t be on the inside. My will conect me if I
represent him. Mt I heard him say that to do that would depression that the holder had the right of But the present Hong
le in the United Kingdom.
Kong British passport states:
· British subject, citizen of United King?
d Oct les ".
The people of Heng Kong, of Miedly all of 125 in people who are (ligible, know very well that do not have the night of
in the United Khadam; and they are not looking for it, either. They are looking for a clear-cut staterat from the Bill that they are British and will reja..in so.
Tod Elwyn-Jones: After hearing the noble Loid, Lord Trefyne, I wonder how much consultation there Las been with the relevant dependent territories about this kind of matter; nil, I would imagine. I regard this as a very important matter, and I am deeply dismayed by the total indication of non-co-operation from the ble Id, Lord Tiefgerne. But for the lats mens of the hear, I would be ten pied, out of sheer üritation, to test the mood of the Committee, but I am not so easily irritated. We Lave all had communi- ertions well, I have certainly had a number of communications, especially from Hong Kong, con- firming the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. One of my few cabos to respectability is that my daughter once taught in the Diocesan Girls' College in Hong Kong, and so I have a very keen feeling about it. But, seriously speaking, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will at least say that he will lock again at this juaiter, not only in regard to the passport aspect but also the first part of the ardment.
Lord Nathan: There is one point I should like to ask the Mi. Ster about, and it relates not to the privileges of the passport holders, but to the effect of the passport on the countries to which a visit is made. I certainly support the thoughts behind the amendment, but what worries me „bout a passport which states in effect that the holder belongs to the dependent territories is that it does not identify with any particular country. As I understand it, one of the basic concepts relating to how a passport works in a country being visited is that the receiving country it matters not which; it might be France, Germany, or Belgium--is aware on the face the passport that in certain circumstances the holder n be deported. Under the concepts of international law as generally accepted the country which issues the passport is bound to to accept the return of the holder. If the passport refers merely to British dependent territories, what will be the effect on the immigration authorities in France, Germany, Belgium, or wherever it might be? In those circum- stances will there not be difficulty in regard to receiving visitors, for the reason that I have given?
་
Lord Trefgarne: I shall deal with some of the points raised in the last few moments. The main thrust of the amendment is to provide and to create a separate citizenship for each of the dependent territories, and the proposal in the second part of the amendment to
ふい
the first part of th
Several noble Lords, c.pecially the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, Lave attrbed particular in pertune to the secend part of the amendment, but I should say that it flows essentially from the first part of the attendment, and therefore I dall address Jay Feliks to that particular proposal.
f.
S.
very
As we have been told on various ocensions during the
bly 160 or so inb. 14, ats, and there me others, such as Hong Kong, for example the Biggest one, I think where 21 million or so people live. Is it really suggested that rach and every one of those dependencies, from the very smallest to the largest, actually merits the creation of a separate citizenship? I suggest to your Lordships that that is not so, but that is the cifect of the amendment that we are asked to consider, and I hope your Lord- ships will take note of that.
On the second passport point, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and other noble Lords referred to, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that, of course, is a different and separate mutter, but as noble Lords already know (because I explained it in my opening remarks) the people of Hong Kong, for example, already have the name of their country shown on the passport, and I do not think that the different arrangements which are proposed in the amendment really would inake that much difference.
But the important point is that it would be wrong to put in the passport something that would be misleading, and to suggest, with the form of words that has been incorporated in the amount, that the person concerned was a British citizen would not be accurate and would not be a proper thing. I would say, to include in the psport, beet use they will not be British citizens. That is the fundamental objection to that part of the proposal contained in the amendment. For those reasons, I hope the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues will not see fit to press this amend-
ment new”,
Lord Elwyn-Jenes: I am bound to say that that message would be a very depressing one to be heard in all the dependent territories. I hope it will not become too widely known. What is disturbing is that the noble Lord the Minister did not say whether there had been consultation with the Government of Hong Kong or the other territories.
Lord Trefgarne: I apologise for not covering that point. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that there have been very close consultations with the Government of Hong Kong, including, in particular, of course, the Governor himself.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It seems to have been the dialogue of the deaf so far as the communications that I have had from Hong Kong are concerned; but I will ask leave to withdraw the amendment with the undertaking and the threat (if that is the right word) that I will return to it again in some form or another at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
}