EXTRACTS
і злом
945
British Nationality
[22 JUNE 1981 ]
300
Bru
NAME.roum Bin House of LORDS.
HITBALL 340
946
Monday, 22nd June, 1981
British Nationality Bill
-Second Reading (continued); Motions
[Continuation of Official Report from cot, 944, Monday, 22nd June, 1981.]
9.55 p.m.
1
sea 306
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, this has been a most interesting debate. There have been some eccentric speeches, if I may say so. Indeed, when Lord Barnby rose (and I am so sorry he is not in his seat) he started in a way which made me feel that for the very first time I was going to be grateful that the noble Lord had participated in our debates-and we all have a great affection for him, in spite of his extraordinary views. He started off by saying that he felt when he entered this Chamber that this Bill was a minefield, and I thought that, obvious, his was a speech that was going to be in favour of all that I stood for. I felt that the minefield exploded in my face a very short time afterwards, and I know he forgave me when I had to make an intervention because of some of his unhappy remarks.
The noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, charms this House always. I never know whether I am going to hear from him a very reactionary speech, if I may say so, or one that is neutral. Today, I think we all heard and we heard it with great pleasure-a speech in which the noble Viscount invited the party opposite to be non-partisan in its approach. Indeed, he inflicted a minor correction upon my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones for having dared to make what he thought to be a political speech.
I am going to try to follow the advice of the noble Viscount. I will say nothing, beyond mentioning it, about the fact that this is a Bill which, for the first time in our glorious history of welcoming the stranger, will be rendering at least 150,000 people stateless; and I will gloss over the fact, because so much has been said about the jus soli, of the right to citizenship by birth. I will also gloss over the fact that we are creating, at all events for several youngsters up to the age of 10, this situation--and I ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson to listen to this if he would. Such a youngster is not necessarily the child of a cheat; he could be the child of somebody entering this country with a labour permit in a proper way; trying to stay here to work, and to do so very properly. But, having been born here and being different from all the other boys in his class, he has to face the mercilessness of having, at the age of 10-I will do no more than quote this is order to satisfy the requirements of the noble Viscount, and I am quoting the Minister in another place--to prove at the end of that time, by (and I must be careful) the use of school records, National Health cards and child benefit records, that he had been here for 10 years since the date of his birth and had not gone out of the kingdom, even for a surgical operation abroad, for more than 90 days (that is what the Bill says) in any one year.
I will not go over other provisions of the Bill which HL 26 E2
66
མལ་་་་
my party finds
ble! What I say, as others on this side of the House haversad and as it is only sensible to say, is that of course a nationality Bi of some kind is necessary. We are in a state of con- fusion. But what want to say in a non-partisan spirit, is this Every one of us, every speaker, with possibly the exception of one or two, has stressed the need for us to try to integrate into our way of life the immigrant whom we want to welcome on these shores because he came here legally, and to have in this country a family at peace with all its sections, understanding the differences in culture, tolerating (as we always do) the person who is slightly different from us, but saying, You, like us, are British; you, like us, serve the Union Jack and you, like us, are proud of this country ".
If we are trying to do this, is it not necessary, at 31 least as a public relations exercise on such a major 1981 purpose, to see that before you bring a Bill into Parlia- ment you have satisfied not just the ethnic minorities but the leaders of thought in many, many parts of our national life that it is a fair measure and a just one? I am not going to use the word
46 racial " for the purpose of this argument. I say this in no sense of undue criticism, or of trying to score party points. The Government are to blame for this and this alone -and that is the message of my speech-for a com- plete failure to realise the importance of public relations before bringing in a Bill of this kind.
66
SEE HIK 340
My Lords, why do I say that? We have heard speeches tonight about Gibraltar. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, is a man of temperate habits and temperate speech. He is a master of the rounded phrase and we were all absolutely delighted to hear him. What did he say that Gibraltar felt about this Bill? A smack in the face ", were the words that the noble Lord used. What a great exercise in public relations, when good, old, loyal Gibraltar, putting up with all it has put up with over the past years, regards Bill of a Conservative Government, of all Govern- ments, as a smack in the face"! And Hong Kong. Forget the ethnic minorities in this country for a moment. What does the official document say? We heard the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, on this matter. We were all delighted with his speech and with the speeches of others who spoke of Hong Kong and of Gibraltar. What does Hong Kong say in an official document that I received from the Hong Kong Govern- ment office?——
66
"There is fundamental, deep-seated and emotional opposition to the Bill among Hong Kong people ".
What a great exercise in public relations as the Govern- ment carried on in order that Hong Kong people should feel that way!
No consultation with the dependent territories, no consultation at top government levels with the countries of the Commonwealth, leaving poor Mrs. Thatcher to go to India, having to argue with Mrs. Gandhi that the Nationality Bill was not as bad as she thought it was; that it was not really racialist; and unfortunately, whatever else she achieved on that visit (and I am sure that she achieved much) not convincing Mrs. Gandhi before she left that it was not a racialist Bill and that it was not, in fact, a very bad Bill.
So far as this country is concerned we have heard some speeches tonight which are unduly complex,
J
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.