Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 69, line 6, leave out second 'and' and insert 'or'.

Mr Eric Illsley (Barnsley Central, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 28, in page 69, line 9, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 29, in page 69, line 13, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 30, in page 69, line 17, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 31, in page 69, line 20, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.

No. 25, in page 70, leave out lines 28 to 37 and insert—

'Oath and Pledge

''I, [name], swear by Almighty God that, on becoming a British citizen, I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its constitution, rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.''.'.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

We may have a long debate on whether schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill, but I this is no more and no less than a probing amendment. It substitutes the word ''or'' for ''and''. Schedule 1 refers to the relevant citizenship and pledge, and my amendment would change that to read ''citizenship, oath or pledge''. I do not press the amendment in the slightest way: I simply think that it is a useful vehicle to discuss why the Government feel that there is a need for an oath and a separate pledge.

Having said that, I and my party support the concepts behind the oath and the pledge, and I am grateful that the proposed oath is not the same as that which must be taken in the United States of America before one becomes a citizen, which states:

''I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.''

That is the oath of allegiance that must be taken before the USA will grant citizenship. A simple comparison with what is in the Bill shows that our proposed oath is much more straightforward and much simpler and, in my respectful view, much more acceptable, and therefore much less likely to raise objections across the country.

I know that hon. Members who represent the Liberal Democrats—and in particular the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—may have something to say about the wording with regard to citizenship and nationality. My amendments

provide a vehicle for discussion and probe the Government's reasoning behind their request for a pledge and a separate oath.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

Colleagues will see from the amendment paper that my hon. Friend and I support amendments Nos. 27 to 31. We are also sympathetic to the hon. Member for Woking's probing amendment No. 25.

I am no expert on oaths legislation, but I understand that there is always the option to affirm rather than to take an oath. It is important that everyone understands that. I have never taken an oath in court, for reasons of faith rather than for any other reason. People have all sorts of reasons for declining to take an oath, and it is important that they are not pushed into taking oaths if they do not want to. The hon. Member for Woking touched on those areas, and it is important that we consult as widely as possible and get them as right as we can.

I have no problem with the concept that those who seek to come to this country must make the same affirmation or take the same oath as others take for other purposes, such as becoming a judge, magistrate or Member of Parliament. I have made it clear that we need to change the nature of the oath for such occasions, but I accept that this is not the place to do it. I also accept that people take an oath to be faithful and bear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen as the Head of State. As it happens, I am a constitutional monarchist. On balance, I prefer a monarchy to a republic, so I do not have a problem with that. It would be disrespectful and disloyal to be too critical of the monarchy today of all days, when Her Majesty addressed us in Westminster Hall. I am happy that we have allegiance to the state as represented by the monarch, but as soon as possible we must accommodate the fact that some people are republicans. Most people around the world come from republics and will be republicans.

Interestingly, the pledge is more complicated than the more controversial oath. It states:

''I will give my loyalty to the United Kingdom and respect its rights and freedoms. I will uphold its democratic values. I will observe its laws faithfully and fulfil my duties and obligations as a British citizen.''

It was put to me that the pledge to fulfil the duties and obligations of a British citizen can be meaningful only if those duties and obligations are known. There is currently no codification of them, and the Bill does not tell us what they are. However, it is important that people understand what they are. I have long made the point that young people should understand the obligations of adulthood: the right to vote and the need to exercise it; jury service and the obligation to perform it; and the right to be a magistrate. Another topical obligation is the requirement to give evidence if called to do so.

I should be grateful to know how far the Government have thought through those duties and obligations. More work needs to be done. Will the Under-Secretary confirm that there will be plenty of lead-in time to the introduction of the pledge? I am signed up to the idea of a process rather than a brown envelope and a form, which does nothing for anyone

except undervalue them. I am not against some of the things done in Canada and other countries. I talked to people from the Canadian high commission and a Canadian Under-Secretary of State, and I understand that Canada has a system that is devised by a commission that stands away from the Government and that changes and moulds the system. That is a good model.

There are good models. It is a good idea to have a process and a moment at which a person crosses a line to be recognised, welcomed and accepted. There should be reciprocity with a person saying, ''I make my commitment to the United Kingdom'' and the country saying, ''We make a mutual commitment to look after you.'' I hope that we proceed carefully in order to get maximum agreement about what we do.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I shall deal quickly with the issues. I am glad that the amendments are probing because they would remove the oath of allegiance to the Crown and give people the option of taking the pledge or the oath—I am sure that the hon. Member for Woking did not intend that. I thought that that was an odd thing to appear on the amendment paper on this day of all days marking the Queen's 50th jubilee.

Mr. Malins rose—

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

Before the hon. Member for Woking gets too panicked, let me explain that there is a common-law oath of allegiance that we all owe to our sovereign. Consequently, from his point of view, the amendment was not quite as bad as he thought.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

The Minister is hanging me out to dry at the moment, but she knows that I am wholly in favour of an oath of allegiance to the Crown on this of all days. However, sometimes we need an amendment that is drafted by people outside this place to act as a peg on which to hang a constructive discussion.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I absolutely agree. I have been in opposition, and replacing ''and'' with ''or'' is usually a meaningless and harmless way to allow a debate on a topic. However, the wording of this amendment was slightly more drastic and I anticipate that the hon. Gentleman will not press it.

Our historic oath of allegiance is unchanged and goes back a long way in legislation. We have coupled it with a modern citizenship pledge with wording that enhances the significance of becoming a British citizen. Although there is an oath of allegiance to the monarch, there is also a pledge to the country. I hope that it is less cumbersome than the onerous oath that the USA uses. That attempts to list everything that is implied by the pledge, which is what the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants. I prefer to have shorter pledges with guidance notes elsewhere, rather than setting out the entire content of the pledge in a list within the pledge.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey wants to begin to write a written constitution by using the pledge. We should debate whether we should have a written constitution and whether British citizens' duties and obligations should

be listed, but they should not be included in the pledge's wording. I hope that the hon. Member for Woking will withdraw the amendment.

Section 42(7) of the British Nationality Act 1981 confirms that people can affirm for whatever reason; they do not have to swear the oath to God.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I have a technical question. The schedule contains the name of the present monarch. I assume that that will not survive the drafting process, because I assume that we do not introduce new legislation to change existing legislation every time the monarch changes. Will the Minister confirm that the schedule will refer to the fact of a monarch rather than the name of a monarch? That should apply despite the length of time that the Queen indicates that she wishes to go on and however long she does go on—I wish her good health and a long reign.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I am flying by the seat of my pants, but I think that the schedule refers to the monarch and her successors. The Interpretation Act 1978 deals with changes of monarchs so the hon. Gentleman's point is taken on board.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

We have had a useful and short debate, which I wish I had not instigated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming—

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

Hon. Members who wish to table amendments for next Tuesday's sitting might like to know that they must table them by the rise of the House on Thursday.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 69, line 6, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 51, in page 69, line 9, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 53, in page 69, line 13, leave out first 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 54, in page 69, line 13, leave out second 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 55, in page 69, line 17, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 56, in page 69, line 20, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 57, in page 69, line 24, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 58, in page 69, line 30, leave out first 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 59, in page 69, line 30, leave out second 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 60, in page 69, line 31, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 61, in page 70, line 8, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 62, in page 70, line 15, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 63, in page 70, line 20, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 64, in page 70, line 25, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 65, in page 70, line 26, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 66, in page 70, line 38, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 67, in page 71, line 11, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 68, in page 71, line 18, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 70, in page 71, line 28, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 69, in page 71, line 29, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 71, in page 71, line 30, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 72, in page 71, line 32, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 73, in page 71, line 33, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 74, in page 71, line 36, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 75, in page 71, line 41, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 76, in page 71, line 44, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 77, in page 72, line 5, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 78, in page 72, line 6, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

No. 79, in page 72, line 9, leave out 'citizenship' and insert 'nationality'.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. It is always good to see those who, like you, have come to the House relatively recently gain such eminence so quickly, while we old stagers struggle along trying to retain just some of that eminence.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

You could always apply, Simon.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

It is true—I have not applied.

The amendments would replace the word ''citizenship'', which occurs often in part 1, with ''nationality''. As can be seen, the issue comes up regularly in schedule 1. We started to debate the matter earlier, when we discussed the citizenship open pledge. The amendment follows a conversation that I asked my assistant, Gavin Lim, to have with the Citizenship Foundation, which approached us with its views after Second Reading. I suggested that it would be a good idea to talk to that organisation, and my colleague Lord Phillips of Sudbury suggested that it was keen to talk to us.

''Citizenship'' is not a well-defined word. ''Nationality'' is much better and more frequently defined in English law and the law of other parts of the United Kingdom. It is understood across boundaries, too. There is a legal understanding of nationality, whereas citizenship implies and conjures up all sorts of ideas, some social and some philosophical. It seems that people have not quite thought through which word should be used where in the Bill. I put that to the Government seriously.

I should be grateful if, in the spirit of our previous debates, the Ministers would ask civil servants—and each other—about that matter after the debate. I hope that they will discuss whether we should be talking about nationality rather than citizenship. I understand from my conversations with the Home Secretary, and from hearing him speak in public, that he is keen to enhance the concept that we all should be better citizens. I agree with that, but it does not follow that we have to put it into legislation.

Another sign that the Government have not thought the matter through is that citizenship is not properly defined in either the Bill or the White Paper. That suggests to me that we are in particularly treacherous waters. The hon. Member for Woking has said—as have I—that it is problematical to pull words off the shelf without defining them in legislation, taking them from somewhere where they are well defined or it is very clear what they mean. The word ''citizenship'' is a bit like an elephant: although we all understand what it is, it is difficult to describe.

I hope that I have persuaded Ministers to consider the proposal. Before we discuss the Bill on Report, we would be happy to debate whether, instead of its becoming the Citizenship, Nationality, Asylum and Immigration Bill, it should remain the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill—the fewer concepts, the better.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I, too, welcome to you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst, without having a particular aspiration at this stage in my parliamentary life to join you there.

The group of amendments proposes that the citizenship oath and pledge should be called the nationality oath and pledge and that ''nationality'' should replace ''citizenship'' throughout the Bill. The hon. Gentleman was wrong when he said that British citizenship is not defined in law, but that nationality is. Both terms are defined in certain laws, but the nationality distinction is particularly confusing. There are six forms of nationality in United Kingdom law, many of which can be traced throughout our history.

However, there are only three forms of citizenship: British citizens, British overseas territories citizens and British overseas citizens. The remaining three categories are British nationals overseas, British subjects and British protected persons. The citizenship categories to which I have referred have the right of abode and can apply for naturalisation and citizenship in a different way from those who are not covered by the word ''citizen'' in their title. Replacing ''citizenship'' with ''nationality'' in the context of the amendments would muddy the waters

of the pledge and the oath and would make the difference less distinct and more confusing than if the Bill remains as currently worded.

We believe that more should be done to prepare people for British citizenship and to celebrate its acquisition. Reference to ''citizenship'' rather than ''nationality'' at this key stage in the process will help to underscore our commitment to develop forms of citizenship and the way in which we recognise such a society in our communities. There is a deliberate read-across to other areas of the Government's social cohesion agenda and education policies on promoting good citizenship and that may be lost if reference to citizenship is replaced by reference to nationality. It also makes sense that the pledge that is concerned with loyalty to the United Kingdom on becoming a British citizen is referred to as a citizenship pledge, not a nationality pledge.

Citizenship is defined under law and it is specific to the provisions of the Bill. Because of the difference between nationality and citizenship under law and the six different circumstances in which there are British nationalities, it would be unnecessarily confusing to refer to ceremonies, oaths and pledges, which have a specific intention, by an imprecise and more general title: ''nationality'', as in the amendments.

It would be healthy to have a philosophical debate about the meaning of citizenship. We can debate how we wish to take it forward as a concept, not only under law, but in practice in our communities. However, the hon. Gentleman's suggestions are more imprecise and confusing, and less focused, than the wording of the Bill. Given that explanation, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am happy to hear the Minister's reply. She misunderstood me. I did not say that citizenship was not defined in law. It is. The Minister cited different types of British citizens. Indeed, we have ''citizen'' on our passports. I did not think, however, that it features much in the Bill or that it was defined in the White Paper. I noted what she said. Whereas there are international treaties and conventions that deal with nationality, there are not any that deal with citizenship. Therefore, nationality is a more recognised concept internationally. I ask her and her colleagues to engage with groups such as the Citizenship Foundation and others who have written to us. There is a general concern that we are going down the road of a less rather than more frequently internationally used idea. I do not have a theological view about it and am happy not to pursue the debate now. There is philosophy, but we do not have time for that now, as we have other business to do. I hope that the Government will reflect and take advice on the issue—I certainly will, but for the time being I am content.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 93, in page 69, line 10, at end insert

'or in writing at the request of the applicant'.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 94, in page 69, line 14, at end insert

'or in writing at the request of the applicant'.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

This is a simple pair of probing amendments. The Minister heard me say before we broke for dinner that I support the ceremony as a way of welcoming new citizens, but there may be some people who find it hard or do not want to take part. Will we make it compulsory for people to go through the ceremony, or will there be some discretion? Will there, generally or in particular circumstances, be the opportunity for people to do it in writing if they prefer?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman contends that the amendments would give the applicants the discretion to exempt themselves from the requirements of the citizenship oath and pledge or attending the citizenship ceremony, or both. I hope that people will enjoy and look forward to the ceremony in which their new status will be recognised. We believe that saying the oath and pledge in a public ceremony, so that it can be recognised and celebrated in the community, will be a positive step forward from what happens now, which involves the arrival of a folded-up certificate in a brown paper envelope. At present, the pledge also takes place in private, usually in front of a solicitor for a fee.

Schedule 1 will provide for a ceremony in England and Wales, conducted by a registrar in a public place appointed for that use. Friends and family can observe and take part in a ceremony in which citizenship will be conferred. That will hopefully be a cause for celebration for the individual concerned, so we do not think that applicants should have the discretion to exempt themselves or do it more privately in front of a solicitor with a plain brown envelope. However, the hon. Gentleman will remember today's debate about waiving the requirements to pass the tests. As with that, it is not our intention to force people in every circumstance to go through the ceremonies, but we would expect it to be the norm in almost all circumstances. We would not want an individual to have the right to disapply the requirements.

Ms Karen Buck (Regent's Park & Kensington North, Labour)

I am completely in support of the general spirit of the ceremony, and in most cases it would be welcomed. However, I have one slight concern. There is a minority of people who, while welcoming warmly their ability to come to this country and take citizenship, come as refugees. In some cases they are victims of torture. It is quite a difficult process for them to leave behind the country in which they grew up. A little bit of flexibility might be worth considering. Sometimes this can be quite a trauma for people, as well as a pleasure.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

Obviously, things can be traumatic as well as pleasurable. The important point to remember is that no one is forced to apply for naturalisation. Presumably if they apply for naturalisation they are looking forward to a transfer of citizenship to them. Unless they are in circumstances where the Secretary

of State may waive the requirement, such as infirmity, disability or old age, there is no reason why they should not participate in the lessons that we discussed earlier.

I can foresee that there might be circumstances where the discretion can be exercised, but as I said earlier, I would not want it to be, as the amendment suggests, the individual who can decide whether to take oath. That is not the case now: it has to be taken by everybody. In a Bill that is trying to enhance, celebrate, protect and make more public the occasion, I do not want us to end up with a weaker situation, where the oath does not have to be taken at all. I do not claim that there are not circumstances where it would be sensible to try to do this in a different way, but I expect them to be a small minority. I hope, given that clarification, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

The Minister gave a reasonable answer and, as the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North also knows, public rites of passage are a good thing. Increasingly I notice that other communities have more public ceremonies. The Church used to do baptism quietly: 12 people would turn up on a Sunday afternoon when no one else was there and hide around the back of the church in the damp and the gloom. Now they are carried out in the middle of the morning service when everyone is there.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

As the son and grandson of clergymen, I know that there are mixed motives for having baptisms during the main service, one of which is the desire to avoid a separate service—one could call it laziness. However, I do not speak for my father, my grandfather or for the vast majority of the clergy.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for that insight into the working practices of the clergy. The point is made. The Minister made a perfectly reasonable case. She was sensitive to the point about having flexibility around the edges where a public ceremony might be inappropriate. Brown envelopes are certainly a less desirable option. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 69, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—

'(6) The Secretary of State may'.

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. This is a brief amendment. Clearly the Secretary of State should have a discretion. The word ''thinks'' is troublesome and may create some problems with judicial review of the exercise of the discretion. I am slightly troubled by the phrase

''special circumstances of a case'',

which could lead to inconsistency and a restricted use of the discretion when there is a class of person such as people with disabilities who may have problems attending appropriate citizenship classes or ceremonies.

Where else does the word ''thinks'' appear in legislation? It is a non-legislative word, and as a lawyer, Mr. Hurst, you will know as well as I do that interpretations of ''thinks'' by the courts and lawyers

in such phrases as ''thinks reasonably'', ''thinks unreasonably'' and ''has reasonable cause to think'' can give rise to difficulties. In short, what do the words

''thinks it appropriate because of the special circumstances of a case''

add to the schedule? How do they differ in practice from the simple proposition that the Secretary of State ''may''?

Ms Rosie Winterton (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department; Doncaster Central, Labour)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Hurst.

The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey spoke about the approach to amendments, and I am afraid to say that this amendment falls into the category of ''Resist''. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Woking in that respect.

We discussed at some length the importance that the Government attach to the citizenship ceremonies. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary eloquently described the type of ceremony that would be appropriate. The amendment would remove the Secretary of State's ability to exercise discretion solely over those with special circumstances. We want to ensure that a person would not be required to attend a citizenship ceremony only in unusual circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman asked where the wording came from. In fact, it derives from section 4(4) and schedule 1(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981, which provide that the Secretary of State may waive certain naturalisation and registration requirements if the special circumstances of a particular case demand it. To allow the Secretary of State a broader discretion than that, as under the amendment, would be inconsistent with the discretions in the 1981 Act.

It might reassure the hon. Gentleman to know that the discretion will be exercised case by case rather than with respect to entire classes of people.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reassurances. Although I am not entirely content, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 70, line 3, at end insert—

'(3) Notwithstanding subsection (2), a fee shall not be payable by the spouse of a British citizen who has himself already paid a fee in respect of naturalisation for himself under the provisions of this Act.'.

The amendment regards fees, and would combat possible, albeit unintentional, discrimination against spouses. If a person's spouse has already been to classes, has been integrating the husband or wife into British society and has paid the fee, one might reasonably ask why the couple should pay twice. It is a narrow point, but it affects couples, and there is a good argument that they should not pay twice. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

The amendment would allow the spouse of a person who has previously naturalised as a British citizen to be exempted from paying a fee, regardless of the time lag between applications, but also regardless of the number of times that the original

applicant marries. The current fee for naturalisation under section 6(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981 is £150. Section 2(4) of the British Nationality (Fees) Regulations 1996 currently provides that a husband and wife who live together may pay only one fee should they make their applications for naturalisation at the same time.

The hon. Gentleman's basic point is already covered by the regulations, and there is no intent to change that. However, the amendment would extend the provision to any future applications that were separate, although for husband and wife, and would move them from secondary to primary legislation. That would penalise the spouses of people who were UK born or British by descent, who would still be required to pay the fee, and the exemption from paying the fee would be effective indefinitely after the first application, no matter how many marriages then happened. Thus, more than one person could benefit from the exemption if the original applicant married non-British citizens more than once. That would make financial forecasting of fee income difficult, although we hope that the issue would not arise often.

The current position, which we need to maintain, is that if husband and wife apply simultaneously they pay one fee. However, if they apply separately over the years, they pay two fees. We are seeking to bring together some of the current, disparate fees. There is a £5 fee to swear before a solicitor, which we hope to get rid of completely, citizenship ceremonies will cost about £35 to £40—it costs £40 to marry in a registry office in Scotland and £34 to marry in a registry office in England—and we are considering whether we can reduce the £150 naturalisation fee. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it will be good to reduce the fee if that is possible. However, it is important that if spouses apply together, they make a joint payment, whereas if they apply separately they have to pay a fee each.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I accept that if they apply at the same time there is one fee. However, there is a possible prejudice on a later application in terms of paying two fees. Will the Minister consider applying a reduced fee to a spouse who does not apply at exactly the same time, but a little later, now that I have flagged up the concern that many have about the issue?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I am reluctant to do so. I suspect that that level of detail is more appropriate to secondary rather than primary legislation, so that if there were a vast change in marriage patterns, or something emerged that was different from what had happened in the past, we could accommodate it. I do not want to incorporate it into the Bill. It is reasonable to accept that a married couple applying at the same time should pay a joint fee, but I do not see why they should do so if they apply separately, over several years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my views into account and will not press the amendment.

I want to correct something that I said earlier about the three forms of citizenship. I said that people with any of those three forms had a right of abode in the UK, but of course they do not. Only British citizens

have a right of abode in the UK, and I would not want to raise the hopes of the people in the other categories.

Not all adults who become British citizens currently swear the oath. Those who already bear allegiance through their original nationality do not swear it, but we will make a change, and all those who naturalise and attend ceremonies will swear the oath. That is merely a crinkle that we are ironing out.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Woking, Conservative)

I sensed some sympathy for my proposition in what the Minister said, which is probably all that I could have hoped for. With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

As of now, how firm is the Government's view about the wording of the schedule? How much do they see it as open to further discussion and contemplation, in the light of representations made and views expressed?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

I am fairly happy with the wording of the schedule, certainly given our discussions on amendments. The hon. Gentleman invites me to take a view on amendments that I have not seen, but which may come before us in future. That is impossible until I have seen what the amendments propose. If at a later stage he comes across an appalling mistake that none of us have spotted, I would be happy to reconsider it.

I hope that I have explained the Government's view on the amendments to the schedule, which we have discussed. We are not looking for amendments, and would not contemplate them unless they put right something that had passed us all by to date.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

That is fairly clear. I was asking not so much for those of us in the Committee, but for those outside it who take an interest. That reply leaves an even simpler question: how long after the Bill becomes law does the Minister imagine the process will start?

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

Clearly, we have to get the administration right. We have already begun to discuss how the ceremonies might look and where they might take place, and we have announced who will conduct them. We have to see how practicable it is to start them as quickly as we can. I mentioned that we could disentangle the citizenship ceremonies from the educational test and the knowledge of the UK test, as those will by definition take longer to make available, set up and map around the country. I have no knowledge of a decision on dates.

I think that the ceremonies are a good thing, and I want us to proceed with them as quickly as is reasonably possible when the appropriate administrative arrangements have been made. I have now been handed a note that states that we are aiming for no earlier than September 2003 for the ceremonies. I like to push such matters along, and I think that we can decouple the tests from the ceremonies. We could

deal with the ceremonies first, and tie up the process as we make courses available throughout the country.

Mr Gregory Barker (Bexhill & Battle, Conservative)

Does the Minister expect the ceremonies to be self-funding, or will there be a call on the taxpayer? I presume that they will require additional staff, as 60,000 people a year is a lot if they are each to have an individual ceremony.

Ms Angela Eagle (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Wallasey, Labour)

We are in the middle of considering the practicalities of how and where to introduce the ceremonies. We have decided that registration officers will carry them out. The fee for a marriage in a registry office is between £35 and £40, and we do not see why there cannot be a similar fee. If groups of people want to take their ceremony pledges together, we do not see any reason why they cannot. Therefore, people could have joint ceremonies, with everyone taking the pledge and oath at the same time. All that is being considered administratively, and I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some idea. We do not anticipate that the ceremonies will cause extra public expenditure, because the fees paid will cover it. As for the educational test that will have to be taken—once that has been organised—the Home Office will collect the fees, and they will be passed to local authorities to reimburse them for any costs that they have incurred in offering registration and the civil ceremony. The costs are neutral. I hope that all this will happen sooner rather than later.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

That is helpful. I am happy that the first ceremonies will happen while the Minister is still in post—perhaps as a presiding angel, although she may have a more senior post. I have always assumed that they would often be collective ceremonies, as in Canada and elsewhere, where groups of people go through the process together.

Mr Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam, Liberal Democrat)

It sounds like the sort of photo opportunity that any Home Secretary would find irresistible.

Mr Simon Hughes (North Southwark & Bermondsey, Liberal Democrat)

As long as it does not become as big a photo opportunity as Korean weddings, with as many as 50,000 couples being married in one go. That might be cheap, but the fees would not need to be high.

The Minister is right to decouple the ceremony from the test. I do not need a reply now, but I ask her to check with other Departments to find out what we could do to provide some sort of citizenship process for young people in this country. In the United States, children leaving high school have a graduation ceremony to celebrate the end of compulsory schooling, and that happens in other countries, including France. There may be a question about who is still at school at 16, but some process that recognises duty would be worth investigating. It would be good if Ministers looked into that.

Schedule 1 agreed to.