Lords Sitting of 23 July 1981

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Norwich): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Message from the Queen
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to report to your Lordships that, in accordance with the Order of Thursday, 16th July, the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York, the Lord President, the Lord Byers, the Baroness Hylton-Foster, the Lord Peart and I myself waited upon Her Majesty the Queen this morning at Buckingham Palace and presented your Lordships' Address of congratulations on the approaching marriage of His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales to the Lady Diana Spencer.
Her Majesty was graciously pleased to make the following reply, signed by Her own hand:
"I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful Address of congratulations on the forthcoming Marriage of my beloved son to the Lady Diana Spencer. The Duke of Edinburgh and I have been greatly touched by the countless messages of good wishes which The Prince of Wales and Lady Diana have received from all parts of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth on this happy occasion.
"We much appreciate this latest example of the close link between Parliament and the Crown. You have once again shown your interest in the well-being of our family. With you we pray that the Marriage will be blessed with good health and every happiness".

May Day: GLC Expenditure
3.2 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 whether the £150,000 proposed to be spent by the Greater London Council on May Day activities will rank for grant from Government funds.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the GLC's block grant is not given for specific purposes. Like all authorities, the GLC is answerable to the electorate for the way in which its grant is spent. Whether any particular expenditure is intra vires in the last resort is something for the district auditor to decide.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while I thank my noble friend for that reply, does it mean that the Government have no power to check this wholly unnecessary, wasteful and provocative expenditure which will fall upon the already overburdened rate-payers of London?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, at the present time that is exactly the situation. But I want to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has said that, in looking at all expenditure, in the total, by local government, if local authorities are unwilling to meet the Government's targets as set down, then we shall have to look at the possibility of legislation in the next Session to bring home to individual authorities and the electorates the consequences of high-spending policies and to make councils more accountable.
Lord Molloy.: My Lords, would the noble Lord perhaps convey to his colleagues in the Government who might be responsible that they should get back some of the £9,000 million from the tax cheaters in the City and other places? This £150,000 is miniscule in comparison to that, which has been fiddled off the British public by tax evasion.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I think that that is totally irrelevant to the Question.
Lord Harmar-Nichols: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what is very relevant indeed is that the present leader of the council, Mr. Livingstone, has said that next year and beyond the rate in London may be doubled? That is relevant and any powers that the Government have need to be used. Is my noble friend prepared to make any anticipation of what he would do in those circumstances?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I have seen the note in the press to which my noble friend refers, and can only say that, if ever there was a case of "vote now, pay later", this must be being very much brought home to the electorate in London. The fact is that the consequences of that kind of increase are very serious for employment, and they have no interest at all in people's ability to pay. This must, of course, be the kind of thing that does so much to detract from the central Government/local government relationship.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, would my noble friend say whether Her Majesty's Government can have any possible control over the present leader of the GLC publicly stating the other day, as leader of the GLC and not as a private individual, that he supports murderers and terrorists in the Maze prison in Belfast? He has said publicly so on the wireless and in the newspapers.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am afraid that I have again to say that that is not relevant to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Spens: My Lords, have the Government given consideration to abolishing the May Day hank holiday, which seems to be a completely useless bank holiday close to two others?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am not aware whether the Government are, or are not, giving consideration to that point.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that central Governments often believe that local governments are in error, whichever side is in power, one way or the other? If, whenever that occurs, central Government overrules local government, what is to happen to local government?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would only say something that I have said before in answering Questions. It was always the proud boast of local government that it worked within the parameters set down by central Government, so far as the totality of spending was concerned. It is only now that, for the first time, we are seeing something quite new. We are seeing situations where certain authorities are not willing to work within, and, indeed, set out to thwart, the policies of central Government, which is a new factor in the whole situation.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, are not the Government themselves responsible for this state of affairs, because they have cut down by £87 million the normal grant that would be due to local government in the coming year?
Lord Bellwin: Again, my Lords, we are very much off the Question. But the fact is that the Government are certainly not at all responsible, as the noble Lord suggests. The Government are entitled to decide what they think the country can afford, and to expect the same response from local government as has always been given in the past.
Lord Leatherland: But, my Lords, are not the Government—
Noble Lords: Order!
Viscount Mountgarret: My Lords, following the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, would the Government not agree that, if a public holiday is needed, St. George's Day would be more appropriate than May Day?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall have to give the same reply as I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Spens; I really do not know.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lord, I suggest that we now move on to the next Question.

Public Order Act: Review Process
3.8 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: 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 in the light of recent violence they intend to speed up their
350
review of the Public Order Act and to introduce new legislation as a matter of urgency.
The Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary intends this review to maintain a good momentum, but as he said in a debate on 16th July in another place it would be wrong to hurry forward with legislation in this difficult field. He therefore intends to examine, in consultation with my right honourable and learned friends the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General and the Lord Advocate, the value of new proposals in the general context of what powers should be available to the police to maintain order and to deal with disorder.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that reply. I am sure that the consultations will be of great importance and will prove to be a great success. But does the Minister realise that the Public Order Act, under which the police are at present operating, dates from 1936? It seems to me that it is a long time since anybody tried to alter that to meet present conditions and—although I agree that it is extremely difficult—a little speed might help the police; 1936 was a long time ago.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am entirely in agreement with my noble friend Lady Elliot. This was why we produced a paper and why we have been looking very carefully at the provisions of the 1936 Act. However, may I add that in the very difficult times which we have been going through I think my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has acted with speed and with decision so far as supporting the actions of the police is concerned. Although we in the Home Office are now looking urgently at the matter, in consultation with my right honourable and learned friends, if we rushed into legislation it would be something which I think we should repent at leisure.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to give a provisional view of the outcome of the considerable consultations which have been taking place about the right of procession, one of the particular matters in the report which led to the setting up of the appropriate committee?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. This was among the issues discussed in the Green Paper on the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation. It raises a difficult question of balance between the freedom of people in this country to do things which are within the law and the desire and the right of us all to live in peace. We hope to be able to come up with some views on this matter for Parliament to consider again in the near future.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there have not been many occasions in recent years upon which I have had an opportunity to congratulate Her Majesty's Government, but that on this occasion the Home Secretary is greatly to be congratulated for the way he has kept his head and not responded by violent measures to violent actions?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall draw what he has said to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Employment Act 1980: Section 17
3.12 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 in the light of the comment of the Master of the Rolls in the Court of Appeal on Section 17 of the Employment Act 1980 that, "I confess to a sense of bewilderment; it is the most tortuous section I have ever come across", they will now amend the Part of that Act dealing with secondary action.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I learned at only about 1.30 this afternoon that an Appeal Committee of your Lordships' House this morning allowed a petition for leave to appeal in the case to which the Question relates. Therefore that case is now again sub judice. Therefore, I can only properly say that the desirability or otherwise of amending the law relating to immunity for secondary action was among the subjects canvassed in the recent Green Paper issued by the Government. The Government are currently assessing the various comments made on the Green Paper.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend will recall that many people both in this House and in another place find it very difficult to understand the Act, would it not be to the advantage of trade unions, employers and others who have to try to administer this Act, not least our judges who find it tortuous while most of us find it incomprehensible, if the Government were to consider whether a clearer and more easily followed draft might replace the present Act in the autumn when new legislation is contemplated to be brought forward?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in view of the nature of the situation which drew attention, as the springboard for legislation, to a particular remark by the Master of the Rolls in a particular case, I do not think that I ought to say any more than that I will bear what my noble friend has said carefully in mind.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not possible that their Lordships in the Appellate Committee may not be in quite the same difficulty as the Master of the Rolls?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, over 50 years I have seen so many Lords Justices, Judges of the High Court and Law Lords inveighing against the, to them, apparently incomprehensible language of Acts of Parliament of very many kinds and on very many subjects, that my withers are comparatively unwrung.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, without
352
in any way wanting to comment on matters which are sub judice, since the Question is before your Lordships would the noble and learned Lord tell the House, and the country, whether the interpretation placed upon the section by the majority of the Court of Appeal was one which the Government intended or one which the Government did not intend? Irrespective of the particular litigation, it is a matter of great importance to trade unionists and others, since it dealt with a case which was not secondary action within the meaning of the Act. Did the Government welcome it, or did they not?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that is just what I ought not to say when the matter is sub judice.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while being very wary of addressing the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and while believing that probably what I wish to ask is not necessarily connected with Section 17 or with secondary action, it is nevertheless something which I think should be said. Might I ask the noble and learned Lord, as the word "employment" is mentioned, whether there will be any opportunity of condemning the industrial action which is being taken to prevent the publishing of the Radio Times covering the Royal Wedding next week, in view of the fact that this is depriving millions of people of a very innocent pleasure, of which there is is very little today? I take no sides in this matter but it is something which I think should be called to the attention of the House.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Baroness, but I think I should require notice of that rather separate question before I could answer it either intelligently or accurately.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that Section 17 of the 1980 Act would have been much better understood if the textual method of amendment of previous legislation had been used on that occasion?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think that this is a view which can be expressed in many contexts, but I am not absolutely sure that it arises out of the particular section to which the Master of the Rolls was referring.

Universities: Cut-Backs
3.17 p.m.
Lord Rochester: 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 they are satisfied that the restructuring, redundancy and early retirement that will result from the reductions in grant and student numbers recently announced for universities are practicable within the constraints of time and money imposed.
The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Baroness Young): My Lords, until a clearer picture emerges of what reductions in university staff are likely, it is not possible to estimate how and when these reductions will take place or what they will cost.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I can draw little comfort from that Answer. Will the noble Baroness acknowledge the accumulating evidence from universities that a sum of only £20 million and a period of only three years will not permit the contraction which the Government have in mind to take place in an orderly and cost-effective manner? In view of the financial, legal and especially the human problems involved, would it not be preferable for the Government either to make more funds available to the University Grants Committee or to allow reductions in grant to be spread over a longer period, so that, so far as possible, the contraction which they have in mind can be achieved through voluntary early retirement and natural wastage rather than through enforced redundancy?
Baroness Young: My Lords, in an ideal world, the Government would not have wished to reduce expenditure for the universities either so soon or so sharply. However, in the world in which we live, the over-whelming need was action to bring public expenditure within the scope of what the country could afford, and higher education, including the universities, could not be exempt from that policy. We recognise that rationalisation is bound to lead to redundancies of academic and non-academic staff, but we believe that it is still too early to say to what extent these reductions can be achieved by early retirement or redeployment as opposed to compulsory redundancies. The matter is being discussed both with the University Grants Committee and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals.
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, does the answer of the noble Baroness mean that the Government are indifferent to the consequences of their policy upon higher education, or does it mean that they are deliberately trying to squeeze higher education?
Baroness Young: It does not mean either of those things, my Lords. The Government believed, as I indicated, that higher education could not be exempt from the public expenditure economies that needed to be made. They have, as always, turned to the University Grants Committee to determine how the allocation of the money should be made between the universities. The UGC believed that they had to be selective in their allocation of recurrent grant, not only to protect the wellbeing of the university system as a whole but also, by rationalising, to enable support to be given to new developments.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Minister, on behalf of those of us who are sceptical about existing arrangements as regards contract in the universities, whether she will agree with me that legal contracts must be kept?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are aware that in
354
the whole of the matter of redundancies there is the question of the payments as well as the question of tenure. At the moment this is a matter which needs to be tested in the courts.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, will the Minister not accept that the UGC have been very drastic in their cut-backs on the technological universities; and is she aware that there is grave disquiet at the University of Aston in Birmingham, a university which is turning out graduates who have no difficulty in getting jobs at all and whose research is of great importance to industry in the West Midlands?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should be the first to applaud the employment record of some of our technological universities, but we do rely on the UGC, whose advice successive Governments have taken for many years now on the distribution of the grant, to look at the overall distribution of courses within the university system as a whole. The noble Baroness, who I am sure has studied these matters, will recognise that the UGC's proposals in fact indicate a slight shift away from money going into the arts-based subjects towards the sciences and technological subjects as well as medicine.
Lord Annan: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that the £20 million fund to which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred is a fund for this year only and not for the full three years? Secondly, would she not agree that it might be of advantage to the Secretary of State if the universities were to be asked—say, by the end of this year—to provide an estimate of the actual number of posts for all kinds of staff which were likely to be reduced and the staff contracts terminated, and in that list would it not also be helpful if estimates could be made of the costs of the termination of a contract breach of which would incur liability for damages in the courts?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can confirm the first part of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Annan—that is, that the £20 million has been set aside for this year and that the universities have been asked by the UGC to make proposals by the end of January 1982. I shall certainly draw the point that the noble Lord has made to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I am sure that it would be useful for this to be done; what we cannot be sure of is the cost of redundancies until this matter has been tested in the courts. That is the difficulty.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness therefore telling the House and the country, in respect of the very large cut in public funds going to higher education over the next three years, that, being unable to estimate at all the cost which will be involved in early retirement and in breaches of contract—on which I understood her to answer the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that she would prefer it if the contracts were kept or paid for if they were broken—the amount that will actually be saved in public expenditure by the cuts in higher education is therefore totally unknown, even to the Government?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords, I did not say that. I have indicated that what the Government have said is the total reduction that they have proposed for the universities as a whole. What of course we do not know is how much will come about by early retirements and redeployment. There are a lot of imponderables in this matter, and I cannot answer a question on tenure until this matter has been tested in the courts.
Baroness David: My Lords, is the Minister aware that all countries which have overtaken Britain in gross domestic product and in living standards per head overtook us first in the size of their higher education systems, and is she happy that in the national interest it is wise to be reducing our higher education systems, both public sector and university, at the speed which is being proposed in these cuts?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated at the beginning, in an ideal world we should all like to have more money going to the universities and the rate of contraction to be slower, but this is not the situation in which we find ourselves. I do not think it is in any way true to draw parallels between our success as a country and the expansion of the universities, as these universities have expanded many times over since the end of the war. Unfortunately, our economy cannot be said to have expanded at the same rate. I do not think that the analogy is a proper one.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, if there is to be such a contraction, would it not be more rational and more equitable for the Government to seek means whereby universities and institutions such as polytechnics and colleges of higher education are treated on the basis of comparable criteria?
Baroness Young: My Lords, for 1981–82, the reduction in expenditure in respect of home students in polytechnics and in the non-university sector of higher education will generally be comparable with that of the universities.

Business: The Summer Recess
Lord Denham: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time. The Committee stage of the British Nationality Bill will adjourn at approximately 7 p.m.—perhaps a little earlier—for approximately one hour. The following business will be taken during the adjournment: the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. I must inform the House that, in view of the business today, it has been agreed that my noble friend Lord Elton will not move the Industrial Investment (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, and this will now be taken on Tuesday of next week.
At a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Carrington will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement which is to be made in another place on the Ottawa Summit.
I would also wish to inform the House that it has been agreed that Consideration of Commons Amend
356
ments to the Supreme Court Bill will not now be taken tomorrow, Friday, 24th July, but on Tuesday of next week.
Finally, the House will wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Friday, 31st July and will return on Tuesday, 6th October.

British Nationality Bill
3.28 p.m.
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 LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 131A:
After Clause 26, insert the following new clause:
"Acquisition by descent
. A person shall be a British Overseas citizen if at the time of his birth his father or mother is such a citizen otherwise than by descent.".
The noble Lord said: This very simple amendment is concerned with a provision for the reduction of statelessness. In fact, I should like to say that the wording of it is not ideal. I should have added to the end of the amendment the words, "unless he acquires some other citizenship". What I am concerned with here are people whose parents are British overseas citizens and who are born in some overseas country where they do not acquire the citizenship of that country. The provisions for the reduction of statelessness, which are contained in Schedule 2, were designed to enable us to comply with the obligations that we assumed under the convention on the reduction of statelessness, but they are the very minimum necessary to enable us to comply with those obligations. Surely, if we are concerned not just with being able to ratify some international instrument but with the actual reduction of statelessness in the real world, we ought to look at the effect of this Bill and try wherever possible to minimise the causes of statelessness which we can readily foresee.
British overseas citizens are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who do not acquire the citizenship of any of the dependent territories, so, by definition, they are persons who are at the moment citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies living in some independent country. Generally, as we have discovered on an earlier amendment, that would be either in the former Colonies of East Africa—Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, a few in Malawi and Zambia, which was not mentioned earlier—or they will have emigrated from there to India as a result of the expulsion by General Amin and the difficulties created for non-citizens in the other countries of East Africa by changes in the law. There are also a few people in other African countries,

357
such as Zaire and Mozambique, which, of course, do not belong to the Commonwealth.
The question is, what happens if any of those countries have the law of jus sanguinis and a child is born to a person who is a British overseas citizen in such a territory? The answer to that is that under the Bill he would be stateless, unless he was able to benefit from the provisions of Clause 6(2), which requires a person to be resident in the United Kingdom for a certain length of time before he may apply to be registered. It is very unlikely, as I see it, that this citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who becomes a British overseas citizen under the Bill and who is living, say, in Malawi, would be able to enter the United Kingdom with his stateless child for the purposes of giving that child the nationality of this country, because he does not qualify to enter the United Kingdom and the child does not qualify to enter the United Kingdom under any of the immigration rules. Unless the parent is one of the people to whom the quota voucher system applies, then he may be in major difficulties in transmitting any citizenship to that child. The child could be stateless for the whole of its life.
So I think it is desirable to have some such provision as this, which caters for those children of British overseas citizens who will be born in future in the countries which have jus sanguinis. Although, as I say, this is not the ideal wording, it will, I hope, enable the Minister to say that he accepts the principle and will extend the means for the reduction of statelessness which are already contained in the Bill. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade (Lord Trefgarne): I understand it would now be convenient to take the Statement. I therefore beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

The Ottawa Summit
3.34 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Lord Carrington): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement that the Prime Minister has made in another place, and I will repeat it in her words:
"I will make a statement about the Ottawa Economic Summit Conference held on 20th and 21st July, which I attended with the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
"A declaration was issued on 21st July at the end of the Conference. A statement on political questions, including the Middle East, East/West relations and Afghanistan, was made to the press by the Prime Minister of Canada on the evening of 20th July. A statement was released on hijacking and terrorism. Copies of all three documents have been placed in the Library of the House.
"Five of the eight participants were attending
358
an Economic Summit Conference for the first time. It thus provided a particularly useful opportunity for an exchange of views on a wide range of issues. Unlike the two preceding conferences, this meeting was not dominated by a single subject. The participants were able, therefore, to cover many of the major problems, political as well as economic, facing the Western World.
"The primary challenge we addressed in our discussions was the need to revitalise the economies of the industrial democracies, to meet the needs of our own people and strengthen world prosperity. We agreed that there was a prospect of moderate economic growth in the coming year, but that at present it promised little early relief from unemployment. We noted that interest rates had reached record levels in many countries, and if long sustained at these levels, would threaten productive investment. President Reagan stressed that the programme of public spending reductions at present before Congress could be expected to reduce interest rates in the United States once it took effect.
"The Heads of State and of Government all agreed, in the words of the Declaration, that 'The fight to bring down inflation and reduce unemployment must be our highest priority and that these linked problems must be tackled at the same time. We must continue to reduce inflation if we are to secure the higher investment and sustainable growth on which the durable recovery of employment depends. The balanced use of a range of policy instruments is required. We must involve our peoples in a greater appreciation of the need for change: change in expectations about growth and earnings, change in management and labour relations and practices, change in the pattern of industry, change in the direction and scale of investment, and change in nergy use and supply'.
"We recognised the need in most countries urgently to reduce public borrowing; where our circumstances permit or we are able to make changes within the limits of our budgets, we will increase support for productive investment and innovation. All accepted the role of the market in our economies. We agreed not to let transitional measures that may be needed to ease change become permanent forms of protection or subsidy. We saw low and stable monetary growth as essential to reducing inflation.
"We also discussed relations with developing countries. Three points were made. First, we share with the developing countries many of the problems of the world economy: the need to develop energy resources, to encourage investment, to fight inflation and unemployment and to expand trade. Second, we welcome discussion with developing countries in whatever ways or groups may be useful. We all agreed to participate in preparations for a process of global negotiations provided we saw the possibility of real progress. Third, we need to direct the major portion of our aid to the poorer countries. The United Kingdom already does so.
"On trade, we reaffirmed our commitment to an open multilateral trade system and our determination to resist protectionist pressures. We endorsed the proposal for a ministerial meeting of the GATT

359
next year. We agreed to keep under close review the role played by the industrialised countries in the smooth functioning of the world trading system. This will provide us with the opportunity to pursue the particular problems that arise, for the North American as well as for the European countries, in trade with Japan.
"As to political issues, we met in the shadow of the further outbreak of fierce fighting in the Middle East, where once again the unfortunate people of the Lebanon are bearing the brunt of a conflict that is not of their seeking. Whatever any of us may have thought about the causes, we were all agreed on the need for an urgent ceasefire in the Lebanon; for an end to the loss of innocent civilian life there; and above all, for a solution to the conflict between Arab and Israeli from which the violence flows. We shall continue to use all our influence, both our own and as holders of the Presidency of the European Community, to these ends.
"Finally, we discussed relations between East and West and the concern that we all felt about the Soviet military threat to Western interests. We were much heartened by the strength of common purpose that was apparent. Without exception, we agree—and agreed with real determination—on the need to maintain a strong defence capability and to insist on the need for military balance. Hand in hand with that went our readiness to negotiate arms control agreements that would ensure genuine security at a lower level of weapons and a smaller expenditure of resources.
"So in our discussion we linked the two elements necessary to the preservation of the free world and of the free market economy which sustains it: on the one hand defence and the maintenance of peace, on the other the health and soundness of the world economy. Altogether it was a most important and worthwhile meeting."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement, but I wonder whether your Lordships would allow me to be totally out of order for one moment and to say a few words on behalf of everyone who sits on this side of the House. I should like to say how sad we were to hear of the death of Lord Goronwy-Roberts. He and I—I suppose in whichever geographical situation we were—have been facing each other across the Floor of this House on defence and foreign affairs matters for a very long time. There could have been no fairer or more generous opponent than he was. He was indeed a worthy servant of this House and of this country and he will greatly be missed.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for those remarks. I know that we cannot pursue them because it would be out of order. However, I think we have certainly lost a very valuable and distinguished Member of this House.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I, too, should like to associate myself with what has been said about Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I, too, have the most affectionate memories of interrogating him on the subject of our entry into the Common Market when he was in the Government. I always thought he was extremely fair. Indeed, he was always fair and we greatly miss
360
his possible intervention on the Statement that has been made today.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, may I from these Benches associate myself entirely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
Lord Gore-Booth: My Lords, since speaking slightly out of order is de rigueur at this moment, may I be permitted, as the first senior Foreign Office official to work with Lord Goronwy-Roberts in what was his apprenticeship in foreign affairs, to express very strongly my admiration and my affection for my political colleague?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, we on this side of the House should like to thank the noble Lord for the Statement that he has just made, which is, of course, a repeat of the Statement which has been made in the other place concerning the conference at Ottawa. It was, perhaps, a little unreasonable to expect that great miracles could be accomplished within a couple of days. Nevertheless, we can hardly, I think, hide a sense of disappointment that a more constructive result was not achieved. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that the editorial in The Times this morning dubbed it a "fudged" conference. That is not, of course to deny the goodwill and purposefulness of the states that were represented there. But in facing this, what is termed, "primary challenge"—the need to revitalise the economies of the industrial democracies—it does not really appear that any substantial agreement on specific measures was reached. The Statement says:
"The fight to bring down inflation and reduce unemployment must be our highest priority and … these linked problems must be tackled at the same time".
There would be few in this House who would dissent from that general proposition.
It is, therefore, a little surprising to observe that the Prime Minister herself, in her own press conference on the day before, put a rather different emphasis upon it. She is reported as saying in Ottawa on 21st July:
"Reflation is not a way of reducing unemployment".
She claimed that all the leaders at Ottawa were agreed on the need to fight inflation first, and, as The Times correctly points out, the summit communiqué stated that unemployment and inflation should be fought at the same time. I am sure that the House would like to have it confirmed that the British Prime Minister agreed with the conference, as indeed one may infer from the communique and from that section of the Statement that was read to us, and that she has now agreed to abandon monetarism as the only way in which one can deal with the economic crisis at the present time and with unemployment.
I was a little surprised at the statement that there was agreement on a prospect of moderate economic growth in the coming year. That may be true taking the Western nations as a whole, but I should like to be reassured by the noble Lord that the Prime Minister gave no indication to the conference that there was a prospect of any moderate economic growth in the United Kingdom, because, indeed, the forecasts that have been produced by the Treasury indicate no such growth until next year at the earliest. I think that that should be borne in mind.

361
On the question of interest rates, once again the communiqué says:
"We noted that interest rates have reached record levels in many countries, and if long sustained at these levels would threaten productive investment".
President Reagan promised to do his best to reduce them. Once again that has a slightly different nuance from the terms that were reported as being used by the Prime Minister when she gave full support for the interest rate stance of President Reagan. All that one would say on this matter is that if, indeed, it is the intention of the United States to maintain extremely high interest rates, then the Western nations, particularly those in Europe, may find it necessary either to deflate or to raise their interest rates even higher. We received this Statement fairly late. We have not had very much time to study it. However, those are the principal points on which we should like some reassurance from the noble Lord.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I imagine that this Statement must be read in conjunction with the much longer Statements which have been placed in the Library, which I have just had an opportunity of glancing through and which are on the same subject. With regard, therefore, to the Statements as a whole, I may say that it appears to the ordinary uninformed observer that although the conference covered an immense number of subjects and there was a considerable amount of agreement on general principles, it really did not get us very much further in any particular direction. Perhaps that was impossible in the circumstances. I do not say that it was a bad thing to have the summit; nevertheless, it cannot be said that it was anything except a little disappointing. On that, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken.
On moderate economic growth, I should have thought that the prospect of this occurring in the next year or so is not something which is accepted by all the experts, to say the least. In any case, if we are to have moderate economic growth, surely it must mean that there must be some reduction in the rates of interest? If the rates of interest, particularly in the United States, maintain their present level, the prospect of even moderate economic growth goes out of the window. Therefore, I should have thought that with everything depending on that, we have no guarantee, as I understand it, from the meeting in Ottawa that American interest rates would be reduced, although in principle the President, it seems, will reduce them if circumstances permit—but goodness knows when that would be.
Then there is much emphasis on the need for change. We can all certainly agree that things will have to change. However, reading through the lines it looks as though what has to change and what we must recognise is going to change, is some reduction in the standard of living in the industrialised states of the world. That may be very regrettable. It may be something which no Government could permit, but I think that that is what is inherent in the idea of change in the present context. I do not know whether the Government could confirm that, but that is probably what will happen to us in the circumstances.
A great deal of emphasis has, quite rightly, been put
362
on stabilising exchanges. Again I say—and I believe that this has been supported by many experts in the press—that now is the moment for us to join the European Monetary System. Could not the Government consider this at the present time? The longer document in relation to the developing countries on the whole seems to be constructive. I think that it is on the right lines and a welcome expression of good intentions, especially with regard to relations with poorer countries. It is good news that the negotiations have been accepted, though again that is apparently in principle and always provided that the circumstances will permit. Of course, we do not know whether circumstances will permit; we hope they will.
On East-West relations, I think that there is an omission. Is it true, as we read in the press, that Chancellor Schmidt insisted on his proposal that there should be great gas lines from Siberia which would leave the Federal Republic at the mercy of the Soviet Union in the long run as regard energy? Is it a fact that there is some division of opinion on that? If so, will it go ahead?
Finally, I suggest that what is said about Madrid is rather optimistic. The latest development is that the Soviet Government have not accepted the latest western proposals and there seems to be no prospect of their accepting them in the near future. If that is so, the chances are that the Madrid Conference will end in failure and, indeed, in confusion. That is all I have to say at the moment.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that both noble Lords who have spoken are under a total misapprehension about the object of these economic summits. They were started some time ago with the purpose that the leaders of the seven largest industrialised countries in the world exchange views informally; and get to know each other and also get to know their own opinions, their own differences of view and their own problems. It was never the intention that these summits should become an occasion when the industrialised countries issue a blueprint to solve all the economic problems of the world, and they never have.
As the Prime Minister said in her Statement, this particular meeting was very useful because, of the seven meeting there, five have never been to an economic summit before and there has not been the opportunity to exchange views. Speaking for myself (if I am allowed to), in a way I think that the summits have altogether become too formalised, with the hordes of press, the many arrangements that are made, the communiqués, and all the rest.
Nevertheless, I think that this was a useful meeting because one has only to look at the seven Heads of Government and Heads of State who were present to see that they represented different points of view and all sorts of countries with different problems. To come together to discuss both their points of view and their problems in a very free and frank way is, in itself, a good thing. The fact that there was a communiqué which represented a broad agreement over a very wide area, not only of economic affairs but also of political affairs, is quite significant. As the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, pointed out, in the Statement there is a great deal of agreement.
I confirm that the seven leaders agreed that the high-

363
est priorities were both inflation and unemployment. Everyone agrees on that; everyone wants to bring down interest rates as soon as possible—most of all President Reagan, who made it clear that he wanted to do so. There was a very broad measure of agreement. However, there was not always a total identity of view about the measures that should be taken in each country to suit the particular circumstances of each country. Therefore, I do not think I would accept that this was a disappointing summit.
The only specific question which I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, was about Madrid. Since then, the news from Madrid has been rather bad and it looks as though the conference may have to adjourn, at any rate without agreement, until after the summer. I still hope that it will be possible for there to be agreement on the CSCE.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I raised the matter of gas lines from Siberia.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, a number of matters were discussed; I do not think that I can go into every matter that was discussed. It may have been mentioned when the Heads of Government were present and the Foreign Secretaries were not, but in the plenary session I did not hear it mentioned. No doubt there were discussions about that. Chancellor Schmidt may have put his point of view and no doubt President Mitterrand put his point of view, as did President Reagan. However, I doubt whether that had much bearing on the relative passage about East-West relations which went much more widely than that, and which was concerned with the total relationship between East and West.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, on the question of a possible cease-fire in the Lebanon, we have all read in the press today that Mr. Arafat has offered to have a cease-fire, yet at the same time we read that the scale of Israeli attacks on the Lebanon has been stepped up to dangerously high levels, with a consequent loss of hundreds of civilian lives, both Palestinian and Lebanese, many of them women and children. Is there any more that my noble friend can say about this dangerously deteriorating situation?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I think that the situation in the Middle East is very worrying indeed. This morning the representatives of the Arab Ambassadors asked to see me and I had a discussion with them. At the same time, I asked the Israeli Ambassador to come to see me and I pointed out to him the offer that has been made about the cease-fire and hoped that there would be some immediate response from the Israeli Government.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary a question about Clause 14 of the communiqué. I understand that Clause 14 reads:
"We are committed to mounting substantial, and in many cases growing, levels of official development assistance, and would seek to increase public understanding of its importance".
364
Can the noble Lord say what attitude the spokesman for the British Government took on these two points?—in view of the fact that British Government official aid has been, and is being, drastically reduced, and that the organisation set up by the previous Administration to increase public understanding has been dissolved.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, there was a discussion about the whole of the North-South and, indeed, about the Cancun Conference, which will take place next week and at which I shall be attending the preliminary conference at Cancun. Her Majesty's Government subscribe to the words in the communiqué. I very much hope that, when our economic circumstances permit, we shall be able to spend more money on aid. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is quite mistaken if he is deriding the amount of money which we spend now. We are spending over £1 billion this year on aid. I do not think that that is anything to be ashamed of.
Lord Oram: My Lords, in the discussions about relations with the developing countries, was note taken of the highly critical state of indebtedness of some developing countries and were contingent plans made to meet a situation which might arise if there should be any major defaults?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, not as such, though of course this matter arose in the discussion of the problems of the least and lesser-developed countries. These are the sort of issues which will arise at the Cancun Conference and, of course, if the global negotiations start again.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, reverting to the very critical question of a cease-fire in Lebanon, while paying tribute to the tireless work of Mr. Habib, would not the chances of success be better if he were empowered to negotiate with both parties to the dispute and not only with one, as I understand the position to be?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I do not think that one could deny that; it would seem to be fairly obvious. However, there is, of course, another effort going on to get a cease-fire, because the Secretary-General of the United Nations has been charged by the Security Council in a unanimous resolution to get a cease-fire and to report back within 48 hours. So there are two efforts being made to get a cease-fire. I only hope that one or other of these efforts will succeed.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would the Foreign Secretary not agree that we must proceed further than a cease-fire in the Middle East? Is it not necessary that the Arab States, including the PLO—which is not a state but nevertheless it is recognised by the Arab states—should agree no longer to make war on Israel; and, on the other hand, that Israel should be asked not to resort to violence of any sort, giving an opportunity to proceed to negotiations? Will he not use his persuasive powers to persuade both sides to adopt that attitude in order to bring this trouble to an end?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, I agree 100 per cent. with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I think that before there is any prospect of taking any peace process in the Middle East further, or even getting it going, it will be necessary to get a cease-fire in Lebanon. That is the pre-requisite of anything happening. The noble Lord is quite right, because he repeats in essence the two principles of the Venice Declaration. The Venice Declaration said that the Arab states should recognise the state of Israel and its right to live in security. The second principle was that the state of Israel should recognise the rights of the Palestinians. I find it extraordinarily difficult to understand why anybody should object to those two principles.
Lord Galpern: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the Israelis have agreed to enter into cease-fire negotiations with the Lebanese but not with the PLO?
Lord Carrington: My Lords, the Israelis have agreed that Mr. Habib should be allowed to negotiate with the Lebanese Government about a cease-fire. The problem with that is that the Lebanese Government are not in control of what is happening in South Lebanon. As I always say—some of your Lordships do not always agree—because you are faced with unpleasant facts (and some of the facts are very unpleasant to Israel) it is no use pretending they do not exist, because they are not going to go away.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, referring to the economic aspects of the summit, that there are millions of ordinary people who really cannot quite understand why, when the leaders of the free world get together, they all wish they could beat inflation, they all wish they could reduce unemployment, but they seem to be able to do very little about resolving those problems. Then, when they are going to talk about defence and the threats that may or may not exist with regard to the Soviet bloc, ordinary people say, "Aren't they giving comfort to those who don't agree with our way of life in the West when they can't simply get together and reduce interest rates, have a unified plan and programme to do away with unemployment and all the evils that exist?" The hopeless statements that we have heard—I do not refer to the noble Lord himself—do not give much encouragement to ordinary people. The ordinary people think this sort of attitude can only give encouragement to those who disagree with our free way of life.
Lord Carrington: I think partly the trouble is that there is so much expectation and so much publicity about the summits that everybody thinks—indeed, I think the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Gladwyn, were almost guilty of this—that some magic formula is going to emerge from them. The difficulty is that it does not. The magic formula does not emerge because, however much the seven leaders of the industrialised world would like it, they do not have a magic wand to wave which is going to cure these ills.

British Nationality Bill
4.5 p.m.
Committee stage resumed on Amendment No. 131
Lord Gifford: Has not the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in moving Amendment No. 131A, drawn attention to a real gap in the scheme of citizenships which the Bill proposes? The British Overseas citizens are, as I understand it, to be some kind of temporary category of citizens who will either come here and become British citizens or will not come here and will become, or their children will become, local citizens in their own countries. Therefore, a very limited provision has been put into the Bill for transmission to their children. Is the difficulty not that, whereas that may be true of the majority, some British overseas citizens will not come here and will not be able to transmit to their children some local citizenship?
For instance, I believe the position in Malawi to be that, because of the citizenship laws of Malawi, it is not possible for someone of Asian extraction to become a citizen. However much one may deplore that as a basis for citizenship, and that there should be some African racial connection, that is how it is in Malawi. That means that the children of British overseas citizens will be left high and dry. They do not benefit from the provisions of Schedule 2, which we are about to debate, unless they are either born here or they come to reside here. There is a five-year transitional period under Clause 26 for children born in the next five years, but once that has expired what is to become of those children of British overseas citizens, be they many or he they few, who have no other citizenship to inherit?
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): This amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has moved seeks to add, as he has explained, a new clause to enable those British overseas citizens who hold that citizenship otherwise than by descent to transmit their citizenship for a further generation. The amendment does not define what is meant by British overseas citizenship otherwise than by descent, and it is not entirely easy to do that. But, leaving that difficulty aside. I am afraid that the Government see grave difficulties in accepting the principle of this amendment. It would be contrary to the Government's aim in this Bill to allow British overseas citizenship—which is essential a residual status intended for those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who have no close ties either with the United Kingdom or an existing dependency—to be transmitted further. This could only perpetuate the existing situation whereby our citizenship—or in this case one of our citizenships—is held by those who have only tenuous ties with this country or with an existing dependency.
This view on the essential residual nature of British overseas citizenship was one shared by the Labour Government in their Green Paper. Although that paper envisaged a single category of citizenship to be held by those who had ties with both existing and former dependent territories (in that sense it included what we have in the Bill as a citizenship of British dependent territories along with overseas citizenship), I think it is clear that this category was eventually

367
intended to include only those concerted with an existing dependency.
Paragraph 71 of the Green Paper, for example, says:
"The arrangements for acquiring British overseas citizenship after a new citizenship scheme came into force—by birth, descent or voluntary act—might be so drawn that we would eventually reach a state of affairs in which British overseas citizenship would be derived solely from connection with the dependencies which still exist".
That seems to me to put the matter very clearly. When one remembers the connection between their concept of British overseas citizenship and ours, this in effect means that the concept which we have used would come to an end fairly quickly. To say all this does not mean that the Government are unsympathetic to any problems which may arise from the non-transmissibility of British overseas citizenship. But I think that these problems should be seen in their proper perspective.
First, it must be remembered that many of those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who will become British overseas citizens cannot transmit their citizenship under current nationality law. They hold citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by connection with a former dependency. They are mainly resident in commonwealth countries. Now, as your Lordships will be aware, it is a considerable number of years since most of these countries lost the status of dependent territories and became independent. Many of those with whom we are concerned will therefore be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies not by birth but by descent. This means that they will not currently be able to transmit their citizenship automatically to their children born in these countries. These people will thus not be worse off because their status will no longer be generally transmissible. Indeed, as I understand it, such people would also be unable to transmit their citizenship under the proposed new clause since they would, presumably, not be regarded as British overseas citizens otherwise than by descent.
Secondly, I think it is important to note in this context the third conclusion of the recent report on the numbers and legal status of future British overseas citizens by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in another place. That conclusion states—I am referring to 17.3—that the children of most future British overseas citizens can reasonably be expected to acquire local citizenship. This puts in perspective the problem with which this amendment is intended to deal. Now, I do not suggest that that shows that no cases of hardship will ever arise, but, if they do, there is already a discretionary power in Clause 26(1) of the Bill for the Home Secretary to register any minor as a British overseas citizen. We do not envisage that this power will be frequently used. But it is there to deal with any particular cases of hardship.
So far as statelessness is concerned—a problem which, as I said, I do not believe should arise very often—the provisions in Schedule 2 to which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred in our view fully meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the United Nations Convention on the reduction of statelessness. The noble Lord referred to the provisions so far as they are relevant to this particular problem. I agree of course that they do not make provision of this kind for those children who remain abroad, but, in our view,
368
the responsibility for these children in the circumstances is a matter that one could reasonably expect to be properly dealt with under the law of the country of the child's birth and subsequent residence.
I know, and accept, that there are certain places—and the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Gifford, have referred to some of these—where the law of that place contains an element of principle which makes it difficult for them to confer citizenship on some of these, but we feel that these difficulties are difficulties which should not give rise to our making a fundamental change to the conception of the status of British overseas citizenship which we have set out.
Although, therefore, I appreciate the problem with which this amendment is intended to deal, I hope that I have shown your Lordships that we have, consistent with some kind of general principle, dealt with it as fairly as it is possible to do. I hope that, in the light of that, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will feel able to withdraw this particular amendment.
Lord Avebury: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for the remarks he has made. I agree with him that, if the principle were accepted, the amendment would have to be accompanied by another amendment defining British overseas citizenship otherwise than by descent. It was only because I wanted to have a discussion on the principle first that I did not go to the extent of drafting a clause analogous to what is now Clause 13, which the noble and learned Lord said would certainly be necessary if we were going to pursue this matter.
The noble and learned Lord reminded us of the sentence in the Home Affairs Committee's report which made it clear that there would be very few children of future British overseas citizens who could not reasonably be expected to acquire local citizenship. I entirely agree with that. I think that certainly in all the countries where there is jus soli the child of a British overseas citizen would obviously acquire the citizenship of the country of his birth. But I did speak about the case of Malawi in particular, and I was not sure about the others. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give the Committee some information on this.
While a British overseas citizen who is eligible under the quota voucher system to come here from Kenya, Uganda or Tanzania is not in any great difficulty because he brings the child with him and it ultimately acquires British citizenship under, I think, Clause 6(2), the people who are holders of United Kingdom and Colonies passports and who are resident in those other countries I have mentioned do not come under the quota voucher system. I was rather surprised when I learned of this, but I did have some detailed correspondence with the Minister of State in the Home Office, Mr. Timothy Raison, about a family who lived in Mozambique. He said clearly at the end of this correspondence that nobody other than those who were resident in the countries I have mentioned, plus, I think, Malawi was in fact eligible.
Therefore, there may be the odd few British overseas citizens who are scattered around independent countries of Africa who are not in the Commonwealth, and in those countries there may not invariably be the right to citizenship for a child born in that country. But I

369
was very happy when the noble and learned Lord said that this was the kind of situation for which the residual power in Clause 26(1) was designed. The Secretary of State may confer British overseas citizenship on a minor at his discretion where the minor is born in an overseas country.
What I should like from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is an assurance that this power of the Secretary of State will be used invariably in cases where the child is unable to gain any other citizenship. I think that that is a reasonable thing to ask. We are talking about a very small number by the Minister's own statement, and that was confirmed by the Select Committee. All I would seek is that the Secretary of State would give an undertaking to the noble and learned Lord that the power in Clause 26(1) should be used invariably to confer British overseas citizenship on any child who is born in a country such as I have mentioned, where the child does not acquire the citizenship of that country.
Probably the noble and learned Lord would need time to think about whether he is in a position to give me that assurance. I do not think it would necessarily be proper for me to demand it of him on the spot this afternoon, but I should be grateful if he would give the matter some consideration before we return to the matter at Report stage—that is, unless he does want to give me an assurance now. However, I did not think it was reasonable to ask for that, and so I shall if I may, come back to this point later on. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 131B not moved.]
Clauses 27 to 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Circumstances in which British subjects are to lose that status]:
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Provisions for reducing statelessness]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I have to point out to your Lordships' committee that if Amendment No. 133 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment Nos. 137A or 137B.
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon: May I point out to your Lordships' Committee that, not for the first time, there are amendments in the Marshalled List which have been put down by a particular group, and although that may be a very distinguished group in the membership of the Committee, on almost every occasion no representative of that group is here when the amendments are called. I only wish to record that fact, with a certain amount of regret.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 55, line 37 leave out ("citizen or subject of that description") and insert ("British citizen").
The noble Lord said: We come to the first in a series of amendments to Schedule 2 of the Bill. This is a very important schedule designed to deal with people who would otherwise be in the terrible limbo of having no country of nationality at all. It will be my submission that the provisions which the Government have made in Schedule 2 are gravely inadequate. They are inadequate, for reasons of principle. The reasons of principle affect in particular paragraphs 3 and 4 of the schedule, which are the most important paragraphs covering the majority of people who are likely to be stateless. I will reserve my general attack on principles until speaking to Amendment No. 137E, which deals with paragraph 3.
The second attack I wish to level is on the grounds of obscurity and complexity. This is where we can look at Amendment No. 137A and perhaps with it the next three amendments. Paragraph 1 deals with various British citizens—that is to say, not actual British citizens but British citizens in other categories who are born in the United Kingdom. One sees that the intention of this paragraph is that such people, if otherwise stateless, should have some kind of status to fall back on if their parent is a citizen of the British dependent territories, or is a British overseas citizen or a British subject under this Act. But when we look at what it is that is being provided for the children of these people it becomes rather obscure. It seems to be the intention that these children should take the citizenship or the status of their parents, even though that may be a very inadequate status in many cases. That is the provision made in paragraph 1 (1)(a).
Paragraph 1(1)(b) states:
"if he is born legitimate and at the time of the birth each of his parents is a citizen or subject of a different description so mentioned he shall be a citizen or subject of the same description so mentioned as each of them is respectively at that time".
I have read that subparagraph again and again and I fail to understand it. It is a classic example of legislative gobbledegook. For that reason, if for no other, I would have asked for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if he had been in his place, because of the absurd phraseology which has been employed. What appears to be intended is that the child of two parents described in sub-paragraph 2 should have some kind of dual status, but the way of achieving that is obscure, and whether it is something worth achieving is rather dubious. My amendment suggests that everyone whose parents fall within these categories and who is born in the United Kingdom should simply and without any compexity or difficulty become a British citizen. That would seem to be a much less complex, a much fairer and more humane solution to the difficulties which are envisaged in that sub-paragraph. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has explained, this amendment would automatically confer British citizenship at birth on the child of a parent who was a citizen of the British dependent territories, a British overseas citizen or a British subject if he would otherwise be stateless. He would not as under the Bill as it stands, take his parents' citizenship or status.
We ought to be clear that we are referring to children whose parents will probably be in this country tem-

371
porarily, whether as visitors, students, to work, or simply en route to another place. We expect as a general rule that children born here to people who are only here temporarily should take the citizenship of their parents and not our citizenship. We envisage that this will be the usual pattern for children born here to parents who hold citizenship of a Commonwealth or foreign country. In most cases, the same will apply to children born to citizens of the British dependent territories. But there are limitations on the transmission of that citizenship and there are greater limitations, as we know from the previous debate this afternoon, on the transmission of British overseas citizenship and British subjects status—which, since they are residential statuses, are not intended to be generally transmittable.
We recognise that where a child born in the United Kingdom would otherwise be stateless an exception should be made and that in these circumstances a parent who is a citizen of a British dependent territory or who is a British overseas citizen or a British subject should be able to transmit his or her citizenship to a child born here. In this way we shall ensure that a child born here is at no disadvantage because he is not eligible to secure British citizenship at birth and because his parents hold statuses created under this Bill which, in the normal way, it was not planned that they would transmit. Having said that, I believe that one must assume that the child's parents will normally be here only temporarily; otherwise the statelessness would not arise. But if such people should make their home here, then there are other avenues in the Bill through which a child can acquire British citizenship. There is the avenue in Clause 1(3) where the parents become British citizens and the avenue in Clause 1(4) where the child is here for a period of 10 years and has the entitlement to British citizenship conferred on him or her. There is also the entitlement in Clause 4 whereby a citizen of the British dependent territories, a British overseas citizen or a British subject can come to this country and after five years will have absolute entitlement to citizenship.
Whether the child stays here or is taken overseas, he or she will still have privileged access to British citizenship for the rest of his or her life. The child will not have to go through the whole process of naturalisation. We believe that this approach is preferable to the line which the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is taking in the amendment, which would be to confer British citizenship and the right of abode on a child born here whose parents clearly have no substantial ties with this country at the time of the birth and whose future may well be elsewhere. We shall certainly ensure that this child acquires his parents' status without any difficulty, thus fulfilling our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, but we do not think the child can really be said at the time of birth to have sufficient links with this country to justify the automatic conferment of a citizenship which, of course, carries with it the right of abode in this country; and that is what the effect of the amendment would be.
Lord Avebury: I wish to comment on the distinction which may emerge between British overseas citizens and citizens of the dependent territories, because the
372
Minister again spoke about people who were here in passage, as it were, from one part of the world to another. He may possibly be right in the case of citizens of British dependent territories, who may finish up back in the country of their citizenship, and then it could be appropriate that the child born here would have the same citizenship as the parents and be entitled to the right of abode in that British dependent territory where the parent will subsequently be settled.
However, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that different considerations apply in the case of persons who were formerly citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and who become British overseas citizens under the Bill and who may give birth to children in the United Kingdom, when of course they would not be settled; otherwise they would have been able to transmit their citizenship, as the noble Lord explained, under Clause 2. I am thinking in particular of the case of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who come to this country without having gone through the quota voucher scheme and who are therefore not entitled to be admitted for permanent residence but in respect of whom, as the Minister may be aware, there sometimes arises an argument about entitlement.
I have had brought to my notice recently two cases, in one of which such a person lost the right to remain in Kenya and has been asked by the Kenya authorities to leave. There is no reason why the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, should have been made aware of the case, but there is a case about which I am in correspondence with his honourable friend Mr. Timothy Raison where the British Government refused to admit this person because he did not have a quota voucher. He was sent back to Kenya, where he was fined as a person who was not in possession of a residence permit, and that man is the subject of discussions now as to whether he should be permanently admitted to the United Kingdom.
During the time when this argument is proceeding, the person is not settled here; even if he were granted temporary admission (as is the practice in cases where the Minister is reviewing representations made by a Member of Parliament or one of your Lordships) the process could be lengthy in cases where it is the opinion of the Home Office that the country of origin should not have taken the action it did. Presumably inquiries have to be made through the High Commission there as to exactly what the status of the person was, and if there should be a dispute between the authorities in that country and the Home Office here, it could take months, if not years, to resolve, and in the meantime it is quite possible that the person, having been granted temporary admission, may have a child in the United Kingdom.
If at the end of the day he is to be admitted in any case, it does not seem to make sense that he should be given one of the inferior statuses which are provided for in the Bill—that a person should be treated as a British overseas citizen when the only argument is whether the parents are admitted for settlement immediately, because they cannot be sent back to the country in which they were formerly living, or whether they must wait their time in the queue until after the lapse of six years or so and they qualify under the quota voucher system. It seems absolutely absurd that in those cases the provisions of the Bill require

373
that the Secretary of State treats such an infant as a British overseas citizen when, in the course of one or two years or whatever the period may be, the parents will come to reside in the United Kingdom or, as a result of the failure of the Home Office to persuade the authorities in the country of origin to accept them back, they may even be admitted for settlement at the end of consideration of the representations made on their behalf.
I therefore suggest to the Minister that, while the amendment may not be wholly acceptable, he should look again at particular cases of British overseas citizens and make their children, even if not those of the British dependent territories citizens, British citizens from their birth if they have no other state to which they can belong.
Lord Gifford: Before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, which is what I intend to do, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to construe the words I read out, in paragraph 1(1)(b), which might save me the trouble of moving the next amendment, which seeks to delete them. That provision is strangely worded and I described it as gobbledegook. Can the Minister tell us what it means?
Lord Belstead: All it means—and I must try to put this with the greatest precision that I can—is that a child whose parents have two of the relevant statuses gets both unless one of them is British subject status, in which case he gets only one and does not get British subject status. That bit is set out in sub-paragraph (3).
Lord Gifford: I urge the Minister to look again to see if it is a happily worded phrase because after multiple reading I did not understand it to mean what the noble Lord said it meant. I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment because, as the Minister explained, it would not achieve its purpose, namely, to provide that the children concerned attain at least some status for citizenship, even if, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, points out, it may be an inferior status and create serious problems.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, seeks leave to withdraw the amendment, may I ask whether he is of the opinion that the Minister does not intend to deal with the question of the distinction between parents who are citizens of British dependent territories and British overseas citizens?
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord Avebury: Does the noble Lord agree that the Minister should be given an opportunity to reply to that point?
Lord Belstead: I apologise to the Committee; the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, was of course speaking to Amendments Nos. 137A and 137B along with Nos. 137C and 137D. My arguments on Nos. 137C and 137D were going to be the same—not of a supportive nature, I am afraid—as they were on I37A and 137B. In principle, the arguments are the same, except of course that all the references which I would have
374
given in talking about avenues into British citizenship would have been avenues into citizenship of the British dependent territories under Clause 14. I am not being deliberately unhelpful, but that is the answer I must give.
Lord Gifford: This is a very complex area. I had assumed that the scheme in sub-paragraph (2) was the same as the scheme in sub-paragraph (1) and that therefore the arguments for my amendments and the replies of the Government were much the same. However, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has raised points which I should like to study in more detail before leaving the whole topic raised in this part of the Bill. I shall read what has been said, and unless there is a particular reply which can be given to the points raised by Lord Avebury now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137B, 137C and 137D not moved.]
4.40 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 137E:
Page 56, line 26, leave out from ("entitled") to the end of line 46 and insert ("to be registered as a British citizen (if born in the United Kingdom) or as a citizen of the British Dependent Territories (if born in a dependent territory) if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he is and always has been stateless").
The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with a quite different description of people who are born in the United Kingdom or in a dependent territory after the commencement of the Act and who will be stateless. The schedule that we are considering has the attractive title, "Provisions for reducing statelessness"; attractive that is, until we remember that all or nearly all of the statelessness which is to be reduced by this schedule is statelessness which has been created by the other provisions of the Bill.
What we have to remember is that the abolition of the old principle of jus soli creates for the first time in our history the prospect that children will be born in this country who will be stateless. I have no idea how many children that will be. It is no doubt a fact that the great majority of children who are born in this country who will not become British citizens under this Bill will have the citizenship of their parents to fall back on and will therefore not be stateless. But some there will be who will be stateless.
One can think of three particular examples: first of all, those born to women who are not married, because the great majority of countries has the same provisions that we have so far; that is, citizenship cannot be transmitted through the female line. So women here temporarily who are not married and who have a child will for the most part have a child who is stateless. Then there are children of foreign citizens who will be foreign citizens by descent in their own countries because nearly every country like ourselves has some provision for cutting off citizenship after a certain generation. Therefore, if children happen to be born here to people temporarily staying who are of that description, they will be stateless children.
Thirdly, there will be children born to refugees who have been deprived of their citizenship by the acts of the country of which they are citizens. Some of the

375
children thus born stateless might eventually be able to obtain British citizenship by one of the other avenues, such as the 10-year residence rule. But some will not. It does not matter, I suggest, how few they are; the principle should be that no person should be born in this country stateless because of the Bill that we are considering which abolishes the jus soli. Otherwise we will be party to the creation of a category of people—small though it might be—who will be without citizenship. We should not be responsible for that.
Schedule 2(3) does not achieve that objective because it hedges around the entitlement of someone born here stateless to be registered as a citizen with restrictions. There are two restrictions in particular which this amendment seeks to do away with. First of all, in paragraph 3(1)(b) there is a restriction as to age. Persons concerned, for reasons which I fail to understand, have to be more than 10 but less than 22. Now by what logic a 23-year-old stateless person cannot benefit from an entitlement which a 21-year-old stateless person can is something which I hope the noble Lord the Minister will answer.
Secondly, there is a residence qualification with which many people may comply but some will not. They may, for instance, have been deported along with their parents to another country. The noble Lords may say, "Out of sight, out of mind, if they have been deported they are no concern of ours". If our law has caused them to be stateless, it does not matter whether they are here or not. I suggest there should be a safety net by which, as it were, we should revert to the jus soli to this limited extent—that if the children born in this country will have no other citizenship they should have British citizenship.
I know it will be said by the Government that these provisions comply with our obligations under the United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness. It is as if someone had been through the convention and put into this schedule the minimum which is necessary in order to comply with it. I suggest that that is not good enough. Our law up to now has been much better than the convention on statelessness, and it should remain much better. Just because the convention allows these restrictions to be imposed and therefore allows for some people to be permanently stateless and in this limbo, our law should not be so mean.
I do not know whether the people who will be left out of these provisions will be few or many. If they are few then we are not changing the scheme of things in any significant way by passing this amendment. If they are many, it will mean that our legislation is creating a large category of stateless children and therefore being the cause of unfairness and injustice because of the haphazard operation of different citizenships, ours and some other countries, which result in some people being stateless. We should have a safety net which is comprehensive and which does not allow this Bill to go from this House with some people in it being born in this country and having no citizenship at all. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I want very warmly to support what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford and to emphasise the difficulties that we are putting in the
376
way of one particular category of individuals which I have mentioned on a previous occasion; that is, persons who are applying for admission to this country as refugees and who are either in the process of having their application examined or who are here subject to conditions, as is the normal practice when a person is first granted asylum.
As I think I mentioned on a previous occasion when this matter came up, it can be an extremely lengthy process. I have a case under consideration by the Home Office at the moment of a refugee from Pakistan, a former army officer, who resigned his commission and came here because he felt he could no longer put his hand on his heart and say that the oath he had taken to the constitution was being upheld. His service in the armed forces was therefore a violation of the oath that he had taken. He left the country and he has been living here for the last two years. Indeed, three children from Pakistan have just joined him and it is quite possible that he might have other children; he is still a reasonably young man.
During the period of two years that he has been waiting he could have had children. For the first year after he is granted asylum by the Home Office—as I hope he shortly will be—he will be here subject to a time limit, and even after that the practice of the Home Office is to grant a four year extension so that the person would still not be settled within the meaning of this Bill and would therefore be unable to transmit United Kingdom citizenship to his children.
The Minister might argue that in most cases where we admit people as refugees, we hope that ultimately they will be able to return to their country of origin and at that time the children would acquire the citizenship which the refugees had temporarily relinquished. But if we look at the cases of refugees whom we have admitted over the past 30 or 40 years or so, we see that in many instances they have had to look to this country for permanent asylum. Look, for instance, at the number of people who left Eastern Europe immediately after the war. Think of the refugees whom we accepted from both Hungary and Czechoslovakia, who have made their whole lives in this country, and who, unless the Russian empire disintegrates, will never be able to return to their countries of origin. Think of the refugees who have entered this country from Latin America. Think of the people from Chile, for example, who fled after the overthrow of the Government of President Allende and who are very unlikely in the foreseeable future to be able to return there because President Pinochet has just managed to confirm his autocratic rule for another 10 years; so it is inconceivable that many of the Chileans who are living in this country would be able to return to their homeland in the foreseeable future.
I shall not go through all the countries from which this nation of ours has admitted refugees—that would be very tedious. But I think that I have said enough for the Committee to understand that this is not a temporary phenomenon. Unfortunately, there have been very large movements of people in the postwar period, contrary to what was expected in 1945, as a result of political repression and the difficulties that people faced following persecution by the régimes in the countries where they lived, and I expect that this will continue for as far ahead as we can see.

377
These people have made their lives here. They have gone out of their way to seek asylum in the United Kingdom, and one can hardly imagine a closer tie or connection than that. Of all the countries in the world, they have looked to the United Kingdom, which traditionally has been so hospitable to refugees, and we have taken them in, whether they have been Cambodians, Vietnamese, Poles, Chileans, Argentinians, El Salvadorians or Ethiopians. We have opened our doors to people whose lives were at risk and who have come here to live freely among us, and to contribute, as so many of them have, to the life of this country of ours.
Surely in those circumstances it is reasonable that these people should be able to have children who are United Kingdom citizens. Those children are going to remain here. They are never going back to the countries of origin, and to all intents and purposes they are as British as anyone else. They certainly do not have any rights to citizenship of their countries of origin, and so they otherwise would remain stateless for a very considerable period of time. So I think that in that particular case, if not in any other, it would be reasonable for the Minister to say that he would accept the principle of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford.
I am not saying that I in any way disagree with the points that he has put to the Committee regarding, for instance, unmarried women. We have hardly discussed that question at all during the proceedings on the Bill, but the position of children born to unmarried women is unclear or unsatisfactory in a great many other parts of the Bill in addition to this particular schedule. I would certainly endorse the simplicity of the solution that the noble Lord has proposed; namely, that any child whatsoever born in the United Kingdom and not entitled to any other status whatsoever, should, in the last resort, be entitled to fall back on the British citizenship that we are creating under the Bill.
Lord Belstead: In arguing that a stateless child born here should have an unqualified entitlement to British citizenship on application without having to show any other connections with the United Kingdom, and equally that a stateless child born in a dependent territory would have unqualified entitlement to citizenship of the British dependent territories, both the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have overlooked matters which are either explicit in the Bill, or are set out in other pieces of legislation. I believe that I can honestly say that the Government are sympathetic to the needs of stateless children, and these needs can be met under the Bill. The difference is that the Government are saying that we think it reasonable that the child concerned should have to show that he or she has certain ties with this country or with a dependent territory before being entitled to British citizenship or citizenship of the British dependent territories under the provision. That is why we have provided that applicants for citizenship in this way should be of a specified age and should have lived here, or in the dependent territories, for a period of five years. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, asked: Why the specified age? The reason is that the
378
United Nations Convention saw fit to set out an age, and we have set out in the Bill an age that is infinitely more generous, and I am very glad that it is. I think I am right in saying that our provisions for residence are more generous, too.
However, we do not think that citizenship should be accorded absolutely automatically to the stateless child born here or in a dependency if he leaves the United Kingdom or the dependent territory where he was born and never returns there. It simply does not seem to make sense. We consider that the child should look for citizenship to the country where his or her future lies, not where he or she happened to be born, if that kind of move is to be made. That approach is not only fully consistent with our obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, but goes considerably further than the convention. Moreover, the convention expressly provides that where a stateless person cannot meet the age or residence requirements, then it is for his parents' country to grant the individual his citizenship, though certain conditions may be imposed by that country.
That brings me to the points—and they are important points—made by both the noble Lords, Lord Avebury, and Lord Gifford. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to children in three categories: those born to unmarried mothers, those born to foreign citizens who are citizens by descent, and the children of refugees; and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke in particular of refugees. Yes, it is possible that some children in those categories will be stateless, but as the noble Lord pointed out, that is due to the legislation of other countries. The point is that if the children return to those other countries, it is reasonable to look to those countries to remedy the situation.
So far as the children of refugees are concerned, of course they will have a right to British citizenship once their parents become settled. If I may say so, the refugees whom the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned I should have thought are all people who will have become settled in this country. Surely it is reasonable—to quote the noble Lord's own words—to wait until the parents become settled before this happens.
So I really do not think that there is so much between the position of the Government—which, as I have said, is infinitely more generous (I think I can use that word) than is the United Nations Convention, to which we subscribe—and the position of the two noble Lords who have spoken. We are including requirements as to age and residence which the amendment seeks to remove because we think that they are justified, and we think that they are justified on the same kind of grounds as United Nations thought they were justified. We are certainly prepared to accord our citizenship to a stateless child who has real links with this country. But we are saying that if the child goes abroad shortly after he or she is born, and then spends the rest of his or her life abroad, we think the child should look for citizenship where his or her life is then going to lie. I do not think that is unreasonable, and I would ask both noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment to look at the Government's case with some care before deciding that this is an amendment which they would wish to press.
5 p.m.
Baroness Birk: I should like to say a few words about this general position of statelessness, which is really contained within the amendment which my noble friend Lord Gifford has moved. Both the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the Minister have laid great stress on the fact that we have carried out our obligations under the United Nations convention to a greater degree than many other countries. Indeed, as I think we are all aware, a great many other countries have not ratified it at all. But that we have been a refuge for people is something in which we in this country take great pride.
Certainly our record on statelessness compares favourably with that of others, and is miles above that of many other countries. That is perfectly true; but the thing that worries me—and I am not dealing now with some of the technical points that the Minister has made—is that this Bill, when it talks in the schedule about reducing statelessness, is in fact making an attempt to reduce but slightly the very much greater degree of statelessness that has been created by the Bill. This, I think, is a matter of grave concern, and I do not think that we should allow Ministers to rest their case on particular technicalities, as I would call them, when there is, I submit, a very great principle involved in this—not only a legal principle but a human principle as well.
The Minister has just said that where people are made stateless due to the legislation of other countries they should look to the other countries to deal with it. If this had been so in the past, many people from other countries—from Germany, from the Soviet Union and from other countries—would not be here; they would not be alive at all. They would not have been able to contribute to this country if we had said that it was the legislation of other countries which should in fact have dealt with them. I hope that this is going to be taken as something that is absolutely basic to the rights of citizens and the rights of people living in this country.
When the new immigration rules are introduced it will in practice be impossible for many of those who are covered by my noble friend's amendment to fulfil the conditions laid down in Schedule 2 for registration, because the operation of those laws will make it impossible for them to spend the required period of residence here. I hope I am right in saying that there is probably no one in this Committee with personal experience of what statelessness means, and very often it is, I think, extremely difficult for us to try to transfer ourselves into a situation in which we are fortunate enough not to be at the time. If I may take an analogy, if one is healthy one does not spend one's time imagining what it is like to be unhealthy; or one finds it difficult, although one sympathises, to put oneself in the position of somebody who is suffering from very grave ill-health. I think this is something which is true and which we have to accept.
To be without a nationality at all is to have no underlying sense of security in both one's practical and one's emotional life—and even, if you like, in one's spiritual life. I am sure we have all expressed tremendous horror when other countries have enacted laws which have deprived people of their nationality. Therefore, I find it not only wrong but incredibly sad
380
and extremely worrying that this Bill is doing this at all, despite the intentions as they have now been put forward and described very articulately by the Minister when he says that this is not the intention and that there are the other provisions in the Bill.
We know, of course, that under paragraph 3(1) there is the Secretary of State's discretion, but throughout this Bill we have argued that we do not find this good enough. We want to see the safeguards, and the confidence that will be passed on to people by the legislative safeguards, enshrined in the legislation itself. Even if the Government wish to restrict our nationality in future more closely than ever before, as it appears they do, it surely would be going far enough to withhold British citizenship from children who acquired other nationalities by birth or descent even if they had British parents or were born on British soil. But a restriction which is so harsh that it can make children stateless rather than allow them to take British citizenship does, I feel, go beyond reason as well as beyond compassion.
I would further add this in relation to the interchange that my noble friend Lord Gifford had with the Minister in trying to elucidate an extremely difficult subsection of a clause. If he, as a highly intelligent lawyer, found this practically incomprehensible—and I find it completely incomprehensible, I admit right away—how on earth are the people concerned with this going to know where they stand without having to go to a whole lot of very intelligent lawyers, which is also going to be very expensive for them? But that is a smaller point which is by the way; what I am concerned with is the principle of this. Also, I think the Minister did not answer the point that was made, and with which I am also concerned, in relation specifically to the position of the unmarried mother.
Baroness Elles: I wonder whether, before my noble friend replies, I may put one or two questions to him as to the implementation of the provisions of this schedule as it now stands. As my noble friend rightly says, to some extent, at any rate, the Bill contributes to reducing statelessness; but it is worth recalling to your Lordships what Article 1 of the convention actually says. The very first sentence says:
"A contracting State shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless".
Of course, it goes on to give various mitigating factors, as to how this reduction in statelessness can be achieved. Indeed, the provisions in this Bill do not go away from the other provisions which support this clause in the convention.
Nevertheless, if we are a country which has always believed in the reduction of statelessness—and we are one of the few countries in the world which have ratified the convention and enabled it to come into force—then surely this Bill has not been drafted in a very generous spirit. Because, of course, for the first time in this country there will be children being born who will be stateless. There is no doubt about that, and I think my noble friend has accepted that that will be the case. But what I should like to ask my noble friend is: can he, on the basis of the number of visiting foreigners during, say, the last five years, give any indication to the Committee how many people would be likely to be born stateless?

381
Nearly all countries, as noble Lords on the Front Bench keep telling us, now have jus sanguinis, so why should not we? If they really do have the law of jus sanguinis applying to the transmission of nationality, then I would imagine that in fact there would be very few cases which would apply to children being born in this country; they would in nearly all cases take the nationality of their parents—except, of course, in the case which has already been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, of children born illegitimate to those mothers who are not able, through the female line, to transmit nationality. We know that there are a few member states, sovereign states, which do not enable women to pass on their nationality directly.
So it is a very important matter of principle not only because of the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, pointed out, but we must remember that statelessness means that one removes the diplomatic protection of any soveriegn state to look after a person when abroad and this would therefore leave a child or person with no protection or any sovereign state to look after it. In a part of the world where there is a very sophisticated social security and economic system, what provisions would be made for a stateless child born in this country? Would any social security benefits be available? This is an important point. It is not strictly in the terms of the Bill; but when implementing a policy of this nature, the consequences beyond it have to be considered.
This will apply to children born outside this country within the European Economic Community. I am sorry to go on harking about this particular area of the world but it is one in which I have immediate and direct concern. The children born in the Community who are stateless will no doubt also be deprived of any social security benefits under Community regulations because the regulations are always drafted for the benefit of nationals of member states and their dependants who shall be of the nationality of a member state.
I do not expect a reply immediately but I should be grateful if the effect on the social security status of a child born stateless in this country could be considered.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Belstead: If I may say so, I am disturbed by the speech which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has made. I recognise her concern with Schedule 2. It is an important schedule and the noble Baroness has every right to express her interests and concern in how the schedule works. I do not think that the noble Baroness has the right to make such remarks—and I am paraphrasing her words—that apparently the Government have now decided that they will restrict the citizenship of this country more and more, with the implication that the Opposition Benches could not understand the reason why.
I know that the previous Government's Green Paper was a discussion document. If there was one thing which was certain in it it was an acceptance by the previous Government that something needed to be done about nationality, and the basis of any action which needed to be taken would be to identify those who had become citizens of this country with those people who had reasonably close ties with the United Kingdom.
382
This inevitably would mean, as night would follow day, that there would be a more precise, and therefore a more restrictive, definition of British citizenship. Unless the Opposition Front Bench are seriously saying to the Government that they have wholly changed their minds on the rights of British citizenship and on the desirability of redefining British citizenship, I do not think that these are the views which should be put forward in the middle of the Committee stage of this Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I am sorry that the noble Lord has introduced a general debate of this kind into a particular amendment. But, if we are going to have such a debate, let it be conducted with the fairness which the noble Lord usually employs. I reminded him yesterday that the Leader of the House was very careful to describe the green document to which he has referred as being, if I remember correctly, a document which enabled people to canvass certain opinions.
Of course those opinions were canvassed and they were not in any way dealt with in detail. What we are dealing with now is the outcome of a decision that has been made, which was canvassed in that document, of the abandonment of the jus soli. What has happened as a result of the abandonment of jus soli—and I shall not go over the argument again—is that as a direct result of that, certain children are going to be born stateless.
The Government—with compassion—have to look at that situation in exactly the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, looking at the provisions of the convention into which we have entered. The situation is that some of those children are going to be stateless. The Minister has not even dealt with the situation of those whom he says may go abroad and will have to go abroad presumably with children who have no state documents at all and are therefore stateless. Heaven only knows whether they will be able to get into the country into which they want to go and leave this country, if that is what they want to do.
The Minister has to deal with that and not make debating points against the Opposition. We are concerned, and other people in other parts of the Committee are concerned, with this section of people. Would he kindly deal with that point and get away from green papers and, as I said yesterday, discover the issues before the Committee?
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Before my noble friend replies to that very, very long intervention, may I say on behalf of myself that I think he is dealing with this matter with extreme fairness and great clarity. He has the full support of many of us on these Benches.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson. He is looking—as I am—to see what the general view of the Opposition is to the Bill as we go along. It is fair to say in the middle of dealing with a particular amendment—which I accept from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has to be answered and looked at on its merits—that it is a fact that general remarks were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The noble Baroness has every right to make any remarks that she wishes; but one of the general remarks was that apparently there was an increasingly restrictive

383
view of the Government so far as citizenship in this country was concerned.
The point I was trying to put across to the Committee was that it is based upon a principle that I thought was shared between both the previous Government and the present one. If that principle leads in practice to a Bill which the present Opposition would not have introduced, that I accept. If in practice it leads to the need for provisions in this schedule which the Oppositon are saying need to be looked at with the very greatest care, then I also accept my responsibility to reply to the detailed points which have been made.
There was a second reason, however, why I was also disturbed with the noble Baroness's speech. She referred to people who had come from the Soviet Union and Germany, with the implication—although she did not say it—that they were refugees. I was not sure about this. I should like to make it absolutely clear that my understanding is that the position of refugees is not changed in any way by this Bill. The attitude of the Government of this country is not changed towards refugees in the slightest iota. I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on the subject of refugees when I said—and I think that it is reasonable—that the only point one needs to look at in Schedule 2 is that children, to prevent them from being stateless if they are the children of refugees, should have their parents settled in this country for a period of time.
When the noble Lord—as he had every right to do—said that there are particularly compassionate cases of people who have come from the Soviet Union or Chile, I replied, "Yes, but those are the people who would have become settled here and they have no worry in this particular respect".
Baroness Birk: May I interrupt the noble Lord at this point to try to clear up this matter? I shall not go over what my noble friend said about the discussion paper, but I do not believe for one moment, even after all the discussion, that a Labour Government would have done away with the principle of jus soli from which so much of this matter stems.
It was perfectly fair to make the point, which I am sure the Minister agrees will happen under this Bill, that a number of people—and we are talking now about children—will be made stateless. This is what I am talking about. I shall stick my neck out here and say that I do not believe that a Labour Government would have introduced these provisions, or, if they had, that they would have been allowed to get away with it. I do not believe that.
The other point the Minister made concerned refugees. Of course, when people apply as refugees or want to come for political reasons, I do not think for one moment that this Government would not take them in—not at all—but directly you have this sort of restriction it is going to be much more difficult to define. You have to start to distinguish between refugees and stateless people. The whole thing will become much more difficult. That is why I made the general remark, because I honestly believe it is going to be far harder. One can read the Bill and see that. There will be people who will be stateless, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, asked some very pertinent questions about that. We are concerned about this subject, and it is not only on this side of the Committee,
384
because I would venture to say that many other noble Lords, even if they are not speaking on this amendment, probably also have reservations about it.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord replies, would he be kind enough to clarify what he said before the noble Baroness spoke? Did he not say that the position of refugees was in no way impaired under this Bill and is what it always has been? Does not Schedule 2 prvoide that the child of a refugee may qualify for British citizenship only if the child is over 10 and under 22? Does that not then mean that questions arise as to this stateless child's entitlement to National Health Service treatment? It will have to be proved, when first entering school, that it is eligible for education, and so on. All sorts of difficulties will be put in the way of refugee parents to establish that the child is entitled to the benefits of our social security, health and educational system, difficulties which are not there at the moment. This will represent a serious impairment of the rights of a refugee coming to this country which they presently enjoy.
Lord Belstead: I do not accept that, and if the noble Lord has a particular case which refutes what I have said I hope that he will let me know. I promise him that I will look into it very quickly indeed. I might say to the noble Baroness that her general complaints which still exist about Schedule 2 wholly overlook the fact that I endeavoured to point our earlier: that there really is not a great deal between the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and the Government. We have, in Schedule 2, age and residence requirements, and those requirements are more generous—the age requirements infinitely more generous—than those of the United Nations Convention. We believe they are sensible because there will be people who will come to this country who will have children who are stateless and who will want to go on elsewhere. Indeed, the children may not wish to have had British citizenship conferred on them because they may find they are in great difficulties from a dual nationality point of view if they go to another part of the world. I think, on those grounds, that the dividing line in this debate so far as Schedule 2 is concerned is comparatively narrow.
However, may I come to my noble friend Lady Elles. It is perfectly true that there are people such as unmarried mothers who will find that they have children who are born stateless here and who have to fulfil the requirements of Schedule 2: otherwise they cannot be accorded citizenship. But there we are getting very near to the argument that other countries also have to play their part in these matters, and I must say I find it is a strange argument—not the one that my noble friend put forward—which lies behind this general area, that because we are introducing sex equality into the nationality law of this country, in some way we should also be answerable for other countries which have refused to do the same.
My noble friend asked if any estimate could be made in this sphere of numbers of children who could be or who have been born stateless. I can only tell my noble friend that no estimate is made. The number should be small, for the reason that she herself gave—that most children would acquire the status of their parents. And may I just say this in conclusion: let

385
us not forget the parents—that is, the parents of stateless children—who will be able to make their way through the various avenues given in the Bill towards British citizenship. There are those who can become British citizens; there are those who in addition can have British citizenship conferred upon them by Clause 4; and of course there are those who, having come into this country on grounds of work or of marriage, will find that they remain here for the whole of their lives and will become British citizens. The one question I have not answered is the question of social security benefits, and I am afraid that on that particular point I must write to my noble friend.
Lord Gifford: We have had a very interesting debate, and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Birk for reminding the Committee in her eloquent speech of the nature of the human problem this amendment is trying to meet—the awfulness of being without citizenship, without a nationality, without a country of protection. The people who are to be protected by this amendment, if passed, are by definition within that limbo that she tried to describe. I was also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for making two points very clearly. She first reminded us of the basic principle which lies behind the United Nations Convention on the reduction of statelessness: namely, that there should be no statelessness and that it should be the responsibility of the country of birth in the last resort to see that that happens.
In these conventions, conditions and reservations are permitted. Surely, in order to encourage countries to sign and ratify, something less than perfect is permitted in order to try to get agreement and some moving forward of international law. That does not mean to say that a country like Great Britain should apply those conditions. Even if it is true to say that the age limits permitted under the convention are 18 to 21 and the Government are allowing 10 to 21 as their age range, these are little variations compared to the basic issue of whether or not there should be some restriction on the schedule.
The second point made by the noble Baroness, implicitly by her question, was that the number of people who are actually going to be caught by the provisions of the Bill—that is to say, those who are going to be made stateless—is very, very small. We have already had a long debate on the jus soli requirement when many of us were trying to say that even jus soli would make little difference and very few children will be involved if the principle is retained. The numbers of people who would be stateless are the odd few who, by various tricks of circumstances or the interaction of various laws, would be caught out. I have tried to think of some examples. There are people who are transient, exercising, for instance, their right of movement within the EEC. There are people who wander from one country to another because that is the habit of life they enjoy, and who may never reside in one country long enough to establish the conditions of residence under Schedule 2 for their child before the child reaches the age of 22; and therefore that child would be caught out. There are other people who would be deported from this country because they were illegal, who would leave this country
386
and go to their country of origin and would not be accepted as citizens in the country of origin—they would be persecuted because they were not citizens of the country of origin.
It may be, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said, that there is little between us in terms of numbers. But that is what is between us: whether this Bill should contain some gaps into which people will fall or whether the safety net of Schedule 2 should be absolute and should be a guarantee. Because of the seriousness of the predicament that stateless people will be put into, we say that there should be no gaps. If people go back to their country of origin and reside there they will become citizens of that country and therefore they will not be stateless. The Government will not have to take them in. The idea that we need to vote against this amendment, because just a few people who do not have much of a connection, other than birth, will be admitted to British citizenship, is showing a fear, a phobia, of allowing people to become British citizens, which I suggest is unworthy. It is much better that there should be a sure safety net.
What saddened me was that in the various interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, there was not one single concession, not one single suggestion, that some of these restrictions, particularly the upper age limit, might be looked at again. Because there have been no concessions, because this Committee will, if the amendment is not passed, be responsible for some statelessness arising for people who are born within these shores, it is important that we should divide on this amendment, and I urge your Lordships to pass it.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 137E) shall be agreed to:
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 112.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Hanworth, V.

Avebury, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hooson, L.

Barrington, V.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bernstein, L.

Janner, L.

Beswick, L.

Jeger, B.

Birk, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bishopston, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Blease, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Blyton, L.

Lichfield, Bp.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Listowel, E.

Briginshaw, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Chitnis, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

David, B.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Diamond, L.

Mishcon, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Molloy, L.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Nathan, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Ogmore, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Peart, L.

Galpern, L.

Phillips, B.

Gardiner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

George-Brown, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Gifford, L.

Gosford, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Hale, L.

Reilly, L.

Hampton, L.

Rochester, L.

387

Ross of Marnock, L.

Underhill, L.

Seear, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Whaddon, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

White, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Wigoder, L.

Stone, L.

Willis, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Strauss, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Thurso, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Long, V.

Alport, L.

Luke, L.

Atholl, D.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Avon, E.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Beloff, L.

Mancroft, L.

Belstead, L.

Margadale, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marley, L.

Blake, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cathcart, E.

Mottistone, L.

Chelwood, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Cockfield, L.

Newall L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Norfolk, D.

Colwyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Craigavon, V.

Nunburnholme, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Orkney, E.

Craigton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Croft, L,

Penrhyn, L.

Cross, V.

Portland, D.

Davidson, V.

Rankeillour, L.

de Clifford, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Reigate, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochdale, V.

Eccles, V.

Rugby, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Faithfull, B.

Shannon, E.

Falkland, V.

Sharples, B.

Ferrier, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Fortescue, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Soames, L.

Gainford, L.

Spens, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Geddes, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glendevon, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Gormanston, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Gowrie, E.

Strathspey, L.

Greenway, L.

Sudeley, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Swinfen, L.

Tenby, V.

Halsbury, E.

Terrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Teviot, L.

Hawke, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Vickers B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Kemsley, V.

Westbury, L.

Kimberley, E.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): Before I call Amendment No. 137F, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 137G, 137H, 137I or 137J.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 137F:
388
Page 57, line 10, leave out from ("sub-paragraph (4)") to the end of line 16.
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 4 of the second schedule deals with the children of British citizens born abroad who would be stateless by imposing a residence requirement of three years before the application is made. My amendment seeks to remove that residence requirement. There will be many people living abroad—perhaps doing work with British companies or working for the EEC—who will be British citizens by descent and who for one reason or another will miss out on the right to register their children as citizens under Clause 3(2) of the Bill.
This subsection is very restrictive. It requires not only a great number of conditions to be complied with; it also has a strict 12 months' time limit which some people are just not going to meet They may not know about the provisions. If that is so, the only other effective avenue into British citizenship is to come back and live here under Clause 3(6). Many of the children who are born to British citizens abroad will have another citizenship from the country of their birth. Equally, many of them will be stateless.
In this amendment I am concerned with those people who are stateless and who for one reason or another do not establish the residence requirement either under Clause 3(6) which deals with minors or under paragraph 4 of the second schedule, a very similar requirement, which is not limited to minors but can be complied with at any time. There will be quite a number of stateless people—rather more than in the last paragraph—growing up and attaining majority who will be the children of British parents and who, particularly if they are born in jus sanguinis countries, will not get a local citizenship.
I have tabled this amendment in order to ask whether it is really the Government's intention that such people, particularly when they grow to majority and cannot be registered under the discretionary provision for minors, are going to be allowed to be permanently stateless, unless they are able, subject to immigration rules which may stop them, to come back to Britain for a period of three years. It seems to me that once again we are likely to be creating a great number of new stateless people. Although the old law did not allow for transmission through the mother it allowed for transmission through the father and for registration at a consulate, irrespective of the degree of generation. Prior to this Bill there were comparatively few stateless children, but there will be more stateless people born to British citizens who cannot comply with the requirement which this amendment seeks to delete. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: I wonder whether it would be convenient if I spoke now to my amendment because it covers the same point as that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in moving his amendment. Over and over again I have put questions to the Government about choice being given to British citizens by descent to register their children under Clause 3(2) or to come back to this country, spend three years here and register under Clause 3(6). If they do not register under Clause 3(2), either because they have failed to do so or because they do not come within the strict provisions of Clause 3—that they are employed by a British

389
company—they have to wait for some time. As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said, the child has to be brought back to this country. One question which I have put from time to time to the Front Bench but to which I have not had an answer is, how does the child get back into this country as a stateless child? Does it have to be accompanied by its parents, or by only one parent, or by only the British parent? Can it be left here alone? Or must one or both of the parents remain here? Can it go back to its parents if it has been attending school in this country? What kind of travelling facilities will there be?
I should be grateful to my noble friend if at some stage I could have a reply—possibly not now but in writing. May I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for his supreme courtesy to me over the many questions I have put to him throughout the debate on the Bill. In no way do I feel that he has been discourteous in not directing his thoughts to the points which have been put before him. It is a very difficult Bill to follow. The further we get into it, the more complex and complicated the Bill becomes.
This is an important point, for the reasons I gave earlier: because of the social security benefits, because of the national health benefits and because of the European Community legislation. As my noble friend will be aware, the freedom of movement provisions under the Community regulations are for workers and their dependants, and the dependants have to be nationals of the member states. This may mean that after the Bill becomes law a child will be stateless in some countries of the EEC, and that it will be brought home by British parents, will spend some time here and then may not be able to get back into one of the countries of the Community. The Government should look at this matter to make sure that these lines are cleared. There may well be administrative measures which could be adopted to ensure that because of the effects of the British Nationality Bill children born stateless in the member states will have a special document to allow them to travel from one member state to another.
I very much hope that my noble friend will take this matter on board and look at the situation now. If it is not satisfactory and does not allow for freedom of movement for children born of British parents by descent in a member state of the Community, I hope that the Government will ensure that this matter is raised in the necessary bodies of the Community so that these children can be protected. The effect of the provisions of the Bill—I may be wrong and I should be grateful if my noble friend could tell me that I am wrong—is that many people will find that they are British citizens by descent. There may well be children "on the way", so to speak, who will be born after the Bill comes into force. By the end of the year they will be born stateless, when it will be too late for parents to make arrangements for their children to be born in the United Kingdom in order to preserve their British nationality.
I hope my noble friend realises that we regard this as a very serious matter. It is a duty incumbent upon the Government if they are going to pass this kind of legislation, which I accept they may be doing for very good and fundamental reasons in relation to British
390
nationality and connections with this country, to ensure that they preserve the rights of those citizens who are British, who have fundamental links with this country, who will be returning to this country and who will not want their children to be born stateless, wherever that may be. If my noble friend cannot give me an answer now, I shall be very grateful if he will look at them very seriously and write to me later.
Lord Belstead: I should like first to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, who moved Amendment No. 137F. This amendment would mean that a stateless person whose father or mother held one of the statuses created under this Bill would be entitled to his parents' status, without having to meet any residence requirement. He would no longer have to show that he had been in the United Kingdom or the dependent territories for three years preceding his application and that he had not been absent for the periods laid down in the schedule.
I am really going back to the same point. We think that this modest residence requirement is justified because the applicant's ties with this country or an existing dependency through the parents are necessarily limited. It may be that one will find that the parents and indeed the child do not want, after the child is born, to remain in the particular country concerned. I will not go on with that argument because I have deployed it before. All I would add is that I do not think the residence requirement is onerous, and as I have said before it is not only in accordance with our obligations under the convention but I think that the age and the residence requirements are more generous than the convention requirements.
The noble Lord mentioned Clause 3, which of course we have passed some time ago. I mention that only for two reasons. First, because with respect to the noble Lord I do not think he was quite accurate about the restrictiveness, as he put it, of Clause 3. I should like to think that my honourable friend the Minister of State, in introducing Clause 3 into another place on Report, had succeeded in showing that Clause 3 had been infinitely widened and had not been made restrictive in another place. However, it has come under microscopic scrutiny in your Lordships' Committee and I know that my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate and I will look very carefully at what has been said about the clause. But, in making a remark or two about it, the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said that what he felt was also very restrictive was that there was an absolute requirement that registration must be made within 12 months of a child being born. Of course that is not so. There is the exception of the six years and I am sure the noble Lord will not mind if I make that point in passing.
Turning to the amendment to which my noble friend Lady Elles was speaking, which is Amendment No. 138, may I say that there may be parts of my noble friend's remarks that I am not succeeding in replying to and, in which case, I will most certainly write to her. So far as the amendment is concerned, this is an amendment which is directed towards paragraph 6 of Schedule 2, which provides that in the special circumstances of any particular case an applicant for citizenship by registration on grounds of statelessness may be regarded as having met the residence requirements for

391
citizenship though he had been absent both from the United Kingdom and a dependent territory for a longer period than is permitted. This amendment seeks to make clear that the discretion in this provision would be exercised whether the applicant had been absent, with or without father or mother. But there would be no need to make that point in the text since there is no question of the discretion in paragraph 6 hinging on whether the applicant was absent with both father and mother. All that the Home Secretary would need to take into account would be the absence of the applicant. Absences by his parents are simply not relevant to that particular matter.
I know that, in making that rather brief reply to my noble friend, I am not going nearly as far as or wide as my noble friend's remarks about the effects of Clause 3(6), which is the whole question of coming back to this country, probably from a European Community country because that is the context in which my noble friend has been pitching the majority of her remarks on this Bill. That is a point which I should like to reserve for correspondence. I assure my noble friend that either my noble and learned friend or I will be writing to her on that point.
Lord Drumalbyn: May I also have a copy of that letter, as I raised this point at an earlier stage?
Lord Belstead: Certainly.
Baroness Elles: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps again I have misunderstood the Bill, but under Clause 3(6)—and I am afraid it is inevitable that we have to go back to it, since as I understand it Schedule 2 is really the safety net to the previous clauses of the Bill—of course it is only applicable to a minor, whereas paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 would apply to anybody of any age who was born outside the United Kingdom. Is that correct?
Lord Belstead: I am sorry. I am not looking at the text at the moment, but one of the entitlements to citizenship to which this provision relates, that in paragraph 4 of this schedule, may be exercised at any time during a person's lifetime and the parent of the applicant could well be dead by the time an application was made. The other entitlement admittedly has to be exercised before the applicant reaches the age of 22, but it does not depend in any way on the status of the applicant's parents, and their movements are therefore of no concern in this context.
Baroness Elles: In view of what my noble friend has said, I sincerely hope that it would not take the Home Office so long to deal with this clause that the person would be dead by the time the application came through. Would my noble friend confirm that it is not necessary for somebody under this schedule to have a father or mother who is a British citizen by descent. Is that also one of the differences between this paragraph 4 of this Schedule and Clause 3(6) where of course clearly one of the parents at least has to be a British citizen by descent. Is that one of the distinctions which exist between this paragraph and Clause 3(6)?
Lord Belstead: I think I shall have to look with a
392
little more care at what my noble friend is asking because she keeps on referring back to Clause 3(6), and I must admit that I am finding this a little difficult. May I write to my noble friend on that? I am sorry to fail my noble friend in trying to answer this question, but I had directed my own thoughts to Schedule 2, and I am finding that to direct my thoughts also to Clause 3 is a little beyond me at the moment.
Lord Gifford: I wonder whether I may add to the noble Lord's troubles and ask him whether he could give us some indication, even in general terms, of the Government's answer to an enormously important point that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, which is relevant, I think, to the Committee's consideration of Schedule 2, and in particular this paragraph of it. Is it right that there will have to be—and there will be—new immigration rules to deal with the stateless children of British citizens abroad? One would imagine and one would hope that at any rate up to the age of majority the stateless children of British citizens would be able, without any impediment at all, to come back to this country in order, among other things, to establish residence requirements to enable them to be registered as citizens.
What is the position, though, of adults? If paragraph 4 of the schedule, which requires this residence requirement which is the subject of this amendment, is to be any use to a stateless person, the son or daughter of a British citizen abroad, it will be no use unless the stateless person can gain entry to the United Kingdom in order to establish the residence requirement. It might be, therefore—I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can give this his consideration—that the immigration rules would have to provide for permission to be granted to stateless children of British citizens abroad who wish to establish the residence requirement under paragraph 4. I wonder whether some answer could be given as to what sort of immigration rules are going to be necessary and when we are going to know them.
Lord Avebury: Following on what Lord Gifford has said, I wonder whether I could remind the noble Lord the Minister that at an earlier stage I put the question to him about the immigration rules and I did not have any reply then. I asked him to confirm my understanding that the minor child who is stateless, having been born outside the United Kingdom would be entitled to admission to the United Kingdom only if either both the parents are here and he comes as a dependent child, or one of the parents can demonstrate that he or she has the sole or main responsibility for that child's upbringing; because that is what the rules say at the moment. I had rather understood the reverse of what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has suggested. I had understood that there was not going to be any change in the immigration rules, because nothing has been said about that; certainly in another place it was not mentioned in Committee or at Report stage.
In order to bring the child back to qualify for the entitlement to registration under Clause 3(6), it would be necessary either for both parents to come back and take up residence in the United Kingdom for the three years in question or for one parent somehow or other to have assumed total responsibility for the child's

393
upbringing. It is difficult to see how that could have occurred otherwise than by the death of the other parent. I think it important for the noble Lord to clarify exactly what are the Government's intentions, whether they are going to leave the immigration rules as they stand, and whether I have correctly told your Lordships how they would work in the case of the stateless child whose parents want him to come back here in order to qualify under Clause 3(6).
Baroness Elles: I apologise to my noble friend for intervening again on this point, but following on what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just said, would my noble friend also direct his attention to those parents who will be wishing to send their children back to boarding schools in this country, or any other form of education? Will these children, stateless as they may be, be able to come in on their own, regardless of having a parent with them, or not?
Lord Belstead: I am not quite sure whether my noble friend's intervention would be supported from both sides of the House, but certainly I will take on board what my noble friend has said. So far as the case raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is concerned, my advice is that while they are minors such children would probably qualify as children of their parents; but once they have become adults they would have to qualify under the immigration rules. The noble Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have asked what about the immigration rules and the Bill. We have made it clear consistently, while the Bill has been going through another place and I think I have said it during the Committee stage here, that we shall look at the immigration rules when the Bill has been passed into law and will then consider what amendments may be necessary. It is absolutely necessary for me to give that reply because the Bill is subject to the scrutiny of Parliament and therefore amendment in Parliament. Therefore, there is no other reply that I can possibly give.
Lord Gifford: My feeling at the end of this debate is that we are by no means at the end of our consideration of the children of British citizens born abroad who will be stateless unless they can establish an entitlement under one or other of the provisions of the Bill. I was particularly disappointed to hear that last reply, that we shall not know what, if any, new immigration rules there are going to be until the Bill has passed from this House. That seems to me to mean that the rules will be unchanged. In the light of all that has been said and the very helpful comments made on all sides of the Committee, I should like to consider carefully whether this provision as it stands in the Bill is good enough, or whether, as I tend to think, it is going to land a lot of families in a terrible mess, placing them between two stools, as it were, by allowing them citizenship only if they can get past the immigration hurdles, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says, in a great many cases are not going to allow them to come here. Having said that this is something that must be reconsidered, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 137G:
Page 57, line 12, after ("territory") insert ("or a member state of the European Community").
The noble Lord said: This is a particular case of the general one we have been looking at in paragraph 4, which is supposed to deal with children born outside the United Kingdom and dependent territories. This paragraph says that if the child is and always has been stateless, and if his father or mother was a British citizen and he was in the United Kingdom or one of the dependent territories for three years up to the date of application, he shall be entitled to be registered as a British citizen. As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said, what about the case of all the children who will be born outside the United Kingdom and dependent territories and will not be able to fulfil that residence qualification?
In this amendment I want to look at the particular case which has arisen before of the families in Europe. It has been pointed out to your Lordships that in every single one of the Community countries, other than I think the Republic of Ireland, the jus sanguinis applies. So if a child is born to two parents who are both British citizens by descent anywhere in the Community other than the Republic of Ireland that child will become stateless under the provisions of the Bill. The position we have been discussing is that of a family with two parents who are both working abroad. It may well be that for reasons of their professional career they are not able to satisfy the requirements of Clause 3(6), which requires them to come back to the United Kingdom for a period as long as three years to confer their citizenship on the child. They may be in a long-term employment with some Community institution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has so eloquently pointed out when defending the position of these people who are contributing, as she has said, so much to the welfare of the United Kingdom in the work they do over there.
On a previous occasion, when we discussed a somewhat related amendment to Clause 2, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said that the Government were prepared to look at the European point. While I do not believe it would get over the problem entirely—it is much wider than that, as Lord Gifford has explained—it is of particular significance to the people working in the Community institutions, and also people employed by British companies within the European Community and contributing enormously by so doing to the United Kingdom economy.
It seems to me that the reply given by the Minister on the last amendment is unsatisfactory, particularly when he says that he cannot deal with the question put to him about the immigration rules until we know where we finish up with the Bill. What the noble Lord is saying is that it is possible that your Lordships might amend the Bill, and therefore one cannot imagine what the changes in the rules would have to be until one sees what is the final form of the legislation. Well, considering that the Government have vehemently and totally implacably resisted all the sensible amendments that have been put forward so far, they must be perfectly well aware that the Bill will not be different in its final shape.
I have no illusions about the amendment that I am putting forward now, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said. I do not believe for one moment that the Government will accept this amendment or anything like it. Therefore, it would be quite easy for the Minister, from the work that has already been done within the Home Office, to say what kind of changes in the immigration rules are contemplated and, in particular, to answer the very pertinent questions which were put to him on the previous discussion which will affect these families in Europe.
Let me emphasise once again what we are talking about: a couple are working, for example, in Brussels and they are both British citizens by descent. They have a child and they continue to work in one of the institutions of the European Community, and they want to send the child back home for the purpose of education or for any other reason whatever—for example, the child might want to come and stay for a period of a couple of years with the grandparents. The noble Lord cannot even tell us whether this child will be entitled to be admitted to the United Kingdom, He says that no information can be given to your Lordships about possible changes in the immigration rules that may be in contemplation, until the Bill has been passed. As I pointed out, under the immigration rules as they stand at present, that child is not entitled to be admitted to the United Kingdom. The grandparents would not be able to look after the child for a period of two or three years while he or she was undergoing education or for any other purpose. Therefore, I think that this amendment, although far more limited than the ones which we have been discussing so far, would give a certain amount of reassurance to the parents of such children and parents who may give birth to such children after the Bill has been passed.
I very much hope that, notwithstanding my pessimism, the noble Lord will be able to give us some further explanations in the light of the assurances we had from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that I have mentioned, which will give at least some hope to these families that their position is being properly considered. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: I have very great sympathy with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, although I am bound to say that I am not quite certain that it is the right way to tackle the problem. It appears to me that the noble Lord is deeming, as it were, the European Community members to be part of Great Britain. That roughly is what the amendment amounts to for this purpose. I should have thought that we had discussed this matter fairly fully previously on at least two occasions and that the noble Lord could be content, with the addition of what he has just said and with the undertaking that was given, that the matter would be looked at thoroughly to see what is the best way of dealing with what I think we have demonstrated to the Government is a real problem. For my part I would hope that the noble Lord would do that.
I quite understand—and I fully sympathise with this view—that the people who are working in Europe at present, especially those who are British citizens by descent, are presented with a particular problem
396
because of means of appointment and so on. But we have raised those points already. I have the feeling that if those points were dealt with the noble Lord's point probably would not present a problem. However, that is the situation. The noble Lord has put it among the points to be considered, and it is a solution to a particular part of the problem. The problem goes very much wider and the further away one is from Great Britain the worse it becomes.
If one is in Indonesia or somewhere like that it is probably very much harder to get back for three years than it is from the Benelux countries. Therefore, I would, with great respect, suggest to the noble Lord that it is not worth pressing this particular matter too far at present, but he should, on the other hand, press the Government to look at the problem as a whole.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: I am greatly obliged to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn because it is obvious that debates on this schedule go back very much to the question of the earlier substantive provisions for the passing on of British citizenship. So far as this particular proposal is concerned in our view it would not be appropriate to treat—as my noble friend said in effect—European Community territories as if they were part of the United Kingdom and its dependent territories for the purposes of this schedule.
A person applying for citizenship under paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 will have only very tenuous links with this country or a dependent territory. The reason I say that is that he must have failed to achieve linkage by the provisions that we have been referred to already. As my noble friend Lord Belstead said, we regard these provisions as reasonable although we have undertaken to consider carefully the points which have been raised in relation to them.
If, therefore, one is in a situation where the person in question has only very tenuous links with this country, it seems right that this schedule should apply only where he now has some ties with this country or with a dependent territory which should provide the basis for an entitlement to citizenship. We think that the residence qualifications which have been put into the schedule and which will accord with our international obligations are appropriate.
I am of course aware of the concern that has been expressed about the risk of children being born stateless in European Community countries—and in particular, perhaps, Belgium—as a result of the Bill. In fact the problem arises because the provisions of Belgian law are not so generous in this respect as the provisions that we are proposing in this Bill for people born here. The view that we take is that the provisions of this schedule are really intended only to deal with a situation where the child in question has such a tenuous connection with the United Kingdom, otherwise than by residence, that some form of residence qualification is the only reasonable basis for a connection.
We would have thought that, in the very rare instance where a child is born in a European Community country to a parent who is a British citizen and cannot acquire either the parents' citizenship or local citizenship, the circumstances are likely to be such, and the tie with the United Kingdom so remote, that it is reasonable to look to the state of birth for citizenship for such a child. All the member states of the European

397
Community with whom we are here concerned do have provisions which enable a stateless child born in their territory to acquire their citizenship after some time—the time, as your Lordships know, varies. So from that point of view children born in the European Community are more fortunate than those born possibly in other parts of the world.
Accordingly, I hope that, in the light of that explanation, and particularly what we have said about the earlier provisions and the principal provisions, the noble Lord will take the advice which my noble friend has tendered to him.
Lord Avebury: After 42 sittings of the Committee in another place, four days on Report, and six days in Committee in your Lordships' House, I should have thought that the Government might have been able to present the Committee with some kind of a solution for the European problem which has been outlined so many times during the proceedings on this Bill. However, I realise that we shall not make any further progress on this matter this afternoon. Therefore, with the hope that at some time on Report we shall get some positive news from the Government, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137H, 137I and 137J not moved.]
6.20 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 137K:
Page 57, line 16, at end insert—
("; or
(d) that that person was born in a Commonwealth country where the rule of jus soli does not apply and that he was in that country at the beginning of the period of three years ending with the date of application and that (subject to paragraph 6) the number of days he was absent from that country and the United Kingdom in that period does not exceed 270.").
The noble Lord said: As your Lordships will have noticed, my handwriting is not particularly legible to the printers and so the words "jus soli" have been rather garbled in the amendment as printed in the Marshalled List. I hope it will become apparent to your Lordships what I intend here. This amendment is concerned with the position of a child born in a Commonwealth country where the rule of jus soli does not apply and where he remains in that country for a period of three years, which is provided for elsewhere in the schedule.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord is rather difficult to hear. I wonder whether he could speak towards a microphone.
Lord Avebury: I am sorry. I will try to do so. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has just said that in some ways it is easier for parents in Europe—with whom we were concerned just now—to take advantage of their proximity to Britain to come back here whenever a child is expected so that the child would then have citizenship by birth from the start instead of having to acquire it through one of the laborious processes which we have been examining. However, the noble Lord said that it was very much harder to
398
come back here from a place like Indonesia and, of course, the expenditure of the journey would be another barrier to parents, who were so distant from the United Kingdom, taking advantage of the Bill as regards giving birth to a child in the United Kingdom.
Therefore, in many of the Commonwealth countries, where they do not have jus soli, the parents will be faced with a dilemma. If the mother wants to return to the United Kingdom for the purpose of giving citizenship to the child, it will be very expensive. Of course, some of those at whom we are looking in the case of Commonwealth countries are not the reasonably well paid officials of the European Community or the directors of businesses engaged in exporting, with whom we were primarily concerned when we were looking at Europe. I am thinking particularly of the missionaries, who were discussed when we dealt with Clauses 2 and 3. It is, in fact, true that missionaries tend to pass down their vocation to their descendants, so it is quite likely that you could have two parents who were both citizens by descent serving, for example, in a country like Malawi where there is no jus soli, who would then be deprived of the possibility of passing on their citizenship to their child.
In this amendment I am suggesting that if they remain in that country, where the rule of jus soli does not apply, for a period of three years, at the end of that time they ought to be able to apply for their children to become British citizens, as parents can elsewhere in this schedule if they are resident in the United Kingdom or in one of its dependencies. I very much hope that this suggestion will commend itself to the Government. We are talking about a very small number of children, but children for whom I think your Lordships might have a particular regard. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Just as in the previous amendment, those whom this amendment would seek to benefit would have only extremely tenuous links with this country were it not for the residence requirement. In these circumstances we think it right that in order to establish some link with this country for the person to be entitled to its citizenship, a modest residence requirement should be imposed as really the only practicable link that could be demonstrated. It follows that in our view it would not be right to accede to this amendment, which has the effect of eliminating this only possible remaining link. In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before I call Amendment No. 137L, I should point out to the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 138.
[Amendments Nos. 137L and 138 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Commonwealth citizenship]:
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 138ZA:
Page 29, line 7, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment

399
is to clarify the definition of a "British protected person". A British protected person is, at the moment, not a Commonwealth citizen, as defined in Clause 36. Indeed, the status of a British protected person has always been rather indeterminate. He was not an alien, but within the meaning of the British Nationality Act 1948, neither was he a Commonwealth citizen, so he was somewhere in between the two.
The effect of this is not important as regards the British Nationality Bill, but it is important as far as the rights of British protected persons resident in this country apply. For instance, in the matter of entering the public service, British protected persons may sometimes qualify and sometimes not, depending on which department of state we are talking about. I understand that in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, can correct me if I am wrong—a British protected person is not acceptable as a recruit, whereas Commonwealth citizens invariably are. As regards recruitment in the police, I believe the stipulation is that the person has to be a British subject. Again, that does not include a British protected person.
But just as the Government have extended the right of registration to British protected persons within the five years after the passing of the Act—and it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that he was surprised that no one had referred to this act of generosity on the part of the Government—so I hope that the Government will consider extending their generosity one little stage further and by incorporating British protected persons in the definition of "Commonwealth citizens", assimilate them to all the privileges which those people enjoy within the boundaries of our shores. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: This amendment would seek to give British protected persons the status of Commonwealth citizens under the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, under our current nationality law British protected persons are neither Commonwealth citizens nor aliens, and the Bill maintains that position. They are not covered in this clause and the definition of "alien" in Clause 49(1) covers anyone who is not a Commonwealth citizen, nor a British protected person, nor a citizen of the Republic of Ireland. So British protected persons are like the Irish in enjoying a status peculiar to themselves.
We have carefully considered, following the debate in another place, whether there were any grounds for altering this arrangement. It is one thing to extend British protection to a person, as the term "British protected person" implies; but it is quite another to say that this protection should carry with it a further status, and in particular that it should carry with it access to civic rights and privileges in this country such as, for example, the right to vote. The status of "British protected person" is not the same as that of "Commonwealth citizen", and a distinction between the two is, in the Government's view, justifiable.
It is true that British protected persons, particularly from East Africa, have settled here and made their home here, but that in itself is not an argument for making them Commonwealth citizens under the Bill. Moreover—and perhaps I may stress this—the Bill as it
400
stands considerably improves in an important respect the situation of British protected persons settled here. At present, British protected persons who wish to acquire our citizenship have to apply for it by naturalisation, but under Clause 4 of the Bill they will be entitled to British citizenship after five years of residence here. As British citizens, they would have the status of Commonwealth citizens under this Bill and enjoy full privileges. So the Bill will enable British protected persons to secure our citizenship and the status of Commonwealth citizen much more easily than they can do at the present time. I hope that these points will satisfy the noble Lord and that he will not wish to press the amendment further.
Lord Avebury: I just fail to understand entirely why the noble Lord could not accept the amendment. He repeated what I had already said, which was that the Government had extended to British protected persons the concession of registration which was already held by Commonwealth citizens. He confirmed that British protected persons were neither Commonwealth citizens nor aliens, and this was an anomaly in the law which was to be continued under this Bill from the previous legislation including the 1948 Act. He did not advance a single argument as to why the British protected person should not be entitled to vote, to serve on juries, or to be eligible for public service.
He did not mention the numbers concerned, but they are absolutely minute compared with the number of Commonwealth citizens in this country on whom we have conferred these civic privileges. He failed to emphasise the fact that all these British protected persons hailed originally from countries which are members of the Commonwealth, and therefore, although they were not citizens of those countries, they were in no different position territorially from people who might have been their neighbours in the next street and who came at the same time as they did. But I realise there is nothing I can say this afternoon which is going to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to change his mind. I will think about what he has said, such as it is, and return to the matter on Report. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 138ZB not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Countries whose citizens are Commonwealth citizens.]
6.34 p.m.
Lord Spens: moved Amendment No. 138ZC:
Page 58, line 28, column 1, leave out ("Republic of").
The noble Lord said: I put this amendment down only last night because I had not noticed the apparent anomaly before. If your Lordships look at Schedule 3 on page 58 you will see that there are 43 countries mentioned there whose citizens are Commonwealth citizens under that schedule, and only one of those countries is called "Republic of". The amendment would seek to delete those words "Republic of" and just leave it as "Cyprus". I feel that if the words are left in it could be taken that there is discrimination

401
as between the Cypriots in the South and the Cypriots in the North. I just wonder why the words "Republic of" are put in there. There must be a large number of republics in that schedule—for example India or Sri Lanka. In fact, there are very few countries in the schedule which are not republics. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: I think I understand the point of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, which perhaps out of delicacy he has not make too explicit, but is there not a danger that by putting it in this way we may be giving recognition to the division in Cyprus and giving recognition, which I believe we do not do at the present time—which I must say I depricate—to the Turkish-speaking territory in Cyprus.
Lord Trefgarne: As my noble friend pointed out, there are indeed some dangers that would stem from the amendment if it were to be adopted, and I hope to persuade the noble Lord not to press it. As the noble Lord explained, this amendment seeks to alter the reference to Cyprus in Schedule 3 to the Bill which lists those countries whose citizens are Commonwealth citizens, and it would mean that the schedule would no longer refer to the Republic of Cyprus but merely to Cyprus. I fear that that would not be appropriate. "Republic of Cyprus" is the correct designation of that State as laid down in the 1960 treaties of which Her Majesty's Government is guarantor, and it is the Republic of Cyprus which is recognised as the legitimate government in the island. The reference to the "Republic of Cyprus" in Schedule 3 is therefore the correct one.
Concern has been expressed not only by the two noble Lords who have spoken but outside your Lordships' House about the position under the schedule of the Turkish federated State of Cyprus which since 1975 has occupied the northern part of the island controlled by the Turkish Army and which claims that the Republic of Cyprus has ceased to exist. I am aware that this is a matter of some considerable concern to the noble Lord, Lord Spens, but I do not think it would really be for a Nationality Bill to determine the Government's attitude towards the problems of Cyprus. That is best dealt with as a separate issue. I can assure your Lordships—and I think this is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, would wish to be assured on—that no discrimination would in practice be made against Turkish Cypriots because of the reference to the Republic of Cyprus in this Bill. Turkish Cypriots are treated in every way as Commonwealth citizens and on the same basis as members of the Greek community.
Furthermore, to refer in Schedule 3 simply to "Cyprus" could cause confusion about the status under this Bill of people from the sovereign base areas. Those areas, though within the island of Cyprus, are sovereign British territory outside the Republic of Cyprus and are in the list of dependent territories in Schedule 6. I hope that these arguments will persuade the noble Lord Lord Spens, that his fears are ill founded.
Lord Spens: I thank the Minister for that reply and I am certainly not going to press this amendment
402
tonight. I am going to take it away and look at it. But I am not at all sure that I accept what he says when the substantive clause, Clause 36(b), talks about "in any country mentioned in Schedule 3". Surely the country there is Cyprus and not the Republic of Cyprus. I think that is a point which has to be looked at. That substantive clause says
"under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in Schedule 3 is a citizen of that country,".
If the Government are implying that the Republic of Cyprus is that part of Cyprus which is governed by the present Greek-Cypriot Government calling itself the Republic of Cyprus, that does not include the Turkish Federated State in the North. I am not suggesting that this Government would have any difficulty about interpretation, but in 10 or 15 years' time, if this unfortunate situation still exists, then there could be difficulties for the Turkish Cypriots. I should like the Minister to consider that point. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Amendment of Immigration Act 1971]:
Lord Pitt of Hampstead Lord Pitt of Hampstead moved Amendment No. 138B:
Page 30, line 16, at end insert—
("; or
(c) he is a British Overseas Citizen who at the date of the passing of the British Nationality Act 1981 did not have a right of abode in any country similar to the right of abode in the United Kingdom under subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. It is another attempt at providing a safety net. On this occasion it is by means of allowing a right of abode. The previous safety net we tried was to prevent citizens born in this country from being stateless. We were not very successful; I hope that we shall be on this one. I do not think there will be many concerned, because if you note the way the amendment is worded anybody who is settled in another Commonwealth country will in fact have the same rights as in Clause 1(1) of this Bill. Therefore, we are talking about the people who are British overseas citizens but are not settled in the countries in which they live. These are the people I am talking about.
The idea behind this amendment is that it should provide them with a safety net. There are people who are living in countries in which they do not have settlement, and as a consequence of this Bill not only they but even more importantly their children may be stateless, and we should in fact accept that we have a responsibility for those people, and they should have a right of abode in this country. This is the purpose behind this amendment. I allow that it may well emerge as wider than intended. If that is so, I will allow the Government to persuade me that I have gone too wide, and I shall try to limit it at the next stage. However, I think it is right in the way it is now, because all it suggests is that any British overseas citizen who does not have settlement anywhere else should have a right of abode in this country. That is all we are asking for; no more, but I hope no less. I beg to move.
Lord Trefgarne: As the noble Lord explained, this amendment is designed to assist those British overseas citizens who do not have the right of abode either in the United Kingdom or any other country. It seeks to extend the right of abode in this country to those British overseas citizens who, when this Bill is passed, do not enjoy any right of abode which, like the right of abode under the Immigration Act 1971, gives them freedom to live in, and to come and go into and from that country without let or hindrance.
In practice, this would mean conferring the right of abode in this country on about 210,000 future British overseas citizens who are mostly in Malaysia, India and Africa. Let me say first of all that even if the principle of the amendment were accepted I do not think that it would be appropriate to amend the statement of the right of abode in Clause 38 in the way proposed by the noble Lord in his amendment. After all, one of the aims of this Bill is to clarify our citizenship law by bringing together citizenship and the right of abode which, although they ought to be related, have over the years parted company with each other. To confer the right of abode in this country not only on the holders of British citizenship but also on certain British overseas citizens would serve only to perpetuate the present confusion.
But I fear that, however, the aim of this amendment were achieved it would not be acceptable to the Government. To confer the right of abode on those British overseas citizens concerned would, as I mentioned just now, enable some 210,000 people to enter this country freely and settle here at any time. It would indeed be theoretically possible for them to all come here in a very short period of time. For reasons that are well understood by your Lordships I do not think that that would be in the interests of those concerned, but this does not mean that we are unsympathetic to the position of those British overseas citizens without any other citizenship.
We said in the White Paper that we were committed to the continuance of the special voucher scheme and we stand by that pledge. Under this scheme those British overseas citizens in East Africa, or who have gone from there to India—they are the people to whom we recognise special commitments—will be eligible for entry to the United Kingdom. Heads of households and their families will thus be able to enter the United Kingdom at a controlled rate, so that those concerned can be accepted into the community and have a reasonable chance of a decent livelihood here.
Over the last eight years some 59,000 voucher-holders and their dependants have been admitted to this country under this scheme, and this does not include the, approximately, 25,000 Uganda Asians admitted outside the scheme in 1972. Those who have been admitted to this country in this way and have been ordinarily resident here for five years or more at commencement will, as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies with the right of abode, become British citizens. Those who have been here for a shorter period at commencement, and those admitted under the voucher scheme after commencement, will be entitled to British citizenship on application once they have completed five years' residence. As British citizens they will have the right of abode.
404
We believe that these avenues to the right of abode are preferable to that proposed in the noble Lord's amendment. We shall stand by our commitments to admit certain British overseas citizens under the special voucher scheme, but we cannot accept that all in this group who have no right of abode anywhere should automatically acquire the right of abode in this country on commencement. We do not believe that this would be in the interests of this country, or indeed of the people concerned. I hope therefore that, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Avebury: The Government keep saying that they are not unsympathetic to the plight of United Kingdom citizens overseas, and yet no reply was given yesterday when I pointed out that the waiting period for applicants for quota vouchers has been gradually extended so that from a period of three-and-a-half years in 1977 it has risen progressively, until now it takes five years eight months between the date of application of a person overseas and his interview by an entry certificate officer with a view to granting him permission to come here.
I could also have added that another feature of this system which the Government follow at the moment is that if a person is a minor and is included on his father's application, then if the father, as head of the household, dies in the five years eight months' waiting period—which is going to be much longer than that after this Bill is passed because it is continuing to increase all the time—then the minor child has to start again from scratch at the age of 18.
Therefore, it would be possible for a child to be aged 13 at the time when the father applies, the father dies just before the child's 18th birthday, and then the child would have to start all over again from the age of 18, applying in his own right and waiting another five years. It could be as much as 10 years between the application which was made on behalf of this minor by his parent and the ultimate granting of citizenship to the child after he applied in his own right. How the Government can possibly say that they are giving sympathetic consideration to the plight of United Kingdom passport holders overseas I cannot imagine. How they can possibly say that a reduction in the maximum level of vouchers from 5,000—a figure which was set a few years ago—to the present figure of 500 actual vouchers for those who are still waiting in India is standing by a commitment and being especially sympathetic to those persons, I just cannot understand. I hope that the noble Lord opposite will at least modify the language which he uses in replying to amendments such as that proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, even if he is not prepared to accept them as they stand.
Baroness Birk: Before the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, replies to that point, may I just say that these were people to whom a commitment was given. Yesterday in a crowded House we gave citizenship rights to the people of Gibraltar. Many of the people who are waiting for citizenship rights fought for this country or their parents fought for this country during the war. They have always considered themselves as being British and it does seem not only unfair but also incongruous

405
that there should be no movement in this matter, even if the Government do not go the whole way. It seems that we come up against a blank wall every time anyone brings up this subject.
Lord Nathan: In our earlier debate on statelessness, much sympathy was shown by all sides of your Lordships' House, including the Government Front Bench, concerning the position of those who are stateless and it was said that everything which it was within the power of the Government to do should be done for the benefit of such people. The question that seems to arise from this amendment is, what is the distinction between statelessness and British overseas citizenship in the circumstances indicated in this amendment?
6.52 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, complained about a lack of Government sympathy in this matter despite the assurances which we have given to the contrary, but the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, is asking that we should overnight grant immediate right of abode to something in excess of 200,000 people who are at present being admitted on a regulated basis in accordance with commitments entered into long ago. These people are not being excluded or anything like that. Indeed 59.000 voucher-holders have already been admitted and an additional 25,000 Ugandan Asians were admitted outside that voucher scheme, making a total of 84,000 people. I do not consider that we can be accused of a lack of sympathy in this matter. We must have regard to all the considerations relating to the ability of this country to assimilate these people, and that directly relates of course to the circumstances in which those people would find themselves if they were all admitted in an unregulated way, which is what the noble Lord is proposing in his amendment. I do not believe that would be the right thing to do. It would be unfair to those people and it would be unfair to their colleagues and compatriots already here. I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: Before I make up my mind whether or not to press this amendment, I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can tell me how many of those 210,000 people are in line for the voucher scheme? It would help me in making up my mind to know how many people are left after that.
Lord Trefgarne: I do not have the precise figures before me. All those people are eligible to apply for vouchers, and I understand that the number who are in the pipeline at present is around 70,000; but I would like to have that figure confirmed and will then write to the noble Lord.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: But are the whole 210,000 entitled to apply for vouchers? I do not think that they are. After one has deducted the number of people who are entitled to apply for the voucher, how many people will be left from the original figure?
Lord Trefgarne: I will have to check further on this
406
aspect and write to the noble Lord, but my understanding is that the whole 210,000 are either eligible to apply for vouchers or are dependants of people who are entitled to apply for vouchers. Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to check the figures precisely and let him know the answer in correspondence.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: The point is that at the moment these people are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. A passport saying that one is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies has some meaning. We are now going to create a new British overseas citizenship and that class of citizenship will only have the status that any foreign country chooses to give to it. At present, if one of these people turns up in France holding a United Kingdom and Colonies passport which he obtained in, say, Kenya, the French will respect it. There is no question about that. The only problem that person has at the moment is that he is not allowed to enter freely into this country. Apart from that his existing passport is of full value to him.
When that person becomes a British overseas citizen his new passport will not have the same value because it will only have the value that any country its holder is visiting attaches to it. Make no mistake about that. The passport will only have the value which the country its holder is visiting is willing to give to it. It is important that we should know how many people will be caught in this way, because if a lot of people are going to be caught in this way then we must try to do something about it. If as the noble Lord the Minister says all these people are entitled to apply for a voucher, my attitude would be different because it would mean that the responsibility would be with the people themselves to apply for a voucher and therefore to enter this country in an orderly way. In fact, I would be prepared to consider introducing an amendment saying that such people can be admitted in an orderly way through the use of an application voucher.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord, because I have the figures here. The number of people in Africa and India who are eligible under the special voucher scheme is some 75,000. At present it is said that there are some 6,000 applicants, who with their families total 18,000 people, waiting in the queue. Those figures come from the House of Commons Select Committee, 26th Sitting, col. 977
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: But how many people are left after that? If all the people in the categories to which I am referring are capable of applying for vouchers, that is one thing—because I do not agree with the noble Lord the Minister that permitting entry to people who are in need and who are in difficulties in favour of those who are in the queue is so wrong. Those of us who have served in local government have followed that principle for years. We have waiting lists of people for housing, but people who become homeless are given priority over people on the waiting list because they are in greater need.
However, if there can be an orderly transfer I would favour that because it was never my intention that my amendment should mean that 210,000 people could

407
arrive here overnight. What I intended and what I hoped the Government would accept was the principle that we have a responsibility for all those people to whom we have given British overseas citizenship but who have no settled place of abode. If that is accepted, then how we deal with it, the machinery, is a different matter. We may have to deal with it by a slow process, but I submit that we must accept the principle, and it is the failure to accept it that is worrying me in the way the Government are dealing with my amendment.
7.1 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: The passport point is not valid because the purposes for which the passport may be used, other than to establish the right of abode, will not change under the present proposals. As for the numbers, I understand that the 75,000 figure which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, quoted a moment ago refers to those United Kingdom passport holders in India and East Africa, who are in fact given priority under the special voucher scheme to which I referred earlier. The bulk of the remainder—in fact, I believe all the remainder—live in Malaysia at the present time, and there is no question of the great majority of them, as I understand it, having any wish to come to this country for residential purposes; I think they are by and large people of Indian origin. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, will accept that the main effect of his amendment would be to give to all of those 200,000-odd people to whom I referred immediate right of abode in the United Kingdom, and that is the difficulty which the Government see with the amendment.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: The Minister says that 140,000 of them are living in Malaysia, that they are of Indian descent and would not want to come here, so the noble Lord tripped himself up. The point I am trying to get the Government to take on board is that if by this legislation we are creating a group of citizens who as a consequence will have no settled home, no place of abode, then we should consider ourselves responsible for providing them with one, and in the final ayalysis they should be able to come here. That is the principle I want established. The wording of my amendment is not the point. What is at stake is the principle and the Minister has not so far satisfied me that he accepts the principle.
Lord Trefgarne: I am sorry that I have not satisfied the noble Lord and I am grateful for this opportunity to try to do so. As he rightly observed, there are two categories of people within the category he is describing in the amendment. One category are those in India and East Africa who are subject to the special voucher scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred earlier, the bulk of the remainder living in Malaysia. I understand that those who live in Malaysia are entitled to, and many indeed have, Malaysian citizenship, so there is no question, as the noble Lord is saying, that they have nowhere to go, nowhere to live and nowhere to rest their heads. The fact is that we have made the arrangements, we think rightly, in accordance with the necessary circumstances.
Lord Avebury: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to answer a point about the Malaysians
408
which I have raised several times before and which is very mysterious? I should like to know how the evidence that was given to the Select Committee, that there are 130,000 citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Malaysia, can be reconciled with the figure of 110,000 which was given in a Parliamentary Answer of 1975, indicating that there had been an increase of 20,000 such persons in the intervening six years, when according to the Select Committee in paragraph 9 of their report:
"Their children born in Malaysia since Malaysian independence in 1957 would, in almost every case, have been able to acquire Malaysian citizenship".
How does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office explain that suddenly 20,000 United Kingdom and Colonies citizens have materialised out of thin air in Malaysia?
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: Would my noble friend Lord Trefgarne agree that the discussion we have had on this amendment shows, if ever it had to be shown, how vitally important it is to have this measure?
Lord Trefgarne: I am obliged to my noble and learned friend.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: I regard this Bill as one of such complexity that I have tended on the whole to leave it to the experts, but I feel I must comment briefly on the point now before the Committee. My noble friend Lord Pitt wishes to establish that the category of people with whom he is concerned in the amendment, to which I have added my name, have an ultimate right—a residual right, one might say, not an immediate right—so that it is recognised that they have a right over a period of time to acquire a residence in this country which they lack elsewhere in the world. That is what my noble friend is seeking to establish and I should like the Minister to address himself to that.
Lord Trefgarne: I cannot, I am afraid, off the cuff account for the discrepancy identified by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, a moment ago. It occurs to me that possibly it has something to do with people who were entitled to United Kingdom citizenship but who registered at a later date—
Lord Avebury: I do not think that is the answer.
Lord Trefgarne:—but if that is not the case, I will ascertain the true reason and let the noble Lord know.
Lord Avebury: There is no question of these people registering, and the only evidence I know of that might be available to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the number of people in Malaysia who have applied for United Kingdom passports, and those are numbered in hundreds.
Lord Trefgarne: That is what I meant—that they had not applied for their passports, and I apologise for not using the proper words. I must rest the main objection to the amendment on the point which in essence my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson drew attention to, which is that the effect of the amend-

409
ment would be to give an immediate right of abode in this country to something in excess of 200,000 people. As I have attempted to explain in answer to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt—I think this also covers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins—we are dealing with these people very sympathetically. Those in India and East Africa—the Indian ones I think to some extent originated in East Africa—are able to avail themselves of the special voucher arrangements to which I referred, while the others, mainly in Malaysia, enjoy the citizenship of that country also and are therefore, as I say, not precluded from anywhere to live.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: That is not the point. Either the Foreign Office has not really read my amendment or I have been putting the case very badly. The amendment refers to anybody who does not have a right of abode. The Minister said that most of these people in Malaysia are Malaysian citizens. Therefore, they do not come within the purview of my amendment because under Clause I(1) if they were living here they would be settled here, while I am referring in the amendment to people who
"did not have a right of abode…similar to the right of abode in the United Kingdom under subsection (1) of section 1 of this Act".
In other words, I know there should be only a limited number of people, and when I am quoted the figure of 210,000, I query it because the bulk of that 210,000 will either be in line for vouchers or will have a right of abode in the places where they are living. But there will be a few who are left—not many, I know—but it is necessary for us to take responsibility for them. This is my point. I do not think we should pursue it any further this evening and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I shall come back again on Report.
Lord Trefgarne: Just before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I wonder whether he would allow me to say that a moment ago I fear I misled him slightly. I now understand that the 130,000 United Kingdom and Colonies citizens who live in Malaysia do not have Malaysian citizenship although they are allowed to live there at the present time. Therefore, of course, they would indeed be covered by the point made in the noble Lord's amendment and would, I assume, be able therefore to come to this country.
Lord Avebury: I feel the noble Lord is wrong, with respect, because if they have been in Malaysia all this time for very many years they must have the right of abode there and are not included in the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Trefgarne: That does not necessarily follow.
Lord Pitt of Hampstead: I would like to press this to a Division. I will test the Committee.
7.12 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 138B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Avebury, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bernstein, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Birk, B.

Mishcon, L.

Bishopston, L.

Nathan, L.

Blease, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Peart, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.[Teller.]

Bruce of Donington, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Rochester, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Seear, B.

Elystan-Morgan, L.

Shepherd, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Galpern, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

George-Brown, L.

Stone, L.

Gifford, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Gosford, E.

Tanlaw, L.

Hale, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hampton, L.

Thurso, V.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Janner, L.

Whaddon, L.

Jeger, B.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Kirkhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alport, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Ampthill, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Atholl, D.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Lawrence, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Blake, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Lyell, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Marley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Colwyn, L.

Mottistone, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norfolk, D.

Crawshaw, L.

Northchurch, B.

Croft, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Davidson, V.

Reigate, L.

de Clifford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Elles, R.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Soames, L.

Elton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Ferrier, L.

Strabroke, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Teviot, L.

Gormanston, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Greenway, L.

Trenchard, V.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Henley, L.

Vickers, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Vivian, L.

Kemsley, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 138A not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
7.19 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: Would this be a convenient moment to resume the House for other business,

411
which I gather will take fractionally over an hour? If so, I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
7.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Elton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, This order consolidates the law relating to diseases of animals. It was originally laid before your Lordships House on 22nd July 1980, but it was then discovered that it contained an incorrect reference. Thus the order was withdrawn, corrected, and relaid. The order was considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills on 17th June and 1st July, and the Committee was satisfied that it is purely a consolidating measure. It therefore makes no changes of substance in the existing law, but brings it together in one order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th April be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981
7.20 p.m.
Lord Eltonrose to move that the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 which was laid before this House on 17th June be approved. The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The purpose of the draft order is to authorise the issue of nearly £1,368 million out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund and to appropriate this sum for the purposes indicated in the schedule. The sum mentioned represents the balance of the main estimates for Northern Ireland departments for 1981–82 and three excess votes incurred in the financial year 1979–80. The Committee of Public Accounts in another place has examined these excess votes and has raised no objection to their being voted. Noble Lords should be aware that a sum on account amounting to £944 million has already been appropriated for 1981–82 under the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1981, which was approved by this House on 11th March. That brings the total main estimates provision to £2,312 million.
More detailed information on the draft order can be found in the Estimates Volume itself and in the Statement of Excesses 1979–80—a rather charmingly named document—copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office. An Explanatory Memorandum
412
has also been circulated to those of your Lordships who took part in recent appropriation order debates.
I should now like to refer to some of the major aspects of the draft Order. Noble Lords will note that, within the £48.7 million provided for agriculture, fisheries and forestry, a sum of £3.8 million is included under Class I, Vote 2 for agricultural support. I should like to make it clear to your Lordships that that does not include the £10 million special assistance which has been allocated to Northern Ireland's agriculture industry following two years of rapidly falling incomes. This package includes the special aid agreed with the European Community's Commission for the development of beef cattle production announced in another place on 3rd April by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It will also benefit the milk and intensive livestock sectors. Supplementary estimates amounting to some £7.7 million for those will be presented to your Lordships' House in due course. Pending approval of those supplementary estimates, expenditure on these new services in Northern Ireland will be met by advances from the Northern Ireland Civil Contingencies Fund. The balance of the £10 million assistance, relating to the existing suckler cow subsidy, will fall on a United Kingdom vote.
Moving on to the fields of industry and employment, noble Lords will see that Class II, Votes 1 and 2, cover a wide range of expenditure aimed at the support and regeneration of the Northern Ireland economy. These votes provide inter alia some £14.4 million towards the Department of Commerce's factory building programme; £57.8 million for industrial development grants to encourage the establishment and development of industrial undertakings; £11.7 million for assistance to Short Brothers, the Northern Ireland aircraft manufacturer; and £46 million in assistance to the Harland and Wolff shipyard in Belfast.
In commenting on the expenditure proposed in Class II, Vote 3, (Functioning of the Labour Market), I must re-emphasise the Government's concern about the high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland at present. As in the rest of the United Kingdom, significant and lasting improvement of the unemployment situation can come only with the strengthening of the economy. That is the central objective of our policies.
Meanwhile, strenuous efforts are being made to sustain viable projects and to promote new employment through the industrial development programme to which I have already referred, and to ease unemployment through various special employment measures. These measures include an expansion of the Youth Opportunities Programme during 1981–82 from 7,000 to 10,000 places, for which £11.9 million is included in the main estimates. They also include the introduction of a new scheme, Action for Community Employment (known as ACE), which has as its primary objective the creation of temporary employment opportunities for long-term unemployed adults. Some £2.1 million is included for this scheme.
I shall turn now to those votes related to energy. Class III, Vote 1 deals with expenditure associated with the Northern Ireland gas industry. Of the £24 million provided in this vote, £13·9 million is required to meet

413
ongoing operating losses incurred by undertakings, and the remaining £10·1 million is to assist with conversion of consumer gas appliances. Noble Lords will be aware that the Government have announced their intention to carry out further studies on the feasibility of a supply of natural gas to Northern Ireland from the Republic of Ireland's field at Kinsale. We cannot, however, at this stage, predict the outcome of those studies, and if the project cannot be demonstrated to be viable, then we shall have to continue with the arrangements for the run-down of the industry. For the time being, however, they have been suspended.
Still in the energy field, provision is sought in Class III, Vote 2 for a grant of £79·8 million to the Northern Ireland electricity service. Noble Lords will be aware that, as part of the 1977 financial reconstruction of the service, the Government agreed to make available £20 million in each of the five years from 1977–78 to help keep industrial and commercial tariffs in line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Because of Northern Ireland's heavy reliance on oil for electricity generation, the very rapid increase in oil prices since that arrangement was made caused further financial problems for the service and led to tariff increases, which were imposing an unreasonable burden on electricity consumers. The Government decided, therefore, that for 1981–82 industrial electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland should be on a par with the highest in England and Wales and that domestic tariffs should be 5 per cent. above the highest in England and Wales. This differential will be completely removed in 1982–83.
From next year, therefore, domestic tariffs in Northern Ireland will be exactly the same as the top levels in England and Wales. These tariff relationships will be maintained thereafter. The Government consider that this has been a most important step, which has enabled the Northern Ireland electricity service to limit tariff increases this year to an average of 5 per cent. rather than the 35 per cent. which would otherwise have been required. To implement this decision a sum of £59·8 million is required, in addition to the amount of £20 million to which I referred earlier as being the final payment under the 1977 financial reconstruction. The balance of the support for the Northern Ireland electricity service from public funds in 1981–82 will be net loan from Government.
In the field of housing the Government, in their allocation of public expenditure in Northern Ireland, are giving high priority to tackling the serious problems which exist, especially in Belfast. Class V, Vote 1 includes provision for £143·7 million in assistance to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The executive's 1981–82 budget for revenue and capital is £328 million, split broadly between £226 million revenue and £102 million capital. That compares with a total figure of £293 million for 1980–81, and represents a slight increase in real terms over the 1980–81 figure. In addition, the resources available to voluntary housing associations in Northern Ireland have been substantially increased from £13 million in 1980–81 to £19 million in 1981–82.
Passing on to provisions for education, some £199 million is sought in Class VIII, Vote 1. This is largely for payment of teacher's salaries, but also
414
includes provision for grants on capital expenditure at voluntary schools. Class VIII, Vote 3, provides for the recurrent and capital expenditure of the education and library boards, which carry the ongoing running costs of most schools in the Province. As elsewhere in the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland is experiencing a very considerable fall in school rolls as a result of the decline in the number of births since 1964. In this connection, I would wish to draw the attention of the House to the Department of Education's publication in March of this year entitled Schools and Demographic Trends—A Backcloth to Planning. This paper suggests criteria which school authorities might apply in considering the necessary rationalisation of schools provision, and preliminary discussions on this paper have already taken place. That sort of rationalisation cannot be achieved overnight, and planning must start at the local level.
I now turn to the health and personal social services programme. In Class IX, Vote 1, the provision sought in the estimate is £441·2 million, made up mainly of £430·7 million for current and capital expenditure by the health and social services boards. Although this level of provision imposes a tight discipline, the sum available provides for an increase in real terms in the current expenditure of the boards which is in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. It will be used mainly to bring into operation new facilities which are now ready or which will come on stream during the current year. Regrettably, the planned capital programme has had to be reduced; but the level of capital expenditure available will still be comparable to that in Great Britain and will provide for expenditure of £21·8 million.
The last major area of expenditure to which I would refer is that contained in Class X of the main estimates, dealing with expenditure totalling some £417·5 million by the Department of Health and Social Services on social security benefits and allied payments. The cash value of these benefits is kept in parity with their counterparts in Great Britain. Indeed, the administration of social security in Northern Ireland and Great Britain is so co-ordinated as to provide in effect a common system throughout the United Kingdom.
I have necessarily referred in quite broad terms to the main features of the draft order, but I know that noble Lords will wish to raise other and more detailed matters as well. I am grateful to those who were good enough to give me advance notice, particularly when it was of some duration, of questions which concerned them. I shall, as usual, attempt to answer as many questions as possible at the end of the debate. Any points that I do not get round to answering will of course be dealt with in correspondence. My Lords, I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th June be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
7.32 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his explanation of this order and for the explanatory notes. Along with other noble Lords, I consider this appropriation order of great importance to the economic and social well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. I note that this order was the subject of some six hours of debate

415
in another place last Friday—17th July. With the greatest respect to the traditions, role and functions of this House, and with regard for those who cope with the business arrangements, I consider that the time allocated to this important Northern Ireland debate is completely unsatisfactory.
Having said that, I repeat what I have stated before in this House: I regret that this appropriation order is not being suitably considered and debated in Northern Ireland by elected representatives; for I believe that unless we have some suitable and direct involvement of the people in these vital decisions, we shall fail to obtain the necessary public sense of accountability and the positive response required. I do not level entire blame for this situation on the present Government. A large measure of the responsibility must be borne by the citizens of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives. Herein lies the real tragedy of the people of Northern Ireland. It is our failure, over these years, to relate the common social and economic needs of all sections of our people to each other; it is our failure to accept the essential qualities of interdependence.
It is for these social and economic reasons, which arise directly from this appropriation order, that I strongly urge support from all sections of the Northern Ireland community for the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. Atkins, for the establishment of a Northern Ireland Advisory Council of elected representatives. While I still uphold the principle that the proposed council should be comprised solely of elected representatives, I feel that the consultations undertaken by the Secretary of State should not be confined only to the officials of the political parties but should include management, trade unions and others from the wide spectrum of community organisations.
I readily accept that the proposed council is not an answer to the Irish problems, but it is to be regretted that some Northern Ireland elected representatives have already attempted to damn the proposed council as "having no teeth". My Lords, it is not teeth, nor tusks, nor horns, that are required: it is the will to work together; it is the will to rise above narrow sectional interests, and to accept that there is a common good to be found.
Turning directly to this No. 2 draft appropriation order, I am inclined to ask the question posed by the right honourable Member Mr. Enoch Powell during the debate in another place. He asked: "Why are we here at all"? He then proceeded to answer the question by stating that the order is not tabled for debate "but for a purely technical reason". Mr. Powell is an experienced parliamentarian. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of his opinion about the Government's procedure for dealing with these appropriation orders, it is not my intention to add gloss to a ritual, nor to participate in a mere rubber-stamp exercise.
I am aware that there were nine noble Lords who were anxious to take part in this debate. When it was heard that it had been reduced to something like an hour in a dinner break, some withdrew their names from what was assumed to be a list of persons to speak. I think this is a curtailment of discussion in a very sensitive area of the needs of Northern Ireland. I have
416
here a file packed with matters raised during the past three months, and it is impossible for me in the circumstances to deal adequately in this debate with the plight of the Northern Ireland people.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? There is no proposal to move the closure of this debate, even if the means of doing so existed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his anxiety to move on as fast as he can for the benefit of the rest of the business of the day, but I would not wish him to feel that he was, as it were, in some sort of trap which prevented him from speaking as much as he wants to on relevant points.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those remarks. What he has said helps me considerably at this Box, but I am aware that other noble Lords made arrangements to leave at a certain time when it was realised that it was in the dinner break, when there is normally an hour allocated to discussion. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord; it helps me, at least, in what I have to say.
Really, while I could go into considerable detail to show the serious situation in Northern Ireland at the present time, I think that all I had better refer to is the Government's own indices, which reveal the seriousness of the position. I have here listed 16, but I do not propose to read them out at this particular hour; but certainly I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that the situation today is worse than it was even in the hungry 'thirties. If I may add to this picture of sadness, this week it was reported that compared with three years ago there has been a more than 250 per cent. increase in bankruptcies, voluntary liquidations and closures of private and public companies in Northern Ireland.
I noted that in his remarks the noble Lord the Minister said that it is necessary to strengthen the economy. I think this House would totally agree with that, but certainly there are no signs that the Government measures are strengthening the economy, particularly in Northern Ireland. But let me move on—and I apologise if I do not argue my points in the way I should like to present them, but I want to deal with them crisply and, at the same time, as succinctly as possible. I refer to the Statement of Excesses which is Part I of the order. I realise that the Public Accounts Committee dealt with this. I should like to commend the decision to proceed with the drainage contract work when the weather was favourable. This is a flexible and a very useful approach. I hope that the decision, and the way it was operated, will be emulated by other departments in such circumstances. One point surprises me which the Minister may be able to explain: the emergency work listed on culverts in Belfast has to be borne by the Vote of the Department of Agriculture. I am concerned whether there is sufficient co-ordination of responsibility between the Department of Agriculture and the Department of the Environment if urgent work concerning flooding was required.
Regarding Class I, No. 1, may I ask the noble Lord what action has been taken by the department to progress proposals contained in the report published by

417
Co-operation North? The general conclusions of the report are:
"Farmers throughout Ireland could reap considerable benefits from a uniform implementation of the EEC Common Agricultural Policy".
and
"that the agricultural industry, in both parts of Ireland, could promote progressive developments by fostering long-term co-operation".
Under the same heading and the same Vote, could the Minister indicate what progress has been made with the experimental project set up by the Northern Ireland Development Agency, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce, to attract more business for the agriculture industry and for the development in the Province of opportunities for enterprising food manufacturers? May I also ask, under the same heading, whether the representatives of the Ulster Farmers' Union have been invited to participate in this experimental project?
Regarding Class I, Vote 3, Fishery Services, what action have the Government taken to implement the proposals of the Professor Collinson Black report on Northern Ireland Inland Fisheries? Among the recommendations of the report is the proposal to set up an Inland Fisheries Board charged with arrangements for conserving and protecting the management of this indigenous industry and the excellent leisure amenities and tourist attraction that it provides. Again, on the same Vote, what effort is being made by the department to prevent the serious pollution of rivers, lakes and waterways which is killing large stocks of fish?
Class II Vote 1: I wish to compliment the Government and especially the Minister responsible, Mr. Adam Butler, for his initiative in stimulating the interest of elected representatives of the 26 Northern Ireland District Councils to play a part in the industrial development of the Province. May I ask the noble Lord what arrangements have been made by the Department of Commerce to further promote and develop this initiative? What response has there been from the local councils? What body has been charged with the task of co-ordinating the inquiries and efforts of local councils?
Class II, Vote 3, the functioning of the labour market. I am sure noble Lords understand that employment prospects for school-leavers are soul-destroying. The noble Lord has already mentioned it. In a community riddled with record-breaking unemployment figures and with unprecedented redundancies and factory closures, how can we reasonably expect the morale of young people to be other than low, with a growing sense of rejection by organised society? I have had experience and know of the dedication of many persons from all walks of life who have been involved in some of these youth employment exercises, including civil servants. I have with me a list of matters that were raised and which indicate that there is evidence that there are some socially insensitive and inexperienced do-gooders and less scrupulous persons who are taking advantage of these unfortunate young boys and girls. I fully support the view that a wider and more careful monitoring of all statutory and grant-aided voluntary schemes is urgently required if the confidence of young people is
418
to be promoted and if genuine help is to be assured. May I ask the Minister to indicate what administrative arrangements there are actively to review the objectives and the results of the various schemes? How are the youth employment schemes presently being supervised and monitored? Is there any suitable research being undertaken by the department into youth employment projects?
Regarding Class II, Vote 3, the Minister has already mentioned the scheme, Action for Community Employment. He will know that there is concern in Northern Ireland about the differences in the funding arrangements between the Northern Ireland scheme, Action for Community Employment and the scheme in Great Britain, Community Enterprise Programme. Both schemes are designed to promote worthwhile employment for the long-term unemployed. As I understand it, the Northern Ireland scheme is some £160-a-place short of the funding for a place in the scheme in Great Britain. That is £160-a-place less available in Northern Ireland for placing. If this is the position, there is every reason to accept the case put forward by community interests in Northern Ireland that they are at a significant disadvantage. This strengthens the views expressed that Northern Ireland's unemployed are second-class citizens and are discriminated against. Can the Minister explain the reasons for the difference in the funding arrangements?
Class III, Vote 1: the Department of Commerce is carrying out a very worth while and effective energy conservation policy and service. During the year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer launched a £50 million scheme to encourage the switching from oil to coal-fired boilers. The scheme is administered under Section 8 of the 1972 Industry Act and stipulates a minimum threshold of £25,000 for an application for a grant to meet the costs of conversion. I understand that the scheme, as announced, will run into some administrative difficulties in meeting the real needs of Northern Ireland because of the smaller types of boilers used. Would it not be sensible and practicable to allocate to Northern Ireland, through the Department of Commerce, a pro rata proportion of the £50 million (equivalent to about £1 million to Northern Ireland) given to the department to administer the scheme suited to the needs of the Province? Perhaps the Minister will use his good offices to have this matter investigated.
I should like to applaud the arrangements for electricity tariffs. I noticed that the Minister did not use the word "subsidy". In the order the word "subsidy" is used. It is in no way a subsidy to Northern Ireland people. The same arrangements are available throughout the whole of the United Kingdom for an equalisation of charges, and other areas of the United Kingdom are receiving the same type of arrangements. I am pleased that the Minister did not use the word "subsidy" when referring to this arrangement.
Class V, Vote 1, housing: there is a slight increase as compared with 1980–81. It is apparent that the mainspring of the Government's housing policy is to shift the responsibility from the public sector to the private sector. A major part of this policy is the 40 per cent. increase this year in housing executive rents and the sale of housing executive dwellings. Whatever this policy means, it certainly is not helping the acute housing situation aryl the homeless in Northern Ireland.

419
The waiting list for housing accommodation in the Province is around 30,000. It has not diminished. It represents something around 90,000 people in a population of 1,500,000. There is a fall in the building by the housing executive to some 2,500 units of accommodation this year.
May I ask the Minister whether he could indicate whether the rents of housing executive tenants are likely to increase in 1982 by a further 40 per cent., as predicted by local authority housing experts? What is the actual number of dwellings the housing executive will construct by the end of 1982? When do the Government consider they will be able to reduce by half the present waiting list for housing accommodation? Should not the housing executive be able realistically to budget and contract on the basis of a five-year rolling programme for house building rather than by the present unsatisfactory, wasteful and inefficient annual budget provision arrangements? Perhaps the noble Lord would reply in due course. I realise it may not be possible for him to do so this evening.
Again, on Class V, Vote 1, what is the Government's policy for the private building of housing and what is the number of dwellings the private sector will complete by December 1981? On Class VIII, Vote 2, what action do the Government propose following the initiative taken by the Advisory Committee for Schools/Industry Liaison? The Minister will know the Committee report I am referring to; indeed, he was present at its launching. Do the Government propose to offer any support towards the extension of the schools industry liaison development to the rest of the problems outside Belfast, where it has only had its remit arrangements up-to-date?
Class VIII, Vote 2: last year the noble Lord, Lord Elton launched two important new bodies: the Northern Ireland Youth Forum and the Northern Ireland Council for Educational Development. Has the Minister invited either of those bodies to advise the Government about the problems of unemployed young people in Northern Ireland? Has he received from his staff reports from either of them and, if so, can he indicate the Government's response at this stage? Class VIII, Vote 3: from the Estimates for 1981–82 I note that the recurrent grant to the Sports Council for Northern Ireland is reduced by £57,000. Can the Minister explain why, among all the organisations receiving recurrent grants under these programmes 8.3 and 8.4, the Sports Council is singled out for a reduction? Some have increases up to 29 per cent. while the Sports Council is reduced by 4 per cent. Is this not going to strangle sports development in Northern Ireland—development which the Minister has praised and indeed encouraged? As sports councils for England, Wales and Scotland have been given increased funds to meet their growing demands, would not the Minister undertake to review this position?
Finally, on Class XI, Vote 1, I have the report of Mr. Simpson, the Examiner of Statutory Rules for Northern Ireland. The report covers the six months' period to April 1981 during which he received, examined and reported on 169 rules. Mr. Simpson in his report draws attention to unjustifiable delays in submitting for scrutiny and the implementation of the statutory rules procedures. I drew attention to this report not
420
only to commend the effective work of Mr. Simpson but to show the amount of his workload. It appears to me that the report reveals some gaps in the need for staff training. It also confirms my earlier remarks about the importance of having some form of devolved administration to deal effectively with the day-to-day affairs of the Province. I think it is significant that each day of the week my compilation of 169 rules over six months that delegated legislation governing the lives of the people of Northern Ireland has been submitted to this particular procedure—legislation which I believe requires vigilance at all levels and by all sections of the community. Having made those remarks, I regret having taken up so much of your Lordships' time, and I support the draft order.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his introduction of this order and also for the explanatory memorandum which he was kind enough to send me in advance. There are a small number of questions I should like to ask him, of which I have given notice. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, before his considerable battery of questions, referred to the need for an advisory council, but I do not think this is the time to go into that matter in more detail so I shall not pursue it for the moment.
The first question I should like to ask the Minister is this: under Class II, Vote 2, I note that £46 million is to go to the Harland and Wolff shipbuilding industry. It is widely accepted that there is a major slump in the shipbuilding industry, and I suppose that is not surprising if we look back to the enormous artificial demand caused by the sinking of ships during the last war, which has since been fully satisfied.
There are three questions I would put to the Minister here. First, what is the £46 million meant to be used for? Secondly, is it true that the firm has already received £300 million in aid? Thirdly, in current world conditions is there any real hope that Harland and Wolff can become profit-making again in the near or more distant future? My next question concerns Class II, Vote 3, the functioning of the labour market (Department of Manpower Services). How does the relief payable under these sections compare with that available in the rest of the United Kingdom? If it differs, perhaps the noble Lord could say how and why when he comes to reply. I think the noble Lord, Lord Blease, made reference to this.
The third question I should like to ask refers to Class VI, Vote 2, the improvement of the environment. Is not a vote of £14,500,000 pathetically small when so much needs to be done? It is perhaps noteworthy that under Class VIII, Vote 1, the sum of £198 million is payable very largely on salaries alone. I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, himself referred to that. I was taken to task in a previous debate by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for suggesting that an improvement in environment could help to ease the political frustration. It is certainly only one of many factors, but I stand by my view that it might well help quite a lot. It is the old problem where there is much work needing to be done, many people to hand who could do it but the positions somehow seem irreconcilable. I should appreciate it if the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would comment on this. Lastly, I should like to ask

421
the noble Lord how much in the current 12 months Northern Ireland is costing the British taxpayer. I am not offering complaint or criticism here. I merely wish to establish a fact.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it is customary when dealing with the appropriations order, to select one or two of the things which are referred to and speak about them; and I propose to say a word or two, ask some questions and make some suggestions on Northern Ireland agriculture. First, however, I should like to support my old colleague, Lord Blease, in his objections to the way this has been rushed. I think we should have had five or six other speakers if this had been done properly, and it has made things even worse by telling us to be ready by a quarter to seven and to finish at eight o'clock, only to find that we started at twenty past seven and will be lucky if we finish by twenty past eight. I have already apologised to the noble Lord. I have a fierce engagement very shortly and when I have finished speaking I am going to down my papers and run. I think it is absolutely wrong to do that, but I have to. The fault is not mine; it is because of the arrangements that have been made.
By way of preliminary, I spoke in a Northern Ireland debate 10 days ago and made a statement that was not accurate. I said then that the Price sisters were involved in blowing up a bus with a lot of women and children in it. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, wrote to me and said that was not in fact what they did. I have to confess that at my age it is very unwise to rely on memory, and I did mis-remember. There was such a crime, but it was not committed by them. Theirs was quite different: that is, it was car bombs in Whitehall and near Scotland Yard. A lot of people were hurt, but it was a different thing, and I am sorry I made that statement.
Unemployment in Northern Ireland, as we all know, is something like double ours here. Agriculture provides about 13·5 per cent. of the existing jobs: 10 per cent. directly on farming and 3·5 per cent. indirectly. There is the greatest danger that in the intensive sector of pigs and poultry alone at present levels of profitability 5,000 jobs may be lost and are certainly at risk in the immediate future. It costs £4,000 to maintain an unemployed man and I want to suggest that it would cost much less than 5,000 times £4,000, which is £20 million to preserve existing jobs instead of letting them be quickly lost and then trying to create new ones.
In this context, the more erudite and intellectually curious among your Lordships will have read the recent book—a very stimulating one—by my right honourable friend Mrs. Shirley Williams, in which she has a most interesting chapter on a policy for full employment. She notes that, in many cases, capital can be substituted for labour, or labour for capital, without affecting overall costs of production. It all depends on the cost of the labour and the cost of the machinery, the capital investment, both of which have varied enormously over the past ages.
It is economic folly to introduce capital intensive changes in the face of armies of unemployed workers. By the same token, it can be economic folly to let
422
labour-intensive industries decline and to substitute for them capital-intensive industries. Agriculture—though much less than it used to be—is a labour-intensive industry, and it is not at the moment in a state of economic decline through lack of demand. The jobs exist and would not cost very much to preserve. I am told that to create new jobs in new industries will cost as much as £15,000 per job. It must be better to spend what is necessary to preserve the jobs which already exist.
The net income of Northern Ireland farmers fell from £66 million in 1978, to £31 million in 1979 and to £9 million in 1980; bank borrowing increased by £38 million to £180 million and, in addition to all this, as people who live there know very well, family farmers are having to cut their spending and this does not show in the figures. Only 10 per cent. of Northern Ireland is suitable for growing cereals, which is the easiest and most profitable crop throughout the world. So that they are denied more than 10 per cent. of their output for cereal production, a lot of it through weather and geography. It is, however, a marvellous place for growing grass, which means milk and beef; and anything added to that, such as intensive production of pigs or poultry, depends on 80 per cent. imported grain with heavy transport costs. The facts, I think, are not in dispute, so I shall not elaborate them. I shall just look very quickly at each of the major commodities.
First, there is milk. In Great Britain over 50 per cent. of milk production is sold for liquid consumption at 20p above manufacturing price. In Northern Ireland the figure is only 20 per cent. and the return is 6p a gallon less there than in Great Britain. As regards beef, in 1980 the sale of 340,000 lean cattle from Northern Ireland fetched £11 million less than if they had been sold from Great Britain. The herd has fallen by 114,000 beasts since 1975. As regards pigs and poultry, as I have said, 80 per cent. of grain has to be imported, so that Northern Ireland food costs the farmer £12 to £15 a tonne more than his British opposite number.
The Government have now announced how the balance of the £10 million special aid—which, of course, we welcome very much as a contribution—is to be allocated and it will help very much. There is £3·7 million for milk, which is about 25 per cent. of what is required, and £2 million for intensive pigs and poultry, which falls well short of needs, and both are for one year only. The farmers feel that the best remedy for beef, which accounts for two-fifths of Northern Ireland's agricultural output, would be to extend the less favourable areas, which a Government survey shows to be possible, and which I remember from my time there we were pressing for even then, but nothing has been done so far.
Northern Ireland farmers are worse off even after the special aid subsidy than their opposite numbers over here, by such a considerable margin that many will be forced to cut labour and some will be forced out of business. It must be cheaper, and it is certainly more humane, to step up assistance to them, rather than let jobs be lost and then spend great sums on trying to re-create them. Northern Ireland farmers are an industrious, energetic and admirable body of men. I say that, in spite of the fact that I think I am the only Minister in either Government who was actually

423
burned in effigy on the steps of Stormont by indignant hill farmers, because I would not give them as much as they asked for.
But I shall say no more. I think my point is obvious. Quite apart from the special dangers of hundreds of young men with nothing to do, it will cost Great Britain much more to put things right later, when good producers have been forced out of business, than to act now to preserve the jobs which are at risk. A start has been made with the £10 million special subsidy. It is not enough and I hope the Government will not rest on that, having said which I hope that my bad manners in leaving your Lordships now will be forgiven.
8.5 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Elton for his explanation of this order. I should also like to say how much I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in his plea on behalf of agriculture. He and I had a word some time ago and we agreed that agriculture was something which needed special emphasis within this House. So the noble Lord has really gutted my speech for me, and I should just like to support what he said about the need and, maybe, to emphasise one or two points.
In case it has not been emphasised enough, the economy of Northern Ireland has been absolutely gutted. The great danger is that the industrial base, which was so very carefully built up over many years, has been so destroyed that when recovery eventually comes there will be nothing to recover. Textiles was one of our main industries. It is efficient and was doing extremely well. But merely because of world currency fluctuations, world pricing of oil and unfair pricing, it has been gutted.
I shall be as brief as I can. I should like to feel that in the autumn we could have a proper debate on the economy of Northern Ireland. For instance, I should like to test the Government a little more on what I believe to be the fallacy that Northern Ireland is costing more per head of the population than other parts of the United Kingdom. I am quite satisfied that, wherever it does cost more, it is due to United Kingdom policy on certain lines; for example, family allowances. Because we have a great proportion of large Roman Catholic families, the outgoings on social services are greater than those in equivalent areas. Where this is a result of United Kingdom policy, it should not be thought that we are some kind of vacuum cleaner sucking in taxpayers' money from the rest of the United Kingdom.
I should like to ask the Minister, under Class I, whether the Government have yet started a complete review of the effects of the entry of the United Kingdom into the EEC on agriculture in Northern Ireland. I cannot believe that when we were going into the EEC people anticipated the dire effect that it would have on our greatest industry. Therefore, the review that must be made should be comprehensive, because up till now we have always been tinkering with a problem and hoping that we will solve it by putting in a few millions here and a few millions there. It is a fundamental fact that our agriculture has received extremely
424
harsh treatment, as a result of our entry into the Common Market, in a way which people did not anticipate. The effect of currency differences between ourselves and the south of Ireland, the smuggling and other factors have had a material effect on our greatest industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, referred to milk. Northern Ireland produces 6 per cent. of the total agricultural production of the United Kingdom, but the net profit this year was 1 per cent., which illustrates the plight of our industry. On milk, the price received in Northern Ireland is 6p a gallon less than it is in Great Britain. It is widely accepted in this country that 6p is a total profit, so our milk industry is running in a no-profit situation.
I understand that the EEC have made available a considerable quantity of milk for schools, provided that the United Kingdom Government will put in 25 per cent. with the EEC putting in 75 per cent. May I ask the Minister whether the Government have made up their mind about what to do over this money which is lying in the EEC waiting to be grasped? This is a cheap way for Westminster to support our very hardworking dairy farmers. The Government may not wish school milk to be provided in Great Britain, but I believe that this would be a cheap way of helping the Northern Ireland milk industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, outlined the problem facing the pig industry. I would repeat that without direct aid for the cost of feeding stuff we are in grave danger of ending up with a domestic industry. Our great, intensive pig industry which has exported so much of its produce will be destroyed, leading to 4,000 to 5,000 unemployed at a cost of £20 million. A small amount of money directed towards feeding stuff would change the situation. It is only a palliative to aid the distributive, manufacturing and processing industry. It takes too long to go through, and in this very competitive age the benefit will go to the consumer. The price fighting is so great that this is the way it will go. The benefit will not go to the producer.
May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a report is to be published by Sub-committee D on the cost of EEC handling of grain? It will state clearly that it costs £39 per tonne to dispose of every tonne of EEC surplus grain to Poland, or wherever it may be. It would be much cheaper if some of that grain could be transported and put into intervention stores in Belfast and sold from there to our pig and poultry industry.
Turning to Class II which deals with commerce, may I pay a compliment to the Minister's honourable friend, Adam Butler, for the tremendous energy he has put into the quest for new jobs. He has been an inspiration and I should like to congratulate him. It seems to me that it is time there was a clear review of our long-term and medium-term objectives for dealing with our economy. I should like to feel that we had got our priorities right.
May I ask the Minister whether we are spending enough on housing? The noble Lord is right to emphasise the amount of money that is being spent on housing, but the fact is that at that rate the housing position is deteriorating. We are not gaining. It is all right for people to stand up in Parliament, or anywhere else, and say, "But your are spending more

425
on housing in Northern Ireland than you are in the rest of the United Kingdom". The base is quite different. It is no use talking about comparative operations. We have got to have a plan that, at the end of five years, will at least maintain the position. Certainly it should have improved the position.
In our job promotion operations we have the Ministry of Commerce, NIDA and LEDU. A report was produced by the Economic Council for the concentration of these three into one. It was turned down by the Government. May I ask the Government to have another look at it to see whether or not it would be better for the three to be merged into one body.
I was a junior Minister in the Ministry of Commerce. I heard then, and I still hear, that the Government are much more prepared to be generous to foreign investment coming in than they are to their own indigenous investment. I know that this is a longstanding grievance, or illusion of being a grievance. In today's frightful economic terms I believe that the Government should make a massive effort to convince the indigenous industry of Northern Ireland that it is being as well treated as foreign investment, and that they should do their best to invest more money in Northern Ireland. The psychology of indigenous industry also applies to that extraordinary Act which they have in Dublin, which allows a tax-free holiday. This has been examined and re-examined. I believe it is psychological. The feeling that your profits are tax-free has a much greater effect than quite a lot of grant aid. I do not understand why this should be so, but I believe it to be true.
On Class II, to deal with YOPs (perhaps I should include Class VIII, the Minister's own area), may I mention that I have some YOPs. I find that it is heartrending at the end of six months to have to say, "Goodbye. I am terribly sorry, but I have no future to offer you". I am happy to say that this week I have put on to the permanent staff somebody who was a YOP. To that extent it has its point. The reason I include the noble Lord's Ministry is that in Northern Ireland we have found that people come to us and say, "It is too far to travel". You ask, "Where do you live?" The answer comes back, "One and a half miles away". You say, "Can't you ride a bicycle?" Back comes the answer, "No". That is why I say that it may be the Minister's area. It should be put into schools curricula that children should learn how to ride a bicycle. As energy becomes more and more expensive, people should ride bicycles. I see that a number of noble Lords come to this House on bicycles.
I am still not quite clear on Class III, the subsidy for electricity, what proportion of the money which was given for the tariff reduction by the Prime Minister is coming out of the Northern Ireland budget and what proportion is new money which is being injected into Northern Ireland. I should be grateful if the Minister could clear up that point.
Under Class VIII, the Sports Council, my noble friend Lord Blease raised the question of the reduction in the Sports Council's grant. The point is whether voluntary sports are being fairly treated compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. I submit that we ought to use sport as an offensive weapon for
426
community living. If the Minister could give any justification for expanding rather than contracting, I feel that would be to the good.
Under Class XI, the question of the Assembly, the noble Lord, Lord Blease, spoke encouragingly about the new council. I speak with a certain feeling of foreboding because I served in a council which had no accountability whatsoever. In this appalling economic situation I am not in the least encouraged by the idea of proposals without accountability. Therefore, I implore the Government to give accountability to that council. May I suggest that the Minister should ask his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to take the chair at that council, otherwise I am not so hopeful as is the noble Lord, Lord Blease.
Lastly, under Class XI.7—information—about a week or a fortnight ago I suggested that we should have a director of information. I wonder whether the Minister has drawn the attention of the Secretary of State to that suggestion. We are certainly paying for that failure to think ahead and to make the most of whatever truth is available to us. I hope that this hunger strike will end. Before it does end, let us make sure that everything is prepared to win the battle of truth. It is not a question of propaganda. It is a question of the use of truth. I welcome this order.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, very much for the presentation of this draft order, I should also like to support what my noble friend Lord Blease has said about the timing of this debate. We are discussing the economics of a very sensitive area and I think a full debate would have been helpful in informing the people of Northern Ireland, who must find it very uncomplimentary to see it put into the dinner hour to be dealt with as briefly as possible. Having said that, I will hurry on to make the two or three points. First, as other noble Lords have said, when discussing the economy of Northern Ireland at this present moment the dominant factor that must be considered is how the employment prospects will be affected by the economic arrangements made. At present there can be no doubt that the statistics tell a terrible story. It is almost impossible to believe that there are now 23 per cent.—almost one in four—of the working population in Northern Ireland on the dole and that in the manufacturing industry in Northern Ireland there are currently more people without jobs than at work. Therefore, with the crying need of job creation before us, I should like to bring forward one specific example where the distribution of resources as set out in this appropriation order appears to be wrong and ill-considered.
In 1973 Enterprise Ulster was formed to provide an important bridge between unemployment and employment in traditional jobs. At the end of its first year in operation the organisation was employing over 1,000 workers, all drawn from the unemployed registers. By 1979 that figure had gone up to double that amount and today, despite the crying need for such an organisation and due to the financial stringencies imposed on it by the current Government, the labour figure is right down to 1,300. This organisation has offered job security and has acted as a genuine bridge between unemployment and regular employ-

427
ment. It has given employment to school-leavers in its recreational and community projects. It is an organisation with Northern Irish participation and trade union backing; participation such as is constantly, and rightly, sought by the Government. Thus, when looking at figures for the employment services, first we wonder why the services as a whole have suffered a cut of 34 per cent. or £9·5 million and we wonder even more why, out of this Enterprise Ulster, a cut has been made of 28 per cent. or £3·7 million. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain that particular point.
The events of recent weeks must have brought home to the Government—and to Northern Ireland Ministers in particular—that dissatisfied youth with no stake in society have nothing to lose in street rioting and criminal activities. In Northern Ireland the scale of unemployment will only play into the hands of terrorist organisations and thereby exacerbate social upheaval and misery. It has previously been impossible to find a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland so we should think how much harder finding a solution will become with the young of both communities leaving school with nothing to do but pour on the streets, providing material for every ill-conceived cause. Surely every effort should be made to channel their energies into something positive.
My second point is one which is not often made in Northern Ireland, and that is the status of the woman. So often we concentrate on the violence and the economy, but I think the place of the woman is of very great importance. From my experience and my friendship with certain women in Northern Ireland I realise that they hold a very important place in the community. They have a very strong influence on the family and the community. Yet arising out of the very ingredients of the present state in Northern Ireland the tensions and anxieties in their lives are much greater than those suffered by wives and mothers in the rest of the United Kingdom. So one would like to see whether there was anything in this order for them; but I fear that their lives are very much constrained as a result of the lack of pre-school provision.
There is very little provision for nursery schools, very few home helps and one would like to hope that there would be more part-time employment, as they would be the only types of job that these women could take. But, again, I think there is very little hope and one set of figures that I saw was that 1,000 women had lost part-time work with schools as a result of the cut in school meals. So the hope that possibly the women of Northern Ireland might get something out of this order I fear has been disappointed.
The last point that I wish to make concerns the economy generally, but not this order in particular. It is a point I have already made in a previous debate and one which I may well bring up again in future debates concerning Northern Ireland. This point concerns the benefits that Northern Ireland derives from our membership of the European Economic Community. I have previously spoken of the importance of the EEC as a framework in which the leaders of Northern Ireland political parties can find agreement. Today I read in the Guardian of another instance of the positive side of the European dimension. I read of the EEC plan for young school-leavers, which is a
428
five-year economic programme published yesterday in Brussels, in which the Commission will be pressing member states to set a target for guaranteeing jobs, further education or the mixture of employment and re-training already operating in West Germany. Germany being the country which at present holds out the most ambitious schemes for the young unemployed—a great deal more ambitious than our own Youth Opportunity Programmes.
So, my Lords, on the assumption that the Community really has something tangible to offer Northern Ireland, why does the Government not react more positively to the pilot scheme which the Commission has proposed for Belfast? As I understand it, this is an integrated programme involving the use of several Community funds to cover a wider range of projects than those usually covered by the European Regional and Social Funds. This programme, however, being conditional on the Government giving their commitment to putting forward matching plans and funds. I know that the Government are unwilling to create a precedent for Northern Ireland by accepting that here is a special case. But with nearly one in four of the Northern Ireland labour force out of work and the security position highly inflammable, surely the rest of the United Kingdom would accept—as does the EEC—that the Province does represent a special case. Furthermore, it must be recognised that if the Government continue to refuse to give a commitment to put up matching funds then this European offer may well be put in jeopardy.
When observers in the outside world consider the present economic state of Northern Ireland, one wonders whether they might begin to suspect that present Government policy, far from discriminating in favour of Northern Ireland, is in fact discriminating against Northern Ireland. Tragically, as a result of severe distortion of the facts concerning the situation in the Maze prison, Britain, through no possible fault of her own, is suffering unjustifiable criticism of her prison policy. It would indeed be sad if the British Government should now start to attract justifiable condemnation of being culpably at fault in the economic and social policies she is at present operating in Northern Ireland.
8.29 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, may I start by referring to the discontent which noble Lords have voiced from various quarters on the timing of this debate. I hope my intervention during the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, made it clear that it is not the intention of the Government to gag the Northern Ireland voice in this House. I would point out that quite recently we had a lengthy debate on Northern Ireland, some of which touched on the areas we are now considering. I would also point out that whereas the House of Commons, who dealt with this at great length, has the power to control the purse, this House does not. This is an occasion for comment rather than legislation. As there is no list of speakers it is not possible for me to comment on the number of people who might have spoken had the timing been otherwise. However, I take the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge—a point made

429
quite forcefully and now emphasised by his absence. There is no intention to slight the importance of what we are now discussing, nor to hurry it and your Lordships will have seen that I have not yet been harassed by my noble friends in the Whips Office, though if I go on too long doubtless I shall be—so I shall now turn as briefly as I can to the points that have been raised.
I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, welcomed in such forthright terms the initiative of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the principle of an all elected body for the affairs of Northern Ireland. I take the point that he makes, and think I had anticipated the wrong point; I thought he was going to say there should be non-elected people on the council. What he is saying is that people who are not themselves elected should be consulted in weighing up the pros and cons of how it is to be set up. I will gladly draw that to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord then touched on the wide sphere of the Government's national economic policy. While not replying to that in detail—your Lordships would not expect it—I would emphasise that it would be folly to abandon a policy at this stage when so much of the pain has been borne before the fruit is ripe for the picking.
The noble Lord then turned to specific items such as the co-operation in the drainage field. The Department of Agriculture is responsible for main drainage in Belfast, and there are other areas in which it is needful to co-operate with the Department of the Environment. I can assure him that this is always good, and in cases of emergency flood situations the staff of both departments see that it is better than good.
The noble Lord referred to the booklet by Co-operation North, particularly its agricultural aspects. I would only say at this stage—I have read the document—that my general reaction is that, while the aspiration is something which I warmly endorse, because of the differential between the pound and the punt, and the fact that it may not always be in the interest of this country to have a similar green pound policy to that of the Republic, having regard to the economic policies of the two countries it is not possible to contemplate at present identical implementation of the CAP on both sides of the border. My goodness! it would make my life easier if it was.
On the question of the food processing industry, the Department of Commerce has provided, and is continuing to provide, financial assistance under the industrial development legislation to a wide variety of concerns engaged in the processing of agricultural products in order to create, expand or sustain productive capacity in the companies concerned. In addition, the Northern Ireland Development Agency with the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture announced on 8th July a campaign to encourage joint ventures between Northern Ireland food manufacturers and food companies in Europe. The aim is to exploit new markets to widen and add value to this product range and then strengthen their competitive position. The noble Lord asked me what response we have had. It is now the 23rd and publication was on the 8th,
430
so it is too early to assess what the response will be.
The Department of Commerce also offers a wide range of trade support services to assist in the marketing of Northern Ireland food products. These services cover both the Great Britain and overseas markets. They include participation in trade fairs, official trade promotions, grants for market research and other arrangements for the development of commercial contacts. These services are complemented by those of the British Overseas Trade Board and the Northern Ireland Development Agency. I can assure the noble Lord that we are aware of the importance of not only producing our food but also processing it and selling it efficiently abroad.
I was glad the noble Lord, Lord Blease, welcomed the initiative of the Department of Commerce—and this was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Brooke-borough, in some respects—in their approach to the district councils. A paper has recently been sent to the elected leaders of each district council in Northern Ireland encouraging councils to use their local knowledge and background in a way which complements the work of the industrial development bodies and the Northern Ireland Development Agency, LEDU and the Department of Commerce.
One or two noble Lords asked for a comparison between the programmes for minimisation of unemployment in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland. I should say that under the action for community employment scheme in Northern Ireland the Department of Manpower Services contributes 90 per cent. of the gross wage costs including employers' national insurance contributions up to a maximum grant of £83 per week for each employee, plus a fixed allowance of £240 a year for each employee as a contribution towards the cost of materials and administration.
On the other hand, in Great Britain the Manpower Services Commission provides 100 per cent. funding of wages under the community enterprise programme up to the same maximum grant of £83 per week, plus an annual grant of up to a maximum of £400 per employee. The difference between the schemes are the result of deliberate decisions taken in Northern Ireland which allow the advantages of ensuring a genuine commitment by sponsors, maintaining administrative simplicity and providing as many jobs as possible within the resources available.
Since the scheme was introduced on 1st April 1981 the Department of Manpower Services has approved 377 places and is currently considering a further 128 places. In addition, 24 potential sponsors have indicated their intention to submit applications covering a further 130 places. This response clearly demonstrates the attraction and value of the scheme in its present form, indicating that the target of 500 places in the current year should be achieved.
The noble Lord was anxious about abuses of the youth employment programme. I can assure him that there are safeguards against abuse of the Northern Ireland work experience scheme. These are twofold. Before any work experience place is created the sponsoring employer is required to submit for scrutiny by officials a structured programme which demonstrates clearly that the young person will be given a broad experience and knowledge of an industry and will not

431
be trained or used in a specific occupation. The second safeguard is a programme of monitoring by departmental officials during the period of work experience to ensure that the structured programme is being followed. In fact Lord Blease's worries largely account for the worries of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough.
The noble Lord asked me to look into the oil-coal conversion programme on the basis that the £25,000 threshold for conversion from oil to coal in Northern Ireland was too high. I will do this and I will write to him.
On school-industry links—something in which I am closely involved—we have taken quite a number of steps in this direction. My department has approved additional teaching posts in post-primary schools to strengthen the provision of careers education. In-service courses for careers teachers have been organised. Each of the five education and library boards has appointed a careers adviser. As part of a careers education programme and in co-operation with local employers—and that is the important point—most schools organise visits by pupils to places of employment and pupils from over half the schools in the Province are now participating in work experience schemes. In addition, some teachers from all board areas have benefited from a short period of secondment to industry.
I have asked the recently formed Northern Ireland Council for Educational Development to consider what can be done to ensure that the curriculum in our schools is as far as possible relevant to the world of work, and they have set up a sub-committee for that specific task and I await their proposals with interest. In June the new Northern Ireland science and technology regional organisation was established in the Nothern Ireland Polytechnic, and this will provide a further vehicle for active co-operation between schools and industry, especially in the fields of science and engineering. Another development which I warmly welcomed was that of the main business organisations in setting up an education co-ordinating group for industry and commerce. As a gesture of Government support for this, and their support for a close rapport between commerce and education, my honourable friend Mr. Butler, as the Minister for Commerce, and I myself as the Minister for Education, were together on the platform and both spoke at the inaugural meeting. I could say more about the way this is carried through into higher education, but I think I will satisfy your Lordships with that.
I welcomed the general reception of this order by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. I am not sure that I got the point on his comparison between Class 6 Vote 2 and Class 8 Vote 1 because there is no discernible direct link that I can see. The fact that he perceives a balance between the two—
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I can see that they are not directly related. I was saying that so much is spent on salaries and so little on the environment, as a contrast. Does the noble Lord take my point? I have been to Northern Ireland a number of times, and I have seen that the environment could be improved in so many ways. So much is paid on salaries and so little on the environment.
Lord Elton: My Lords, improvements are done by people and people cost money. I shall look at what the noble Lord has said in the light of what he has just added and perhaps write to him. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, are interested in the level of subvention to Northern Ireland from Great Britain resources—that is to say, money which is generated on this side of St. George's Channel and spent on the other. The total subvention in 1979–80—the latest year for which exact figures are available, I believe—was £944 million. In 1980–81 the estimate is £1,091 million. That represents about 37 per cent. of the total of public expenditure in Northern Ireland during that year and it is a figure to remember. Noble Lords will, I hope, acknowledge that that level of subvention is evidence of successive United Kingdom Governments' commitments to deal with Northern Ireland problems. Other relatively depressed regions in the United Kingdom also, of course, benefit from revenue generated in the more prosperous areas. It is the existence of separate Northern Ireland funds which makes it possible to measure the transfers, but in this case I cannot make the comparison because situations differ.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, correctly observed that Her Majesty's Government are looking to the private sector to help Northern Ireland's housing problems. In fact, a number of steps have been taken to this end. An urgent review of planning policy and land allocation for housing is being undertaken. Self-build is being encouraged right across Northern Ireland, although there are areas where suitable sites have still to be identified. In addition, publicly-owned land is being leased back to private builders. Shared ownership is being encouraged and improvement grants to the private sector have been increased in an effort to arrest the deterioration of the housing stocks. The noble Lord will also be aware that a homesteading scheme has been introduced and that the Housing Executive is pursuing a vigorous policy of house sales.
I should like to revert to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, who raised the question of Harland and Wolff. The assistance recently announced of £46 million for Harland and Wolff is intended to provide sufficient money for working capital and to cover losses in 1981–82. The company is in full public ownership and provides employment for over 7,000 people. The Government have now received the company's corporate plan for the next four years. That is being scrutinised and the Government will announce their decisions upon it in the next few months. The Government have provided Harland and Wolff with special financial assistance totalling some £170 million since 1966. Indeed, that relates to the other question which the noble Lord asked me.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, endorsed the importance of agriculture to the community of Northern Ireland and to the economy of Northern Ireland. I can do nothing but agree with him that it is, of course, extremely important to both. That is why we have announced a review of agricultural policy in the context of the United Kingdom agricultural policy and also in the context of the social and economic conditions in Northern Ireland. I would ask your Lordships to reflect on the social implications of various schemes which are advanced for the

433
modernisation of agriculture and which would have perhaps unhappy effects on employment levels. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough referred to the penalty on milk production in Northern Ireland vis-á-vis that in Great Britain. We are well aware of that, and that, of course, is why the special aid has just been arranged on the terms with which the noble Viscount will be familiar. We are near to a resolution of the school milk problem. It is mostly an administrative problem now.
I propose to say a little more. Indeed, I have to declare a difference of interest with other noble Lords. I am speaking for the interests of Northern Ireland and I am determined that this debate shall not be curtailed. However, I think that the House would find it tedious if I were to launch now into the very compelling defence of our general industrial policy which I am tempted to do by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough. However, as they came from behind me rather than before me I feel that I am a little safer if I leave the matter to be resolved on paper. However, the one question which my noble friend did ask me was: of the total support given to electricity generation in the Province how much was domestic? Of the total support of £88·4 million in 1981–82, £44·9 million will be met from the contingency reserve. Of the remainder, £32·5 million had been ear-marked in the Northern Ireland programme for electricity and £11 million was made available from the existing Northern Ireland programme without reducing the level of the other services.
I should like to dwell longer on your Lordships' contributions, but the fact of the matter is, not that the hounds are snapping at our heels—although noble Lords will hesitate, after they hear the noises from behind me—but that I have dealt explicitly, I think, with every one of the points of which I was given notice, and, as I always say on these occasions, I will write to your Lordships on the others. If I have left any glaring gaps it is not because there is not an answer but because I think it essential to give your Lordships the right answer. Your Lordships will, I hope, now feel able to give your agreement to this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Nationality Bill
8.48 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 138C:
After Clause 38, insert the following new clause:
("Rights of British and Commonwealth citizens
.—(1) Every British citizen shall have the right of abode in the United Kingdom, the right to leave the United Kingdom and return freely, the right to a passport, the right to assistance abroad from British Embassies and consulates, the right to vote, the right to stand for public office and the right to take employment in the public sector and to join the armed forces. Every British citizen shall be liable for the obligation of jury service.
(2) Every Commonwealth citizen who was settled in the United Kingdom at commencement shall have the right to vote, the right to stand for public office and the right to take employment in the public sector and to join the armed services. Every Commonwealth citizen who was settled in the United
434
Kingdom at commencement shall be liable for the obligation of jury service:
Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as rendering any British citizen, Commonwealth citizen, Irish citizen or alien ineligible to hold any rights or not liable for any obligations as may be by law provided.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 138C. After that prolonged, but not disagreeable, absence for a time from the British Nationality Bill, we now move to what I submit is an important new clause relating to the rights of British and Commonwealth citizens—a reference to which is at the moment significantly absent from the Bill as it now stands, save for the right of abode and rights directly related to the status of citizenship.
The proposed new clause has important features. It declares and affirms the minimal rights and obligations of British citizens and of Commonwealth citizens who are already here. The need for such a provision as this in a nationality Act was stressed by the valuable report of Justice, the all-party organisation of lawyers. Indeed, perhaps I should declare an interest as I am, like one or two other noble Lords who are present, a member of the Council. As we have found in the course of our debates upon the Bill, the incidence of British nationality is to be found in a considerable variety of laws either referring to British subjects or dealing with aliens. That is why the task of resolving the problems that arise from the variety of sources has been difficult for us. Until the task was attempted in this Bill there has been no single nationality law or a relevant code of privileges, rights and duties attached to citizenship. Justice recommended, and I entirely agree, that civic rights should flow from the law of nationality and that a valuable opportunity would be missed if this Bill, governing nationality, did not contain the principal rights and obligations of the citizenship that it establishes.
However, I submit that the matter is not merely one of constitutional tidiness and good sense; a great deal of the worry that has been ventilated by Commonwealth citizens settled here is that their rights may be taken away from them in future once a British citizenship has been established. There was a sentence in paragraph 110 of the White Paper on Nationality which caused some concern about that possibility arising. It reads:
"The Bill would provide that where a statutory duty or entitlement is expressed in terms of British Subjects, it should continue to have the same meaning as it had under the 1948 Act. But the Bill, by establishing a British Citizenship, will make available a ready definition by which those duties or entitlements may be re-defined in the future".
It is that prospect of redefinition which has caused some concern. The matter was raised in another place and it may well be that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will confirm that the Government have no intention to alter the rights of Commonwealth citizens who are here. But absense of any indication of this in the provisions of the Bill continues to cause anxiety.
It is our view that what is set out in the new clause will have an important and valuable declaratory and reassuring effect. It follows the recommendations of the Justice Report, that in conformity with international standards and for the protection of the individual, the right of abode in the national territory, as well as a number of other rights, should be guaranteed in the law on nationality as inalienable rights.
We have sought to set them out, as did the Justice Report, in the two subsections of the new clause that we are now considering. Subsection (1) sets out the British citizen's right of abode. It says:
"Every British citizen shall have the right of abode in the United Kingdom".
Then there follows:
"the right to leave the United Kingdom and return freely"—
a right sadly denied in several countries and, of course, in particular the Soviet Union. That right to leave and return to our country freely in modern times implies a right to a passport. With it, as subsection (1) states, goes:
"the right to assistance abroad from British embassies and consulates",
which are an essential element of the enjoyment of British citizenship and the possession of that valuable object, a British passport. There follows a reference to:
"the right to vote, the right to stand for public office"—
which are important rights in a parliamentary democracy—
"and the right to take employment in the public sector"—
which is another important right—
"and to join the armed forces. Every British citizen shall be liable for the obligation of jury service".
All those are perhaps minimal rights, but we think that they are valuable to assert now as protected by the Nationality Bill, and are related to it.
Then in subsection (2) there are provisions that:
"Every Commonwealth citizen who was settled in the United Kingdom at commencement shall have the right to vote, the right"—
again—
"to stand for public office and the right to take employment in the public sector and to join the armed services. Every Commonwealth citizen who was settled in the United Kingdom at commencement shall be liable for the obligation of jury service".
Then there is the general provision:
"Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed as rendering any British citizen, Commonwealth citizen, Irish citizen or alien ineligible to hold any rights or not liable for any obligations as may be by law provided".
Our submission on this side of the Committee is that the inclusion of the statement and declaration of these rights in the Bill will have a valuable, practical and settling effect among the minority communities in our country, particularly at this time of uncertainty and anxiety. Incidentally, it will be a reassurance also to all of us who will be British citizens under the provisions of the Nationality Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I find this a strange new clause, proposed as always with such grace by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I find it strange, I find it unnecessary and I find it very remarkable. I find it very remarkable that we have a declaratory statement as to various rights which are enjoyed. It says:
"Every British citizen shall have … the right to leave the United Kingdom … Every British citizen shall be liable for the obligation of jury service".
There are many exceptions to jury service. Are we to have stated every right that we have? Is this a comprehensive list of all rights? If so, where is the
436
right to speak one's mind, the right to assemble, the right to worship as one wants and the right to believe? If we are to start reciting all the rights which British citizens have, then we shall have a whole new Bill.
The noble and learned Lord says that by having this in the Bill it will provide reassurance to those who are apparently at present feeling disturbed about the Bill. Only a little earlier we heard people say, "This is such a complicated Bill that no one will be able to understand it or read it". We have been told that no one will be able to explain it to anybody. I would suggest to the Committee that to have a declaration such as this does not serve the law and does not serve the purposes which I know the noble and learned Lord has in mind, and which I very much share with him. But to recite them and then to omit what to some may be the greatest right we have in this country—to believe and worship as you wish—seems to be very remarkable. Therefore, although I well appreciate and understand the spirit of the noble and learned Lord's proposal of this new clause, I do not think that it is a sensible one to introduce into this Bill.
Lord Renton: I feel bound to agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson. This is, indeed, a most remarkable clause. It seems to be based on the assumption that every British citizen is an adult; that none of them is a minor; that none of them is a Member of your Lordships' House; that none of them is already a convicted criminal in prison and that none of them is awaiting trial and thereby having to have his passport removed in case he should leave the country in the exercise of this right which the noble and learned Lord has said that every British citizen should have in all circumstances.
As for the right to join the armed forces, it has never been a right to join the armed forces. Indeed, the armed forces are very selective in trying to achieve the right quality of man to serve in them. Sometimes there has been an obligation in time of war and national necessity to join the armed forces, but even then the circumstances were not always such that there was a right to join. Sometimes people got annoyed because they were not called up for the armed forces and were made to do some other kind of national service, but there was never a right to join the armed forces.
One could go on, but I think it is quite unnecessary to persuade your Lordships that this is indeed a remarkable clause. I would only add this: we find that there is a right to stand for public office. What does "public office" mean in these circumstances? Is it intended to be confined somehow to an office of profit under the Crown? On the other hand, is it intended to be confined to the kind of public office for which one has to be elected first either to the central Government or to a local authority? No, this really will not do, however good the intentions may be so far as the right of abode is concerned, for example.
Lord Mishcon: Two of the company of your Lordships for whom we all have a great respect have regarded this amendment as being remarkable. I would have hoped that one of them at least would have said how remarkable it is that we have been discussing for a long time in this place and for a long time in another place a British Nationality Bill that gives the

437
executive of this country the right, and the administration of this country the right, to make some people, however few, stateless, to make some people a class of citizen which does not have the same rights as another class of citizen; and then the Bill, which is called a British Nationality Bill, ends without either saying one word about what nationality really means or without saying what rights are conferred upon a British subject. If this amendment has done nothing else apart from drawing from two noble and learned Lords adjective upon adjective (they both have the gift of language and therefore the multiplicity of adjectives is no trouble to them) at least it will give your Lordships the opportunity of thinking for one moment of what this Bill is doing without even the Government announcing that legislation is on the way in order to deal with what the rights of citizens are.
This Bill does not even have a clause in it which talks about the right to get a passport. In those circumstances, I am asking your Lordships, if I may, in Committee to say this: Are we going to discuss at any time at Committee or Report stage what the rights of citizens are? I can tell your Lordships that discussions are going on in other places. In regard to the EEC, rights of citizenship and membership are being discussed and may well be issued in some sort of codified form. This is being done in other parts of Europe. Are we, when discussing this Bill, to do nothing at all in regard to putting here about the right to work? Of course, one can take pieces out of this amendment and say that it does not apply, obviously, to minors.
Lord Renton: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for giving way, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I were serving in another place when the most fundamental change in our nationality laws was made. That was in the British Nationality Act 1948, and no such statement of rights accompanied that Act; nor, so far as my recollection goes, did the vigilant Opposition of which I was then a member, nor did the vigilant Labour Party Bank-Benchers, who were so numerous, ever suggest that such rights should be written into the British Nationality Bill. If one once started to do so, the rights of our people are so very considerable that it would have to be an enormous Bill on its own.
Lord Mishcon: The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is absolutely right. In days of simplicity with a Government in power who knew how to put upon the statute book an Act dealing with nationality that your Lordships could understand, that Members of another place could understand, and that citizens who were normally intelligent could understand, it was not found necessary to create, so far as I can remember, three classes of citizenship consisting of British overseas, British dependent territories and British citizens who have omnibus rights.
If we do have a complex measure of this kind, can we not spend at least 10 minutes or so discussing the question of the rights of citizenship? Are the Government to be so silent upon this matter that we shall not even get a reply that such rights exist in our common law, exist as a matter of precedent, exist in statutes
438
which are quite multifarious and have never been brought together; is the opportunity being taken to see that the rights and duties, if you like, of citizenship are codified at last or put in some form so the various classes of citizens will at least know where they stand? If this amendment produces silence from the Government, I am sure it will also produce disappointment; but if it produces some positive reply instead of merely adjectives such as "remarkable" and "unintelligible", and words of that kind, my friends and I will be very glad.
Baroness Elles: I understand that the clause proposed by the noble and learned Lords basically attempts to set out some of the civil and political rights under the various international agreements to which the United Kingdom is already a signatory and, indeed, it has ratified many international instruments. But the noble and learned Lord, as a matter of fact, is suddenly granting to British citizens completely new rights from which I was certainly not aware that we could benefit. The first is the right to a passport. I never knew until tonight that I might have the right to a passport. I believe that is a new right which has been declared in this clause. I think, therefore, it would take quite a long time to discuss tonight who and why and how one should have the right to a passport.
The second is a very interesting one, which is the right to assistance abroad from British Embassies. If that is implying diplomatic protection from a state, I always was taught in my early days of international law that it is the one discretionary right of a state to grant, or not to grant, diplomatic protection to its citizens abroad. This is one of the grave defects of diplomatic protection as it exists in international law today. I really compliment the noble and learned Lord that he should have attempted in this brief clause to introduce a major change in international law which has certainly not been recognised by any other sovereign state, and I rather doubt that it will be recognised by this sovereign state.
The third, which I really must comment on and which is a completely new departure, is the one which grants every British citizen the right to vote. Does the noble and learned Lord really mean that wherever you are living in any part of the world that any British citizen may take part in, I presume he means, a British general election? He has not actually defined it, but I presume he means the right to vote in a British general election, or possibly in a local election. It is a most extraordinary right for somebody like the noble and learned Lord to wish to confer on British citizens regardless of the place they live in.
I see he may have wished a general discussion on the rights and obligations of citizens, but if you are going to discuss what rights you are going to confer by this Bill on British citizens would it not be rather wise and sensible, in view of the situation in the world today, to put in something about duties? If you are to have a clause of this nature—which no doubt in any case will not be put into the Bill because it really is quite irrelevant to the terms of this Bill—I should have welcomed something about duties as well. But, of course, I am quite certain that since the purpose of this Bill is to define what is a British citizen, who has the right to British citizenship, once you have that

439
right and this Bill has been adopted and Royal Assent given to the Bill, then we can see what are the rights and duties of the citizens who have been made British citizens under this Bill.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness says that if one is going to do this at all one should put in something about duties, and yet earlier on she talked about the international instruments to which we are a party and which we have ratified. I am not aware that there is any such instrument entitled The International Covenant on Civil and Political Duties, and that really is the whole of the answer to the noble Baroness. In order to comply with obligations we have entered into, we should ensure that citizens have rights which ought to be justiciable in an English court. This is something which is lacking.
I was sad when I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and the noble and learned Lord pouring scorn on this amendment in principle. The very notion that you should try to incorporate in this Bill, or indeed in our law generally, some statement of the rights of British citizens appears to be bizarre to them. They do not believe that we should give any force in our own domestic law to the rights—I am very glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Renton, shaking his head there. He does believe then that instruments such as the European Convention on Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which we are adherents, should be given some force in our domestic law. If they are merely saying that they do not like the particular catalogue of rights which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has put into this amendment, that is one thing, but if they are saying that as a matter of principle they do not want any statement of rights to appear in the law at all, that is something different.
Lord Renton: Surely the noble Lord must know that the basic rights of the people of our country have been established long ago, starting with Magna Carta. They are already in the law. There is no need for us to make a sort of botched up new clause on a Bill of this particular kind in order to re-write or re-establish those rights. If we are to start adding to rights I would insist, for example, on the rights of the mentally handicapped—which have not yet been defined—at some time being put in a statute. I think that the noble Lord is being a little unfair to my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson and myself, who have merely stated a perfectly straightforward proposition that these rights should not be stated in the way put forward in this new clause.
Lord Avebury: I suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, imagines that the rights he is speaking of are conferred on the British people by the common law. That is what he means, is it not? Well, he is wrong. I must say that. Ministers are constantly whittling away and slashing at the rights that people have had under the common law for centuries, and nobody takes a blind bit of notice. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, knows perfectly well the sort of rights that I mean, because I am in correspondence with him about them. I will give an example. The right of a
440
person to bring a private criminal prosecution, a right which has been in our law for centuries, and which is—I do not know what the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is muttering, or whether he is trying to say that this is not a right which a person possesses.
Lord Renton: I am merely muttering to the noble Lord next to me that that particular right is established and does not need to be re-written.
Lord Avebury: I am glad to have the noble Lord's opinion on that. I hope that the noble Lord on the Front Bench is listening to him. He knows perfectly well that there are certain people who have been prevented by his department from bringing private criminal prosecutions, and the rights which the noble Lord, Lord Renton, thinks that they possess have been taken away from them by an administrative act of the Home Office.
I am speaking about subsidiary legislation made under the prison rules. The noble Lord knows—and I am wandering far from the amendment, but this is probably a useful illustration of what can happen if people do not keep their eyes open—that a person who is a prisoner in one of Her Majesty's prisons is stopped by the Home Office from bringing private criminal prosecutions, although there is no statutory power given to the Secretary of State to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, knows perfectly well that this is happening at this very moment. I believe, in common with my noble friend Lord Wade, that it is essential that we have some statement on the rights of British citizens in our legislation which people can use in the English courts.
My noble friend Lord Wade has attempted to do this by means of a Bill which would enshrine the European Convention of Human Rights into the domestic law of this country. He has passed this Bill several times through your Lordships' House and it is now waiting for the Government to see whether it can be given time in the other place. So if the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and his noble and learned friend, Lord Rawlinson of Ewell, do not consider that the particular catalogue which is offered to us in this amendment is the ideal one but believe that something along these lines should be done, then at least let them accept the principle and use their enormous influence on the Home Office to get my noble friend's Bill given time in the other place.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: I suspect that the true motivation for this new clause was to stimulate thought and to inspire consideration of some of the deeper elements involved in this legislation and the longer effects thereof. If the noble Lords, Lord Rawlinson and Lord Renton, were narrow-minded lawyers—which they are not—and wished to indulge in sterile and arid considerations of the technicality of legislation—which they do not wish to do—then no doubt they would have a field day in attacking many of the words and phrases involved in this draft clause.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: If the noble Lord is supporting this clause, which is a clause to be written into law, does he support that every British citizen—including babes in arms—should have the right to

441
vote? Is that the kind of law which he thinks ought to be made?
Lord Elystan-Morgan: We have some precocious children in our country but they are not that precocious. I will say in a moment what I do support. The sum total of the rights and privileges of the British people is to be found, I accept, in dozens and scores of different enactments and in common law. It may, indeed, be premature, short of having a comprehensive Bill of Rights, to include such a statement of rights in a provision such as this. Nevertheless, I believe it is right that your Lordships' Committee should consider deeply the issue of principle which has been raised by my noble and learned friend. If a visitor from Mars were to look at this British Nationality Bill he would say to himself, assuming that he were male—
Lord Elwyn-Jones: He would say, "I'm going home again!"
Lord Elystan-Morgan: He would say, "What is the purpose of it? Is it a democratic exercise? What is the point of spewing out three categories of British nationality, of dividing British nationality into three parts, like Ceasar's Gaul? What is the purpose of it?" I have a suspicion, which I hope I expressed in suitably restrained terms in my maiden speech on Second Reading, that this is merely the groundwork and foundation for more restrictive immigration legislation. If that is the purpose, then that is not as yet enshrined in this legislation. But the legislation, standing as it does alone, seems very incomplete.
I suspect that the visitor from Mars would say that this Bill really deals with the question of citizenship and not nationality. But if one is dealing with the question of nationality, then there is some sense in correlating the question of status with the question of right, and correlating the question of right with the question of obligation. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, asked why should this be done now when it was not done in 1948. A fair and logical question; but I am sure that he will accept the point that in 1948 there was very little doubt as to who was or was not a British subject. Doubts have been raised and set in train by this legislation. Millions of people who a year ago were quite certain who they were and what they were will now have doubts.
I ask noble Lords who have opposed the new clause to look at subsection (2). I would argue that that goes a long way to remove some of the doubts. Those doubts, fears and suspicions constitute the most dangerous part of this legislation. I suspect that the number of people who will be directly and physically affected by the Bill will probably be not all that many. The danger, difficulty and weakness of the measure is the fear and suspicion it engenders. That may well be fertile ground for some of the evils which, as we are well aware, are now threatening this kingdom. Therefore, I urge noble Lords on both sides of the Committee to consider that it may indeed be right to give further thought to the question whether there should be some declaratory provision, perhaps not altogether in the terms proposed, that, first, gives some
442
sense of that correlation between status, right and obligation and, secondly, and even more important, a declaratory provision that removes some of the fears of which we are all too well aware.
Lord Belstead: I was chided by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, for remaining silent, but it was only because I watched fascinated while one noble Lord after another succeeded in hitting the wrong nail on the head. I know after five days in Committee that any mention of the previous Government's Green Paper is liable to give noble Lords on the Opposition Front Bench sleepless nights.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: We are sleeping like babes.
Lord Belstead: The reason why the wrong nail has been hit on the head in the last 34 minutes—in this 10-minute debate which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said would be just the right length—is contained in that Paper, which dealt briefly with civil rights. The Green Paper said:
"Such privileges do not stem directly from the law on nationality, and so are not dealt with in this document".
With respect to this interesting amendment and, genuinely, the interesting debate we have had on it, that of course is the case, and the case was put succinctly and accurately by my noble and learned friends Lord Rawlinson and Lord Renton in this respect. What, then, need I add? Perhaps I might mention two points. First, in answer to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I realise that one of the motives behind the new clause is to allay some of the fears that have been expressed about the possible effects of the Bill on the civic rights of Commonwealth citizens. I will therefore repeat the assurances on that point which were given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on Report. He said on that occasion:
"It is quite wrong for people to see the Bill as the precursor of future changes in the area of civic rights. If the Government had wished to change civic rights legislation, they could have done so without introducing a British Nationality Bill".
Although I cannot in our parliamentary democracy speak for fellow parliamentarians at any time in the future, much less any future Governments, the Bill does not have any bearing on the matter. I must stress that the Government do not have any plans to change the law in the areas which people appear to have primarily in mind, and the areas which have been in mind have been very wide this evening. Nevertheless, none of them I think are we intending to change as a result of the Bill.
The second point I feel I must make is that when one attempts a task of this kind, one gets into the most appalling muddle, and the fact is that not only are the majority of the rights mentioned in the new clause all enshrined, as my noble friends have said, in different parts of legislation, but there are three rights which are not to be found in legislation and they lead us down some very odd roads. They are indeed the right of abode, the right to a passport and the right to consular protection.
So far as the right of abode is concerned, there is no need for this clause to specify that British citizens will enjoy that right in this country. As your Lordships

443
will be aware because we have only just disposed of it, Clause 38 of the Bill deals with this. That clause substitutes for the existing Section 2 of the Immigration Act a new section which provides that anyone who is a British citizen will also enjoy the right of abode in the United Kingdom. This part of the new clause is therefore unnecessary and under Section 1(1) of the Immigration Act of 1971 those who have the right of abode are to be able to enter or to leave the United Kingdom without let or hindrance save in certain limited circumstances. So if I may say so that underlines the fact that there is no need for this part of the new clause.
Then, so far as the two other matters are concerned to which my noble friend Lady Elles referred, I think she could be forgiven for not realising that there is no statutory right to a passport, because there is none. Passports are issued at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs exercising the Royal Prerogative. In practice the discretion to refuse passports is limited to certain categories of people who clearly ought not to travel: minor children whose journey is known to be contrary to a court order; a person for whose arrest a warrant has been issued in the United Kingdom. It is interesting—because the noble and learned Lord particularly mentioned Justice—that although Justice, the British section of the International Jurists, in its report which was entitled Going Abroad, advocated, it is true, a statutory right to a passport, it went out of its way not to criticise the present system of administration. Quite the reverse. Justice said:
We also wish to make it clear that we have been impressed by the apparent efficiency and enlightened operation of the present system. It cannot be pretended that its present functioning gives rise to any major difficulties or to any serious abuse of power".
Finally, there is the other non-statutory right to assistance abroad from embassies and consulates. Again my noble friend Lady Elles could be forgiven for not realising that that right is not in statute form, because again it is not, and I do not think that this clause should be in statute form either.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I make no apology whatsoever for having moved this amendment. The principal purpose was to achieve what at any rate the debate has achieved in rather more moderate terms than have been heard from noble and learned Lords, the allaying of the fears of, in particular, the minority people over the potential effect of the creation of a whole new conception of British citizenship and attendant rights. This anxiety is very real and I hope that due publicity will now be given to what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has said which is more constructive than the mere mockery that we have had from certain quarters about the raising of the serious question of the statement of the rights of the subject in this country.
Most other parallel societies have contrived a code or declaration of human rights. We have managed without it in this country. I had not noticed the same sort of mockery addressed to the European Convention of Human Rights or the attempts of the United Nations to make declarations as we have had about this modest attempt of the Justice working party. I regret that I cannot claim any monopoly over the emergence of what has appeared on the Order Paper,
444
but I think that the attempt was a serious one at any rate to start discussion.
The interesting point about this matter is that in the Government's White Paper on this matter one finds in paragraph 110:
"The term 'British Subject' is used in a number of other United Kingdom statutes to define certain rights and privileges. Among these are the statutes governing the right to vote, the eligibility to serve on a jury, to take certain employment in the public services, and to hold certain ranks in the Armed Forces. The Bill will provide that where a statutory duty or entitlement is expressed in terms of British Subject, it should continue to have the same meaning as it had under the 1948 Act. But the Bill, by establishing a British Citizenship, will make available a ready definition by which those duties or entitlements may be re-defined in the future".
So a redefinition is apparently contemplated, and therefore that Parliament should at least begin to think about the terms of a redefinition does not seem to me to be a waste of time. Not for one moment would I suggest that the amendment has been drafted in terms that would sustain prolonged examination, and I do not propose to press it. But I resent the view that it is idle and frivolous that we as the Chamber of the House of Lords should be encouraging at least serious consideration of whether the subject in this country needs more reassurance in appropriate, readable and recognisable form of what his rights really are. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Deprivation of Citizenship]:
[Amendments Nos. 139 and 140 not moved.]
9.31 p.m.
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 140ZA:
Page 32, line 21, after ("fraud") insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: Clause 39 of the Bill deals with the very serious subject of deprivation of citizenship. Before coming to the terms of the amendment, which is a paving amendment for Amendment No. 140ZB, to which I wish to speak along with the present amendment, I should like to express the hope that deprivation of citizenship, which is already possible under the 1948 Act, does not occur very often. Perhaps when he replies the noble and learned Lord by way of preface can inform the Committee of how frequently deprivation occurs. The amendment draws attention to the ground for depriving a citizen of his citizenship. The Bill provides in subsection (1) that there can be deprivation of citizenship of a person who has been registered or naturalised as a citizen, if there has been
"fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact".
It has to be said that those three categories appear in the 1948 Act, but it is my submission to the Committee that be that as it may, they go far too far, and Amendment No. 140ZB seeks to delete the third ground of deprivation:
"the concealment of any material fact".
When people apply for registration or naturalisation they are required to fill in forms. There is a provision which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe forms. Normally if I, as a lawyer, were advising a person who

445
had to fill in a naturalisation form or a registration form, I would say, "Answer the questions that you are asked, and answer them honestly". That is what most people do when they fill in forms. They expect the authority to ask them the questions to which the authority wants to know the answers. But under the Bill that will not do. An applicant for citizenship may answer all the questions with complete honesty, he may be questioned by a police officer and again give answers with complete honesty, and yet still be subject to the deprivation of his citizenship if he is found to have concealed a material fact. What is a material fact? It can be only what the Government think to be a material fact. How does an applicant know what the Govenment think to be a material fact? One would have thought that he can find out by looking at the questions that the Government ask him to answer. One then gets back to a circular argument and concludes that this ground for deprivation of citizenship is either quite unnecessary or very dangerous. In either case, I hope that the Committee will look sympathetically upon the amendment which seeks to delete it. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: It would be helpful if, when the Minister comes to reply, he could give us illustrations of the kind of case in which a person has been deprived of his citizenship on the basis of "concealment of any material fact". I am very anxious about this, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, is, because in the case of applications for citizenship I have found that decisions go against a person on extremely trivial, if not frivolous grounds, including the alleged concealment of facts which I would have thought were extremely immaterial.
I have given the Committee the example before of the man who I discovered purely fortuitously had been refused his applicaton for citizenship when, during the interview with the person who examined him for the purpose, the question of convictions came up. He admitted that he had driven through a red light, and the interviewing officer asked to see his driving licence. He produced an international driving licence, which the man examined and then said,"Do you not realise that you are not permitted to have this for more than one year, and you say that you have been continuously renewing your international driving licence for the last five years?" The man said that he was married to a Swedish citizen, that he went to Sweden every year. that no one in Sweden had ever objected to his taking out an international driving licence and that the court which had convicted him of driving through a red light had not made any comment on the matter when endorsing his licence.
So the interveiwing officer then said, "Have you not attempted to take out an English driving licence?", and he said, "I made an arrangement to undergo a test in April, but it was not convenient". When the Minister came to explain the reasons why this man had been refused his application for citizenship, he told me that it was on the grounds that this person had falsly claimed that he had made arrangements to take a driving test when in fact upon inquiry the interviewing officer found that the test had been cancelled. The person concerned never said that he was definitely
446
going to take the test; he said it had been arranged, but it was not convenient. So there was a total misunderstanding, and it was on the basis of such a trivial factor which occurred at the interview that the person did not obtain United Kingdom citizenship. I would dread to think that it would be on grounds of this sort that a person could be deprived of his citizenship.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate may say that there is this provision later on in Clause 39 for an appeal to a committee, but we do not know what sort of rules the Secretary of State is going to make for the procedure to be followed in connection with references under this clause. Subsection (8) of this clause gives the Secretary of State the power to prescribe those rules, and it could well be that the way that they were drawn compelled the committee of inquiry set up under the clause to examine the deprivation of citizenship to reach the same conclusion, invariably, as the Secretary of State. So I really feel that in spite of the fact that this was a repetition of something, as the noble Lord says, which was contained in the 1948 Act, it requires to be looked at afresh in the light of what we know about the applications for nationality since then.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: As the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, pointed out in moving this amendment, a similar provision was in the British Nationality Act 1948, the clarity of which we have had so recently proclaimed to us. It may be of some interest that since 1948 there have been 28 cases of persons who have been deprived of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Of these, 10 were deprived by the Home Secretary in the United Kingdom and 18 by the Governor of a dependent territory. My understanding is that the use of this power, therefore, is a very limited one. It has been used in the past with the greatest discretion and it would be most unusual if any change occurred in that. All that is happening is that substantially the same provisions are being re-enacted.
I have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to give an example. The power so far as the concealment of a material fact is concerned has been used in the United Kingdom only twice since 1948. Those who were concerned in the applications of this power were deprived of their citizenship in 1951, on grounds of concealing that they were in the pay of the Czech Government to whom they sent reports on Czech nationals living in this country. It is not envisaged that the power in this Bill will be used any more frequently. As at present the use of the power is only likely to be contemplated in serious cases where the concealment concerned was clearly deliberate and involved information of obvious relevance to the success or failure of the application.
As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, there are safeguards in this clause for the use of this power, not only on the grounds of concealment of a material fact but also on any of the other grounds which are available. The Secretary of State cannot make a deprivation order under this clause unless he is satisfied that it would not be conducive to the public good that the person concerned should remain a citizen. Secondly, he must, before making an order, give the person written notice of the grounds on which

447
deprivation is proposed and inform him of his right to an inquiry. Thirdly, the person who is to be deprived has a right to an inqury into his case; even if the individual does not ask for an inquiry, the Home Secretary may decide to refer the case to one. Similar arrangements are to apply in the dependencies.
It is suggested that the Secretary of State has power to make rules of procedure for this inqury, and that is true. It is suggested that he could make rules of procedure which would impose on the tribunal the duty of coming to the same answer as the Secretary of State wanted them to come to. These would be extraordinary rules of procedure. I am sure that the noble Lord has in mind that Clause 39(9) provides that the power of the Secretary of State to make rules under the subsection
"shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament"
It is difficult to believe that rules which have the effect of forcing the Committee to the same result as the Secretary of State wished to reach would survive in either House of Parliament. In the light of these considerations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Gifford: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving a certain amount of reassurance about the operation of this provision. I should have thought that the two people who were in the pay of the Czech Government probably made a false representation when they swore the oath of allegiance. Leaving that aside, while thinking that this form of words is not necessary, I accept and welcome the statement which has been made about the extreme circumstances in which it is intended that it should operate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140ZB not moved.]
Lord Gifford Lord Gifford moved Amendment No. 140ZC:
Page 33, line 10, after ("(a)") insert ("(ii)").
The noble Lord said: We now turn to the other category of deprivation of citizenship…that is to say, subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 39. Subsection (3) sets out three forms of conduct which can justify deprivation: disloyalty or disaffection towards Her Majesty; trading with the enemy; and being imprisoned in any country for a term of not less than 12 months within five years of obtaining citizenship. Those three categories, I think, are repeated word for word from the 1948 Act, but in the 1948 Act they apply only to someone who is a naturalised citizen. This Bill goes much further by including registered citizens in the class of people whose citizenship can be taken away on any of those three grounds. My amendment seeks to restore the limit of the 1948 Act by saying that only naturalised citizens should be subject to this form of deprivation.
One can see a certain logic, in that someone who has applied for naturalisation and therefore put himself forward as a person of good character could be said to be fairly deprived of his citizenship if it is said that he is disloyal or a criminal, because there would have been an obtaining of the citizenship under false colours. But people who are registered as citizens are
448
so registered because they are entitled to citizenship and no good character requirement and no loyalty requirement is imposed upon them at all. In fact, they can be of the worst possible character and still be entitled to citizenship under this Bill.
For example, we have the absurdity of a Commonwealth citizen settled in this country who could claim his entitlement to registration from prison, having been sentenced to a long term of imprisonment; and yet somebody who got that registration and then a year later became sentenced to a term of imprisonment could have it taken away. I cannot believe that the Government have got this right in this bill. It leads to absurdity. Those who are registered citizens, as has so often been said, are registered because they are entitled as much as any of us, provided that they comply with the statutory requirements. Therefore, their character and loyalty should not come into the account any more than they do so far as the citizenship of a British-born citizen is concerned. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, in moving his amendment, has accurately described the situation and the effect of what is proposed in so far as he has been describing the Bill itself. Perhaps I should emphasise at the outset that the Bill does not interfere in any way with registration of those people who were registered before commencement of the Bill as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. It applies only to registration in respect of the new system of citizenship that we are seeking to set up. It certainly seems to us that it is right at this juncture to consider and provide for the situation which could arise.
Citizenship is a privilege, and we think it reasonable that there should be power in the last resort to deprive someone who has voluntarily sought our citizenship and been granted it and who then acts against the interests of this country or behaves in a way that brings discredit on the grant of citizenship to him. I say, "in the last resort", because, as I indicated in relation to the earlier amendment, this power of deprivation is one which has in the past been used most sparingly, and the basis on which it is applied to registration is the same basis on which it has applied, so far as the past is concerned, to naturalisation. There is therefore no reason to anticipate that it will not be used equally sparingly in this particular area as is was in relation to naturalisation. As I have said already, there are most important safeguards against its misuse, not least in the committee of inquiry procedure to which I have already referred.
The situation accordingly, in my submission, is that where people have sought and been granted citizenship, it is right that they should be treated on the same basis as those who have been granted citizenship by naturalisation. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Gifford: May I press the noble and learned Lord a little further, particularly with regard to the third provision of imprisonment? Does he not recognise that there is a certain absurdity in the fact that a good character, and a record clear of previous convictions, is of no relevance at all to someone who is applying

449
to be registered as a citizen? He can be of a good or a bad character, and yet it becomes irrelevant, for reasons which I fail to see, in the five years after he has become a citizen. Is not this something which should be looked at again? Otherwise, the law appears to have no logic at all in it.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: If one is taking the whole story into account, one takes account, in considering the right of registration, of the possibility of deprivation. In other words, the provisions with regard to deprivation have to be looked at when one is considering what is the right that has been conferred. I perfectly see the argument which the noble Lord is putting forward, but I would ask him to see equally the argument that, where the power to deprive applies to naturalisation—citizenship by grant of that kind—it should equally
450
apply to citizenship by grant, where that is done by way of registration, the person having applied voluntarily for it. In my submission, these two are sufficiently close to make it unwise to distinguish between them in this new system.
Lord Gifford: I am not absolutely convinced. Naturalisation is quite another matter, which depends on a good character requirement. That is the big difference and that is, no doubt, why the 1948 Act did not apply to registered citizens the same provisions as we are now considering. I should like to be able to look at this again and to come back to it, if I feel that it is of sufficient importance—as I think it may well be—to raise again. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140ZD not moved.]
9.53 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 140A:
Page 33, line 36, at end insert—
("The Secretary of State shall be bound by any recommendation of the committee of inquiry.").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a short point. Subsection (7) of Clause 39, which we are now discussing, provides that:
If the person against whom the [deprivation] order is proposed to be made applies in the prescribed manner for an inquiry, the Secretary of State shall … refer the case to a committee of inquiry consisting of a chairman, being a person possessing judicial experience, appointed by the Secretary of State and of such other members appointed by the Secretary of State as he thinks proper";
and the proposal in the amendment is that the Secretary of State shall be bound by any recommendation of the committee of inquiry.
Your Lordships will see that under the provisions of subsection (8), the Secretary of State can make rules,
"for conferring on any such committee any powers, rights or privileges of any court, and for enabling any powers so conferred to be exercised by one or more members of the committee".
So that this committee, set up by the Secretary of State, selected and chosen by the Secretary of State, enjoying the full powers, rights and privileges of any court is, your Lordships may think, in as good a position to decide whether the presence of the citizen in question would not be conducive to the pubic good as is the Secretary of State himself.
The reference back again to the Secretary of State would, in a sense, be putting the Secretary of State in the position of being a judge in his own cause. I should have thought, in view of the nature of the committee that is being set up, that it would be appropriate that there should be acceptance by the Secretary of State, and, indeed, by the Government, of the decision of this committee, set up by the Secretary of State, in whom one would hope there would be every reason to have confidence. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: It might be of assistance if I begin by saying that of the 10 cases of people deprived of citizenship in the United Kingdom, five have been referred to a committee of inquiry, and in all cases the Secretary of State's decision was in accordance with the decision of the committee, None of the cases arising in the dependencies were looked into by a committee of inquiry, so we have no really relevant experience of a case in which the committee of inquiry and the Secretary of State have come to different views. Therefore, as the noble and learned Lord said, we should expect the Secretary of State to go along with the view of the committee of inquiry, and that in practice is what has happened. In principle, therefore, one would expect the Secretary of State to be very unlikely to dispute or depart from a recommendation of a committee of inquiry of this kind looking into his proposal. However, it is going a bit further to say that he should be bound. For example, new facts could emerge which might dispose the Secretary of State to hold his hand, despite his own original proposal. He would be precluded from doing so by this amendment if the committee had recommended for deprivation. So the noble and learned Lord's amendment would not necessarily tell in favour of the person
452
who is the subject of the proceedings.
Perhaps—more important—I should mention the principle which I think is generally accepted in your Lordships' House, that Parliament should not absolutely tie the Home Secretary's hands where security considerations may arise. Security cases are not excluded from the ambit of Clause 39. In fact, there have been deprivations of citizenship on grounds of espionage. Fuchs and Prager are examples. One would like to think that it was inconceivable that a committee of inquiry would disagree with the Secretary of State's view in that kind of case, but one cannot be absolutely certain or absolutely take it for granted. As your Lordships will know, security cases are taken outside the ambit of the statutory immigration appeals system. Although cases are referred to a committee of three wise men, their recommendations are not binding on the Secretary of State. They are there to give a second view, as it were. Therefore I would suggest to your Lordships that the practical aim which the noble and learned Lord's amendment seeks to achieve is achieved in practice and that there may be very exceptional cases where it would not be in the interests perhaps of the subject himself that this amendment should pass. It would be in accordance with a very sound general principle that the Secretary of State's hands should not be absolutely tied, although he would give the highest regard to the result of a committee's deliberations. In the light of that, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Renton: While supporting my noble and learned friend, may I presume to add just one further point in support of what he has said: that the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament? He has been answerable so far under the present law, which is being repeated in Clauses 39 and 43. If he is answerable to Parliament in those exceptional cases to which my noble and learned friend has referred, he must take the responsibility instead of simply being allowed to say by statute that the responsibility shall pass to this committee of inquiry which he has appointed.
Lord Avebury: May I ask the noble and learned Lord two questions? First, he mentioned that there had been two cases where a person had been deprived of his citizenship on grounds of security. One was Klaus Fuchs. I remember his case. I did not catch the name of the other.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: Prager.
Lord Avebury: In those cases to which the noble and learned Lord referred, I believe that they were convicted of espionage in a court of law. Presumably, therefore, to revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said on the previous amendment, they were properly deprived of their citizenship because they made false representations in taking the oath of allegiance. So that there need have been no secret considerations entering into the Secretary of State's decision. It must have been obvious, because of their conviction in a court of law, that they had acted falsely in swearing

453
the oath of allegiance.
What I want to ask the noble and learned Lord is whether there have been any cases where a Secretary of State has deprived a person of citizenship without any due process of law—without any conviction having been secured against him in a court on grounds of espionage. If not, it would seem that the argument is not a very good one because every time a conviction is secured it is obvious that a person can properly be deprived of his citizenship without any discretion being exercised on behalf of the Home Secretary because he comes into the categories set out in subsection (1).
The other question I wanted to ask the noble and learned Lord—and I suppose the answer must be, yes—was whether it is possible to proceed by way of judicial review against the decisions of the tribunal. If that is so, then the new facts which he mentioned as potentially coming to light after the committee has made its recommendation could be the subject of legal proceedings. It would not be necessary for the Home Secretary to enter into the picture and perhaps give a favourable decision where the committee had given an adverse one.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I have been interested also in the situation where, after the matter has been referred to this committee, new facts have come into the possession of the Secretary of State which were not available to the committee. I can quite see the force of the argument where the new facts might be beneficial to the applicant and might therefore result in the Secretary of State, in the light of the new evidence, reversing the earlier decision to deprive him of citizenship; but what if the later factual information was adverse in the face of a decision of the committee that he was not to be deprived of citizenship? Would there then be a fresh hearing? I imagine that there ought to be, because presumably the applicant would be entitled to be heard on the fresh facts. I do not wish to push that too far, but an interesting problem has been created by what, on the face of it, looks to be, if I may say so, a very powerful argument by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: If I may answer the noble and learned Lord's question, as it is fresh in my mind, I think the answer is that if the facts were in favour of the subject of the proceedings then the Secretary of State might feel disposed, contrary to the recommendation of the committee, not to go ahead, and if this amendment were passed in this form it would preclude that. On the other hand, I think it is fairly plain that if the committee were to be in favour of the subject and then some further facts were to emerge against the subject, the Secretary of State would not feel it right to proceed on that basis without submitting those facts to the committee to see whether the new facts changed the minds of the committee.
With regard to the questions that I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, the situation is that there were some cases where there were no proceedings; I think it is not immediately clear that it was to do with
454
security. But the point that I am making on this matter has little to do with that. The Secretary of State's decision as it is related to the decision of the committee of inquiry, as I see it, has nothing to do with the question that we were discussing earlier. Therefore, whether or not there are proceedings prior to the decision to take action, there is the safeguard of this committee and it is really a question of the relationship between the Secretary of State's decision and the committee's decision that we are talking about now.
So far as judicial review is concerned, I think it is open to question whether judicial review would be available in the circumstances, but it is fairly obvious that the powers of the Secretary of State are confined to the grounds stated, and therefore I would expect some form of judicial review to be available.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In view of the advice given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate about the procedural matters which I raised and which are not unimportant, I apprehend that these problems could be dealt with in the rules of procedure which are to be introduced for the benefit of the committee. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
10.5 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross Viscount Colville of Culross moved Amendment No. 141:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Appeal against refusal of registration or naturalisation.
. Where the Secretary of State—

(a) refuses an application for the registration of a person on grounds of a failure to comply with the requirements of sections 3(2)(c) or (d) or 16(2)(c) or (d); or

(b) refuses an application for naturalisation of a person under sections 5 or 17 on grounds of failure to comply with paragraph 1(a), (c) or (d) of Schedule 1

there may be made by or on behalf of that person and in the prescribed manner an application for an inquiry, and the Secretary of State shall refer the case to the committee of inquiry provided for by section 39(7).").
The noble Viscount said: If that last amendment was described as a short point, I am sorry to say the subject matter of this one may be slightly longer, and I am a little sad that it should arise at this stage when I think I am right in saying we have only five minutes left for the Committee this evening. I hope I may be forgiven if I take a little of that time in explaining it, because it is a rather complicated matter.
It relates to the question of appeals against some of the Secretary of State's decisions. Under this Bill there are fundamentally two different sorts of decisions, as members of the Committee well know: there are those which are purely a matter of discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State, such as a decision on naturalisation under Clause 5; and there are many others which are matters of entitlement, which have been looked at by the Committee in many previous amendments, where it is not a matter of discretion—it is a matter of fact, and where there is already provided, at least implicitly, an appeal to the courts, a point to

455
which I should like to come back to a little later on another amendment. This particular amendment seems to me, if I may suggest it, suitable to be joined in discussion with the amendment standing in the name of the Opposition Front Bench, No. 142D, and I should like, if I may, to bring in my own Amendment No. 142 as something of a footnote. Perhaps I may deal with that first.
There are really two entirely separate matters in Amendment No. 141 and I want to keep them very distinct. I would like to begin with paragraph (a), because it is a small, entirely distinct but nevertheless, I think, slightly important matter; and it is with that that Amendment No. 142 is connected. In Clause 3 of the Bill there are, as we have been discussing at great length, a number of criteria which go towards entitlement to registration for people born outside the United Kingdom to a citizen of this country. Subsection (2) (c) and (d) provide criteria which involve the definition of what is called a close connection with the United Kingdom or an intention to maintain a close connection with the United Kingdom. I simply ask my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay this. I know that that is part of the system of entitlement which it is intended to deal with, if necessary, by way of appeal to the courts. But this is all brand new material, and what may or may not be thought by the Home Office to constitute a close connection or an intention to maintain a close connection will have to be worked out, no doubt by reference to facts and events in individual cases, and probably a very large number of decisions will be taken on this matter during the course of which the ground rules will be established.
The appeal upon this particular pair of criteria—and of course the same applies to citizenship of the dependent territories under a later provision—will at some stage be taken, by way of appeal on judicial review, to the courts. What I am afraid of in this connection is that whatever may have been supposed to be the ground rules laid down by the Home Office as the cases emerge will turn out to be very ill-matched with the individual case or series of cases that happen first to come on appeal to the courts. The courts will have no particular reason to look at the totality of the ground rules that the Home Office is using. They will simply decide upon the individual facts of the case that is before them. The build-up, therefore, of the correct criteria to establish these two forms of close connection will depend entirely upon the chance of who, and in what circumstances, takes a matter for the first three or four times to the courts. I am concerned about that because it seems to me that, although it is put in the Bill as a matter of entitlement, it is in fact, in the first instance at least, really going to be a matter of absolute discretion until some form of series of case law, some succession of authorities, has been laid down which will then enable people to know the situation. Therefore, my first question—it is an entirely separate point under paragraph (a) of this amendment—is as follows: Can my noble and learned friend help the Committee by saying how the would-be applicant for registration will know what the Home Office means by "close connection" under these two paragraphs, whether it is for citizenship of the United Kingdom or of British dependent territories? How are people to know until the case law lays it down in a haphazard
456
way for good or ill over the years? That is one point.
There is a totally separate point and this is one that I think most members of the Committee will be interested in, and, indeed, it is the one to which Amendment No. 142D of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, refers, which is the appeal against the purely discretionary decision. The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, to my eye, bears a marked resemblance to an amendment discussed at the Report stage in another place. I have studied with some care the reasons why my right honourable friend the Home Secretary felt that he had to reject the proposition that was put forward in that amendment. It is not in any way part of my case to try and argue for that amendment again—that is for those who have put their names to it.
However, the essence of the argument which was put forward by my right honourable friend on the question of naturalisation, seems to me to be really that it simply has to be kept as a matter of final decision in the hands of a political authority—in other words, himself. There are particular reasons for that and one of them, although no doubt a very rare one, is the case which has just been mentioned, of security. However, more particularly, there is the criterion of good character. Sometimes reasons for suggesting that a person seeking naturalisation has not convinced the Home Secretary that he is of good character may be able to be put forward, and I suppose that Lord Avebury's driving licence and driving test case is one of them. But in other circumstances I can fully understand—and, indeed, I remember from a few cases of this sort that I had to deal with when other Ministers were on holiday in the Home Office—that there are good reasons why one would not wish to disclose the arguments about good character.
In all, my right honourable friend said that he had come to the conclusion that this had got to be left to the Home Secretary of the day, subject to one form of appeal and one only and that was Questions and pressure in Parliament.
I hope that no member of the Committee will think that, in putting down an amendment to supplement the work that is done by Members of another place and Members of this House, I am in any way disparaging the enormous amount of work that they do on behalf of their constituents or those who approach them. Indeed, I suppose that there must be few people in the world who have not heard of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the channel that he provides to the Home Office—there must be very few indeed in that regard. Nevertheless, even he cannot cover the totality of all the cases that have to be looked at by the Home Secretary in this connection. Indeed, there are many other discretions under this Bill which have to be taken up politically as well. Therefore, it seems to me to be no insult to Members of either House to suggest that we could look at an alternative form of appeal.
There was one subsidiary point which occurred to me, and that was that in this House it would be difficult to create a totally new tribunal with the financial implications involved, as there might be questions of privilege. So my eye fell upon the very provisions that we have just been discussing under Clause 39. I do not see any distinction in principle between the type of decision that is taken under Clause 39 to

457
deprive a person of his citizenship, and the type of decision that is taken, for example, under Clause 5 to grant a person citizenship by naturalisation. In both cases these are exercises of pure discretion by the Home Secretary. In the former case of deprivation—partly no doubt because it was in the 1948 Act—in this Bill the Government have reproduced a sort of appeal procedure, which we have just been discussing. In principle, I can see no reason why a similar sort of appeal procedure should not also attend the similar exercise of discretion which goes with something like the grant of naturalisation.
Therefore, I sought to adopt the same machinery, not least because, for exactly the reasons my noble and learned friend has just been explaining in opposition to the last amendment, the machinery as it stands in the Bill does not ultimately stand in the way of the exercise of the Home Secretary's discretion in the last resort. No doubt, as has been said, the findings of the committee of inquiry would be a very weighty consideration indeed, but if for some reason there turned out to be a case which could not be disclosed to the committee of inquiry or which turned up later, as has just been discussed, the fact remains that recommendations of the machinery already in the Bill, designed to deal with discretionary decisions, are not binding upon the Home Secretary. Therefore, I hope that I have got over the primary objection which was raised by my right honourable friend in another place to the appeal system in this sort of case.
I have bent over backwards further still by leaving out any requirement to deal under this procedure with the question of good character. I have done this to make it easier for my noble friends on the Front Bench to accept something of this sort because, as I have said, I appreciate that there may be cases when the full facts about good character may not be able to be made known. But we have this from the debate and the speech made by my right honourable friend in another place. I would ask your Lordships to look at the requirements in Schedule 1; that is, the residential requirements under sub-paragraph (1)(a) and the sufficient knowledge of English or Welsh under heading (c). In both those cases my right honourable friend says that the reasons, if they are relevant, for a refusal are given. He goes on to say that in the case even of good character they try to give reasons if they possibly can. In the case of the requirement under paragraph 1(1)(d) of Schedule 1 about the intention, this must be a matter of fact or, at any rate, of impression which is as susceptible of being looked at by a committee of inquiry as by the Home Secretary himself. Therefore, the material for setting up a useful and, indeed, an effective committee of inquiry by way of appeal in these cases will, in fact, be there despite the provision, to which perhaps my noble and learned friend will point in Clause 43, that as this is a decision which depends entirely upon discretion, there is no requirement to give reasons.
We have an undertaking in another place by my right honourable friend that in the matters to which my amendment relates and, indeed, in the question of good character also on some occasions, reasons will be given. Therefore, the matter will at least be justiciable in front of the committee of inquiry. I would suggest
458
to the Committee this is the absolute minimum, the mildest, the most unobjectionable sort of appeal procedure that anybody could devise. I think it meets all the objections that were put forward to the proposals in another place. It leaves the discretion in the end with the Secretary of State, if he must have it, but I do believe that at the same time it is in total accordance with a principle that is already inherent in the Bill and has been in this nationality legislation ever since 1948. Of course, it will be used more than the deprivation of citizenship cases, the five we have heard about, but as a matter of principle it is enshrined, and has been for many years, in our legislation.
Therefore, I hope that, even if no conclusion can be reached about this tonight, this might be considered by my noble friends upon the Front Bench as being an acceptable way to deal with something that believe has really been a cause of widespread concern, and which will not in any way run counter to any of the principles that they really care about under this legislation. I beg to move.
10.22 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I am sure the Committee will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, for the way in which he moved this amendment with such clarity and such appeal. Indeed, if my amendment that I have the privilege of moving were not on the Order Paper I should be very much inclined, if I may say so, to say "amen" to all that he has said. I am going to say straight away that if the noble Viscount's amendment were acceptable to the Government, I would not seek to press the amendment that is in our name to which I shall refer in a moment, because I think it would be a sensible way of getting what we regard as so important, namely, the right of some appeal on the matters of entitlement and discretion put into this Bill.
I am going to venture a suggestion that there are reasons as to why the amendment to which the noble Viscount was good enough to refer, which was Amendment No. 142D, has certain advantages in our view; but I am going to repeat what I said, which is that if the Government felt that they could accept the noble Viscount's amendment and preferred it to ours, we would not stand in the way in the very slightest.
There are the following considerations, if I can briefly put them without repeating in far inferior language what the noble Viscount has already said. The first point is this—and the Secretary of State in another place made this perfectly clear. It is important, especially important with the great number of cases now that will come within the naturalisation net and the registration net under this legislation, that justice should be seen to be done. The Secretary of State acknowledged that fact but felt that he was in a difficulty in regard to the discretion which he thought ought to remain with him and with Parliament.
To the ordinary citizen this matter is going to be of great importance. There is no doubt about that. If one finds oneself in jeopardy of losing one's liberty under our law, which is our great pride, there is always a right of appeal. If, indeed, one is dissatisfied with

459
the alternation of one's status in regard to marriage, there is in most cases a right of appeal. To have no right of appeal, and to be at the mercy completely of the Executive and the Administration when the whole future of a family, their dignity, their ability to have certain rights to belong is at stake, would surely be against the whole principles upon which we normally act.
To say, "A civil servant has decided this. A Minister has given his imprimatur. There is no further right to question" cannot be right. Whether or not the Secretary of State has up until now kept the discretion within his hands under successive Governments, we are first of all looking at the whole law of nationality anew. It is a new Bill. Secondly, we are dealing with far more cases that are now going to arise than we have ever dealt with before. That is the first point. Secondly, normally the citizen does not feel that he has the chance that he ought to have to air his grievance against a decision, or to bring matters into the open, when he conies before a body which is set up by the very department that has made the decision and where that body reports back to the Secretary of State and it is for the Secretary of State to decide, one imagines, whether he follows or does not follow the recommendation—this is really what it amounts to—of any committee of inquiry.
Therefore, we thought that the proper way of dealing with this matter is to let the citizen know that there is a body in existence which will have the great advantage that the noble Viscount mentioned of building up a whole wealth of experience and of precedents in regard to the very matters such as close connection, which he mentioned. It seems a long time ago that we debated that, but it was only yesterday or the day before. Therefore we thought in terms of a body that would be set up and we called it in this amendment "The Citizenship Appeal Tribunal", which would be appointed by the Lord Chancellor and would consist of the judicial appointments and possibly other appointments that are mentioned in the amendment. It would be dealing with all kinds of appeals relating to this Act where the Secretary of State had dealt with registration and naturalisation, whether by entitlement or discretion.
That is the sort of body that would get all this experience, where the citizen would know that he was standing before a High Court judge—and the respect that our judges have in this country is something that I believe is the envy of other countries—and he would feel that this matter was being looked at de novo. With the appellate tribunal, if I can call it that, of that nature, what has the Home Secretary to fear? The tribunal will have a lot of experience. It will have all the papers before it. There is no reason why some of the papers, if they relate to security or even (if I am allowed to say this to the noble Viscount) to matters of character, cannot be before that tribunal, who can deal with them in a perfectly proper manner without having to embarass the Secretary of State at all. We all know that there are documents which can be looked at which are confidential and there can be private sessions if necessary on the security matter. The matter can be protected in that way. It seemed to us that this was the proper way, which would deal with the whole
460
gamut of cases that would come by way of appeal, and the citizen would know that the ultimate decider upon these matters would indeed be this tribunal.
I should like to turn quickly to the matter of judicial review, which the noble Viscount allows to come into the procedure which he is suggesting to your Lordships' Committee in another amendment.
Viscount Colville of Culross: No, not in this connection. The question of judicial review which I wish to discuss in another amendment is specifically not intended to deal with the discretionary decisions.
Lord Mishcon: I was merely going to say that, again, judicial review would not give that wealth of experience because a judicial review would involve a judge and involve a different judge each time.
I should like to conclude by re-emphasising what I tried to say at the beginning of my remarks. First, it is essential—I am sure the Committee will agree—that there should be an appeals procedure. Secondly, if the Government were to say that, in spite of my plea for what is set out in our amendment, they would concede the procedure set out in the noble Viscount's amendment, my noble friends and I would not press our procedure. I merely hope that the Government have now heard enough views expressed on this matter to make known their own.
10.31 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: As a common lawyer I would instinctively prefer review by the courts wherever possible, but I find some difficulty in the judicial review of these matters. When we were discussing the last amendment I remembered having to appear, as Attorney-General, under the provisions then in force, which had been introduced by a Labour Government in 1966, with regard to the deportation of Rudi Dutschke. This was an absurd procedure, whereby a part of the proceedings was in public and a part was in private and secret. One had to deal in public with matters which appeared to have no relevance but which in fact did because they were going to be dealt with in secret. This created great confusion and ultimately the procedure was abandoned. But it led me to think about the usefulness of such a tribunal, because if the tribunal had decided one way and that way was against the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State would have been forced to resign. There was no question but that he would have had to leave office if the advisory committee had found differently on a matter of deportation.
I find the judicial review a matter of very grave difficulty. As, through the courtesy of the noble Lords opposite, we are dealing with their amendment as well as the amendment moved by my noble friend, I should like to make some comments on the refusal of registration. Since, as has been pointed out, that refusal would not be discretionary there would be ordinary judicial review; that is, in the matter of outstanding registration.
But it is the question of naturalisation which the noble Lord's amendments really deal with. I find it incompatible with the general principles underlying

461
naturalisation. That has always been a matter for the Executive—formerly the Sovereign, then handed over by the Sovereign to Parliament, and then placed by Parliament in the hands of the Secretary of State. After all, it is not a right. Nobody has the right to another country's citizenship; nobody has a right to naturalisation in another state. It is Parliament which has to lay down who may or may not be naturalised. Therefore, it must remain—must it not?—in the discretion of the Secretary of State, and it must remain an absolute discretion.
I believe that a judicial review would create more difficulties. It would create more precedents, and therefore not only the extant case would be dealt with, but future cases also would be bound by dealing with that particular case. There would be a loss of control by the Executive as to who should be allowed naturalisation. I believe it would be very difficult to create objective tests. I believe it would lead to inflexibility, whereas at the present time there is much more flexibility.
As for the practical requirements for the applicant, in respect of naturalisation he must have residence and be able to speak English. Those are matters which, after all, he can himself correct; he can learn the language and he can live in the country. There is, of course, the question of security and we should not underestimate it. The process which has previously been in the hands of Secretaries of State of different Administrations has very rarely been criticised, and I think it has been exercised by all those Secretaries of State fairly and rightly, a lot of it with a great deal of information which it would not have been possible for the Minister to disclose to the public.
I find in this area, therefore, that the formal right of appeal is not appropriate. I feel that we have a Commissioner for Administration, and a very independent gentleman we have there at the present time, and I believe that this is a matter we have to leave to a Minister who is answerable to Parliament. I say with great respect both to my noble friend—his point is rather separate from that with which I am dealing; I am dealing more with that contained in the amendment of noble Lords opposite—and to the Committee that this is a matter which one has to leave to the Executive, who will be answerable to Parliament.
Lord Avebury: Exercising the most painful self-restraint, I rise merely to say in a sentence that I warmly support the speeches of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in support of some form of right of appeal.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: In the Government view, a right of appeal in an area in which Parliament is conferring an absolute discretion on the Secretary of State is inappropriate. In our view, naturalisation should remain, as it always has been, a matter of discretion for the Secretary of State. In days long gone by it was a matter within the gift of the Sovereign; later, powers to naturalise were exercised by Parliament; but for a long time, indeed since 1844, powers in respect of naturalisation have been vested in the Secretary of State as matters of absolute discretion.
It is apparent that many of the matters which have to be weighed, as my noble and learned friend Lord
462
Rawlinson of Ewell said in the light of his great experience in this field, are matters which are essentially not justiciable, and the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Colville recognises that by focusing on only some of the criteria for naturalisation as being subject to the remit of the tribunal he has in mind. Accordingly, I respectfully suggest to the Committee that to create a right of appeal in the manner proposed in the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, spoke would be inappropriate.
As for the alternative suggestion in the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Colville—as one would expect of him, it is an extremely original and good idea to make use of what is already in the Bill—the situation in naturalisation is somewhat different from the situation of Clause 39. In that clause, the power of the Secretary of State to deprive of citizenship is very closely controlled, as indeed one would expect. In the naturalisation area, criteria are set out, but over and above all that, a very clear discretion "may if he thinks fit"—is conferred on the Secretary of State.
My noble friend recognises very clearly that any form of appeal machinery involves expenditure of resources, and the mere fact that Clause 39 contains provisions for a committee of inquiry procedure—which, as I said, has been used only five times since 1948—is a very different thing from the kind of exercise he would have in mind for the tribunal under this amendment. Accordingly, similar though they are in appearance, in reality they are so very different that I would invite your Lordships, while grateful to my noble friend for his suggestion, not to go along with it.
Matters on this aspect have been so fully dealt with by my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson that I do not think that I should keep your Lordships waiting by listening to me any longer. There are, however, some matters which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord Colville at the introduction of his speech which I should mention. The first is that there is no need, as I see it, for any kind of appeal system against matters of entitlement. He says that the Home Office will have to build up some kind of view on "close connection". Well, it is a question of applying the words "close connection", both of which are fairly well known, to the circumstances of a particular case. I cannot see that having any form of tribunal will obviate the necessity for building up some form of case law in that respect. Accordingly, I would respectfully suggest that that first branch of the amendment really does not provide a basis on which any form of special appeal is necessary. On the second branch, the question of discretion I would submit is paramount. I hope that in the light of these considerations my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment which he has put down and that your Lordships will agree with the view that the provisions in the Bill are appropriate for this matter.
Viscount Colville of Culross: There are no provisions in the Bill, and that is just the trouble. I find the greatest possible difficulty in supporting the amendment that was gently advocated by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because when you get into this area of discretion I can see some of the difficulties which my noble and learned friend, Lord Rawlinson, and my

463
noble and learned friend on the Front Bench have mentioned. I think they are genuine points which one must try to bear in mind, particularly since this matter has been extensively canvassed in another place on almost identical wording. We must have a new thought about it.
My noble and learned friend on the Front Bench has really said nothing which is inimical to the second part of my amendment—that is to say, where it deals with a non-binding appeal procedure against naturalisation—except for one thing. I suppose in the end it is this that is going to kill the whole matter. He sees financial implications. Everybody in this Committee knows that anyone who suggests the imposition of further financial burdens upon the economy at the moment is going to be about the most unpopular member of your Lordships' Committee or indeed of either House of Parliament.
I appreciate that this is a practical objection at the moment, but I wonder whether, when we are, for the first time for a very long period indeed, and with a very radical new approach, looking at the question of nationality, we should allow that point alone to prevent us from providing a piece of machinery which is otherwise, I think, if I analyse my noble and learned friend's speech, wholly unobjectionable. I could not detect any good reason in his speech, other than that, why we should not have a procedure of this sort. He did not reproduce any of the objections that were voiced by my right honourable friend in another place on the earlier occasion, and I shall look very carefully, not tomorrow but on Monday, at the Official Report to see exactly what he said in order to find out whether that is a correct assessment.
I am obviously not going to press this matter tonight, in particular since I know perfectly well that there are technical omissions in the amendment and it could be drawn a great deal better. But I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that this is not the end of the matter. I shall look at it again, and I think there is a good deal of support in this Committee. I am not suggesting anything radical, anything obstructionist, anything other than a very minimal, but nevertheless extremely important, piece of protection for the citizen.
Everybody knows that these applications are made and are refused, and are taken up through one House or the other and the decision is reversed. That means that the decision is not always infallible in the first place. Why should only Members of the two Houses be considered fit to do this, if they so choose? Of course, they are conscientious people, but even they can slip sometimes. But why should they be the only channel whereby people seeking these discretionary rights—and of course they are discretionary rights—should obtain any kind of recourse? The Parliamentary Commissioner can make recommendations, but he can confer no rights. There are, I fear, no "teeth" in the Parliamentary Commissioner. He can but criticise maladministration, he cannot do anything about it, and he cannot force anything to be done about it.
Why should we not have some form of statutory provision which would deal with this matter and which would, incidentally, I should have thought, take a considerable load off Members of both Houses in regard to some extremely disputatious matters? I
464
shall seek to withdraw the amendment this evening, but I am afraid that I am in no way convinced that the Bill is complete and perfect without a provision of this kind in it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I should like to say how delighted we are on this side of the Committee to hear of the intention of the noble Viscount to persist with this matter. This is absolutely crucial. He has spoken as the considerable common lawyer that he is. I am delighted to hear him, and we shall support him in his endeavours.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.47 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 141ZA:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause:
("Grounds of citizenship
.—(1) Where a person is or purports to be a British Citizen by reason of his birth in the United Kingdom or by descent, he shall not be treated as if he were not a citizen unless the Secretary of State shall give the person notice in writing informing him of the ground or grounds on which it is proposed to treat him as if he were not a citizen.
(2) If a person whom the Secretary of State proposes to treat as if he/her were not a citizen, applies in the prescribed manner for an inquiry, the Secretary of State shall, and in any other case the Secretary of State may, refer the case to a committee of inquiry consisting of a chairman, being a person possessing judicial experience, appointed by the Secretary of State and of such other members appointed by the Secretary of State as he thinks proper.
(3) The provisions of subsections (8), (9) and (10) of section 39 shall apply to this section.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment concerns a point that is quite different from the other amendments, between which it appears to have been sandwiched. The purpose of the amendment is to alleviate to some degree the uncertainty that will exist in future about the citizenship of children born in the United Kingdom. It would also assist in resolving difficult cases of citizenship by descent for children born abroad.
Under Clause 1(1) of the Bill it will be impossible for many parents to be absolutely certain whether or not their child has been born a citizen. The need for the amendment arises because often parents will be unable to say whether their children are citizens, and further-more, some parents who assert their children as citizens might in fact be disbelieved. They might be disbelieved by officials, by perhaps hospital receptionists, or by other administrators with whom they come into contact. Without some positive proof being offered they will find it very difficult to establish the citizenship of their children.
Therefore, we think it reasonable that there should be available to parents a process whereby they can claim the rights that their children possess. But it is particularly important that children about whose citizenship there is a doubt should not be in danger of deportation under the new immigration rules which the Government intend to introduce. I should think that that situation would arise most frequently on an application for a passport. Although some of the people to whom I am referring might be adults, or young adults, in the terms of the amendment the majority would be children.
Therefore the amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State would have to give reasons why a

465
child was being treated as a non-citizen. The burden of proof would have to be on the Secretary of State to show why he thought that the child or adult was not a citizen. If at that stage the Secretary of State's information was shown to be mistaken, then there would be no possibility of a citizen being unfairly deported. But as the Bill stands at the moment unamended it is quite possible that some children who are citizens will be wrongly deported. After all, even with the best of intentions, there is always room for some error.
They might be children whose citizenship by descent had been acquired by reason of a parent's employment, and where the Secretary of State was advised, incorrectly but quite innocently, that the employment in question was not covered by Clause 3. They might be children born here to legally-settled persons whose legal settlement the Home Office was questioning on the ground of alleged fraud when entry was originally obtained. These are just some examples of what can happen. To safeguard the people concerned, and particularly, in this case, children, this amendment would, we believe, be the minimum, surely, that we should provide. I therefore beg to move.
Lord Gifford: May I briefly support the amendment that has been moved, and point out that I think it raises a very important point which has become of great concern following a recent decision of the Court of Appeal in a case called Parvaz Akhtar. The way in which the matter concerned happened was that where someone was registered as a citizen the Home Office later took the view that he was not in fact the person he said he was, that he was not the son of a Commonwealth citizen who was therefore entitled to be registered, but that in fact he was someone else completely different and was not entitled to be registered—in effect, that there had been a fraud.
In that case the requirements of what is now Clause 39—the possibility of depriving someone of citizenship—could be by-passed because it was not a question of saying, "You are a citizen, but you have obtained it by fraud", but of saying, "You are not a citizen at all". I may not be making myself entirely clear, but the point is this. Where someone who believes himself to be a citizen is then under challenge by the Home Office and possibly under threat of deportation, as the noble Baroness said, because of that challenge, there ought to be the same possibility of a hearing by the committee of inquiry as there would be if there had been the deprivation of citizenship procedure.
Lord Belstead: I will certainly look carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said, but I would have thought, having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to the noble Lord, that the right way to deal with these cases would be for them to be taken up in the courts. I believe that the system of being able to do that offers this particular advantage over what is being proposed in the amendment. At present, the courts are very much a matter of last resort where a person has already provided the Home Office with what they regard as sufficient and reasonable evidence of their claim to citizenship but without success.
The provisions of this new clause would be activated right from the very beginning of the process. A person
466
would be able to demand an inquiry as soon as his or her claim to citizenship had been refused, even if he or she had not provided any documentary evidence to support the claim. I am bound to say that this could only lead to a substantial addition to the burden of the nationality division and the courts, and to longer delays. I really would have thought that the right way to deal with these matters would be straight to the courts if that is what the aggrieved party thinks is necessary, and I must say that I do not think that these are cases where a special inquiry procedure should be set up.
Baroness Birk: In view of what my noble friend Lord Gifford said and the case he quoted, which the Minister said he would look at, and also because I am rather concerned as, of course, the courts do not have to go into the merits of the case, I wonder whether the noble Lord will look at it again, as I shall and perhaps come back to it at Report stage. Or he may feel that he can write to me in the meantime. With that I will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Avebury: May I make a point about the remark that the noble Baroness has made? During the course of today's proceedings there have been half a dozen instances where people have asked the Minister to write to them, and the Minister has usually nodded and said he would do that. It is only a partially satisfactory procedure because while the recipient of the letter may know what is in the Minister's mind, others, who may be equally interested, want to know what Home Office policy is in case it may modify their stance on Report stage or change their minds about an amendment that they personally want to introduce. I hope the Minister, whether the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, or the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, will bear in mind those interested in these matters apart from the person who is promised the letter.
Lord Belstead: If it is appropriate, of course we shall do our best to see that those who should receive letters do get them. This is not a case where I promised to write; what I promised to do was to look carefully at what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said. The noble Baroness said that she, understanding that I would do that, would feel that she was free to return to the subject. That was how the matter was left.
Baroness Birk: No, I also said perhaps the Minister would write to me about it in between stages and he nodded. That is why the noble Lord picked that up.
Lord Avebury: Yes.
Lord Belstead: I do not think we can undertake to write too many letters. My undertaking was to look at what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said. That was my undertaking. I do not think that I am going to go any further than that this evening.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Regulations and Orders in Council]:
10.57 p.m.
Lord Teviot Lord Teviot moved Amendment No. 141ZAB:
Page 35, line 28, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: At this very late hour I am not going to detain the Committee for very long. I shall not refer to any notes but say that the purpose of this amendment is a probing one. I am concerned that there is in this clause a provision that the Home Office can charge fees for people who want to prove who they are. That is excellent. If the Home Office can do that, that is splendid. I should like to point out one or two pitfalls that they might encounter.
I should declare an interest because I research registers and records. Until now, I believe any person who wanted to prove who they were had to do it themselves or employ other people to do so. This clause refers to Home Office records or any other records, births, marriages or deaths, and this type of research is extremely time-consuming. I can see an empire of civil servants being set up to look into this. This might be admirable if it could pay, but civil servants' costings can be rather inflationary. I am not asking my noble friend to answer that point, but I wonder whether people will be trained to do this service. Also, how much is it going to cost to do it? If they are not going to do it themselves, it should be made clear to people who want to prove themselves to be citizens of this country that they can equally well do it themselves or employ other people besides the Home Office to do it. Perhaps it might be better if, for a small fee, they could have an advisory service in order to put them on the right track. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I should like an assurance that if any such searches of registers are carried out in connection with an inquiry made by a Member of Parliament or a Peer on behalf of a correspondent that no fee will he charged.
Lord Trefgarne: If your Lordships will allow me, I will, as did my noble friend Lord Teviot, paraphrase the remarks I was going to make, not only in the interests of brevity but also to alter slightly the thrust of what was originally proposed for me to say, to make it more in line with the wishes of my noble friend and indeed of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I want to say, first, that it is the purpose of these provisions that fees should be charged for searches of Home Office records primarily. I have to admit that the second part of the subsection to which my noble friend referred does not make that entirely clear. I agree that, for example, the words,
"or by any prescribed authority, which are or may be relevant for the purpose of determining the status of any person under this Act or any of the former nationality Acts"
may appear to indicate that the searches could go wider than mere Home Office records.
I am advised that the intention is simply that the searches should be conducted within the confines of the Home Office records, some of which are now held at the Public Record Office by virtue of the fact that they are of some particular age; but it is also thought possible that the records of the Registrar-General might need to be searched in certain cases. I agree that the reference in the subsection is not as clear as it ought to be, and I will consider that matter; and if
468
my noble friend wishes to return to the point at a later stage, perhaps I can give him more satisfaction then than I can tonight.
I am afraid that I did not quite follow the point made to me by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but it sounded a reasonable one and, if he will allow me, I will study what he said in Hansard when it becomes available on Monday, and write to him about it, if I may.
Lord Teviot: Like my noble friend, I did not follow the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, either; but I have followed him to a certain extent. The Home Office records would not get anybody very far, because Clause 40(2)(e) says:
"the carrying out of searches in or of any registers or other records, being registers or records held in the United Kingdom by or on behalf of the Secretary of State or by any prescribed authority, which are or may be relevant for the purpose of determining the status of any person under this Act or any of the former nationality Acts".
My noble friend has mentioned the Registrar-General. In some cases, having done these seaches, one has to look in certain other records as well. So I think, without any pushing from me, that there should be quiet consultation and one should leave it at that—knowing that Cinderella on Thursdays comes at eleven o'clock and not twelve. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Gifford: Clause 40 introduces a panoply of regulation-making powers, and although theoretically those regulations can be reviewed by Parliament, in practice they never are. I wonder if I may, as I indicated briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that I would, ask one or two questions which appear to me to arise from some of these regulations. The first arises on the power in Clause 40(1)(b) relating to the way in which applications are to be made. A lot of applications for registration under this Bill are going to be made on behalf of children, and what I should like to be satisfied about is that proper consideration will be given to the peculiar circumstances which will arise when children are either orphaned and have guardians or are in the care of local authorities. For instance, it is essential that the applications to be registered as citizens, which may be in their interests, can be made by people who have parental responsibilities for them.
The second question that I want to raise arises on subsection (2) of Clause 40; that is to say, the provision for the charging of fees. I do not know whether we can have any indication of what the fees will be, particularly for the various kinds of registration which are introduced by the Bill, and for naturalisation. If the fee for all kinds of registration will remain at £50, which I understand it to be at the moment, what I would urge upon the Government is that they should consider a substantial reduction in that fee. There are so many people who will have an entitlement to register that I suggest that a much lower or a nominal fee is appropriate, rather than the very hefty fee which is now charged.

469
Thirdly, there is a provision under Clause 40(2)(f) for the supplying of an opinion in writing by the Secretary of State about a person's status. It may take away work from members of the Bar for the Secretary of State to be giving opinions in writing, which I am sure would be much more valuable than anyone else's opinion. Would the Minister indicate whether anybody will be entitled to get an opinion in writing about his or her status, if it is a matter of uncertainty? Finally, will the regulations make any provision for the time within which all the various steps which have to be undergone by applicants for registration and naturalisation have to be completed? We are introducing an extremely complex new system of registration by this Bill, and if the regulations do not provide for some kind of time limit I am very worried about the delays which will be suffered by all kinds of people who will have an entitlement to citizenship, let alone those who apply to be naturalised and who are already subject to the grossest delays.
Lord Avebury: I asked at an earlier stage whether the Minister could explain to me how the fees were to be determined, and I want to echo what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford: that £50 for registration and £150 for naturalisation is a very large sum of money to have to pay. I asked the Government whether they could inform me if it was their policy to recover by way of fees the whole of the costs of the officials who are employed in determining these applications. If that was so, I had to point out that in 1970 there were 90 staff in post and they determined in the course of that year 30,392 applications, which made 323 applications per employee; whereas in 1979 there were 186 staff in post—almost double the number—and they determined fewer applications, 24,586. There was a drop of almost two-thirds in the number of applications which were decided per member of the staff.
If this process were to continue, then in a few years' time it would cost not £150 but, as I said earlier, £300 or £400 for a person to become naturalised. I wanted to know whether it was to be the Government's policy to continue to recover the full cost of this staff, or whether they would exercise some reasonable restraint, such as not increasing the fees by more than the index of the cost of living. If they would give some assurance of that kind, it would be most helpful.
Lord Belstead: The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has asked me four questions of which he gave me notice and which I shall now briefly answer. The first question was about applications which are made for registration, and for other things, on behalf of minors by those with parental responsibilities. The regulations prescribing the persons by whom applications are to be made will be likely to follow closely the existing regulations, and in cases of this kind applications have to be made either by the parent or by the guardian of the child. However, there are no regulations governing applications under Section 7(2) of the 1948 Act. The Home Secretary has discretionary power to register any minor. It is, therefore, possible for older minors to submit applications on their own behalf under this provision, or for local authorities to apply on behalf of children in their care.
470
The second question, which both noble Lords asked me about, was the question of fees. I am sorry, but both noble Lords are basing their questions on a premise which is totally different from that on which the Government base their premise. Both noble Lords asked whether fees for registration or naturalisation could be reduced. The situation which the Government are in is that we must control public expenditure. It must therefore remain Government policy to recover, so far as possible through fees, the administrative costs of nationality applications.
The third question which the noble Lord asked me was about opinions in writing. The noble Lord asked whether anybody can receive an opinion in writing. The answer is that it would not be our practice to issue a letter of the kind to which the noble Lord is referring to anybody but the person concerned or his representative, such as a solicitor.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about the time taken for processing naturalisation applications. At the end of a very long day I can reveal one piece of information which may startle your Lordships because it startled me; that is, the really incredible increase in naturalisation applications in the last few years. In 1977 about 4,750 applications for naturalisation or discretionary registration were received. In 1978 the number was 7,000. In 1980 it had gone over 9,000. The number of applications has therefore risen by 92 per cent. in four years. Furthermore, the intake up to the end of May of this year was over 8,500, which is only 500 less than for the whole of last year.
When we talk about naturalisation procedures and the administrative matters connected with naturalisation procedures, we are talking about very serious matters. What I can say—which is perhaps constructive—to the noble Lord is that the Bill does one good thing to try to speed up the delays; namely, if one looks at Clause 41, together with Clause 48, one finds there procedures which I shall not go into in any detail but which we believe will be able to cut some six months off the period of delay in processing naturalisation procedures.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 42 agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think we have probably reached the time of day when any effort to get any further could be counter-productive. In the pious hope that starting again next Tuesday with new freshness we shall be able equally to be as brief and objective as possible, I suggest that we stop here, very much with the staff of the House in mind. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Greater London Council (Money) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
East Sussex Bill [H.L.]
  Milford Docks Bill [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments considered and agreed to.
Northumbrian Water Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
Contempt of Court Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with the Lords amendments in lieu agreed to.