[Sir Paul Bryan]
Hong Kong (Nationality)
16 JANUARY 1986.
four years, which have produced a far more promising long-term outlook for the territory than many of us had hoped. I assure the Legislative Council that their friends here will not let up on their efforts on behalf of the people of Hong Kong.
8.52 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil): I have listened to the comments of the hon. Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) with great attention and I am able to agree with many, if not all, of them. In previous discussions about Hong Kong I have expressed my grave reservations about the way in which the British Government have handled the matter of nationality for the people of Hong Kong, in particular the status and the future of BDTC passport holders. I believe that we have a moral responsibility towards BDTC passport holders which was not adequately fulfilled by Britain.
I regret to say that the House of Commons, which has built its reputation on its fearless championing of the causes of those who are oppressed or dispossessed- particularly on an international basis has on this occasion, all too easily been viewed as part of the conspiracy to sweep some of the issues under the carpet. There has been an all too cosy cross-Party agreement on some of the issues where it would have served the people of Hong Kong better if there had been a more strenuous debate.
I appreciate that those are uncomfortable words with which, no doubt, many hon. Members will disagree. However, the sentiments that I have expressed are not only my own, they are also widely, and in my view justifiably, held in Hong Kong itself, We must recognise the dissatisfaction and concern felt about this issue in Hong Kong. That point was made in the report of the assessment office on the Anglo-Chinese Agreement. The assessment team found that on nationality
"most of those who commented . . . did so in adverse or critical
terms
There was a widely shared hope that the British Government and Parliament may find a way of assurance for BDTCs in coming years".
It is within that context that we now hold the debate.
I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to provide, as he has already suggested, thousands of careful reasons for not taking the action that his heart and our sense of justice require. Those reasons will, no doubt, be based on premises and previous practices. However, there have been no premises for the situation in which we find ourselves. Britain has handed countries over to self- government but has never handed over an entire people lock, stock and barrel to another government. Moreover, many of those inhabitants fled from that government in fear and in the hope of freedom. I make no comment about the present state of the PRC government. We know that there are many moves in that Government which must be welcome and reassuring. I merely state the fact that many people have fled from a previous tyranny. We are facing a new problem where old practices do not apply and should not be applied. If the Minister recognises nothing else I hope that he will recognise that.
It must be recognised that decisions being made today will be made against a background of cynicism towards Britain and a fear for the future of Hong Kong. We do not want to encourage that, but we should recognise that half
664
Hong Kong Nationals »
1292
1243
the population of Hong Kong are very young and have their whole future to look forward to. Indeed, hall of them are under 35 years of age. More importantly, many are immigrants who have known statelessness and the fear of being a refugee.
Mr. Paul Marland (Gloucestershire. West: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Ashdown: I would prefer not to. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be called. I ask him to forgive me. What the Minister decides today will be of special importance and will be taken as a mark of Britain's seriousness towards achieving an equitable solution in Hong Kong. There is already a prevailing feeling in the colony, which may be justified or not, that Britain simply wants to walk away from the problem with the minimum of inconvenience. If that feeling is untrue we can show it by the decisions that we take today and that the Minister will take in due course.
The British Government are offering two forms of "citizenship". I put the word citizenship in inverted commas. There is British National and Overseas status and British Overseas Citizenship status. Bluntly, and discarding euphemism, they are merely two different names for the same thing. They both describe a British nationality that carries no right of abode anywhere, cannot be passed on the children except in limited circumstances, and are little more than a travel facility. The hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) mentioned in his excellent speech the contrary situation in Macau in the way in which the Portuguese are treating their people in similar circumstances. He said, and it is right to point out, that at exactly the same time as the people in Hong Kong may be apprehensive about the approach of 1997, they will be able to look 40 or 50 miles across the bay to 80,000 people who have the right to enter Britain which is denied to Britain's own nationals in Hong Kong. It is scarcely surprising that the issue is giving rise to strong feelings.
I do not claim that Britain can or could provide a home or even a right to work for all BDTC passport holders in Hong Kong. However, there are a limited number of in the present we can provide
assurances
that circumstances. We should be prepared to use Section 4 (5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 in a liberal manner. That section allowed those who have worked in a paid or unpaid capacity for the British Government to register as British citizens at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
At present, it appears I ask the Minister to comment on this, as we had a small exchange about it earlier that no one is being granted British citizenship under this section in case it increases the insecurity. This is simply inadequate and, as it creates insecurity in those who now assist us in the running of Hong Kong, it is counter-productive as well. The Home Secretary should be prepared now to set out his criteria for granting citizenship under this section and to put the provisions into operation as soon as possible.
In view of the importance of the decisions that the Home Secretary will be taking, there should be a right of appeal against those decisions. If he cannot do this, I ask him to look especially at the position of former servicemen. There are a mere 400 of them and the Government should make it clear that they will give sympathetic consideration to applicants from this group. To disown a brave and loyal people who deserve our
grat
wron
conc
I
day Hon
pass
adm
hold
this
ensu
pres
all i
prog
then
he c
hop
the
TA Hon
BN
best
the
sho
bec:
trad
thre
inhi
goe
it is
sure
the
disc
mir
in 1
the
Chi
Ko
arri
ser hav
and
the
sin
ab
any
ha
he
cit
W
PO
an
the
the