1
wling they stand.
Lat I have suggested in regard to Hong Kong will be the formula mest acceptable to Heng 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 co; fers a char right of abode in a particular territory, which the present language and plan and structure of the Pill does hot, in car salv
% 1'g to ne e.
Lead Geddes: It will act surprise the as M., nd learned Lord opposite, nor indeed may noble fileids on the Front Bench, that I warmly support te placple lying behind the aims of this am odment, particularly es 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 sold during a lief interjection in the debde on what one might call
the Gibraltar amendment ", I too am not totally cert in whether the wording suggested by the noble and leaned Lord opposite in respect of Hong Kong is entirely conect, but the spirit behind the amendment is the point to emphasise.
cone.n
There is very red concern and I have felt this cmong my own rany connections in Hong Kong and a strong wish among the people there to remain being seen as Pritish. The wording on the prewat Heng Kong British passport, as I demonstrated to your Lordships during the Second Reading, is:
་་
·British citizen, s:bject of the United Kingdom and Colonies ”. If that werding is not permitted to continue as a result of the passing of this Bill, then some such wording emphasising in particular the words "British and subject is of very real importance to the people in Hong Kong, for rens ns that ay appear to
ms your Lordships to be inconsequential Fe, but which are of extreme consequence to the people of Hong Kong in their position, beth 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- Canter have said it that Hong Kong ismestenxious to hear (the noble Lord the Lord President referred to it carlier 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.
Lord Trefgarne: This amendment falls into two parts, and I shall, if I may, deal with them separately. The first would provide a new definition of citizen of the British de; ndent territories. It would be interpreted
British dependent territories if Me or the of me of them. We do not
either slips for each of the depondeat teritories is a proctical option, since many of the territories ate very small and they differ adically in structure and expecta- tions. The existence of ser
bios w、 ald
not nican flat every citizen of the 5:lish dependent le in one of the
by frence to the i. g, tien orduances of the Krit. ry C
This ald to intolerable enfion, and would be fundam atally incompatible with the status of the dependent territories which after all are not sovereign states, So I am afraid that we see real die. Hies in interpreting citizenship of the British dependent territories in the limited way proposed in the amendment.
<.
The second part of the amendmest 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. 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 mike 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 d. ne, under the bill as it stands. The outside cover of a passport isvied to a citizen of the British dependent tuuritories 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 misleading. Describing a citizen of the British dependent ferritories 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
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.