0
361
10
al
66
British Nationality
[ 13 OCTOBER 1981]
sup
ed to write? Perhaps the noble Lord will say that perhaps they should write "Citizen of the British Dependent Territories ", perhaps abbreviated to 'COTBDT”, simply because the British dependent territories are not nation-states either individually or collectively. So it is not a correct answer to the question of nationality. How can citizens of the British dependent territories write "COTBDT” or whatever?-because these are not nation-states. These are British dependent territories. The only nation-
state involved is Great Britain. Therefore, I cannot see how a citizen of the British dependent territories can take a nationality other than of that nation-state that gives him his citizenship. I can see very serious com- plications and inconvenience arising with people having to explain this; and, indeed, Her Majesty's Government having to explain to other Governments about where they stand to answer this question of nationality.
'
""
I have mentioned that there has been some emotional misunderstanding and objections about this. I believe most of them would evaporate overnight if the noble Lord could give these clarifications. Therefore, I am asking the noble Lord to accept that deletion of the term nationality in the Title because I believe that it would show no further misunderstanding of this Bill. If the noble Lord feels that it is necessary to retain the word “nationality”, is he in a position to define it for the benefit of the citizens of the British dependent territories so that they know at least where they stand? During the course of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, today it was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that in fact it would be helpful if a definition of the term nationality" could be made in this country. There- fore, why not send the Bill back to the Commons and ask them to see whether they can produce a definition that can clarify the position?
If I just take one example where misunderstanding could arise: suppose for a moment that a loyal citizen of, let us say, of the Pitcairn Islands wishes to prove his nationality is British. He can go to a court of law and try to get this defined in order that his British- ness can be proved in terms of nationality. I believe that he would do so on the grounds that he is domiciled in a British dependent territory without a national status of its own and therefore he wishes to maintain his own personal bond with this country and he wants to prove it in law. Possibly if that area is not open to him he may wish to appeal to the Secretary of State. In Section 4 of the 1914 Act it is said that intervention by the Secretary of State may occur where nationality of the British subject is in doubt. Perhaps this is an area where the citizen of the Pitcairn Islands who wishes to prove his loyalty to this country could possibly apply. It will be most helpful if the noble Lord could say whether this would still operate.
However, I must warn the noble Lord that there are very serious dangers in this because this has been known to occur in other countries; namely, in South Africa where it is very important that the nationality of those citizens is clearly defined. Noble Lords may be inter- ested to hear what difficulties and dangers lie along this path. I can take an extract from the proceedings of that Parliament to explain more clearly where this approach might lead without having a legal definition
Bill
352
of nationality". In answer to a Parliamentary Question about nationality, the Minister of the Interior (the equivalent to the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary) gave the following reply:
"A total of 101 coloured people became whites, one Chinese became a white, two whites received coloured classifications, six whites became Chinese, two whites became Indians, 10 coloured people became Indians, 10 Malays became Indians, 11 Indians became coloured people, four Indians became Malays, three coloured people became Chinese, while two Chinese were reclassified as coloured people ".
This is where the Government can come unstuck-on this question of nationality. Is this what could happen here when a citizen of the British dependent territories wishes to determine his nationality?
Noble Lords have laughed, but in that unhappy country the classification of an individual's nationality determines the level of the whole way of life for him- self, his family and even his cousins. This may sound amusing to some noble Lords, but to those individuals concerned, that answer in that Parliament determines at what level their lives would be lived; what rest- aurants they may use, and so on. This is a question about nationality, not about citizenship. Therefore, what about the loyal citizen of the Pitcairn Islands who wishes to prove his Britishness and his British nationality? To whom does he go? To the Secretary of State, to get clarification in Parliament? This is the kind of situation the Government can get themselves into without a clear definition of nationality. So I would hope that if the noble Lord attempts to get away from this question in one form or another and leave it in the air, I feel there will be still greater and further mis- understandings about this Bill as a whole-misunder- standings that need never arise. Everyone accepts that the base of the Bill is necessary, but its presentation has been poorly made and will create difficulties in areas such as Hong Kong.
I should like to leave this final thought with the noble Lord, having mentioned Hong Kong. That is that the Hong Kong people wish to retain their Britishness, if you like, by means of a non-legal term that they can fill in on the form: "British Nationality". If Britain says, “No, you cannot do that: We are not very interested in what you call yourselves, but we will look after you", I believe that will lead to very serious dangers. As a trading post, they live by trade and they breathe commerce. They have been pressurised by the British Government to buy British. They have honoured that in the belief that they are British. If the Government indicate, however subtly, or by not answer- ing this question of nationality, people in Hong Kong may say: "You do not think we are very British. We as a trading port may want to take tenders worldwide. We do not necessarily wish to benefit British industry; we wish to benefit ourselves. You say that we are only so-so British, without British nationality". They may, therefore, ask for concessions equally vague but very damaging to this country's commerce. This is not a legal matter; it is a frame of mind, if you like, and I think it is dangerous to leave it in the air. I hope that the noble Lord can clarify this situation for us all. I beg to move.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, it will not surprise your Lordships that I most warmly support this amendment. However, we have had a very good debate of one hour
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.