Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

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.

Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield, Conservative)

I am going to use my discretion and courtesy and call the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington to speak.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

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 (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

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.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (the North West), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

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.