit has robbed him of a connection with the United Kingdom. Indeed, one of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord earlier might have been seen by somebody to imply that the connection was lost if he received unemployment benefit.
The second thing is that we would all want to encourage a person of that kind, who has been offered employment overseas, to take it. The third point, which has not yet been covered properly, is this. How is the poor person concerned to know what his position is going to be if he accepts that employment? Quite rightly, there is a discretion given under the Bill. That is perfectly correct, but is there going to be an officer deputed, with great sagacity, experience and the mercy with which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, seems to think that Home Office officials are endowed from birth?
A noble Lord: Chromosomes!
Lord Mishcon: Is there a special official who is going to be assigned to tell innocent inquirers who do not know what their rights are, "Don't worry; this is the sort of case where we have had clear instructions

1091
from the Home Secretary, and you will be all right"?—because if this does not happen, and it is not laid down, we are not really covering the kind of situation that we are trying to cover.
Fourthly, and only so that all these things are properly considered, arising out of my noble and learned friend's introduction of this amendment, could I borrow the point so correctly made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter; that there is no discretion written into this Bill as regards the 90-day period. The only discretion written into this Bill, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord, is in regard to the total period of two years. The 90 days, as this Bill is now drawn, is a definite period in respect of which there is no discretion. I cannot speak for my noble and learned friend, although I love to try to do so
1092
occasionally, but let me just say this—subject to what he says on this, because it is his amendment—if the noble and learned Lord undertakes to consider these four points that worry all of us, then I feel that by Report stage we may be saved a further debate on this matter.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: A good deal of collective wisdom has now been generated on this obviously very difficult part of the Bill, and I am delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He has not bowed before the storm—he never does and I admire him for that—but, in view of his assurance that he will now give the most careful thought to this matter, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 40, I should remind the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 41, 42 and 43.
9.49 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, leave out lines 23 to 30.
The noble Lord said: I should like your Lordships to turn your minds now towards what I believe to be the fundamental failing of this clause; the very restricted nature of it. I think it is something which is very serious and ought to be threshed out. At the moment the clause is limited to persons in employment. There is nothing here about self-employment; there is nothing about people who may not be in any employment at all but who are not unemployed, such as authors; there is nothing about small businesses, which are not incorporated but which are concerned with export and import business—or, say, the explorer and so forth.
I should like to give your Lordships something to contemplate. Two years ago, I introduced a debate on unemployment. I said then that there might be 3 million unemployed by 1984. No one then believed me, and yet it is happening. What will happen to employment in the future? I do not believe anyone knows. We have the microchip and there are all the other technological developments which are taking place. We have 24 million jobs now, but by 1990 the number of jobs may have fallen to 15 million or even less. Why do we hitch all this clause on to employment? Surely we must make it wider than employment and use some other term. I put down a series of amendments to try to cover this point, and with Amendment No. 40 I want to couple Nos. 47, 58 and 59. Their effect would be to take out paragraphs (b) and (c) from subsection (2), and to remove subsections (3), (4) and (5) from this clause. Those are the subsections which refer to employment. If we take them out, we get a situation where the basis is not employment. I shall not speak to my other amendments at this stage, because they might produce an alternative, but I want to suggest that we must go much wider than employment. In fact, I do not believe that employment should come into this Bill at all. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I do not think that my noble friends on the Front Bench could possibly accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, or any of those that go with it, more especially in view of the fact that the Government have already undertaken to consider certain matters which are covered by those amendments. But what I should like to say is that I think the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has done a good service by drawing attention yet again to the fact that this clause contains so many detailed provisions. Whenever we try too hard on legislation, we get into the kind of troubles that we have had today.
I should have thought that it would be much better—and I do not withdraw anything that I said about the officials of the Home Office, in spite of the replies that have been made to me—either to leave a very wide
1094
discretion to the Home Secretary, which, in any event, can be used under subsection (1) of this clause, or to legislate, if we must tie him down as we attempt to do in subsection (2) and onwards, in a much more simple way, setting out principles rather than circumstances. The circumstances are going to be infinitely variable and we have had many of them mentioned already this evening. I hope that my noble friends, in giving further consideration to the way in which this clause might be improved and amended, will bear in mind that it is better not to try to cover hypothetical circumstances in too much detail.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Spens, has made it clear that he disapproves of the principle of Clause 3. I have to say that we are doubtful whether an intention to maintain a close connection is by itself an objective criterion sufficient to justify the conferring of citizenship, because that is what the noble Lord, Lord Spens, wishes to do in his amendment. This is particularly so where, genuine though the intention to maintain a close connection with this country may be, the intention is not at that particular moment being put into effect. The explorer whom the noble Lord had in mind may be on the other side of the world and may have been there for years and years. The author may be on the other side of the world and may never have any intention of ever coming back again. Let us recall that the people whom we are talking about in Clause 3 are not those who have been born in this country—they will have no problem over transmitting their citizenship immediately to their children. We are talking about those whose parents were born overseas and now we are concerned about the children who were born overseas.
The provisions regarding relevant employment which the noble Lord seeks to delete at least provide an objective criterion which every applicant must meet, and ensure that, through employment at least, there must be some connection with the United Kingdom. Normally the employment itself will be sufficient to indicate that the applicant is maintaining links with this country, but there may be cases where the employment concerned, although it has formal links with the United Kingdom, does not provide any real, close connections for the employee with this country.
Since we are approaching the point, may I say that we see the close connections requirement in Clause 3(2)(d) as being a means of ensuring that sham cases are not used as a justification. For example, I suppose it is conceivable that a "paper" company might be set up simply to enable citizens overseas to pass on citizenship to their children. This is the sort of loophole which would be stopped by the close connection requirement in Clause 3(2)(d). But we do not see it as a satisfactory way by itself without having the employment criterion of selecting those cases where it is appropriate for citizenship to be passed on for a further generation by British citizens by descent.
For those reasons, I do not agree with the noble Lord's amendment. However, may I assure the noble Lord that I do understand, along with many Members of your Lordships' House, the long traditions that we in this country have of people who are proud to be

1095
British when they are living abroad. However, in this Bill we are endeavouring to tie British citizenship for the first time to people who have close and continuing connections with the country, because that citizenship will give, automatically and without question, the right to abode.
If we are to go outside the employment criterion, which I admit is not perfect, then I think one has to try to find any other criteria which could be considered to be really practicable. With regret, for the reasons which I have given, I think the one which simply relies on just saying that somebody has got a close connection, which is the effect of the noble Lord's amendment, is one which alone would be too vague to write into statute.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: May I respectfully suggest that there are two fundamental defects? I refer not merely to the subject matter of this amendment; I trust that I shall be allowed to deal with the whole issue in a slightly wider way. One of those fundamental defects is the employment test. It is narrow and rigid and, as I know the Minister will agree, in many cases it will be irrelevant to the situation in hand. The other fundamental defect is the test of "a close connection" which is the wording of paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 3(2). It seems to me that the words "a close connection" are extremely vague and uncertain and that they constitute a treasury of judicial controversy for many, many years to come.
I would ask this question of the noble Lord, who may be able to answer it with the assistance of his officials or his noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate. Has that formula ever been used before on any occasion in any statute, social, criminal or fiscal? I would guess not, and that again, in my respectful submission, complicates the issue very greatly. It is not defined in the definition clause. I suspect it has never been defined in law. It opens a vista of extremely embarrassing and wearisome possibilities.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: May I follow my noble friend Lord Renton, supporting his suggestion about the problems of Britons living abroad? We have been dealing with this point earlier, I know, but it is a very real question. If I may take issue with my noble friend Lord Belstead on the matter of Britons being born abroad, the fact that they are so born does not in any way diminish their Britishness; in fact it may often enhance it, because they feel, for reasons of their descent, that they have great ties with this country. Several noble Lords have been pressing the point that it is desirable for our trade to continue to encourage Britons to live abroad, and indeed this was the main thrust of Lord Boyd-Carpenter's suggestions earlier this afternoon.
When I intervened earlier in the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I asked the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate if he would explain a little more clearly the differences between Clauses 2 and 3. We received no reply. I posed a question concerning the quality of the citizenship
1096
and whether the quality that obtained as between Clauses 2 and 3 was in any way varied by the fact of registration. I have the impression that he implied that registration, with the issue of the relevant certificate, brings the quality of the citizenship as between the clauses into line. We have not come back to that matter.
I am wondering whether this is a suitable point for me to ask my noble friend again to clarify the issue, because we are concerned with making sure that Britons who live abroad are not in any way deprived of their rights of citizenship. Britons living abroad seem to me to be deprived of many other rights; for instance, although it is not relevant at this moment, they are not able to vote in elections, whereas citizens of many other countries when living abroad are. But that is not what we are discussing tonight. It is a question of not in any way further diminishing the rights of Britons abroad, forfeiting their Britishness by virtue of being born overseas. I hope my noble friend will be able to clarify that there is no weakening of this as between Clauses 2 and 3, and indeed possibly the issue of the certificate strengthens it. But it was never made quite clear by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate.
Lord Avebury: I am glad the noble Lord has put down this amendment because it enables us to probe a little further what is meant by "close connection". As the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has pointed out, the phrase is riddled with ambiguity and doubt. When accepting jobs overseas people simply will not know, unless a much more comprehensive explanation is given by the Minister at this stage, whether they are going to be safe in taking the employment abroad in the full knowledge that they will be able to transmit citizenship.
I always find it easier to think in terms of concrete examples rather than abstract principles. Therefore I want to pose some cases to the Minister and I want him to tell me whether they comply with condition (c),
"that the nature or terms and conditions of that employment involved close connection with the United Kingdom".
The first example that I want to give relates to a very well known multinational—Rio Tinto Zinc. Rio Tinto Zinc, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is aware, has mining operations all over the world and some of those operations are conducted by companies registered in the overseas countries which are not wholly owned subsidiaries of Rio Tinto Zinc. In fact, the shareholding by RTZ may be a fairly small minority.
Let us suppose that a person is offered a job by Comalco—a company known to the noble Baroness who spoke earlier from the Back-Benches opposite—which is a company registered in Australia in which RTZ owns less than 50 per cent. of the capital. The job is offered to the person in the United Kingdom through RTZ and, therefore, it is relevant employment within the meaning of Clause 3(3)(b). It has been arranged by RTZ United Kingdom with their associate company Comalco in Australia. So far so good. But how does the employee then satisfy the conditions in Clause 3(2)(c)? What is the close connection which

1097
employment with Comalco demonstrates with the United Kingdom? Perhaps the noble Lord will be good enough to explain whether this particular job complies with Clause 3.
The other example that I want to give relates to the many people who are employed in work overseas through consultancies in the United Kingdom, and by that I mean through selection consultancies. That is a question the answer to which I would respectfully submit to the Minister will be looked at with enormous interest by the companies engaged in this work—and very useful work it is, adding to the invisibles earned by this country through the expert services British companies offer worldwide in the selection of professional manpower.
Someone applies for a job in, let us say, Africa through a company which is registered in the United Kingdom and whose job it is to provide professional engineers to overseas employers. So again that arrangement is made by a company or association established in the United Kingdom—that is, the management selection company in the United Kingdom —but the employer overseas may be, for instance, the national Government of the country concerned. They may wish to employ a British engineer. They come to the United Kingdom because they know that there are many fine engineers here. They employ a firm of management selection consultants and they find somebody who is a British citizen by descent to go out to Tanzania to work on railways or bridges.
So again I want to ask the noble Lord whether work of that sort, which is certainly relevant employment within the meaning of Clause 3(3), complies with the condition of Clause 3(2)(c)? That seems to be the real stumbling block, because it is so vague and indeterminate that people will never know in advance whether they satisfy it unless again—and here I come back to a point I made earlier on the certain knowledge that people will require to have in advance—the Minister would agree to write into the Bill at some point a certificate saying that employment of a type which a person may be contemplating does, in fact, comply with the conditions of Clause 3.
I should like to ask the Minister—and this is a point with which I should be most grateful if the Minister would deal when he comes to reply—whether he can assure us that when people are looking at overseas employment (and the two examples that I have quoted might be fairly typical) they will be able to come to a Minister and get an assurance that if they take that job they are within the terms of Clause 3. I think that some kind of assurance like that is really necessary if an enormous number of people are not to be put off taking jobs overseas through the doubt which is instilled by the complexity of this clause, and also if the companies which are engaged in recruitment and the provision of skilled and professional manpower overseas are not to have their work severely disrupted by the doubts raised by Clause 3.
Baroness Trumpington: In the last amendment the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, quoted from the Women's National Commission. I have since rushed out and got my brief from the Women's National Commission which is dated 6th May. If the noble
1098
and learned Lord had been entirely fair he would have read the first paragraph, headed "General", which said:
"We agree that since 1948 Britain's relationship with the rest of the world and many prevailing ideas in society have substantially changed and a Nationality Law is now desirable. We are convinced that such a law must express our respect for past relationships and obligations as well as our concern for the future development of our society, based on equality and justice".
Turning to the paragraph dealing with Clause 3(2) in the brief, it says:
"We welcome the Government's decision to reconsider this clause".
Indeed, as I see it, the clause has been amended since this was written. However, dealing with paragraph (d) of the clause they say:
"… intention is extremely difficult to prove, particularly after death. We believe that this paragraph will also operate unfairly against married women, who are traditionally presumed to have the same intentions as their husbands. Accordingly, in a mixed marriage it might be simple for the father to prove his intention to return to his native country but it would be extremely difficult to prove that the deceased mother had the intention to return to her own country and not to her husband's country".
I merely raise that in order to be totally fair to the Women's National Commission, and would again point out that this report was written before the Bill went through another place.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I hope that I was not guity of any misleading of the content of this document. My only regret is that I was misled by it so horribly.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, asked me whether the expression "close connection" had been used before in legislation. The answer which I have for the noble Lord is that it is used in Section 3(2)(c) of the British Nationality Act 1958, Section 12(6) of the British Nationality Act 1948, and in Section 5A(5) of the same Act as it was inserted by the Immigration Act 1971.
Perhaps I could add a little extra. I think that there is an important point of principle here. My noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate on a previous amendment reminded noble Lords opposite that it had been put as being the Government's view in the 1977 Green Paper—not a matter just for discussion—that citizenship should not be transmitted beyond the first generation born overseas; when you have the parents overseas and then you have to see what is happening when the next generation is born overseas.
I assure noble Lords that I am not making a political point of this. The reason I raise it is that if the Government felt that, as a matter pf principle, this seemed to be along the right lines—and, all right, they then did not carry that into legislation, but then the present Government have picked up this matter and have decided to put it into legislation—those who originally thought of it (including the present Government who wish to put it in the Bill) somehow have to think how the exceptions will be dealt with. If one is to have the principle, one must decide how the exceptions are to be dealt with.
The whole case which I endeavoured to make originally on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, was that although I realise that the employment criterion is not perfect, it is at least a criterion which is

1099
understandable and which, I think, will stand up; whereas if you take the rug away, remove the employment criterion and leave, as this amendment would, just the criterion of a close connection, it would be beyond human ingenuity to decide on what grounds exactly one will have that close connection.
My reply to Lord Avebury's point is that when the noble Lord asks me many times how are the Government going to define "close connection" in practice if this Bill beomes law, the answer is that there will be cross-references. The cases will be looked at on the cross-reference of the relevant employment together with the close conneltion of that employment, and the close connection incidentally of the person with the United Kingdom.
The other point to which I must reply, to which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advcate did reply, is the point put by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery. Under Clause 3(2) citizenship will be citizenship by descent, whereas in Clause 2, which the noble Viscount specifically asked me about, the citizenship which will be conferred will be by birth. In case the noble Viscount jumps down my throat and says, "This is wholly discriminatory", may I make the point that if my noble friend looks elsewhere in Clause 3 he will observe that great care has been taken that where somebody can be seen to be very closely connected again with this country, in this country again maybe under, for instance, Clause 3(6) where the child will have actually returned to the country, then the citizenship will be by birth. That is by cross-reference with Clause 13. The answer to my noble friend's question is that the citizenship in Clause 3(2) is by descent, and the citizenship conferred in Clause 2 is by birth.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I wonder whether I may be permitted to return to one point. I think I owe an apology if I referred to the fact that I had been misled by the document. The truth is that I misled myself—not that I was misled by the noble Baroness. I should have read it more carefully to appreciate that since the report was made the Government made some relevant changes. Indeed, in the paragraph which made such an impression on me, they said:
"We welcome the Government's decision to reconsider this clause",
but I regret to say that I did not note that the Government had done so. They have done so in the reference that was made earlier. My apologies are due to the women's organisations, to whom I owe so much.
Baroness Trumpington: May I accept the apology on their behalf.
Lord Avebury: I do not want to prolong these proceedings, but I did put two quite specific examples to the Minister and I asked whether these people, if they went overseas, could satisfy the terms of the Bill.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the noble Lord. I am going to make a golden rule throughout this Bill: I shall not answer any specific cases at all, whoever
1100
they come from, particularly not from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Lord Avebury: It is all very well to be frivolous, but somebody has to interpret. There are going to be individual people faced with individual job opportunities, and they will have to make up their minds whether, if they go overseas, their children are going to comply with these conditions in the Bill. If the Minister is not going to say anything on the record, how are people to know? I asked him another question. I said, would they be able to apply to the Secretary of State or to some official and be able to get a certificate in advance? If they went to work for Comalco, the employment having been arranged by RTZ, or if through a British recruitment consultant an engineer were to go to work for the Government of Tanzania, would he be able to get from the Secretary of State, or from some official, a certificate saying that this employment satisfied the close connection requirement of Clause 3? Will he be able to get that, or will he go abroad without having the faintest idea whether his children are going to be British citizens or not?
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the noble Lord. It is perfectly fair for the noble Lord to chide me with that. The question of approaching the Home Office—it will be the Home Office—to find out in advance is quite an understandable question. I hope the noble Lord also will understand when I say that obviously all the practicalities have not been worked out, but at the same time it would be wholly unreasonable if I did not say on behalf of the Government that people will want to clear their lines before they go abroad, and obviously we shall have to think carefully about the firm guidance which can be given to people when they apply to find out. I do not think at this moment I can go further.
So far as specific cases are concerned, I was saying what I have just said with some forethought. If specific cases are put—these are cases which the noble Lord has put; for instance, the noble Lord put two or three cases to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate—and if the noble Lord really expects replies to those, then I am afraid the noble Lord is asking for too much. It means that Ministers on their feet at the Box are being asked to give what are supposed to be considered opinions which could then be taken as being Government policy. It would be unfair, not to the Minister but to the people concerned, if it were found afterwards that the Minister had made a mistake. These are matters which should be dealt with properly, which means through the proper channels, and I am sure the noble Lord, who is assiduous in using the proper channels, understands what I mean.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I wish to express my thanks to the noble Lord for the computer-like speed and accuracy with which he replied to my question about the words "close connection". I should have known better. One should have remembered, I suppose, the words of that greatest of all legal historians, F. W. Maitland, who, speaking of the parliamentary draftsman of the Middle Ages, said there was no plethora of words in the Middle Ages and the draftsman had to use the scanty currency that was available. Apparently, the draftsman of 1981 is no different from

1101
the draftsman of the 14th century. However, I would ask the Minister—if he cannot reply now then perhaps he will do so later during the Committee stage—whether in fact those words have ever been judicially defined.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My noble friend has been very effective in the reply he has given to this interesting debate, but he seemed to close the door completely, whereas the Lord Advocate on the previous amendment left the door open, at any rate to the point where the matter would be looked at again, although he made it clear that the chances of finding something different were remote. In my view, this amendment justifies the same treatment. Tying the provision so completely to employment, as it now is, and ignoring self-employment and all the categories which the noble Lord, Lord Spens, mentioned, justifies another look at the whole matter. On the few occasions when I have intervened in this Committee stage I have asked the Committee to support the discretion given to the Secretary of State, because there will be some very grey areas where somebody will need discretion to sort it out. In this clause it looks as though discretion is being taken from him because the words are so specific, and when we come to the provision dealing with 90 days, that removes a discretion which I had hoped the Secretary of State would be left free to use to form a judgment.
My view is that precisely the strength of argument which resulted in the Lord Advocate saying he would look at the last amendment again justifies my noble friend Lord Belstead adopting at least similar treatment for this one. Whether or not other words can be found, one cannot say. We realise it is a long time since the Bill was first envisaged in another place and my noble friend may feel that there are not other words to replace "employment" and all that goes with it. But as we are nearing the end of these proceedings and the measure will become an Act, the categories set out by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, deserve looking at again to see whether, even at this last hour, an alternative set of words can be found.
Lord Belstead: I am not sure whether we are in the last hour or hours of discussion on the Bill, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls suggests, but I wish to impress on him that if we are talking about self-employment, then that is taking the discussion rather further than that with which my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate was dealing; it is a very important matter and we shall come to it later, particularly on Amendment No. 42.
Before we come to it, I should like to say two things. The first—and I am sure my noble friend will understand, as I am speaking on the same side of the Committee, there is no ideological predilection in these matters against people who are self-employed. I would dearly like to see some way in which the self-employed could be brought as a criterion within the scope of the Bill. The second point is that I do not see how one is to do it, and when we come to the amendments on the self-employed I shall throw the ball back and tell noble Lords that they must help. If they want to bring the self-employed within the scope
1102
of the Bill we must find ways of doing it, but, at the moment, it is difficult to see that such ways exist.
Lord Spens: We have had a very interesting debate on this, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for his support. I am disappointed with the Minister in that he funked the suggestion which I put to him, that within 10 years employment may not be so important a situation as it is today. No one knows that. He spoke about having the rug pulled out from under his feet. That might be what is going to happen within the next 10 years. So, in a Bill which I would suppose is to last us for 20 to 30 years, why tie yourself to such a detailed narrow definition as employment. However, I am not going to divide the Committee on this tonight, but I hope the Minister will think about it again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
10.28 p.m.
Lord Spens Lord Spens moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, line 23, after ("was") insert ("either in an occupation which the Secretary of State is satisfied is of benefit to the United Kingdom or")
The noble Lord said: This is the other suggestion which I decided to make in order to try to broaden the situation from just being tied to employment, and with this I should like to discuss also Amendment No. 45. It is to suggest that in addition to employment the word "occupation" should be used, because I believe that is the word which will be more used in the future and we really ought to be thinking about persons' occupations rather than persons' employment. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: The basic purpose of this amendment is to add an entitlement to pass on citizenship for British citizens in an occupation which the Secretary of State is satisfied is of benefit to the United Kingdom, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for putting the point so succinctly. I genuinely sympathise with the noble Lord's brief argument because for the first time on this clause this raises the claims of the self-employed and, indeed I think it could be argued, the claims of partners in overseas firms. It is possible that a way through the difficulties may be found so far as partners in overseas firms are concerned, but these are for amendments which will come later and we must wait to debate those in a few minutes. The fact is that self-employed persons are a little different. They are of course wholly independent of employers and it is their own choice which takes them overseas.
The problem which then arises is that it really is exceedingly difficult to decide what should be the criterion for saying that a person who is self-employed should have special rights of transmission of citizenship. The criterion that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has chosen in the amendment might leave it open for the Secretary of State to argue that an occupation involving expensive professional training and skills was beneficial to the United Kingdom when exercised in the United Kingdom, or on behalf of the United Kingdom, but was quite the opposite when engaged in for the benefit

1103
of United Kingdom competitors. Such an argument might be applied to the legal and accountancy professions. For example I wonder what one would say about medicine in this regard? What would be the position of doctors who go abroad? Once more I emphasise that we are not talking about the doctor who is born here, whose children are of course British citizens. Indeed, the citizenship can be derived from the wife. Do not let us forget that all the time the citizenship can be derived either way.
A family might go abroad and continue to live abroad for years and years. Perhaps they are a family of doctors, doing very well, and being of great service to the community in San Franciso, Hawaii, or somewhere else abroad, with no intention of ever coming home. If I may say so to the noble Lord, here is the difficulty. How does the Secretary of State decide whether or not the occupation is, as the amendment provides,
"of benefit to the United Kingdom"?
It is for that simple reason, not because I wish to be unfriendly or unhelpful to the general thrust of the noble Lord's proposals, that I feel that I cannot accept the amendment. I absolutely understand, and have great sympathy with, what the noble Lord is trying to do, but I do not think that as worded his amendment will stand up in legislation.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think that my noble friend is on the wrong track here. I should have thought that at the time that the decision was to be made the Secretary of State would be in a better position than we are now to decide whether the occupation was of benefit to the United Kingdom. Here we are years ahead of any situation that is likely to arise. I have much sympathy with the amendment. This subject is quite intricate and I should like to congratulate the Government on having the courage to bring in the Bill in the first place. Many previous Governments have run away from it; they have put it under a rug. The Government are entitled to all the credit for having the courage and the tenacity to deal with this very important and essential matter. We know that the reason why previous Governments did not deal with this subject is because it is filled with marginal problems and that difficult and intricate points might well arise. They sound hypothetical now, but they will be quite real when decisions have to be made.
It is for those reasons that I believe that we must give discretion to the Secretary of State of the day to decide such matters in the knowledge of the situation at the time. I am not saying that the words of the amendment would necessarily convey the same meaning as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, has in mind. But I consider that the word "occupation" is not the relevant word in the amendment. The important point is that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that the occupation
"is of benefit to the United Kingdom".
Regardless of whether the people involved live in San Francisco or anywhere else abroad, if they have the basis of a claim, and they are sufficiently interested to retain their citizenship, the Secretary of State would be in a position to take account of all the considerations.
1104
That is one of the benefits of leaving the matter to the Secretary of State. Other noble Lords have said that such a provision has many dangers, that there ought to be the right of appeal against some decisions. One recognises that point, too. But when it comes to wanting to be fair to the self-employed and others in similar categories, what is proposed here is one means by which to deal with the matter. It is more likely to be dealt with greater efficiency by a Secretary of State at the time rather, knowing all the circumstances, than by us, trying to anticipate what could prove to be a different world.
I hope that, as with the previous amendment, this is not the last thought that the Government will give to it. They are doing such a splendid job, showing great courage. I hope that they will not be tied so specifically to these words, which are contrary to the instinctive feelings of so many noble Lords on both sides of the Committee.
Lord Belstead: All I would add, if I may, before the noble Lord, Lord Spens, decides on his amendment, is what I think I said to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls on a previous amendment. There is a double responsibility here. Of course, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate has said, we are listening extremely carefully to what is being said on Clauses 2 and 3—we have no option but to do so; and this exactly shows the importance of your Lordships' House and Committee. But, having said that, I think there is a responsibility upon noble Lords, if I may say so with respect, to try also to think how their wording might be refined so that it would be possible to put it into legislation. This particular attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, although (I say for the second time) it has my sympathy, I really do not think will do. It raises a criterion which I do not think could possibly stand up, as it is worded in this particular amendment, without causing doubt and anomalies all along the line. It is for that practical reason that I am resisting this particular amendment.
Lord Mishcon: Just before the noble Lord, Lord Spens, speaks, may I say that I think the invitation which the noble Lord the Minister has issued, that all of us ought to try to help him and the Government in regard to this important issue, is a very correct invitation, and I am sure we shall all accept it. The Opposition is always helpful, and I am sure we shall manage to produce something for the Government. But, being serious for a moment, one of the dreadful things about the loophole of the self-employed is that many of us who are in practice and who act for those who are in the entertainment industry, and even some artists, and so on, know perfectly well that they have the habit, for certain reasons which are not beyond the comprehension of noble Lords, to have a company which employs them.
They are really, of course, self-employed; and it would be absolutely dreadful if people were able to take advantage of provisions in this Bill, saying that they are employed by a company, which is really their company and which they control, and that therefore they come within the purview of the Bill, whereas those who are not able to take advantage of that device are left stranded because they are self-employed. I am

1105
merely emphasising the point of the noble Lord the Minister that we have got to get over this somehow, and we will help him out.
Lord Spens: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for what he has just said, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, because he has kept this subject open. I will certainly take it away, and I hope that I shall get assistance from all sides of your Lordships' House in trying to devise some formula which will meet the wishes of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.38 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 3, line 23, after ("was") insert ("self-employed or").
The noble Lord said: With the well-known wisdom of hindsight, I think a great deal of discussion on this particular amendment, and indeed on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, who has raised effectively the same point in Amendment No. 48—and perhaps he would like to speak to this amendment in lieu of his own, or as well as his own—has already been covered. The point was I think first raised, certainly in your Lordships' House, by my noble friend Lady Trumpington at Second Reading. I should like to emphasise very briefly that as drafted the Bill makes no provision for the child born overseas one of whose parents is self-employed and British by descent. It may well be that the position in the Bill in which I have tabled this amendment is wrong, and I shall be perfectly happy to withdraw the amendment subject to any further remarks that my noble friend the Minister may make in trying to cover this blank in the present drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: If I may speak on my amendment and have it discussed at the same time as my noble friend's amendment, I do not know what view my noble friend takes of Amendment No. 48, which is spelt out in a little more detail than the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, but may I refer my noble friend back to something he said? It is difficult on any particular issue, take one instance of one doctor in San Francisco, to say: How are we going to prove that what he is doing is of benefit to the United Kingdom? The fact is that collectively self-employed people of this kind, doctors, consultants, engineering consultants, professors and all the rest of it, in their own way make an impact; but collectively they make a very considerable impact in favour of Great Britain.
This is what has to be considered. Therefore you have to draw the legislation in such a way that they can be included. Materially also it is important. If you have British doctors you probably have British medicines and British hospital devices of one kind and another. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made the very sound point about consultants. Consultants bring in an immense amount of business. They do not employ anybody but they bring to this country an immense amount of business. I need not elaborate because it is quite clear. This is what gives the real benefit to this country.
1106
I do not think that it can be said that the self-employed are not bringing a benefit to this country, whereas the employed are. I do not see that the employed have any monopoly of welldoing so far as this is concerned. I hope that the self-employed will also be given the same facilities as the employed are so far as preserving the nationality of their children is concerned.
Baroness Trumpington: It is indeed true that I brought up this matter on Second Reading. I did it in the form of a question. I was not really thinking in such high terms as professional people such as doctors, although the case is entirely similar. I was thinking in terms of plain business, giving as an example the supposition that a pilot was declared redundant. What is to stop him from opening a charter service in a foreign country but be based in this country, from which in turn a new airline might arise which would do great good for this country in general? That is an example I should like to give. That is one of the reasons why I brought it up on Second Reading.
Lord Belstead: The reason why my noble friend Lady Trumpington has had to wait for so many days for an answer to the very perceptive question which she asked on Second Reading is because the question is such a difficult one to answer. It is demonstrated by not only the amendment which we are actually considering, Amendment No. 43, but also Amendment No. 48. They approach the matter from completely different directions. My noble friend Lord Geddes simply says that self-employment will do. I am sure my noble friend moved the amendment in order to give us a good chance to thresh this question out.
This gives me the opportunity to cross the "t" and dot the "i" of something I said on the previous amendment. I have genuinely asked for the help of the Committee in trying to find a way through the impasse. I have to make it clear that the Government, in giving serious and close concern to the problems of the self-employed, have not yet been able to find a way through the problem so far as this Bill is concerned. It would be wholly wrong of me not to impress that upon the Committee. We have genuinely found it to be something that we cannot translate into this piece of legislation.
The second amendment approaches the problem from a wholly different point of view. My noble friend is characteristically very specific in his amendment. It says that if people are in employment which would be designated by the Secretary of State, then surely that would do. Here again we find a difficulty. It is because once a profession had been designated all members of it would expect—and would largely obtain—access to the entitlement, if they were British citizens by descent, to pass on by registration their citizenship to their children born overseas. In other words, the Government would not be expected to look further in Clause 3 once designation had occurred; everyone who was a member of that particular profession would say that they ought always to be able to transmit their citizenship indefinitely. There is that particular problem with my noble friend's amendment, Amendment No. 48.

1107
I hope I am not again sounding over-suspicious, but in considering these amendments on the self-employed do let us bear in mind that there is obviously a danger if we try to write something into the legislation without being extremely careful that it would not enable someone simply to say as they left this country, "Incidentally, I have become self-employed and I demand all the rights of transmission of citizenship." This is a very serious matter. It genuinely grieves me to have to rebuff these particular amendments, but at the moment the Government have not been able to find a way through this particular difficulty.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I believe my noble friend realises what a very serious criticism he has just made of the Bill and of the structure of the Bill. The self-employed overseas perform very important functions indeed. At this hour I will not reiterate them because they have already been mentioned several times today. The self-employed overseas perform major services for this country in connection with overseas developments, professional services and the rest. For the Minister to come forward at this stage, having taken the Bill through one House, and say that because of the general scheme of the Bill it is not possible to make any provision for these people at all is really one of the most serious criticisms of the Bill that I have heard during our debates. I should like to have from my noble friend the Minister a clear indication of his determination to do something for these people.
My noble friend once again gave an indication of the Government's nervousness about possible abuse. That there will be some clever people who will find their way through any piece of legislation is the experience of us all. That is not sufficient reason for depriving of their rights a much larger number of honourable, distinguished and responsible people who care for this country and who want their children to have British citizenship. If the Government cannot find a solution within the framework of the Bill then some of us will think, "So much the worse for the framework of the Bill."
Lord Belstead: I think it is important that I should add that there are in Clause 3 avenues into citizenship for people who have not been able to meet the relevant employment criteria. One of those avenues has been mentioned this evening. It is in Clause 3(6), where people return to the United Kingdom and where, by right, by birth, the children have citizenship conferred upon them. There is the other very familiar provision in Clause 3(1), which is a repeat of the 1948 provision for the discretionary registration by the Secretary of State.
My noble friend has queried the whole intention of the Bill. At the end of a long day let us just remember that what we are trying to do is to put legislation in place of what at the moment is the most extraordinary hotchpotch. It is that if one is in a Commonwealth country one cannot transmit one's citizenship at all beyond the first generation born overseas. And if you are in a foreign country, although of course there is consular registration, it is no good thinking that your children can have the right of abode back here in the second generation born overseas in a foreign country
1108
—that is out under the 1948 Act. Therefore, the structure we are trying to replace is really not very admirable and has led to misunderstandings and troubles which in turn have given the Government the determination, which my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was good enough to say was admirable, to try to put a bit of modern legislation on the statute book. I repeat again; I promise my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter that we are taking very seriously all that has been said on Clauses 2 and 3, including what has been said on this last amendment. I hope I have indicated fairly what some of the problems are on this particular aspect of it.
Lord Tordoff: I wonder whether the Government are not giving too low a priority to this. It seems to me to be revealed in a comment of the noble Minister on the last amendment, when he said it is their own wish that they should go abroad. That seems to me to reveal an attitude of mind on the part of the Government which is totally wrong. It came out slightly on the amendments to Clause 2, when the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, was moving his amendment. It may well be their wish, but it is also the country's need, and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has referred to this. It is not simply their wish; it is their only option in many cases to do business—and thank God they do it, because it is in the country's interest.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: Clauses 2 and 3 are the only parts of this Bill which cause me any disquiet; and 2 and 3 do not strike me as being clauses which have been put together by a Conservative Minister. They have been put in by civil servants, and that has been confirmed by the words used by my noble friend. He said that we must not do something that is generally good because it might be abused. They are always terrified of the one or two who will abuse something. On the basis that something cannot be done because it might be abused by a minority, you would never have a Budget, because in every Budget people find ways of getting round what was intended in the Budget. But what do you do? In future Budgets you stop up those loopholes when abuse has been seen to have taken place. I believe that when this Bill becomes an Act there may well be some weak points in it left open to abuse by one or two who will find loopholes. It is then up to Parliament, at the time when the loopholes are found, to stop them up—but not to begin by not being fair to the self-employed and the categories mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, who really do make such a great contribution to the general well-being, the wealth and the reputation this country has in the world.
Lord Geddes: This amendment and that of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn have raised again a point which causes much concern to the Committee on this particular question. My noble friend the Minister has been kind enough to say on many occasions that he is very concerned about this point, but, with great respect, I do not think it is good enough to fall back on subsection (6)(b) as one of the escape routes for the self-employed in that the parents would have to come back for three years. There seems to be no justification for the self-employed being treated any differently from

1109
the employed in this context. I can only take comfort from the words of the noble Lord the Minister when he says he is soliciting (if that is the right word) support from all sides of the Committee. I am glad to offer, hopefully with others, what little support I can and try at Report stage to get in some amendment which will cover this particular point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to remind the Committee that if Amendment No. 44 is carried, I shall be unable to move Amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
10.55 p.m.
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 3, leave out lines 28 to 30.
The noble Lord said: I shall not detain your Lordships' Committee for longer than I have to. I did not speak on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, in that his amendment covered paragraphs (b) and (c), whereas mine covers paragraph (c) only. The problem with the present wording is that it makes necessary an assessment of an unquantifiable connection between the United Kingdom and "the nature or terms and conditions" of a person's employment.
The meaning of that expression "nature or terms and conditions" is itself doubtful. In a letter dated 2nd June this year, the Home Office advised that:
"The purpose of the subsection was to ensure that the parent is genuinely representing British interests in his overseas employment and there are no set criteria. We envisage that, in most cases, it will be clear from the details of the employment provided on the application form that it is serving British interests and that no further inquiries will be necessary. However, I am not able to say with certainty whether all international staff would meet this requirement should they in future apply for British citizenship for their children born abroad. Each case would need to be considered on its merits at the time of application".
I suggest that this can hardly be described as an adequate explanation as to why Clause 3(2)(c) is necessary. If it remains in the Bill unamended, it is bound to cause problems and uncertainties in the minds and lives of those affected. I feel strongly that the Bill would be greatly improved by the deletion of this subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Gifford: I support the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in this amendment. It seems to me that there are going to be all kinds of employment which are covered by the term, "relevant employment", which will not involve a particularly close connection with the United Kingdom. For a start, one thinks of many employments with international organisations to work in foreign countries. It may be the Food and Agricultural Organisation or the World Health Organisation, which work wholly for the benefit and assistance of another country, but which do not have a particularly close connection with the United Kingdom. So also, possibly, with employment with subsidiaries which are not wholly owned by British companies, such as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Surely the nature of the foreign employment is not particularly relevant. What is relevant is that people who go to
1110
take jobs abroad, and who intend to maintain their close connection, should benefit from the provisions of Clause 3(2). I support the contention that there is really no need for these three lines.
Lord Belstead: I must be a little more downright on this amendment. I am surprised at the enthusiasm with which my noble friend moved it. We have discussed at great length whether employment should be the criterion in Clause 3. But if one is not going to have a cross-reference with the criterion of a close connection with the United Kingdom, it seems to me that then one is accepting the situation which this country is stuck with today, that citizenship, however proudly held it may be, is, none the less, held by people who have either never had a connection with this country or who have lost connection with it. So that special barriers have had to be put up by Governments of different political parties to prevent those people from being allowed to enter the United Kingdom. The whole idea, which is most certainly workable, that citizenship should be tied to an absolute right to enter and live in the United Kingdom must surely be underpinned by a cross-reference to the criterion. The Government believe that "relevant employment" should be part of that cross-reference. We also believe that a connection with the United Kingdom should be another part of it.
I do not think there is anything I can add to the answer, except that if we removed the close connection part of the criterion I think we should be back to square one and exactly where we were before the previous Government began to think in the middle of the 1970s that it was right to try to overhaul the nationality law of this country.
Lord Geddes: I cannot pretend that I am overjoyed by the answer of my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench. Nor, indeed, am I suprised by it. In the circumstances, with several more Committee days ahead of us and with the Report stage to follow, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Lord Geddes Lord Geddes moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 3, line 28, after ("or") insert ("the").
The noble Lord said: On the basis that subsection (2)(c) must remain, it seems preferable that
"the nature or the terms and conditions …"
should be the wording. It is a small point but I submit that it is an improvement. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: It is important that the effect of Clause 3(2)(c) should be that the nature of the employment or, as an alternative, the terms and conditions of the employment should involve a close connection with the United Kingdom. I believe that the present draft achieves this effect, but as I know that my noble friend Lord Geddes attaches importance to this point and as I believe he is correct in his desire to make this crystal clear, I have great pleasure in accepting the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 not moved.]
Lord Denham: I think your Lordships may feel that although perhaps we have not gone quite so far as some of the more optimistic of us had hoped, this might be a convenient moment to adjourn the Committee. Unless any noble Lord objects too thoroughly, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Northumbrian Water Authority Bill
Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.