Mr.
Woolas: Clause 43 rights what some see as a wrong and is
consequential to clause 47. The reason that clause 43 appears earlier
than, but is consequential to, clause 47 is because it relates to
sections of the
British Nationality Act 1981. Section 1(1) of the 1981 Act
currently provides for a person born in the UK or a qualifying
territory to acquire British citizenship automatically at birth, if
born to a parent who is either a British citizen or is settled for
nationality purposes in the UK or qualifying territories.
Section 1(3)
of the 1981 Act currently provides for a person born in the UK to
register as a British citizen if, while they are a minor, their father
or mother becomes either a British citizen or becomes settled for
nationality purposes in the UK. Under subsection (1), a person born in
the UK to a foreign and Commonwealth parent who is currently serving in
the UK armed forces acquires British citizenship automatically at
birth, or, under subsection (3), they may register as a British citizen
because the parent is recognised as being settled in the UK for
nationality purposes. Section 50 in part 2 of the 1981 Act sets out the
definition of settled in the UK or qualifying territory for nationality
purposes, which requires the person to be ordinarily resident and to be
free from immigration time control.
The Home
Office lawyers have advised that the application of that definition to
foreign and Commonwealth members of the UK armed forces is now
ambiguous following changes to Ministry of Defence recruitment and
training practices, which means that those foreign and Commonwealth
persons eligible for recruitment to the UK armed forces are no longer
expected to have indefinite leave to remain in the UK. However, since
1997 members of the UK armed forces continue, as before, to be exempt
from immigration control while subject to service law during the period
of their service in the UK armed
forces. The
Government wish to maintain the current rights to citizenship of
children born in the UK or a qualifying territory to a parent who is,
or who becomes, a foreign and Commonwealth member of the armed forces.
That is because the right has existed in law and has been asserted by
this class of person since commencement of the 1981 Act. It is also
because the Government are committed to improving the lives of service
personnel, their families and veterans, as outlined in the MOD Command
Paper from July 2008, “The Nation’s Commitment:
Cross-Government Support to our Armed Forces, their Families and
Veterans”, by amending section 1 of the 1981 Act to accommodate
that group of persons. The current ambiguity in the application of the
definition of “settled” to that group will be removed and
the existing rights will be maintained. This is therefore a good
opportunity to clarify the law in relation to those who serve in the
armed
forces.
Damian
Green: I thank the Minister for that explanation. The
change is welcome and necessary, and I can imagine the pleasure with
which he makes it, given his recent brushes with the interaction
between our armed forces and our immigration law. I can see that he
would like to get over this ground very lightly, and I am glad that he
has done
so.
The
Chairman: Although he rose very positively to his feet to
do
it. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 43
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
44 and 45 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
46Descent
through the female
line Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Woolas: It is a great shame that the hon. Member for
Carshalton and Wallington has left the room, because these changes were
brought about in the other place because of his arguments.
[Interruption.] No, do not tell him, Sir Nicholas. We concur
with the other place, again, on this point about descent through the
female line, and we accept that we should right that wrong.
The change
essentially brings into line the position of a certain category of
person covered by the British Nationality Act 1981, whose citizenship
has been passed on. At the moment there is a cut-off date of 1961, but
we are righting that wrong. In short, at the moment, if one had two
daughters who were born in 1959 and 1962 respectively, the younger one
would have rights and the elder would not, so we are putting that right
on advice from the other
place.
The
Chairman: I am going to use my discretion and courtesy and
call the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to
speak.
Tom
Brake: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I can imagine what the
Minister said when I was called outside, so I welcome what I believe he
has said. I heard him complete his confirmation that he would address
that omission. He might have given an explanation for the original
omission when I was not present, but I wonder why it happened and so is
having to be addressed
now.
Damian
Green: To add completeness to the debate, let me say that
we, too, welcome the change. I am sure that many hon. Members will have
had a small number of constituency cases on this issue, and that we
have all wondered how this law has subsisted in this completely
irrational way, under many successive Governments, for getting on for
50 years. It is incumbent on this House to pay tribute to the other
House for pointing out the problem in such a strong way, and I am glad
that Ministers have finally acceded to the apparently
ineluctable
logic.
Mr.
Woolas: I have asked myself the same question. I believe
we would have taken the opportunity to do this in any event, but it was
highlighted in the other
place. The
1981 Act was meant to limit citizenship to those with a close and
continuing connection with the UK. One of the underlying principles of
the Act was that an adult seeking to become a British citizen should be
able to demonstrate his or her personal connection with the UK. Section
4C differed from other sections in that it allowed for registration on
the basis of a mother’s connection with the UK, and it was
originally the Government’s intention that it should be limited
in its scope. On 7 February 1979, the then Home Secretary, Merlyn Rees,
announced that he would exercise his discretion in favour of any child
of a UK-born mother who applied for registration before his or her
18th birthday. Section 4C was intended only to cover those
people who might have been unaware of the 1979 concession and
did not benefit from it. Persons born before 7 February 1961 could not
have benefited from the concession in any event. My noble
Friend Lord Filkin
said: “British
women did not acquire the right to pass on their citizenship until
1983. One can only go so far towards righting the wrongs of history
before the number of ‘what ifs’ to be taken into account
becomes unmanageable.”—[Official Report, House of
Lords, 31 October 2002; Vol. 640, c.
295-296.] My
view is that it is manageable. The short answer to the question is that
the measure reflects changing attitudes
towards women and descendancy rights from the mother as well as the
father—and, in my view, it is about time. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
47 ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Steve
McCabe.) 3.16
pm Adjourned
till Tuesday 16 June at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
