149
[
British Nationality
ONESS TRUMPINGTON.]
[ LORDS]
one British citizenship. The particular case of the Falkland Islanders, as raised by my noble friend Lady Vickers, appears to relate to some 400 souls. But, in reality, the gate that could be opened by this seemingly tiny number of people could well lead to a flood of people from other parts of the world-all of whom could legitimately claim the right to live in this country. It is said that many nursery rhymes were founded in historical fact and perhaps I may quote from Benjamin Franklin:
66
For want of a nail the shoe was lost, For want of a shoe the horse was lost, For want of a horse the rider was lost, For want of a rider the battle was lost, For want of a battle the kingdom was lost, And all for want of a horseshoe nail ".
My sympathy is entirely with the Falkland Islanders, but I very much hope that my noble friend will not press her amendment. My Lords, think of the past. Think of the case of the Kenyan Asians. I urge you to think also of the unknown future. This country has a proud record, second to none in taking people from all parts of the world who have been the victims of political or religious persecution. But let us not create a situa- tion here today which could perhaps result in an appal- ling prospect for this overcrowded island in the future, but one which can be prevented if what appears to be a tiny exception is not agreed to here today.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, may I briefly but very warmly support the amendment which has been so ably and eloquently introduced to your Lord- ships' House by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. In so doing, I should also like to pay tribute to her personally for the vast knowledge she has and for the work she has done in Commonwealth circles and particularly with regard to what is happening in the Falkland Islands. For many years, the noble Baroness has been a member of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and has done such wonderful work.
I first became interested in the anxieties and position of the Falkland Islanders when I had the privilege to be a member of the Commonwealth delegation to Jamaica which was so ably led by the noble Baroness, Lady Llewellyn-Davies, two or three years ago. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, I have also had an opportunity to talk to one of the members of the delegation of Commonwealth parliamentarians which visited the Falkland Islands a few days ago. I will make no comment or introduce the acrid atmosphere of party controversy when I note that there were only two members of the delegation and that no member of my party had the privilege of going to the Falkland Islands. But Mr. Shersby told me of the anxieties the Falkland Islanders have in regard to this matter. They fully appreciate and are grateful for the assurances which have been given by the Government. Clearly, this is a situation where no danger arises, as has been suggested, of vast numbers of people infiltrating this country. We are dealing with a small number of people. In my view, the assurances which have been given by the Government are not enough and I earnestly appeal to your Lordships to support the basic theme of the amendment which has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers.
Bill
150
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I agree that this amendment does deserve more consideration. As has been mentioned, the Islanders are entirely British. They speak English, and they are very few in number. They have strict immigration restrictions themselves, so they do not constitute a danger with regard to all sorts of people getting into Britain and becoming British, by first becoming Falkland Islanders. The Falkland Islanders have the very special problem, which is well known, with the Argentines. I believe this puts them quite apart from other dependency and makes them quite different from Hong Kong, because nobody could possibly suggest that all the people in Hong Kong are British stock.
Furthermore, if the Falkland Islanders were to receive special consideration by means of this amend- ment or something similar this would give them the reassurance which they require that at no time would they be ceded to the Argentines. I hope that this amendment will be given very strong consideration and, perhaps, your Lordships' approval.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I should like to add my voice in support of the amendment which has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and to disagree, with great respect, to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that I am not familiar with the Falkland Islands. My own polar journeys have taken me North rather than South. Possibly this is an advantage in that such views that I may express will be guided by principle rather than sentiment. I should like to make a brief prefatory remark in reminding your Lordships how strongly I dislike the principle underpinning much of this Bill; the principle by which many people at present enjoying full rights and status as holders of a United Kingdom passport will have that right diminished and taken away from them. I have always thought that this was wrong, and that the creation of different grades of citizenship and removing rights which exist was also wrong. Having said that, I must grudgingly accept that by a majority a Committee of this House has accepted that basic principle, but it does make it all the more essential to look at those cases where exceptions must be made, on moral or other grounds. If your Lordships look at Schedule 6 to this Bill, you will see that of all the 17 territories listed now as British dependent terri- tories, there is only one whose inhabitants are incon- testably and undeniably all of British stock in their origins and their blood ties--and that is the Falkland Islands and they are Falkland Islanders. No future change in the status of the Falkland Islands--which, of course, is being discussed--and no future generation or procreation of young islanders will alter that basic fact. They are, and they will remain, a small, united, loyal, ethnically British community. I understand that the Bill, when it comes into law, will affect some 400 out of 2,000 islanders. That is a very big percen- tage, one-fifth of the whole population, who will not enjoy the status of being British citizens in future. That is a divisive act which it is morally wrong to impose on these splendid people.
The only other thing that I want to say is that I think we should all regret that my noble friend Lord