Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for again putting forward his views on this issue and for recognising some of the work we have done. We are not suggesting in what we are doing that people cannot come, but it is appropriate to use the good character test for the reasons I gave in response to the previous set of amendments. It is important to be clear that there are people who have committed serious crimes—examples of which I gave earlier—who we might wish to prevent gaining British nationality. To deal with the issues raised, our starting point was that we should not apply the good character requirement to those whose entitlement to registration derives from a provision of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness. The Government then additionally agreed to exempt from the good character requirement those seeking to register as British citizens on the basis that they are already British overseas citizens, British subjects or British protected persons and hold no other nationality or citizenship. They have not made a general exception for all such nationals or for all such stateless persons. The noble Lord’s amendment, as he has indicated, would introduce such a general exception, and the effect would be far reaching, since a significant proportion of those able to apply for registration are people who have some other form of British nationality. This is in direct conflict with the Government’s commitment to seeing that the vast majority of those seeking to register are of good character. As to the amendments relating to applicants under the 1997 Act, and British overseas nationals in general, these groups invariably have a right of residence in Hong Kong. Indeed, applicants under the 1997 Act are required to have been ““ordinarily resident”” there on particular dates—a concept which, while not necessarily equating to possession of a right of permanent residence there, at least implies lawful and, for the time being, stable residence in Hong Kong. In 1997, those with only British nationality were told that they would be admitted to the UK if conditions deteriorated in Hong Kong, not that they would be given British citizenship. I do not believe that we have reneged on the agreement that we reached. British overseas territorities citizens normally have the right of abode in the British overseas territory from which their citizenship derives. By contrast, the right of many of those eligible for registration under Section 4B of the 1981 Act to remain in their counties of current residence is at best precarious. It was this lack of a secure residence in any country that prompted the Government to announce on 4 July 2002 their intention to introduce a provision now having effect as Section 4B, and which at Report stage prompted us to move for their exemption from the good character test, which was welcomed. We do not accept the position of those qualifying for registration under the 1997 Act, or of British nationals in general is sufficiently close to that of persons presently entitled to registration under Section 4B of the 1981 Act to justify the support that the noble Lord’s amendments clearly seek. Nor do we accept obligations towards stateless persons going beyond those we have accepted by ratifying the 1961 convention. It is always sad to disappoint the noble Lord, but I believe that the Government have the balance right. While wishing to continue to raise these issues, I am sure that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.