155
British Nationality
[7 OCTOBER 1981]
Lordships' se, but the point that perhaps he over- looked was that I made those comments before, and not after, the vote on, dare I call it? the Gibraltar amendment. The point on which I would take issue with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is that the breach has indeed been made as a result of that Gibraltar vote. We in this House must speak and vote surely as we think fit without taking into account what might sub- sequently occur either in this House or in another place. We have in Committee, for better or for worse, voted effectively in favour of giving Gibraltarians British citizenship. We are now debating giving similar status to the Falkland Islanders. Therefore as I have said, and as indeed other noble Lords have said this evening, we already have one and now pos- sibly a second significant breach in the integrity of Part II and Schedule 6 to this Bill. Of course we are presently debating only one specific amendment affecting the Falkland Islands but the implications surely, as again has been said before, are far, far wider than just this amendment.
In an unreal world of total isolation, as my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has pointed out, I certainly would have every sympathy with this amendment— as indeed I had, given the same situation of vacuum, with Gibraltar. The numbers in both instances are relatively small. But the problem is that we have to deal with the real world in, dare I say it? a polluted atmosphere-if indeed that is the corollary of a vacuum. My noble friends on the Government Front Bench have stressed continually that this is a nationality, not an immigration Bill but, as I and many others in your Lordships' House have said in our debates from Second Reading onwards, just about the one word not defined in this Bill as it stands is nationality". This Bill defines in considerable detail three kinds of citizenship, each kind having different rights, particularly those of abode in the United Kingdom. Thus, I suggest to your Lordships that in major part it is, albeit at second remove, a Bill governing immigration.
The problem with this amendment-and I stress to my noble friend Lady Vickers that I have the greatest sympathy with its intent-is exactly the same as with the Gibraltar amendment, and to put it bluntly, that is is an indirect one of numbers. 'I doubt, if I can go so far, whether any Member of your Lordships' House (or maybe only a few) would have a lasting objection to giving British citizenship to-I hope I get my figures roughly correct-17,000 Gibraltarians and 1,400 Falkland Islanders, although I am aware that the noble Baroness Lady Elles, may have certain other views so far as Gibraltar is concerned. The problem, let us face it, is the prospective 2.6 million residents of Hong Kong who are presently citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
In the debate in our Committee on 22nd July the noble Lord, Lord Soames, from the Government Front Bench said at col. 248, in the context of the possibility of granting Gibraltarians full citizenship-and I stressed the possibility at that stage-—
"I really must stress this point firmly. The other dependencies. and in particular Hong Kong, do say and will say that if all Gibraltarians are automatically to have British citizenship, enshrined in legislation, and the right of abode here merely on application, then they will want similar privileges. What we
Bill
grant to one we shall---to put it no higher---certainly be under great pressure to concede to others ".
The noble Lord went on at great length in that vein. However, my Lords—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if I may ask one question—
Lord Geddes: My Lords, if I may continue, please, as we know, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Soames, and indeed several other members from the Government Front Bench, said, the Gibraltar amendment was accepted. However, in the context only of Hong Kong, my own view, following advice given to me and I should like to stress this--is that the British Government's fears—and I strongly suspect particularly those of the Home Office—are ill-founded. Hong Kong belongers-and I use the word most deliberately-are the most pragmatic people I have ever come across, but I can do no better than paraphrase what I said on 28th July, which was that they are- and I stress this-not looking for, do not expect to have, and have no inclination for the right of abode in the United Kingdom. In other words, they are not looking for a citizenship along the lines of this amend- ment which carries with it the automatic right of entry or abode into the United Kingdom. What they are looking for is the strongest possible continuing link with the United Kingdom in political and national rather than in immigration terms.
""
I stress this point because it may influence your Lordships in considering the present amendment if you believe passing this amendment could-and I quote the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who in turn was quoting others" open the flood gates which would particularly refer to Hong Kong. I stress that, from the advice I have received and from my own investigations, that is not so; they are not looking for that right of entry or of abode in the United Kingdom. They are looking for a very close, overtly expressed connection with the United Kingdom.
As I have said, I make no apology for having dwelt on Hong Kong on what is in fact a Falkland Islands amendment, because the problem overall is one of numbers. So far as this amendment is concerned, my inclination is now to favour it, in that the breach has already been made. In that context I should also in passing like to make reference to H M S" Endurance having been included in the recent defence cuts— surely an extraordinarily short-sighted view. Whether or not this amendment is carried we shall know shortly; what we already know is that the Gibraltar amendment has been approved by your Lordships' Committee and therefore the integrity of the British dependent territories has been breached. That alone makes the case at the very least in terms of demonstrable status for the strongest possible ties between the remaining British dependent territories and the United Kingdom. If this amendment is carried, the breach will become a yawning gap and in my view will make the argument of any dependent territories and particularly Hong Kong's case for overt demonstration of “super-glue political and national links with the United Kingdom--- irrefutable.
15
Lord Elywn-Jones: My Lords, the provisions of this Bill have clearly caused a sense of anxiety and insecurity
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.