33
64
British Nationality
เ
[22 JULY 1981 ]
in my carlier intervention was that there should just be the words,
British subject ог British citizen or whatever the phrase might be on the inside. My noble friend will correct me if I misrepresent him. but I thought I heard him say that to do that would give the impression that the holder had the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
But the present Hong
Kong British passport states:
""
British subject, citizen of United Kingdom and Colonies The people of Hong Kong, effectively all of the 2.6 million people who are eligible, know very well that they do not have the right of abode in the United Kingdom; and they are not looking for it, either, They are looking for a clear-cut statement from the Bill that they are British and will remain so.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: After hearing the noble Lord Lord Trefgarne, I wonder how much consultation ther has been with the relevant dependent territories about this kind of matter; nil, I would imagine. I regard this as a very important matter, and I am deeply dismayed by the total indication of non-co-operation from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. But for the lateness of the hour, I would be tempted, out of sheer irritation, to test the mood of the Committee, but I am not so easily irritated. We have all had communi- cations-well, I have certainly had a number of communications, especially from Hong Kong, con- firming the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. One of my few claims to respectability is that my daughter once taught in the Diocesan Girls' College in Hong Kong, and so I have a very keen feeling about it. But, seriously speaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will at least say that he will look again at this matter, not only in regard to the passport aspect but also the first part of the amendment.
Lord Nathan: There is one point I should like to ask the Minister about, and it relates not to the privileges of the passport holders, but to the effect of the passport on the countries to which a visit is made. I certainly support the thoughts behind the amendment, but what worries me about a passport which states in effect that the holder belongs to the dependent territories is that it does not identify with any particular country. As I understand it, one of the basic concepts relating to how a passport works in a country being visited is that the receiving country-it matters not which; it might be France, Germany, or Belgium-is aware on the face of the passport that in certain circumstances the holder can be deported. Under the concepts of international law as generally accepted the country which issues the passport is bound to to accept the return of the holder. If the passport refers merely to British dependent territories, what will be the effect on the immigration authorities in France, Germany, Belgium, or wherever it might be? In those circum- stances will there not be difficulty in regard to receiving visitors, for the reason that I have given?
Lord Trefgarne: I shall deal with some of the points raised in the last few moments. The main thrust of the amendment is to provide and to create a separate citizenship for each of the dependent territories, and the proposal in the second part of the amendment to
Bill
338
provide a passport for each of those citizenships of course flows from the first part of the proposal. Several noble Lords, especially the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, have attached particular importance to the second part of the amendment, but I should say that it flows essentially from the first part of the amendment, and therefore I shall address my remarks to that particular proposal.
As we have been told on various occasions during the passage of the Bill, the dependent territories vary very much indeed in size. Some contain only 1,000 or so inhabitants, and there are others, such as Hong Kong, for example--the biggest one, I think--where 2 million or so people live. Is it really suggested that each and every one of those dependencies, from the very smallest to the largest, actually merits the creation of a separate citizenship? I suggest to your Lordships that that is not so, but that is the effect of the amendment that we are asked to consider, and I hope your Lord- ships will take note of that.
On the second passport point, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and other noble Lords referred to, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that, of course, is a different and separate matter, but as noble Lords already know (because I explained it in my opening remarks) the people of Hong Kong, for example, already have the name of their country shown on the passport, and I do not think that the different arrangements which are proposed in the amendment really would make that inuch difference.
But the important point is that it would be wrong to put in the passport something that would be misleading, and to suggest, with the form of words that has been incorporated in the amendment, that the person concerned was a British citizen would not be accurate and would not be a proper thing, I would say, to include in the passport, because they will not be British citizens. That is the fundamental objection to that part of the proposal contained in the amendment. For those reasons, I hope the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues will not see fit to press this amend- ment now.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am bound to say that that message would be a very depressing one to be heard in all the dependent territories. I hope it will not become too widely known. What is disturbing is that the noble Lord the Minister did not say whether there had been consultation with the Government of Hong Kong or the other territories.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise for not covering that point. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that there have been very close consultations with the Government of Hong Kong, including, in particular, of course, the Governor himself.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It seems to have been the dialogue of the deaf so far as the communications that I have had from Hong Kong are concerned; but I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment with the undertaking and the threat (if that is the right word) that I will return to it again in some form or another at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1