363
[LOP GEDDES.]
or mo
British Nationality
[ LORDS]
arlier this afternoon and it would be invidious to repeat the arguments used at that stage; but I should like to stress the extreme importance placed by the dependent territories on Britishness and the nomen- clature of being a British national.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, the logic of the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, in my sub- mission, are utterly irrefutable and his arguments flaw- less. I, too, have the utmost sympathy with the motivation behind this amendment. The House may remember that when I had the privilege of addressing your Lordships for the first time during the Second Reading debate on this Bill I made the exact point. There is a world of difference between nationality and citizenship. Nationality is basically a concept of sociology and ethnography. Citizenship is a legal concept. It is very unfortunate, I think, that they should be regarded as interchangeable. In terms of nationality I regard myself as Welsh. I am sure that my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones would say the same, as would my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and many others in this House. But in terms of citizenship we are British, and although one can say that certainly this confusion has existed in statute for a very long time-certainly since 1948-it is none the better for that, and the mischief that such confusion can create is now greater than at any other time.
The fact that it is contained in the Long Title of the Bill does not make it unimportant. As the lawyers in this House will know, from time to time the courts look at the Long Title of a Bill for assistance in inter- pretation. Therefore, without unnecessarily and tediously repeating myself, I ask the House to consider yet again whether, indeed, it is necessary to make any reference whatsoever to nationality in this Bill, since, in so far as nationality might represent citizenship towards the outside world, the House has already de- cided earlier today in relation to Amendment No. 118 that it does not wish to deal with this Bill in that way.
66
66
Lord Avebury: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to deal with one point? The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said when the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, was being discussed that we had to make a distinction between the words national and nationality". They dealt with two completely dif- ferent concepts. What we are talking about here is nationality. I should like the noble Lord who is to reply to point to one single use of the word nation- ality" anywhere in this Bill, except where reference is made to the Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965. I do not believe that the word nationality is used except in that context, and therefore it is entirely inappropriate to have it in the Long Title.
""
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must say at the outset that I have a slight feeling of déjá vu about some of this, but it may be helpful if I say a very few words about the general question of nationality and citizenship. The expression "nationality" and the expression citizenship" are both terms used to describe a national status accorded by a state to people con- nected with it in various ways. Each expression has a
66
Bill
364
variety of meanings, which cannot be neatly expressed in a simple definition. In some contexts, the two expressions are synonymous, but in other contexts they may carry different meanings. These meanings may or may not overlap. International usage is not consistent.
The present Bill exemplifies the creation by one country of three different statuses. The word nation- ality", as used in the title of the Bill, indicates that it deals generally with the subject of national status, while the word "citizenship" is used to describe each of the three new statuses. There are other British statuses in the Bill which are not citizenships; the status of British subject and British protected person, for example. It is therefore right that the Title of the Bill should refer both to citizenship and nationality. This is, after all, a measure which is intended to overhaul the nationality law of this country in all its aspects.
A number of different points have been made by various noble Lords this evening on this amendment. Your Lordships may feel it appropriate that I do not deal with each and every one of them in detail at this late hour, but perhaps I may just touch on one or two. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said that there was no reference to nationality anywhere else in this Bill. That is not correct. There is a reference, for example, in Clause 12(3) of the Bill. I would also explain why the preamble to the Bill uses the words,
+6
66
to make fresh provision about citizenship and nationality ". It is true that the principal new categories or statuses created by this Bill are called citizenships". Never- theless, there are other categories or statuses dealt with in the Bill; for example, British subject without citizen- ship and British protected person. Nationality is, I submit, a satisfactory generic term to describe the subject matter of this Bill as a whole. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, will take these points and will not seek to press his amendment.
66
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, the worst has happened. The noble Lord has avoided the question-as, indeed, it was avoided on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. I must take up the noble Lord on one point. He will no doubt recall that in the very early stages of the Bill I put down two other amendments which referred to nationality. The word nationality" appears in one other place-in Clause 35 as well as in Clause 12(3). If the noble Lord will read it more carefully again he will see that it does not refer to British nationals; it refers to other than British nationals. It deals with foreigners. That is why I did not add those amendments to the ones at Third Reading. I felt it was wrongly presented as an amend- ment. The other two references to nationality related to people other than British citizens, subjects, or what-
ever.
I am afraid it was a bad answer. I still maintain that there are going to be difficulties about under- standing the Bill. They could quite easily have been resolved. The question of status and the question of loyalty that we wish to maintain within the British dependent territories could be maintained quite simply without all this covering up, as it may appear to be to others who are not knowledgeable about the law and who do not realise what the Government are trying to
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.