Clause 3 - Conferral on British overseas territories citizens
British Overseas Territories Bill [Lords]
10:15 am
Mr Michael Trend (Windsor, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 2, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The amendment would remove the linkage in clause 3 between British citizenship and the British Nationality Act 1981. I understand that the amendment would cause havoc for the Bill and I do not want to do that, but I want the Minister to say more on one point. The 1981 Act insists that an overseas citizen must fulfil a residency requirement before he or she can enjoy benefits in this country such as education and social services. That is fair for most cases, but for the poorer territories, it would be desirable to remove subsection (3) and, thus, the linkage.
Some territories covered by the Bill are wealthy and would not wish to take part in an agreement on shared rights and responsibilities. However, some of the poorer countries, if offered the opportunity to take a full part in British life—paying taxes and enjoying benefits—would almost certainly fall heavily on the benefit side of the equation. In such territories, it is impossible for ordinary people to achieve a tertiary education.
The Minister wrote in a letter—he writes well—that the Government recognise the special circumstances of some territories and have tried to help by setting up a good government fund for civil servants in areas such as police, prison and fire services, immigration services, accounting and internal audit departments and children's services. The Minister's letter lists the relevant islands. Those services are important to administrators, who make up a good part of the British Government, so it is understandable that the Government are keen that there should be good government on the islands.
However, the scheme leaves two things out of the equation. First, the arrangements do not offer a degree of certainty or continuity, which even small and distant communities need. Secondly, there is no reference to higher education for ordinary citizens of the islands.
Imagine a parent on Pitcairn, St. Helena or Ascension Island whose child has received a basic education through the island's excellent education system but then finds that there is no prospect of further education without going to Britain or another country. As they proudly bear the title of British citizen, and as there is no possibility of higher education in their own country, it would be reasonable for them to assume that they would not have to fulfil a residency requirement in this country. A parent on Ascension Island who wanted their child to go into higher education would have to come to Britain and fulfil the residency requirement or pay overseas fees until the residency requirement has been met. Both options are expensive.
I imagine that few individuals would fall into that category, and I know that scholarship funds and other assistance are available. It was suggested in another place that universities should accept the responsibility, take up the challenge and be generous. One hopes that they will. However, in conferring nationality and tying it to the 1981 Act, we lose an essential flexibility. If we were to determine, on the basis of national income, a percentage of national income, or average national income, which populations should be entitled to subsidised higher education, as is the case for British citizens, we would be doing the territories a great service.
The principle behind the amendment is to appeal to the Minister to understand and to help families and individuals in territories where there is no higher education by making the link with Britain clearer and giving them the same financial assistance as people have the right to expect by dint of residency in this country. The problem cannot be solved unless someone helps; the new British citizens have a right to some clarity and certainty about their future position.