Hong Kong (Nationalitys
[Mr. Andrew Faulds]
16 JANUARY 1986
nationals should not have to suffer the suspicious caution that is natural to immigration bureaucrats. There must be an open sesame endorsement to prevent the distressing hindrances and delays that are far too common.
My second main concern is the unhappy impending limbo of those 10,000 or so BDTCs who, because they are not of Chinese stock, will not become Chinese nationals in 1997. In raising the issue I am not casting any doubt at all on the intention of the Chinese. I am raising it because it is a matter of concern, whether we want to face it or not. of a great number of people in Hong Kong. I was the first hon. Member, I think, to raise this issue in the debate on 5 December, 1984.
Those 10,000 include about 6,000 Indians, some 3,000 Eurasians and some others such as the Portuguese. The draft order proposes that in 1997 they will become British overseas citizens-BOCs. This proliferation of initials for the six different types of British citizenship is very vexing. It is a pity we have had to indulge in such surreptitious terminologies to pretend that we are still an open-hearted country. The BOC status will give those people no right of abode in Britain or anywhere else and will effectively leave them stateless, however the Minister may try to argue to the contrary.
The people of Macua, a few miles away from Hong Kong, have full entitlement to Portuguese citizenship. As a result of Portugal's entry into the EEC they will be entitled to free entry into the Commonity and into Britain to pursue work if they wish to do so. How ironic for the Hong Kongers. Millions of people abroad have the right to enter Britain - from Australia, Canada and New Zealand and, indeed, from South Africa when the funk flight starts, as it will in the next year or sooner. Millions can come too from the EEC.
But all those are white. It is only the colour of those 10,000, or most of them, and the immigration fears of every Government, sedulously worked on by the less worthy of our colleagues, some of whom are absent this evening, that prevent Her Majesty's Government from behaving honourably towards those 10,000. What discreditable conduct all this is in the wrapping up of our imperial residual responsibilities.
I have had considerable correspondence over the months with the Council of Hongkong Indian Associations in its pursuit of the right to full British nationality and the right of abode in Britain. In one of its earlier letters, of 27 April 1985, it disputed the contention by Baroness Young in the other place that if the non-Chinese BDTCs were granted the right of abode there would be resentment by the majority Chinese. That false argument was disposed of roundly by the unanimous endorsement of Miss Lydia Dunn's speech in the Legislative Council debate of 4 December in Hong Kong when she argued, to the surprise of many people but absolutely sincerely, for just such special treatment for the non-Chinese minority.
In a letter of 31 December last year the president of the association, Mr. Harilela, summarised their dilemma. I cannot do better than quote his words on the nationality issue:
and
"Any form of nationality which has such serious shortcomings must be regarded as a uniquely attenuated one, would leave its holder in a position of great disadvantage. The BN(O) status carries no notion of citizenship, and is little better than a travel document facility. Yet this is all the British
government has been prepared to offer to the 10,and ot SCO BOMB! ethnic Chinese BDICS We therefore request that this stan group of people be given tuff British citizenship with the night of abode in the UK. Of this group some 4,500 to 6,000 me of ethnic Indian origin without being Indian citizens, and while our Council is primarily concerned with the fate of this particular group. any plea which we make must also apply to the other 3,000 to 4,000 ethnic minority BDTCs who are largely of Portuguese or Eurasian origin.”
The ethnic Indian BDTCs came to Hong Kong because it was a part of the British Empire. They were first brought out here by the British to help colonise Hong Kong in the nineteenth century and many have since served the Crown loyally as policemen. soldiers and civil servants. Many came here shortly after India became independent in 1947 and, having decided to settle here. renounced their Indian citizenship and became British in the expectation that they would spend the rest of their lives under British rule. They therefore severed their ties with India when they swore allegiance to the Crown. In contrast with many Indian communities throughout the world the ethnic Indian community of Hong Kong is totally British in outlook and attitude.
They are a legacy of the British empire and Britain must continue to be responsible for them.
The non-Chinese BDTC minorities face an uncertain future, and while the numbers involved are small the principle involved is a great one." Really, no hon. Member can dispute or disregard our responsibility in this matter. Matters of principle, and this is one, should not be lightly put aside by parliamentarians.
Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the non-ethnic Chinese are seeking an assurance, not seeking to come to this country? They want an assurance that they will have a citizenship that means something and that gives them the right of abode in the place where they want to live-Hong Kong.
Mr. Faulds: Yes. I did not spell out that point because I thought that it was self-evident. It is obviously the reason for their arguments, and we should accept that it is a perfectly proper basis for their position.
Many of my hon. Friends will have read the excellent article in The Times a few days ago entitled
"What will befall Hong Kong's dispossessed?"
It was written by an Anne Owers of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. She powerfully details the concern which should properly be shown for those people and argues the need to meet that concern by granting right of abode. She concludes her article with a paragraph that I want to read to the House; it is a warning that we should all heed and which I certainly endorse. It states:
"Britains failure to take responsibility for ensuring that all British people in Hong Kong have an effective and secure nationality status is now creating insecurity for them and for Hong Kong, in the long term"-
and this is the point-
"the legacy of bitterness and mistrust which it has created could do even greater harm to Britain's own long-term interests." It is those long-term interests of this country about which we in this House should be concerned.
8.42 pm
Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): 1 congratulate my hon. and learned Friend the Minister on a very clear exposition of a very complicated subject.
I, together with the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), was in Hong Kong for the historic opening of the Legislative Council building in October. A year passed since I was there for the announcement of the joint agreement, so I had the opportunity to see at first hand the really dramatic improvement in confidence since the agreement was signed.
Pri
as hac contid
electio all see
very h difficu
Cor
natural
the Ne
sign th
of dem
states
tried t
success
themse
before
Batters
tonight
In d
it was surface formula
will ha new Le leading and em
The develop importa
all hon been
passpor
treatme
On
passpor
should
Howev
all be
every acknow
do so
can see
I see visa ex
assuran
Austral
we can
The the lead Hong K I do no about tl easily t There from H
I my
main s
is, and Kong improv Office
improv with th As t passpor
662
663