887
[Sir Bernard Braine]
British Nationality Bill
2 JUNE 1981
Who among us could receive the letter of 28 May from the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, Mr. Peter Isola, the Leader of the Opposition, and Mr. Bossano the leader of the third party in the Gibraltar Assembly and not fail to be moved by the sheer logic of its argument, and the strength of feeling and love for Britain that it revealed?
I submit that the House should reject the mean and dispiriting language of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in dealing with the just claims of the people of Gibraltar.
Mr. Tilley: As hon. Members said, in Committee the discussion on Gibraltar was part of the wider debate on the whole concept of citizenship of the British dependent territories, which we have not yet discussed on Report. I briefly remind the House that that is a new citizenship being created by the Bill, where the 17 remaining British colonies will share one citizenship. People in Hong Kong, the Pitcairn Islands, the Turks and Caicos Islands, Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, which could hardly be more different geographically, historically, economically, and in their social and cultural patterns, will have a single citizenship.
It is worth repeating the point made in Committee. Both sides agree with the aim of the legislation to get rid of the ridiculous rag-bag citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies created in 1948, which is totally inappropriate these days. However, there is a serious danger of creating new anomalies and problems with the new rag-bag collective umbrella citizenship of the British dependent territories. We suggested in Committee that because of their different natures now and the likely pattern of differentdevelopment over the next few years-indeed, over the next generation-there should be a separate citizenship for each colony for whom the Bill is supposed to be providing nationality guidelines.
First, I emphasise that we are not now discussing the question of splitting the citizenships of the dependent territories into individual citizenships. We are discussing the specific situation of Gibraltarians. We are not even discussing Gibraltar as a constitutional entity. New clause 7 does not change that at all. The relationship with Spain-the geo-political realities, to use the old Foreign and Commonwealth phrase-will not be changed by the clause. For that reason, I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to support it.
However, we cannot support new clause 6 and the amendment that takes Gibraltar out of the citizenship of the dependent territories altogether and puts it into the British citizenship category, so that all Gibraltarians would be British citizens on day one. The amendment has implications not only for the all-important relationships with Spain, which we do not wish to disrupt, but, for the 16 remaining colonies and, most of all and particularly, Hong Kong. We fully recognise the delicate position of Hong Kong. We do not want to make things worse for the people of Hong Kong, but, having considered the matter at length I am sure the Government would say exhaustively-in Committee, we are convinced that new clause 7 would not affect the position of any other colony.
I repeat briefly the reasons why we believe that there is a case for special consideration for the Gibraltarians as individual people. First, it is geographically by far the nearest of the dependencies to the United Kingdom.
British Nationality Bill
888
Secondly, it is the only dependency for which independence is legally impossible because, under the terms of the Treaty of Utrecht, if Britain gives up control of Gibraltar it returns automatically to Spain. Thirdly, it is the only dependency that is part of the EEC. The fact that under the Treaty of Accession Gibraltarians are United Kingdom nationals for EEC purposes has already been mentioned. That, too, applies only to Gibraltar. Fourthly, Gibraltarians already have rights of entry into this country. We know from the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and earlier today that the Bill is largely about who shall have the right of entry and the right of abode and who shall not. Gibraltarians have those rights not only as EEC nationals but-and this has perhaps not been emphasised enough-by the assurances given by the Labour Government in 1968 by the then Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. Those four aspects are unique to Gibraltar.
I repeat that we do not propose to change the constitutional position of Gibraltar. A concession on citizenship is not the thin end of any wedge for full integration with Britain or any other change in the position of Gibraltar. For that reason, it should not upset people in Madrid or people in Hong Kong or any other dependent territory.
Perhaps I may pick up some of the points made by Conservative Members. I was grateful that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) mentioned that this was originally an all-party amend ment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. McTaggart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) had put their names to the original amendment. Indeed, although the impetus for this has come from all parts of the House, it seems to have come entirely from various parts of Scotland. The hon. Member referred to Joe Bossano as an independent member of the House of Assembly. He is in fact the leader of the Socialist Labour Party and a full-time officer of the Transport and General Workers Union. I should not wish the record to be wrong on that.
I turn to a point made by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston). I, too, read the article in The Guardian, although I was not sure that not having an MEP might not in some ways be a blessing in disguise, but} should hate to suggest that that was in any way personal to him or, indeed, to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman), who also intervened in the debate, Certainly, the hon. Gentleman was right when he said that the greatest pressure and expression of opinion was from Gibraltar. As a member of the Standing Committee I can certainly confirm that there were more letters, morę concern and more delegations from Gibraltar than from all of the other colonies put together and, indeed, in many ways from any other group even in this country.
I conclude by commenting on the speech of the righ hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), whe stressed the importance of Gibraltar in terms of ou imperial history. I may not agree with the right, hon Gentleman on all analyses of the role and significance of the British Empire, but I remind Conservative Memben that it seems that the old imperial maxim of "divide and rule" is being used today by the Government within this Chamber to set one group of Conservative Member against another. I suspect that the Hong Kong group ha been stirred up to protect, as they are told, their interest against the Gibraltar group. I would simply advise al
454