TNAG-1086-FCO40-1336-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 37

723

[LORD GEDDES.]

British Nationality

[ LORDS]

As to the Bill itself, I have been privileged in sitting through each day of the deliberations of the House or the Committee on the subject. I should particularly like to thank and I am sure that this is the overall feeling of the House as well-my noble friend Lord Belstead for the very graceful and tactful way in which he has handled the Bill throughout. While on different sides of the House there may have been strong dis- agreements with the line that he was putting forward, nevertheless his manner in dealing with the Bill has been faultless.

I should like to comment on only two points. On Clause 3 of the Bill, I should again like to thank my noble friend, and, through him, the Government, for the tremendous improvement on the original drafting of Clause 3, about which many of your Lordships, including myself, had considerable debate on Second Reading. The other point-and I feel it only right that I should make it-is on the amendment put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and I should like to add my support to the expression that he used about creating feelings of insecurity.

The noble and learned Lord was kind enough to instance the amendment that I had down, which was narrowly defeated last week. I do not wish to go on to that subject again, but I strongly believe that the Bill, as it leaves your Lordships' House, will create feelings of insecurity for whatever reason and however logical or illogical that may be. The fact is that those feelings of insecurity do exist and will continue to exist, and that is an area of the Bill which I personally deplore.

4.43 p.m.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I should not normally have intervened in this debate if I did not feel so uncom- fortable about the passing of this Bill, mainly because of the misunderstandings that will arise overseas as a result of its passing. There are very great worries in that we can pass a Bill in this country, which con- centrates entirely and solely on what appears to be a British problem and which the Bill sets out to solve, but which, inadvertently perhaps, creates great doubts and uncertainties for some of our friends-and, indeed, our best friends-overseas. I want to add my congratula- tions to the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, of Kowloon, on his remarkable maiden speech to which I shall have great pleasure in referring later.

One of the uncertainties of this Bill is the creation of legal doubts about the term "nationality". These were well covered during the Committee stage. I hope that some definition will be given to this term in another place, not just in the context of this Bill but because of what will happen as a result of its passing. For example, I was alarmed by a newspaper report yester- day, which stated that 10 hospitals have been selected by the Department of Health for a pilot scheme, under which a patient's nationality must first be established before National Health Service treatment is offered.

We have been asking how one establishes nationality in regard to this Bill, yet here the National Health Service is asking people to define their nationality before they can get treatment. This is just another loose end. I am particularly upset about this in a personal way. Is it really the fact that, because some- body does not look British-for instance, my wife is

Bill

724

Chinese-she will have to be asked to establish er nationality at one of these hospitals, although she is a British citizen?

Do the Government realise some of the problems and difficulties? The most reverend Primate the Arch- bishop of Canterbury is worried about community relations, as we all are. Is this a helpful step towards improving them? I do not think that it is, because it is a fact that the Government will not define the word nationality". We have warned enough on this and this is not the time to warn any more; there comes a limit.

There is the other effect on people overseas. Warn- ings on another Bill came from these Benches. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn, and many others, warned the Government about the effect that the Govern- ment's policy on education of overseas students is having overseas. The connection with the British Nationality Bill may not be immediately apparent, but in an article in the Financial Times on Friday, 16th October, the following statement was made by the Foreign Minister of Malaysia, Tan Sri Ghazali Shafie, who said:

66

Now British companies will have to compete on a par with everyone else. The 'bias for ' has now been taken away ".

I do not want to develop this aspect, because it has all been said before. But here is an example of another Government-in this case, the Malaysian Govern- ment—who have been good friends of this coutry of very long standing, saying: "We have given you a bias before. The British connection meant something to us. But a Bill which is passed by you, and which you are entitled to pass, is affecting our future relation- ships and affecting the young men and women who want to be educated in your country. So we will not give you the bias that we gave you before.”

I want to come to what the noble Lord, Lord Kadoorie, said, in a most elegant, intellectual and polite way. It could have been said in many other ways. It has been said to me, and to many others, by good friends in Hong Kong in many other ways, which it would not be profitable to put forward in this House. The British connection means something to people living many thousands of miles away, but if it is to mean something it has to mean something tangible. This Government have based their policy on economics, monetarism and so on. That is very important. They say that they are concerned about unemployment and the regeneration of British industry, and yet they are passing Bills the side effects of which will not enhance British industry or help reduce unemployment, but will lose very great friends of long standing. This is something which does not arise in a Committee stage. I am talking about the side effects of a Bill which were not properly considered before the Govern- ment asked us to pass this Bill.

Finally, I have a very small and trivial point. At an earlier stage, I mentioned the example of a citizen of the Pitcairn Islands. I thought of the smallest common denominator of the British dependent terri- tories which will be affected by this Bill. I took the trouble of ringing up the Treaties and Nationality Department of the Foreign Office, to see whether all 61 or so of the Pitciarn Islanders had been informed of the effects of this Bill on that small and isolated community, 9,000 miles away from where I stand.