Proceeding contribution from Lord Thomas of Gresford (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 4 March 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL].
Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill [HL]
I am sure that we are all having some difficulty in getting our heads around the proposals that the Government are putting forward, but I am also sure that when it comes to the Armed Forces, the Government have good will towards members of the Armed Forces and are anxious that they should be properly treated. I am pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord West, in his place. As I pointed out on Monday night, those eligible to serve in the British Armed Forces are British citizens, British nationals other than British citizens, Commonwealth citizens and Irish citizens. A person who is a member of the Armed Forces should know that children born to him or her will be entitled to British citizenship. Amendment 102 is a very simple amendment to the British Nationality Act. Clause 40, which we debated on Monday, was concerned with children born in the United Kingdom to members of the Armed Forces. Clause 42 is concerned with children born outside the United Kingdom or the qualifying countries to members of the Armed Forces. For some reason that I do not understand, a distinction is drawn between them. Clause 42 does not take the same approach as Clause 40 to children born outside the United Kingdom. Members of the Armed Forces, who are the people most affected by these provisions, are posted where they are required—and that may not be within one of the qualifying countries. Since they have to go when they are ordered, they have no choice. Families who wish to be together at the time of their child’s birth may be posted in some place that does not come within the definition of the United Kingdom or the qualifying countries. Given these circumstances, on what basis have the Government decided to draw a distinction? If service in the Armed Forces of this country, which is a very worthy undertaking, entitles children to become British citizens in one instance, why should they not become so in the other? Why should citizenship depend on where the family has been posted at a particular time? I cannot see the reason for that principle and I await with interest what the Minister will say. I beg to move.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 708 c746-7
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Data protection Databases Biometrics Crime prevention Courts Asylum Detainees Armed forces Deportation British nationality Crown dependencies British overseas territories Borders Fraud Finance Fingerprints Education Human rights Eligibility Immigration controls Immigration Genetics Human trafficking Hong Kong Foreign nationals Entry clearances Isle of Man Judicial review Immigration officers Local government Offenders Personal records Northern Ireland Protection Public consultation Missing persons Medicine Overseas students Migrant workers Scotland Social security benefits Registration Standards Terrorism Tribunals Republic of Ireland Refugees Tourism Travel requirements UN Convention on the Rights of the Child Diego Garcia Chagossians Asylum and Immigration Tribunal Dual nationality Resettlement UK Border Agency Common travel area British overseas citizenship
- Legislation
- British Nationality Act 1981
- Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill (HL) 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 09:59:23 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534492
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534492
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_534492