-
[Mr. Tom Pendry]
I hope that at the end of this debate it will be clear that honour and obligation will remain intact as far as this country is concerned. It is not just the non-Chinese ethnics that we are talking about; it is the entire people of the colony of Hong Kong who believe that this group of people is being wronged by this Government.
It is good that this is a draft order and that we can alter it. We plead that the Government will heed this message from hon. Members who feel strongly about Hong Kong and especially about its minority groups, and will amend the order before too long.
9.26 pm
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): I rise with some humility after the eloquent and deeply knowledgeable speeches by right hon. and hon. Members who know Hong Kong far better than I. It is nine months since the Hong Kong Act received the Royal Assent and about a year since it went through the House in record time. As the Bill went through its various stages, great concern was expressed about the question of nationality, particularly the vexed question of the transfer of British nationality by way of BDTC to the new BN(O) nationality. Since the passage of the Bill, there seem to have been a number of hiccoughs in the morale of the people of Hong Kong. The way in which we deal with the question of nationality is most crucial for morale in the colony at present. The arrangements which we make when the order is confirmed and comes to us as a firm order will be absolutely vital in determining the way in which the passage towards 1997 continues.
It is clear from the speeches made during the Leg.Co. debate on 4 December that there was a great deal of concern about the three questions mentioned so frequently tonight: the integrity of the BN(O) passport, which seems to be on the way to being resolved in the joint discussions with the Chinese; the ex-service men so eloquently referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker); and the non-Chinese ethnic minorities.
There is a clear cynicism about the status and currency of British overseas citizenship, and with some reason. Whether this somewhat nebulous concept has any validity has to be proved to us by the Government. The greatest concern in this regard is the position of the succeeding generations of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities, about which so much has been said this evening. I would like to add to the plea that a particular concession be granted to the ex ex-service men. Those who have served king and country in this way have every right to our most sympathetic consideration, and I am sure that those words are unlikely to fall on deaf ears.
I do not want to go over ground which has been covered very well throughout the debate. Nor have I time in any case, as I am being reminded by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) sitting below me. I believe that there should be no question about granting the right of abode in the United Kingdom to the ex-service men.
That brings me on to the question of the non-Chinese ethnic minorities, some 10,000 people, mostly Indian. They or their forebears came to Hong Kong, for the most part, before India received its independence and they have served Britain in the colony for many years. As we have
and how
already been told M several right hon Gentlemen, very few of these people would actually wish to come to live in the United Kingdom at present, but it is incumbent on Britain to look at their claims with due consideration and sympathy, for at several times during their lives it is quite likely that they have had a right of abode here. It would be churlish if we forgot that.
It also seems that the statelessness which the draft order seeks to avoid could result from our treatment of the matter. These people have no chance of emigrating to India or Pakistan because they have not lived there for many years. Indeed, few speak the language, and in any case some would return to Pakistan as Hindus which would be a particularly unattractive prospect. We have a responsibility to the minorities which is special and apart from our responsibilities for the vast majority of Hong Kong people who are ethnically Chinese. The small minority would have almost no impact on our general immigration policy, and I feel certain that the necessary steps can be taken there is plenty of time encompass their desire for British citizenship as opposed to BN(O) or BOC status within the regulation when it is drawn.
―
they enthu
So no
Thi
only t
counc
suppo
Gover
House
If I
-it d
the G
agreen and, if should 100 of small.
Wit
will no
to
hon. N
and it
it
;
minori
Several hon. Members have said that Hong Kong is in a unique position. It is unique in the history of decolonisation. We are handing it back to the Chinese, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said. It behoves the House and the Government to pay special attention to the wants of two small minorities-- the ex-Service men and the non-Chinese ethnic minority.
9.31 pm
Dr. John Marek (Wrexham): I agree completely with the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), and wish to express my anxiety about the draft Order in Council. It is not right that the Government need to change it before it is generally acceptable, most important, in Hong Kong, and in the House. It is a pity that the Front Bench spokesmen were not spokesmen on foreign affairs -I say that with no disrespect to the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs)- because we are talking not about immigration policy into Britain, but the future of Hong Kong. Although at present Hong Kong has the status of a colony of the United Kingdom it is governed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and we must always have that at the front of our minds. Indeed, that is obvious to the people of Hong Kong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) and I paid a visit to Hong Kong earlier this year, and we were struck by the knowledge that all sections of society had of the matter, and by their feeling that the United Kingdom had completed a deal with the People's Republic of China which was the best deal in the circumstances, and that it now wished to wash its hands and let the matter go quietly away. I do not think that that is true, and no hon. Member will wish that to happen. If that is the case, we must consider hat is best for a smooth transition so that the people of Hong Kong can continue to prosper, and life can go on as they wish it to do. We must not worry about judging matters in line with our general policy on immigration, as the Minister does.
Although the agreement was the best one available, it was not widely welcomed by the people of Hong Kong who are resigned to the fact that it has been made and that
that th
which
minori
continu
is imp
answer it and
If we
come t the mo
have a
somew
I confi be use
The
Kingdo back f
airport
on the
seven
Everyo The de
80 pec have b
throug
about
One
order, again.
to do s
come t
friends
having
they a genera not or Somet
legisla
right c
straigh
In t
Parlian attenti
668
669