157
British Nationality
[LORDS]
[LORD ELWYN-JONES.} among a very large proportion of our Colonies and Commonwealth and one of the difficulties is in the provision of generic citizenship of the dependent territories. It is meaningless. When we come to Amendment No. 73 I hope we shall be able to elaborate that. I quite sympathise with the views which have just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in which clearly we shall have to look especially at the position of Hong Kong when we come to consider it and to consider the other dependent territories sepa- rately. What we are proposing is that there should indeed be a scheme for the respective citizenships of each of these dependent territories, but in the mean- time we are dealing with the special case of the Falkland Islands.
Whatever else may be said about the other dependent territories, in none of them are fifteen-eighteenths of the population already British citizens. It does seem to make a difference. In none of them is there the potentiality of harrassment by a powerful neighbour with unjustifiable claims upon their land (as has been said) which subjects them to harrassment. So far as I know there is no parallel to this situation, except possibly certain aspects of the actions of Spain in relation to Gibraltar. However, Hong Kong is a different scene altogether. There is therefore the question whether the position is so special here that there should be a break into the principle that has been applied in the other dependent territories, save for Gibraltar.
One of the matters that I think has caused some concern in the Falkland Islands—and the language was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who, incidentally, I congratulate on his appearance on the Government Front Bench as Minister of State for the Foreign Office. I hope I have got it right-have I promoted the noble Lord unduly? If so, no doubt I have only anticipated events, but, as I was saying when I interrupted myself in the best judicial fashion, he said that, in the event of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands finding themselves in an emergency -this was the language, incidentally, of the honourable gentleman, Mr. Raison, in another place and the language of the noble Lord was similar--the problem of any Islander who did not possess the right of abode in the United Kingdom and who was in trouble at that time would be most carefully and sympathetically considered.
Really, that is no sufficient reassurance for these people. This is a difficult issue, because I see the force of the fact that some of the citizens of other dependent territories may regard themselves as being equally worthy of favour. I appreciate that and that is why I think that when we come to Amendment No. 73, we should look again as to their position. I feel that there is a very special set of circumstances here and, on the whole, without perhaps being willing to go to the stake on this matter but I think being just about will to go to the Division Lobby with the noble Baroness, I propose to take that course.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, if I may just make a point, the Government have been saying all along that the Falkland Islands and all these dependencies must be treated exactly alike, but
Bill
158
surely there is a great difference between the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong, because I was always given to understand that Hong Kong was leased. Does that not have a bearing, because I understand that the lease only has another twelve years to run?
A noble Lord: It is not all leased.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I thought it was, my Lords.
But at any rate, the part that is leased contains the main population and I really do not see how one can compare the Falkland Islands with Hong Kong. I personally support this amendment. I quite agree that from the Civil Service point of view-and we have heard one or two Civil Service speeches, if I may say so it is far tidier to treat all dependencies alike in the Bill. But we are dealing with human beings. One is often inclined to forget that. It may be racist to say this in modern terms but in this Bill little regard appears to have been paid to British blood, British descent. I know that under the views we hold today that may be held to be racist. If so, I am sorry but it is not racist to me; it is common sense. Four hundred people: this is making a mountain out of a molehill, even if their descendants will be British and even if they are all over the world. It can never amount to any significant number. The Government are making a mountain out of a molehill. So for Heaven's sake, really! I shall support the amendment, and I hope a lot of other noble Lords will support it.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to this debate. I have been referred to as a temptress, and therefore I should like to tempt the House to vote on my amendment.
6,31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 65) shall be agreed to?
There Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not- Contents, 90.
Airedale, L. Alport, L.
Amherst, E. Ardwick, L. Avebury, L. Aylestone, L. Beswick, L. Bishopston, L. Blyton, L.
Boston of Faversham, L. Brockway, L.
Bruce of Donington, L. Buxton of Alsa, L. Chelmsford, Bp. Chitnis, L. Collison, L.
Cork and Orrery, E. Cromartie, E. David, B.
Davies of Leek, L. Davies of Penrhys, L. de Clifford, L. Dowding, L. Ellenborough, L. Elwyn-Jones, L.
DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Elystan-Morgan, L. Evans of Claughton, L. Ewart-Biggs, B.
Faithfull, B.
Geddes, L. [Teller.]
Gifford, L.
Glenamara, L. Hale, L. Hanworth, V. Harvington, L.
Hooson, L. Hunt, L.
Irving of Dartford, L. Jacques, L. Jeger, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
John-Mackie, L. Kaldor, L.
Kilmarnock, L.
Kimberley, E.
Lawrence, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.
Lockwood, B.
London, Bp.