163
Copied to H. IT
Foreign Ministers Meeting (Luxembourg)
22 JUNE 1982
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North): As my right hon. Friend knows, this House and this country agreed to join the European Community on the basis of the Luxembourg compromise. Will he give a commitment to the nation now that he will take whatever action is necessary to restore the Luxembourg compromise, otherwise we shall have what has recently happened: as Europe has voted, we have paid?
With regard to the Middle East, as we had European sanctions against Argentina because it committed aggression, will we likewise have sanctions against Israel until it withdraws?
Mr. Pym: The Luxembourg compromise was an agreement to disagree, but at the discussions this weekend no one wished to rearrange the compromise. They wished to proceed on the basis of it. We must see whether that works out. If it does not, we shall have a new position and I shall certainly raise the matter again. Now that five member countries wish to protect their vital national interests when they judge that there is a risk to those interests, it seems to give grounds for good hope.
As for the Middle East, we are discussing the possibility of economic measures as suggested by my hon. Friend, but there has been no decision yet.
Mr. Heffer: The Foreign Secretary must be aware that his answer to the question posed by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is disappointing, to say the least. Surely we cannot rely upon hopes. Will he return to my question which he did not answer? Will the Prime Minister be prepared to raise the matter at the meeting of Heads of State to try to obtain a clear commitment and agreement from the rest of the Community?
Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman says that we cannot rely on expectations. The basis of the so-called Luxembourg agreement was a curious arrangement with which five member countries originally disagreed. They do not wish to reopen or to alter the matter. They will not come to a clear commitment such as the hon. Gentleman and I would prefer. That is not available. We must make the best use that we can of the procedures and practices that are available to us. I acknowledged in my statement that I would much rather have had a clear-cut outcome, but we must carry on as we were before. It worked perfectly well under Governments of both parties. If anything similar were done in the future, that would be a serious matter, and I should raise the question again.
ник
Copucil
GHR
23/6
NO
'cal
29/6
24
02012
Pas 24/6
Date 22/6/82
92
COL 164
VOL 20
165
Falkland Islands (British Citizenship)
81
164
Falkland Islands (British Citizenship)
4.3 pm
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk (Ormskirk): I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship.
I do not propose to use the time allotted, because the merits of this Bill are self evident and will command considerable support both inside and outside the House, as did the principle of the matter when it was discussed during debates on the Bill that became the British Nationality Act 1981. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the principle of allowing citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship if they so desired was debated both in this Chamber and in another place. On both occasions it obtained considerable support but was denied by the Government.
The British Nationality Act gave British citizenship to 1,400 Falkland Islanders who have a grandparent or parent born in Britain. They now have the right of entry, abode and employment in the United Kingdom. However, the Act denied British citizenship to 400 islanders who to all intents and purposes are British but who are not fortunate enough to have a parent or grandparent, but instead a great-grandparent, born in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, they are as British as their more fortunate compatriots who have been designated British citizens.
Every one, not least the Falkland Islanders, is aware that when the British Nationality Act was debated the Home Secretary gave a clear and specific assurance that in desperate times the Islanders would be allowed to enter Britain. He used a phrase that was reiterated many times during the debates and more recently by Foreign Office spokesmen and said that they would be given "every sympathetic consideration”.
That may well be the case, but it is not right that Falkland Islanders who are now citizens of British dependent territories and who have no right of entry or abode or to work here, but only the right to leave and enter the Falkland Islands, must rely upon the compassion, good will and the good nature of the Home Secretary or the Government. If it is right to say that to all intents and purposes they have British citizenship and that they will always be allowed to settle or to work here, it is equally right to put that on a regular basis and to enshrine it in law by giving them British citizenship.
We have accepted that. We assembled a massive task force and sent it half way round the world-the much publicised 8,000 miles--at great expense and with considerable loss of life. I endorsed and supported that expedition then, as I do now. As the Prime Minister said, we were fighting for a principle, to demonstrate that aggression does not pay and that no country, be it a dictatorship or a democracy, can take over the territory or subjugate the citizens of another country. However, we were fighting for something more than that, or at least the Prime Minister said that we were. She said constantly that we were fighting to protect British citizens and the British way of life. That is correct, but the British way of life that we fought successfully to protect applies to all 1,800 islanders, not just to the 1,400 who were fortunate to qualify for British citizenship.
It was absurd to deny citizenship to the 400 when the Act was debated. It would be indefensible to deny them today. They are British in their language, heritage,