it of the bì nt too, demike one of the basic
les of the Pill, and risk - ulliying much of our k. I am awid thefore that this amendment taken as a whole raises very considerable difficulties and I hope that in view of what I have said, the ne and learned Lord and his colleagues will see fit not to press their amendment.
...f the pr
would be
11. d. bed one of the bll, and 1'at was all it did. I ly in fax ur of it. But the trouble is that it lenses another of the principles of the Hill un- impaired and dat is the creation of two different classes of citizenship which is what xcbjected to in the Green Paper of April 1977. The reason why I could not support the creation of separate citizen- ships for each of the dependent territories is because in the Liberal response to the Green Paper we called for a unified citizenship with those who lived in all the dependent territories, except Hong Kong, which would have its own citizenship entitled to exactly the same quality of citizenship as people who live in the United Kingdom itself. That, of course, includes the right of . Nude in the United Kingdom.
So we belive that the right course of action is not to have a number of separate citizenships for the Falkland Islands and so on but to incorporate them all in the British citizenship provided for under this Bill, to grant them the light of abode. We believe, in- cidentally, that the people in the other dependent territories would be no more likely to exercise the right of entry into the United Kingdom, and no less likely for that matter, than the people of Gibraltar would be after the concession we made to them this afternoon.
Lord Mishcon: Farlier I told the Committee of a recollection that I have of a beloved figure in this House, the first Viscount Samuel who, when pro- posing a toast to the Civil Service, paid them a very warm tribute and then said that the one thing he would ways remember them for is that they had a problem for every sẽ tion. Whoever prepared the brief for the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, belongs high up in that category.
I do not intend at this hour to debate the issue which is contained in the first part of this amendment. I say that because it is so important that I think we would do an injustice to the dependent territories if this matter were debated in Committee distinguished by its quality but not its quantity at this hour. I think that the best thing we can possibly do, in view of Lord Trefgarne's answer to the first part, is to leave this to the report stage, if the noble and learned Lord who moved this amendment happens to be of that mind when we have completed our speeches on this amendment.
But, on the second part, I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, with absolute amazement. I do not think he could have had his head, let alone his heart, in the speech that he made. The noble Lord, Lord Renton. I think, earlier on accused me on the Gibraltar debate of letting the cat out of the bag. The whole
1. d. Lord A
said, was that really?although there British citizenship in this Bill, eval
Me rights and they were adroits citizenship in one form or another, and i led it was ridiculous even to say. Bat. British overseas And no rights at all and that it was a more r, the.
We are now dealing with citizens who bel- British depend ncles; I will not again at 15.
Mat maine. We are
เ
to the
ry
fight be
it had about the ability of this G of 3.
udrudies coming within that ↑ychow without any mystery when they travel; the panie "British dependent tenitories known by new to members of your Lordships' Crot. mittce, but it is not equally familiar, and will not be for many years, to immigration officials of high jetoili- gence throughout the world their attachment and the fact that they belong in one way or other to the great British family.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Fryfgar ne. who travels abroad regularly and, I am told, ;"- ts himself with great skill, I am sure he has many a tine shown his passport with great pride to immigration officials. As he will agree, usually they do not even look at the outside; they immediately turn to the st page to which he referred. Is it really beyond the power of the Government, within the principles they have tried to outline for the Bill, to agree to a form-da on page one of that passport saying “British citiza and then in brackets the dependency concerned? That would give no rights, it would not mislead the intelligent immigration official, and it would not mislead the holder of the passport. It would make him just much pewter a member of the family and, as I sid, able to go with dignity thoughout the world with the par-pout he holds.
>
at
The noble Lord, I ord Geddes, is an expert on Hong Kong. I have had the opportunity, as he and other noble lords, of meeting those who are fairly high up in the representation of Hong Kong in this country. I do not want to identify any nearer than that. I know of the concern that the people of Hong Kong have and, I am sure, the people of other dependencies have about this very small concession in regard to the wording of the passport in the way that was indicated by my noble and learned friend. I hope that at this hour some of us who feel very much about this matter will have at least influenced the Government Fient Bench to have a little more breadth of view and under- standing in the matter and that there will at least be an undertaking to look again at the second part of the amendment so that we do not have to argue this case again on Report, as we certainly will do if the Govern- ment do not make that concession.
Lord Geddes: I would go further than the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; I would, certainly in the case of Hong Kong (and I speak personally, as each member of the Committee does) be loath to see any reference to the country itself on the inside page. On the out- side cover, as Lord Mishcon rightly said and my noble friend Lord Trafgarne agreed, there is printed the name of the country concerned. Surely that is suf- ficient for the passport. What I was trying to put