927
British Nationality
[22 JUNE 1981 ]
wealth there is now great disquiet about the terms of this Bill. I hope before I conclude to make a suggestion which may help to unravel that problem.
Secondly, I oppose this Bill because, despite all that has been said, it is a racialist measure; it is based in its philsophy on the series of immigration Acts which we have had.
My noble friend Lord Gifford referred to the Act of 1968. The European Commission of Human Rights held that that Act had racial motives and involved racial discrimination amounting to degrading treatment. And the subsequent Inmigration Acts have maintained the practices of the 1968 Act. Under this Bill, the majority of people who would be affected are those who belong to non-white_com- munities.
This
I also oppose this Bill because of its arbitrary restriction of the freedom of the movement of peoples. In this House we have rightly denounced the attitude of the Soviet Government in denying exit permits, parti- cularly to the Jewish community. But freedom of movement is two-sided. It is not only in regards to those who leave the country; it is also in regard to those who enter the country. This Bill denies passport rights without any judicial survey or any opportunity to appeal against the decisions of the Home Secretary. His decision is absolute. I regard that as totalitarian. Decisions of this kind should not be left to one indivi- dual, however prominent he may be in the state. power not only applies to passports; it applies to registration for citizenship and to applications for naturalisation. In 1980, last year, the Home Secretary refused 326 applicants for naturalisation. Under this Bill the sphere of applications is greatly extended. I want strongly to urge--and I hope that we may have a suitable amendment to this Bill when it is in Committee that the present limited system of public tribunals should be extended to all cases which are concerned.
My third reason for opposing the Bill is because it actually creates thousands of stateless people all over the world. The figure of 220,000 has been given. The Government have indicated that 75,000 will not be involved. But even if the stateless persons created by this Bill number only 150,000, it is something of which we should all be ashamed. Stateless persons are not only created abroad, they will be created in this country. The children of overseas students, the children of those who are allowed here under work permits, the children of non-patrial visitors--they all become stateless under this Bill. Only when they reach the age of 10 years will they have any right even to apply for recognition as British. I emphasise the fact that that will apply in our own country but recognise that mostly the thousands of stateless people will be abroad.
My Lords, I have had many messages, particularly from the Churches, on this subject of the stateless people whom we are creating. May I pay my tribute to that wonderful contribution to our debate which was made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I do not think I have heard a more mpressive speech than his to us today during the 17 years that I have been in this House. I quote only rom the Quakers. They say on this subject of the British overseas citizenship which creates stateless people:
HL 26 D2
Bill
928
"British overseas citizenship is little more than a ̈label of nationality which involves no entitlement to live anywhere in the world".
There is the statement of the Commission for Racial Equality:
“British overseas citizenship would be the only citizenship in the world that is not linked with any territory or carries with it a right to entry or abode in any country ”.
On all these grouns, I beg the Government to with- draw this Bill. It is perfectly clear that great sections of our nation are opposed to it: all the Churches, every representative group in our society. This debate today has made an unanswerable case against this Bill. I ask the Government to withdraw it, and instead I make this constructive proposal. The alter- native is for us to negotiate with the Commonwealth countries, to call a conference representative of all the Commonwealth countries with representatives also from all the peoples concerned. I recognise that this is an even greater issue than our own Commonwealth. I should like to see us proposing to the United Nations Council that they should appoint a comission to consider this problem all over the world.
We are dealing with the lives and the happiness of thousands of people. This Bill will bring ruin to them. My appeal is that we should begin an approach that will give to the thousands affected by this Bill hope of security and fulfilment in their lives.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I should like to echo the remarks made by noble Lords before me, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on a extremely impressive maiden speech in your Lordships' House. While I may not always agree with the sentiments that he may in future profess, we shall all be the better for his contributions to our debates.
Finding myself speaking towards the end of this Second Reading, I am conscious that to a certain extent what I have to say will sound repetitious. However, this Bill is so full of anomalies that I feel that a certain degree of repetition cannot be other than of benefit in impressing on my noble friends on the Front Bench the very real concern felt, I believe, on all sides of the House at specific clauses in the Bill. As has been said again and again in this House today, we are debating a highly complex piece of legislation, one that may or will affect the status of very many people.
overseas.
We have had, and still have, a long list of most eminent speakers and I shall therefore restrict myself to only two aspects on which I have some practical experience: the first being the resultant position of Hong Kong; and the second, the " penalty" of working Of the 5 million people in Hong Kong, 2.6 million are presently citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, either because they were born in Hong Kong or have acquired such citizenship through naturalisation after seven years of residence. Only a minute handful of that 2.6 million have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. I am not suggesting-- nor have any representations been made to me so to suggest that the balance of that 2.6 million should have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. By dint of the 1962 and 1968 Commonwealth Immigration Acts, and the 1971 Immigration Act, they do not have such a right. With reference to the point raised by the
Page 90Page 91