Damian
Green: The Minister is right that those are extremely
interesting figures. He said that the Chagossian community in Britain
is about 1,000. Is that number fairly stable or has it been growing in
recent
years?
Mr.
Woolas: My understanding is that that number is fairly
stable; I have no evidence that the movement is exponential or that the
curve is getting steeper. However, I want to emphasise that that number
is an estimate. It is better than a guess, but it is an estimate none
the less. There are no accurate figures on the number of Chagossians in
the UK.
The Committee
will want to know the Government’s position on this issue. The
proposal in new clause 1 is to extend British citizenship to a further
generation of Chagossians; that is, to the children of the children
who, it is argued, would have been born in qualifying territories if
the resettlement had not taken place.
Tom
Brake: Does the Minister also acknowledge that, to some
extent, the 1969 cut-off date is not entirely fair? As he said himself,
the fact is that ships stopped going to the Chagos islands and a lot of
people had to move out before that. So that 1969 cut-off date is not an
actual fixed
point.
Mr.
Woolas: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Indeed, I
said that the resettlement started in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The particular date in 1969—I think that it was a date in August
1969—does not take on board the practical point about the ships
that he made. The difficulty that the Government have is that
we are talking about children of children and what could have happened
to those people retrospectively, if the Committee follows my
logic. 9.45
am In
the debate on this subject in the other place, Lord Brett expressed
sympathy on behalf of the Government for the circumstances that had
brought about the situation. The vast majority of Chagossians who from
1969 onwards resettled from the British Indian Ocean
Territory—principally Diego Garcia, but the other islands as
well—are now in Mauritius, which of course is not covered. The
new clause seeks to address what the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington sees as an imbalance in the rights of former residents of
the Chagos islands, and would enable children who were born outside the
islands, potentially due to the resettlement of their parents, to
acquire British citizenship in the same way as they would have done but
for that resettlement.
The intended
beneficiaries of the provision, if I understand the new clause
correctly, would be second generation Chagossians born outside the
British Indian Ocean Territory and the UK qualifying
territories—not those who were resettled, but their children.
The new clause seeks to ensure that those children are able to pass on
the right to citizenship to future generations born to them outside the
UK qualifying territories.
In discussing
the new clause, I have been made aware of discussions being held
between the Foreign Office and the Chagossians and their
representatives on the broad range of issues relating to resettlement.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the all-party group on the Chagos
islands, which I understand last met on 30 May and is giving support to
those representations on resettlement. The principal issue they have
raised with us is their right, or suggested right, to resettle on the
islands, rather than—not instead of—the issue of
resettlement. Of course, Miss Begg, you would not allow me to address
that issue here because it is not covered by the Bill. Suffice it to
say, we are sympathetic to the position of second, and subsequent,
generation Chagossians who were born in Mauritius or the Seychelles. I
appreciate that is not the issue raised in the new clause, but I
thought it would help the Committee to know that that was our
focus. Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): There is some merit in the
Minister setting the debate in a wider context. Has he had any advice
about the consequences of accepting or not accepting the new clause for
the various sovereignty claims to the islands? Mauritius has made a
claim on the British Indian Ocean Territory and may have understandings
about what will happen when the United States finishes using Diego
Garcia. I cannot remember the position, although I knew it once. There
could be implications for the rights of people who are citizens of the
British Indian Ocean Territory by descent but who are now in Mauritius
and the other
islands.
Mr.
Woolas: The straightforward answer is no, although I
absolutely see the hon. Gentleman’s point. There is a
relationship between the issue addressed by the new clause and
the issue I have just raised, and I will take that up with my colleague
in the Foreign and
Commonwealth Office. I cannot remember who that Minister is after the
reshuffle but I think it is still my noble Friend Lord Malloch-Brown,
or at least it was at 9 o’clock—please do not put that in
Hansard. [Interruption.] I am advised that
it is my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda.
Moving
swiftly on to the bit we are interested in, citizenship, otherwise than
by descent, that can be transmitted to the next generation, born
outside the UK, can only be acquired by persons who are born in the UK
or a qualifying territory, who are naturalised in the UK, or who are
born outside the UK or a qualifying territory to a British citizen in
particular circumstances, for example a British citizen in the Crown
service.
Furthermore,
Chagossians who are British citizens through living in Mauritius or
other parts of the Indian ocean could, if they so choose, elect to live
in the United Kingdom. We understand, as I have already said, that some
have done so. That means that any child born to them in the UK or a
qualifying territory would acquire British citizenship automatically at
birth by virtue of being born to a British
citizen. When
a child has not been born in the UK but has been born in Mauritius or
another part of the Indian Ocean it is probable that they will have
acquired the citizenship of the state in which they were born. Any
decision to allow British citizens by descent with a connection with
the British Indian Ocean Territory to pass on their citizenship could
lead to representations from other British citizens. British citizens
by descent who are ordinarily resident in the UK and who have children
born to them outside the UK cannot transmit their citizenship under
section 2 of the 1981 Act, unless—there is a caveat—they
are working in specified employment under Crown or designated
service. The
policy on transmission of British citizenship by persons who hold that
status by descent only is, therefore, strictly applied. The policy is
designed to ensure that children born outside the UK to a British
citizen by descent acquire British citizenship only when there is an
ongoing close connection with the UK—the principle will also
apply in my arguments on new clause 6—and, therefore, in cases
where that connection is broken, on a temporary basis only. It is thus
inappropriate to amend the class of British citizenship acquired by
that group. So to amend would lead to similar representations from
others who have British citizenship by descent only. There is no
adequate case for such an
extension.
Damian
Green: I hear what the Minister says. This seems to be the
central point where numbers come in. He has just said that the proposal
would set a precedent for other groups of people. What rough quantum of
numbers are we talking
about?
Mr.
Woolas: I thought I had been through
that.
Tom
Brake: I think that the hon. Member for Ashford is asking
what are the other categories of people whose claims the Minister says
would be reinforced if the Chagos islanders were granted
permission.
Mr.
Woolas: I am not sure about the numbers, but it would be
people who, as I have said, were born outside the UK to a British
citizen by descent only, who acquired
British citizenship when there was no close connection with the UK. That
is our difficulty. In layperson’s terms, the new clause is
attempting to right a historical wrong by assuming citizenship rights
being passed on to the next generation. My difficulty with that, as I
have explained, is twofold. First, any such change that would
retrospectively, as it were, assign rights could be ascribed in other
places to other people. Secondly, in any event, it makes an assumption
that the child would have been born in the Chagos islands. That is the
difficulty in practical
circumstances. Our
policy is consistent and empathetic to Chagossians when there has been
an application by the first generation and when we have been able to
use the powers that we have to grant citizenship, but those children,
who may be grown up now, of course, who have acquired citizenship of
another country—predominantly Mauritius—have no such
close connection with the United Kingdom. Therefore, retrospectively,
to turn that back would imply difficulty, although that is not quite
the right use of the word “retrospectively”. We do not
see how the Government can separate the nationality rights of
Chagossians from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s general
policy regarding the Chagos islands. That relates to the point made by
the hon. Member for
Reigate. Although
the Government have not sought to justify the actions taken in the
1960s and 1970s, we have maintained the line that our
obligations—legal and otherwise—have been settled by
previous compensation awards, and by the grant of British citizenship
under the 2002 Act. If hon. Members are concerned that we have shut the
door on Chagossians, the provisions in that Act should be borne in
mind, although, to be fair, I think that the hon. Member for Carshalton
and Wallington has acknowledged that point, if not today, during
previous
debates. The
British Indian Ocean Territory is currently British sovereign
territory—none of it is US territory. Recently, Foreign Office
Ministers have repeated publicly, and have given the commitment to the
Mauritians, that when the UK no longer requires the BIOT for defence
purposes, we will cede the territory to Mauritius. Of course, we have
given no indication of the time scale for that, but it is important
because it will transfer rights to Mauritians, which we think is the
best way to address the wrong that the hon. Gentleman wants
addressed.
The UK-US
agreement was signed in 1966 and resettlement continued until 1973,
when of course there was a Conservative Government. I take the point
made by the hon. Member for Ashford about Harold Wilson, but I think
Edward Heath continued the policy.
I have tried
at some length to show how our strategy will address the problem raised
by the new clause but without the associated difficulties. As the hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, new clause 6, on stateless
minors, would extend current provisions that enable a person born
stateless outside the United Kingdom or qualifying territories to a
British national, to acquire the same type of British nationality as
their parent. That relates to provisions in schedule 2(4) to the
British Nationality Act
1981. The
new clause would have two principal effects: first, to remove the
requirement for a stateless person to have lived in the United Kingdom
for a period of three years; and, secondly, to change the nationality
status acquired from that of the parent to either full British
citizenship or British overseas territory citizenship. It is a
well-understood principle that British citizenship should be limited to
those with a close and continuing connection with the United Kingdom or
an overseas territory. As such it can normally be transmitted to only
one generation born overseas—that is similar to the point about
the Chagossians. The principle is reinforced by the proposals in the
Bill on earned citizenship. Nevertheless, the Government are committed
to reducing cases of statelessness, and we will continue to make
exceptions—the key point about ministerial discretion is that it
is much tougher than the impression we may have given—to reduce
statelessness in order to meet our obligations under the important 1961
convention on the reduction of statelessness. It is not
unreasonable to insist on a period of residence before registering a
stateless person. I shall address the example given by the hon. Member
for Carshalton and Wallington. The entitlement to British citizenship
should not be available to someone with no ties to the United Kingdom
or with only a distant connection, such as a grandparent or a
parent’s connection through a former colony. Those who acquire
British citizenship, and therefore the right to abode in the UK, should
have a real association with this country, such as through a period of
residence. Despite our commitment to reducing statelessness, we can
only go so far to compensate for the fact that other nations do not
share that commitment, and so do not provide for the acquisition of
citizenship by children born in their territory.
Indeed, I
fear that some countries would abuse such a change were we to make it.
I can think of several countries that would do so—as I am sure
the Committee can. It should give the hon. Gentleman some reassurance
in his campaign to hear that the requirements under schedule 2 of the
British Nationality Act 1981 are in accordance with article 4 of the
United Nations convention on the reduction of statelessness, because
the fear is that a country that was not signed up to the convention
could discriminate against groups—perhaps minorities—by
denying them citizenship of their country in the belief that it would
be taken advantage of if signatory countries made those
changes.
10
am If
we accept the proposed new clause, it would allow children born
overseas to British overseas citizens and British subjects to become
British citizens if they would otherwise be stateless. To illustrate my
point, I shall give an example of how that could work. When Uganda
became independent in 1963, despite having been born in Uganda, a large
number of citizens of the UK and the colonies did not acquire Ugandan
citizenship because neither parent was born there. Such people became
British overseas citizens and may now have children—a second
generation born in Uganda—who cannot acquire citizenship because
under current Uganda law, a child born there would not be a citizen if
neither a parent or a grandparent is or was a member of an indigenous
community that existed, incredibly, in 1926 or was a citizen at the
time of the child’s birth. I am not sure from where that date
came, but that is the law
there. The
amendment would mean that a child born to such a British overseas
citizen parent would be able to register as a British citizen and would
therefore have a right to abode here without the child or parent having
a
close connection to the UK. The United Kingdom makes adequate provision
for children born stateless who have a connection with the UK or an
overseas territory to acquire citizenship. In doing so, we believe that
we meet our international obligations as set out in the 1961
convention. Let me
further reassure the Committee on the point about discretion. As has
been said, we do not give a guarantee that if people move to the UK
they will acquire citizenship. However, if they live here for three
years before applying on behalf of their children, the law provides a
registration entitlement under paragraph 4 of schedule 2 to the 1981
Act. That means that there is no need for discretion to be exercised
under section 3(1), which relates to an open discretion to register a
child. However, schedule 2, paragraph 4 provides for stateless children
born outside the UK whose parents are British citizens, British
overseas territory citizens, British overseas citizens or British
subjects. If they moved to the UK for three years, under that paragraph
they would be able to apply for the child’s registration.
Subject to the normal good character-type caveats, schedule
2, paragraph 4 provides not for ministerial discretion but for that
entitlement. In a way, schedule 3 is an open
discretion. I
am more than happy to look at the specific example that the hon.
Gentleman used, but my understanding—I caveat my answer with
that—is that the advice we gave was that they could come here.
His concern that there was no guarantee—that it was a pig in a
poke for them—is covered by schedule 2, paragraph 4. Again, I am
trying to suggest that we have a strategy to meet the point without the
consequential dangers.
I must move
on; I am being urged to do so from both sides of the Committee. The
final amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Carshalton and
Wallington relates to a difficult area of policy: the rights or
supposed rights of illegitimate children of British fathers. I have
been asked whether we have any estimate of how many such people there
are. Her Majesty’s Government have no such estimate. We have not
made one.
It is not
known how many illegitimate children of British fathers there are in
the world. It is an area of speculation that I do not wish to get into.
It assumes many things, such as whether the father knows—in my
speaking notes, it says “in my experience”. The point has
been made. It is a serious question, though, and I respect it. The
answer is that we do not have an estimate, and neither do we have
experience that could allow us to make a fair
extrapolation. The
new clause would enable registration by any person born illegitimately
to a British citizen father before 2006. The hon. Gentleman’s
point of principle is important, because the rights of children born
illegitimately should be recognised as a general principle, and we did
so in the 2006 Act. He is very reasonably trying to right a wrong, but
let me again describe our approach.
We now come
to the Secretary of State’s discretion exercised in relation to
those born illegitimately to a British father. The discretion is
exercised under the broad remit of section 3(1) of the 1981 Act, which
came into force in 1983, to enable the registration of children born
before 1 July 2006 who are the illegitimate children of British
citizens or settled fathers. That has been the
case since the Family Law Reform Act 1987 removed any distinction
between legitimate and illegitimate children in other areas of
law. Parliament
changed the law on 1 July 2006 to enable British citizen fathers to
pass on their citizenship to a child born to them out of wedlock. The
change, however, was not made retrospective, because of the
difficulties that would have been created for those affected in
relation to any other citizenships that they held. That is, of course,
still the
case. The
policy adopted in relation to the exercise of discretion under section
3(1) is that registration can take place if the Home Secretary is
satisfied about the paternity of the child, all those with parental
responsibility have consented, the good character requirement is met
and if, had the child been born to the father legitimately, he or she
would have had an automatic claim to British citizenship or an
entitlement to
registration. The
exercise of discretion under section 3(1) applies only to those who are
minors on the date of application for British citizenship. There is no
power in law, discretionary or otherwise, to register as a British
citizen a person who was born illegitimately to a British citizen
father before 2006 and who is now an
adult. The
question of numbers is complicated by the fact that many of those who
were illegitimate at birth may since have been legitimised by the
marriage of their parents. Many children born illegitimately to a
British citizen father between 1983—the onset of the 1981 Act,
from when retrospective discretion is applied—and 2006 will have
become British by virtue of being born to a British citizen mother.
Many people will have been registered under the discretion exercised by
the Secretary of State as long as they were minors on the date of
application. Many others born illegitimately before the change in law
who are now adults may well have naturalised as British citizens under
section 6 of the British Nationality Act 1981. However, it is
impossible to
say. In
addition to the guessing game—I say this not to score points but
to put it on the record—I am advised that the new clause is
technically incomplete in that it does not determine whether someone
registered under it would acquire British citizenship by descent or
otherwise than by descent and so reflect the precise circumstances of
their birth. There is also a minor technical difficulty. The hon.
Member for Carshalton and Wallington recognised that the 2006 Act
addressed the principal issue. We effectively apply that through our
discretion retrospectively to 1983, but to do so further would be a
step into the unknown. It would be a difficult move to
take.
| 
