TNAG-1084-FCO40-1334-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 18

1

British Nationality

22 JULY 1981]

spite of the generality of this classification, let us at least be clear about the separate status of citizens in the dependent territories and give them all something which relates clearly to a particular territory so that they may know where they stand.

Whether what I have suggested in regard to Hong Kong will be the formula most acceptable to Hong Kong, I do not know; but we put this forward as an important provision to ensure that the peoples of the dependencies are given a status which confers a clean right of abode in a particular territory, which the present language and plan and structure of the Bill does not, in our submission, provide. I beg to move.

Lord Geddes: It will not surprise the noble and learned Lord opposite, nor indeed my noble friends on the Front Bench, that I warmly support the principle lying behind the aims of this amendment, particularly as it refers to Hong Kong. I believe that the noble and learned Lord was right in concentrating on Hong Kong when making his remarks. As was said during a brief interjection in the debate on what one might

call

the Gibraltar amendment ", I too am not totally certain whether the wording suggested by the noble and learned Lord opposite in respect of Hong Kong is entirely correct, but the spirit behind the amendmen is the point to emphasise.

There is very real concern-and I have felt this concern among my own many connections in Hong Kong-and a strong wish among the people there to remain being seen as British. The wording on the present Hong Kong British passport, as I demonstrated to your Lordships during the Second Reading, is:

and

66

“British citizen, subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies" If that wording is not permitted to continue as a result of the passing of this Bill, then some such wording -emphasising in particular the words "British" subject is of very real importance to the people in Hong Kong, for reasons that may appear to your Lordships to be inconsequential here, but which are of extreme consequence to the people of Hong Kong in their position, both geographical and political. The important point--it has been said many times before and I make no apologies for saying it again; my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Boyd- Carpenter have said it-that Hong Kong is most anxious to hear (the noble Lord the Lord President referred to it earlier today) is repeated affirmation of the British responsibility towards the people of Hong Kong.

It is of great importance to them, and that is why I warmly support the principle behind this amendment. What happens now after the Gibraltar amendment vis-à-vis the other dependent territories I think best to leave for discussion other than this evening. But it is important for Hong Kong in particular--and I am sure that will apply to the other dependent terri tories that they are seen not only in this country, not even in their own dependent territory, but by the Third World to continue to have close associations with Britain and therefore be deemed to be British.

10.27 p.m.

The

Lord Trefgarne: This amendment falls into two parts, and I shall, if I may, deal with them separately. first would provide a new definition of citizen of the British dependent territories. It would be interpreted]

Bill

334

as meaning a citizen of any one of the dependent territories. This in turn would require a scheme of separate citizenships for each of the dependent terri- tories, since the holder would only be a citizen of the British dependent territories if he or she were a citizen of one of them. We do not think that separate citizenships for each of the dependent territories is at practical option, since many of the territories are very small and they differ radically in structure and expecta- tions. The existence of separate citizenships would not mean that every citizen of the British dependent territories would have the right of abode in one of the dependent territories unless cach citizenship was defined by reference to the immigration ordinances of the territory concerned. This would lead to intolerable confusion, and would be fundamentally incompatible with the status of the dependent territories which after all are not sovereign states. So I am afraid that we see real difficulties in interpreting citizenship of the British dependent territories in the limited way proposed in the amendment.

The second part of the amendment would weaken the concept of a coherent and distinctive citizenship of the British dependent territories still further. It would mean that citizens of the British dependent territories would be described in their passports as British citizens with the name of the territory from which they derive their citizenship in parenthesis between the words. 66 British" and citizen". So a citizen of the British dependent territories from Hong Kong, for example, would be described as a British (Hong Kong) citizen. Now I appreciate that the peoples of the dependent territories are anxious, first, that their passports should make clear that the dependent territory from which they derive their status is British, and that the passport should also make clear the connection which they hold with this territory. This can, we believe, be done, under the Bill as it stands. The outside cover of a passport issued to a citizen of the British dependent territories in, say, Hong Kong would include the words "British passport" and a reference to Hong Kong, as at present. The description of citizenship held, on the first page inside, would refer to the holder as a citizen of the British dependent territories, and would indicate that he was from Hong Kong.

But, we believe that it would be wholly inappropriate and indeed misleading to describe citizens of the British dependent territories as British citizens in their pass- ports. Part I of the Bill sets out very specific provisions for British citizenship and Part II does the same for citizenship of the British dependent territories. This amendment would confuse the two and would jeopardise one of the main aims of the Bill-to replace the present citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies with three citizenships which make clear how the holder derives his status. This amendment would be mis- leading in precisely the same way as the existing citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies is citizen of the British misleading. Describing a dependent territories as a British citizen, even with the name of the dependency inserted would inevitably suggest that the holder had the right of abode in the United Kingdom.

Of course, elsewhere in the Bill the holder might be denied the right of abode in the United Kingdom. But the impression given by a phrase of this kind could be

it