273
British Nationality
LORD ELYSTAN-MORGAN.]
[ LORDS]
t is necessary for three purposes in my submission that there should be a definition of "nationality First, for internal purposes-and that is, it seems to me, the main purpose of the legislation with which we are concerned. Secondly, for purposes connected with our membership of the European Economic Community. That was done in December 1971 and is enshrined in the Treaty of Accession. Thirdly, and perhaps most important of all, it is necessary that we should declare and define our nationality so far as thw whole world is concerned.
The fact that different countries have different attitudes towards nationality cannot be any argument against that duty. The noble Lord the Minister is quite right when he says that there is no universal acceptance of this; there will never be. Dr. Weiss in his distinguished work on nationality and statelessness of a quarter of a century ago put it in this way:
"There are as many definitions of 'nationality' as there are of sovereign states "";
but that makes no difference what ever to the duty and the responsibility of every sovereign state to define its nationality. If a sovereign state does not define its nationality it is tantamount to saying to the world, "We do not know what we are. We have no concept of what our state is and who should belong to it ".
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, raised a question in relation to the Dominions and said that they may feel that in some way or other their loyality to the British Crown as head of the Commonwealth is placed in doubt by the provision that is now under consideration. I cannot for my own part see how there is the slighest danger of that. As I understand it, the countries of the Dominions issue their own passports in exactly the same way as do other sovereign states.
My submission is that the case has been made out overwhelmingly for a declaration to the whole world that the citizens contained in Parts I, II and III of the Bill are British nationals. What can be wrong or con- trary to principle in that when the Government them- selves in Schedule 7 to the Bill and in Amendment No. 162 acknowledge the fact that they should be called United Kingdom nationals"? If" United Kingdom nationals is not contrary to the principle, if United Kingdom nationals is not an unrealistic term, then how on earth can the term British nationals " be contrary to principle in any way at all?
CC
66
A declaration is necessary. I would indeed wish to see alongside with that declaration some statement by Her Majesty's Government with regard to two matters. First, what is the degree of protection that is to be given to people falling within the three categories?--- British citizens; citizens of the dependent territories and British Overseas citizens. What does it mean? Surely we would be failing in our duty as a Parliament if we were not to seek to spell that out ot this present juncture. What is perhaps even more important is the obverse of that consideration. What are the duties owed by those people? Are they classically the duties of British subjects in relation to allegiance to the Crown? If there is a breach of that allegiance docs that amount to treason under the Treason Act 1351? Those are immensely important questions.
3.55 p.m.
Bill
274
Lord Spens: My Lords, having heard the defence of the noble Lord the Minister I wish to support the amendment. I think that his defence was really only technical in its scope, and I believe that the technicalities which might worry the British immigration officials can most easily be got round by entering in the passport. British national, a citizen of the British dependent territories "; or British national, a British overseas citizen". Something like that, which is very simple, could be an entry and an immigration official would have no difficulty in sorting out who the person was.
I should also like to mention as regards the remarks of my noble friend Lord Somers that I think that his worries are misplaced because the categories of people about whom he talked the citizens of the various Dominions-would, under this Bill, be called Common- wealth citizens (indeed, I think that the countries concerned are listed in Schedule 3) and as such they would not have British passports issued to them at all. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, will consider pressing this amendment because I think that it is very important.
Lord Drumalbyn: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend two questions, and I think that possibly in considering them he may want to consider the matter further before the next stage of the Bill. First, I understood him to say that British nationa- lity" is a term or concept not known to British law. In that case why are we legislating about British nationality, and not only legislating about it but calling this the British Nationality Bill"? This Bill as it stands states in the Long Title that it is making fresh provision about nationality and yet, as has been said,
nationality is not mentioned in the Bill at all.
66
t
Secondly and I think that if I have correctly interpreted what the noble and learned Lord opposite has just said, I know the answer to this question-if a citizen of a British dependent territory gets into trouble abroad, to whom does he look to get him out of that trouble? Can the noble Lord say to whom he will look? Will he look to the British Foreign Secretary? If that is so, surely that is the binding element--the true binding element being, of course, as the noble Lord opposite said, the Crown. Her Majesty is Queen of the United Kingdom and the various Dominions that were they are now all independent countries and other territories overseas,
I am taking as the Dominions the newly emergent countries as well. The other territories overseas are alone in not being sovereign territories. Surely there should be acknowledged link between the United Kingdom and those countries which look to the United Kingdom for the discharge of duties performed by sovereign
countries?
an
I hope that my noble friend will consider this. It is no good saying that this will give rise to misunder- standings. Anything that we do will give rise to mis- understandings. There are plenty of misunderstandings in the world as regards the British Commonwealth as it stands. All the Government can do is to explain the situation and to continue to explain it when misunder- standings arise. Therefore, I do not think it is a good defence to say that this will give rise to misunder- standings. The essential point is that it is quite easy to