265
British Nationality
D ELWYN-JONES.]
[ LORDS ]
Some few belong to the colonies there are not many left. The vast majority are covered, I submit, by the first part of the designation; namely "citizens of the United Kingdom ".
Although the title of the Bill is the British Nationality. Bill, British nationality as such is nowhere defined in it at the present time, and the main importance of this omission is that the Bill nowhere identifies the international status of nationality law. That law has two facets; namely, the domestic and the inter- national. Article 1 of the Hague Convention of 1930 states:
"It is for each state to determine under its own law who are its nationals. This law shall be recognised by other states in so far as it is consistent with international conventions, international custom and the principles of law generally recognised with regard to nationality".
Article 2 of the convention states:
Any question as to whether a person possesses the nationality of a particular state shall be determined in accordance with the law of that state ".
To command acceptance in the international com- munity generally, definitions of "nationality must conform with certain accepted international concepts, and the most dominant of those is close and intimate connection between the citizen and the state purporting to confer nationality upon the citizen. This definition in the amendment does not widen in any way the scope of British nationality which is implicit in Parts I, II and III of the Bill. There can be no doubt under this Bill that a citizen of the British dependent territories will have British nationality, and so will a British overseas citizen. If, after commencement, a question arises about diplomatic protection-this is, of course, of very great importance for the people concerned--it will be of great importance that it should be clear which persons are British nationals on the international plain and which are not.
To declare that all the people mentioned in the amendment are British nationals would be, for our own purposes, a clarifying amendment. For international purposes, it would be a declaratory one, but one which would be of considerable value to those affected, in relation to their dealings with the Governments, immigration officers and authorities of other countries. To pass the amendment would, we believe, be an important affirmation to all those who are to be British under the Bill, but who are not to get the new British citizenship. It would be an affirmation of continuing British responsibility and British connec- tion.
The Government have often insisted that this Bill does not establish first class, second class and third class categories of Britishness, and that they are impelled by the pure and honourable motive of defining a citizenship for the United Kingdom alone, adding, in keeping with present day realities, alongside of and not superior to other forms of Britishness. If these protestations are sincere, then I submit there can be no objection whatsoever to including this amendment in the Bill. As I ventured to say, and as the noble Lord who moved the amendment has indicated, the affirmation contained in the amendment would be significant not only for the people directly concerned, but more particularly in the context of the countries
Bill
266
and powers with which they may have to deal. Accord- ingly, I greatly hope that this helpful and desirable amendment will be approved by the House.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I can understand the reasons why my noble friend Lord Geddes has moved this new clause. It is a new way of bringing together the three forms of citizenship proposed in the Government's Bill. The Government's original scheme was upset by the inclusion of the clause on Gibraltar at the Committee stage and it was nearly upset again last week when the clause concerning the Falkland Islands. was very nearly included, too.
Schedule 6 to the Bill lists 17 British dependent ter- ritories. The case for Gibraltar was argued very cogently at the Committee stage on the basis of its association with the European Economic Community. The case for the Falkland Islands was argued for the reason that all its inhabitants were of United Kingdom origin or of United Kingdom stock. No doubt special cases could be argued for others in Schedule 6, but our aim in this House must surely be that none of these ter- ritories should feel that they are being discriminated against. The Government's objective of equality no longer exists, but the Government made it clear last week that they have left the option open as to what action they might propose in another place on that point when the Bill reaches that other place.
This new clause would have the effect of giving all these 17 territories a uniform, continuing, close link with this country---not a right of abode. I agree with my noble friend Lord Geddes that whatever designa- tions may eventually be included in the Bill, we are run- ning the risk of losing the confidence of many who want to retain a very close link with the United Kingdom but who do not expect or want to live here.
I, too, should like to refer to Hong Kong. Those who in Hong Kong are now citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in general do not expect a right of abode in the United Kingdom. To foist, however, upon them some apparently third rate form of citizen- ship would give offence and we should run the risk of losing the friendship and understanding which presently exists between our country and Hong Kong.
The reason for referring to Hong Kong is that it is so much larger than any of the other 16 territories in the list. I am speaking in broad terms-not just about population. About half of the population are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, coming to about 21 million, but in gross domestic product, in impact upon the world, in international trade, Hong Kong dwarfs all the others on the list. It is massive in rela- tion to those other territories which are either small islands, too small to run their own Governments, or groups of islands. We must take into account that the schedule which we are considering includes one very significant territory.
Of the citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Hong Kong the large majority are British or Chinese in origin. There are several thousand British persons in Hong Kong-mostly, I must add, of Scottish origin. There are many, many more Chinese. The large majority of those regard themselves as residents of Hong Kong and not as Chinese. They do not seek, I repeat, the right to enter or to live in the United