239
Hong Kong
[ 14 MARCH 1985]
hope that the measures I have described are Scient to alleviate the concerns about statelessness on the part of non-Chinese BDTCs in Hong Kong. There will of course be a further opportunity to debate these matters when the Government bring a draft Order in Council before the House. But from the point of view of statelessness, I believe that the provisions of this amendment are unnecessary.
Before turning to deal with the question of the right of abode, I should mention that when I spoke earlier on of the description of the BN(O) status I may have missed out the word “overseas” when I was quoting a passage which explained the Government's position. I should like to correct that before going further.
I will turn now to the question of the right of abode. The Government do not believe that there is any justification for providing right of abode in this country to any group of BDTCs in Hong Kong who do not have it at present. The same would of course apply to British Nationals (Overseas) after 1997. The first reason for this is that the agreement itself guarantees the right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997 to persons who have been resident in Hong Kong for seven years or more and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence, and also to persons who before the establishment of the Hong Kong SAR only have the right of abode in Hong Kong. This would. I believe, cover all the non-Chinese BDTCs in Hong Kong unless they are only there temporarily and have a right of abode elsewhere. I believe that this provision is an entirely satisfactory guarantee of the right of abode in Hong Kong. (
It has been widely recognised, not least in your Lordships' House, that the agreement provides a satisfactory framework in which the present way of life of all the people who live in Hong Kong can be maintained after 1997. The Government believe that it is a good agreement and that it will be effective. The people with whom we are now concerned-that is to say, the non-Chinese BDTC's in Hong Kong-are by definition people who have made their lives in Hong Kong, many of them the descendants of people who have lived in Hong Kong for many generations. Their personal and family connections are with Hong Kong, not the United Kingdom. To suggest now that we should give them the right of abode in the United Kingdom, exceptionally, is to suggest that we are not confident that the conditions in Hong Kong after 1997 will be such as to permit them to remain there. This is not the belief of the Government, nor do I think it is the general belief of this Committee.
The second reason why the Government are opposed to giving the right of abode in the United Kingdom to sections of the community in Hong Kong is that we do not think it would be right to discriminate in favour of one section of the BDTC population in Hong Kong. We believe that it would be deeply resented by other sections of that community who of course would continue to constitute the vast majority. In the Second Reading debate I think that some of your Lordships may have dismissed rather easily the feelings of the Chinese BDTCs who constitute the overwhelming majority of BDTCs in Hong Kong. I believe that most of them would argue that if we were to give the right of abode to any one section of the community, they should have it, too. For this reason
Bill
240
the amendment now being considered would in my view be extremely divisive in Hong Kong, and divisive at a time when we should be doing everything we can to promote harmony and confidence.
I would say further that the fact that there should be no right of abode does not mean that it would be impossible for such persons to come to the United Kingdom. There are a number of avenues for BDTCs or BOCs to seek settlement in this country under the immigration rules. The same avenues would be open to BN(O)s. All such categories of people would, after settlement here, eventually be entitled to registration as British citizens under Section 4 of the British Nationality Act. In the unlikely event that any BN(O)s and BOCS came under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, we would expect that the Government of the day would consider sympathetically whether to admit them, on a case by case basis, in the light of their circumstances. The discretion to do this already exists in existing legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that there was no provision on the agreement of Indians in Hong Kong to become Chinese nationals because the Chinese Government were not willing to have such a provision. This is not so. The Government did not seek such a provision. It is for the Indians in Hong Kong to apply for Chinese nationality after 1997 if they so wish. Article 7 of the Chinese nationality law clearly makes such applications possible.
This amendment goes to the heart of the Bill in a number of ways. I have spoken to the amendment at some length, and I hope that I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that to pass this amendment would damage the Bill and would therefore damage the Government's plans for ratification of this agreement-an agreement which I think we all believe is an excellent one and much in the interests of Hong Kong and its people. We do not, I am sure, wish to put this at risk. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: The noble Baroness has just made a very important statement. It is clear that she has given very careful thought to the represent- ations about statelessness which were made in the House in the Second Reading debate on 19th February, when the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and I, and I think one or two others, dealt at length specifically with this point. What is more important is that this afternoon the noble Baroness has made what I believe to be a substantial concession on a matter which we in this Committee and the interested parties in Hong Kong itself have brought to the attention of Government over the past few months. The assurance of citizenship for the grandchildren of those who are British Nationals (Overseas), born after 1997—I understand that is the concession-is indeed a very welcome step. I should like to thank the noble Baroness and her right honourable and learned friend for the undertaking to extend to a further generation the right of citizenship. I am sure it will further improve the climate of confidence in Hong Kong, especially among the ethnic minorities. It is a practical move which we support very warmly.