J
Y
+
263
and Color of entry to
British Nationality
[ 13 OCTOBER 1981]
dependent territories who already have no right abode in the United Kingdom ”–
I would stress those words, my Lords-
"should not be reduced in any way. To preserve our British connection and status we maintain that the British nationality of CBDTs should be clearly stated in the Bill. We ask for nothing more than to provide under the law the assurances given by HMG in the course of the Third Reading debate in the House of Commons. It is hoped that the depth of our concern on this point can be brought home through the debate and that our appeal to remain and to be seen to remain British will be treated with sympathy and understanding ".
I fear an adverse reaction to my amendment from my noble friends on the Front Bench and I think it is relevant to see what Government spokesmen have said on this subject. Indeed I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on the Front Bench, because it is with his words that I should like to start. At column 338 on 22nd July he said in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones:
"The important point is that it would be wrong to put in the passport something that would be misleading, and to suggest I am paraphrasing just marginally-
... that the person concerned was a British citizen would not be accurate and would not be a proper thing, I would say, to include in the passport, because they will not be British citizens ".
Again I would apologise for repetition. This amend- ment does not attempt to alter in any way the qualifica- tions or categories of British citizens. It attempts to define their national status. I therefore suggest that, while one may or may not agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on the subject of British citizenship being stated within the passport, his words did not include British nationality.
The second example I should like to give concerns my right honourable friend Mr. Timothy Raison, the o said on Minister of State at the Home Office, 4th June at column 1188:
66
Territories
'I confirm that citizens of the British Depenc will remain United Kingdom nationals in the sise that the United Kingdom can afford consular protection and represent their interests internationally-both of which, of course, we intend to continue to do ".
I intend to quote only one more example which is most relevant. It is a statement made by Mr. Richard Luce in another place on 28th April in column 1387 of Commons Hansard-and I shall paraphrase in the context very slightly. He said:
"In the wider context of international law generally, the term national' means the relationship between a person and the State which is prima facie entitled to represent his interests in the sphere of international relations. In this sense it goes without saying that the people of all our dependencies arc United Kingdom nationals, since the United Kingdom is clearly res- ponsible for the dependencies internationally ”.
From two Ministers of the Crown we have, I submit, statements of incontrovertible and irrefutable fact, acknowledging the national status of citizens, certainly in the context of which they spoke of the dependent territories as British. My noble friend Lord Belstead and my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate have told us repeatedly in this House that the Bill does not create different classes of citizen in the context of first, second or third class, but rather three different categories of citizenship with varying rights. Ignoring in the context of this amendment whether it is right or wrong to have these three categories,
Bill
264
there seems to be no argument at all against the fact that all three are British for the purpose of national status. To put it another way, if they do not have the national status "British", then I ask: What status do they have? In moving this amendment, I should just like to repeat the last phrase of Mr. Timothy Raison's comments in another place on 28th April:
"It goes without saying that the people of all our dependencies are United Kingdom nationals, since the United Kingdom is clearly responsible for the dependencies internationally ".
My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this amendment which has been so persuasively moved by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and whose significance in regard to Hong Kong, with which he is more familiar than any of us, he has underlined. As I understand it, the amendment would simply affirm an undeniable fact; namely, that all the various categories of Britishness or, if that sounds too pompous, being British in this Bill, being a British citizen, a citizen of the British dependent territories or a British overseas citizen, have at least one thing in common. They all denote persons who hold British nationality in some degree or other and this conclusion is, indeed, reflected in legislation to which the Bill itself refers in Schedule 7.
One sees on page 64 the reference to the Civil Aviation Act 1971:
In section 64(1) (interpretation), in the definition of United Kingdom national', for paragraphs (a) to (e) substitute—-
'(a) a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent
Territories or a British Overseas citizen ".".
Then on page 66 we see the reference to the State Immunity Act 1978 and that the definition of "national of the United Kingdom" means:
“(a) a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent
Territories or a British Overseas citizen ".
Then, finally, in Amendment No. 160, which is to be moved from the Government side, there is the reference to the Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Act 1981, where we read:
(c) in subsection (6), for the words from and references onwards substitute-
United Kingdom national' means—
(a) a British citizen, a citizen of the British Dependent
Territories or a British Overseas citizen;
(h) a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is
a British subject; or
(c) a British protected person (within the meaning of that
Act) ".".
*
It is quite true that the term of art used in those United Kingdom national ", statutory provisions is not British national". But that goes to show, first, that it is quite appropriate to use one generic term to embrace all three categories of British citizens with which we are concerned in this Bill. Secondly, if it is appropriate--and I submit that the legislation we have already noted shows it to be so-to refer to citizens who may be living in different parts of the world as "nationals of the United Kingdom", it cannot surely be wrong to refer to them by what I British national ". submit is the more felicitous term
It is significant that at this point of time, the Bill not having become law, their actual designation in law, as the noble Lord has indeed pointed out, is that they are citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
جو
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.