665
[Mr. J. Enoch Powell]
Hong Kong
13 MAY 1986
of th
ched to the People's Republic of China, althougn our memories do not have to be long to survey a different scene in that People's Republic of China. It is simply necessary that our people have understood that the calling in of the implication of the conferment of our nationality on 3-25 million Chinese is not something which rests in the power of discretion of the United Kingdom. It depends on the behaviour of others and on circumstances over which, by definition, we shall have no control.
If those circumstances were so to develop that the implications of British nationality were to be sought, we should come under intolerable pressure in the world at large and within the United Kingdom community to acknowledge the reality of nationality, and that that reality cannot be devoid of a right of entry and of abode. Therefore, I believe that we are creating a potential commitment in what we are doing which we have no right to create and which I do not believe is fully understood by those outside.
It is not absolutely clear why we have thought it necessary to do so, or why we have had the concurrence -no more was needed—of the Chinese Government in doing so. It is not clear why a people so sensitive and proud as the Chinese should have been so ready to concur in our nationality being conferred on 3.25 million Hong Kong Chinese. It is not absolutely clear why, since a travel document and a passport of Hongkong is to be available for ethnic Chinese after 1997, the availability of that document as a travel document should be regarded as so singularly important. I fear that it is regarded as an insurance that can be claimed in due course upon the strength of the implications of what we are doing in extending in this way our nationality.
That is the largest of the two changes that we are making, and potentially the most dangerous. The second has already been referred to quite extensively, and I shall therefore refer to it only briefly. It is that those who would otherwise be stateless are, by virtue of this order, to be able to obtain the status of British overseas citizenship. It is not clear, if they are stateless without it, what state they have with it.
Much has been said about the passports that will be available to the British nationals (overseas), but little has been said about the passports of the British overseas citizens, although I presume that they, too, if they are issued at all, will be issued in the name of Her Britanic Majesty's Secretary of State. There again, we are proporting to give a status to which there does not attach the most valuable quality and characteristics that national status and the possession of a nationality gives throughout the world. In doing this, we are incurring the danger of misunderstanding, and of being accused of double dealing in offering something and, upon it being claimed, its reality being found to be virtually non-existent.
We are in this position, as those of us who lived through the debates on the British Nationality Act 1981 are aware, as a result of the transformation of our nationality from one that rested upon allegience, before 1948, to one that now has a quite different basis, and which we have endeavoured, in line with other countries, to equate with connection with this United Kingdom, of which it is the nationality and the citizenship. We have been left with loose ends, and I fear that the manner in which this matter
Hong Kong
666
proceeds in regard to British nationality has left two loose ends- one large and pregnant with major danger, and the other, although minor in its scope, still pregnant with understanding and disgrace.
11.17 pm
Sir Fergus Montgomery (Altrincham and Sale): I feel that I must criticise the Government because we should have had this debate yesterday, and it should have gone on for a much longer period that the time alloted to it tonight. Whoever in the Government is responsible for this change should be thoroughly ashamed of himself for compressing this debate into one and a half hours, which is not being fair to hon. Members.
I remind my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary of the promise that was made by my noble Friend Baroness Young on 19 February 1985, when she promised that the order would be withdrawn and revised to take account of the views expressed. In the debates that took place in this House and in the other place, many expressed grave doubts. I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to what has gone on in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, which overwhelmingly asked for safeguards for the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. They are not ethnically Chinese, and are not entitled to Chinese citizenship. Their only national status is that of British nationals overseas, and as far as I am aware that gives them no right to live anywhere, and cannot be passed on to their children.
I am speaking particularly on behalf of the 6,000 people who make up the Indian community, because most of them come from families which settled in Hong Kong many years ago and regard Hong Kong as their natural home. In 1947 they opted to stay in Hong Kong rather than accept Indian citizenship, and one of the problems about that is that India does not offer dual citizenship.
These people opted for Hong Kong because they believed in Hong Kong, and that is where they want to stay for ever. The community has always supported Britain, and has always been on our side. There is great anger in Hong Kong about the Government's behaviour.
This week I received a letter from a lady which stated: "We are spending four months in Hong Kong where my husband is visiting Royal Society professor at the university here. (Our home is in Hale, Altrincham.)”
-
She is lucky she has a very good Member of Parliament. Her letter continued:
"Having talked with many people here in Hong Kong, Chinese and expatriate alike, we have been saddened by reports of the Government's attitude towards the ethnic minorities, particularly the Indians, and very aware of the deep concern here for these people."
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary seems to believe certain things. First, he seems to believe that minorities will have the right to live in Hong Kong as a matter of law. In fact, I have been told that the right to live in Hong Kong will be subject to the powers of another nation—in this case, China, of which these people are not nationals.
Secondly, my right hon. Friend seems to feel that if we accede to the claims of that small number of people the position of other British overseas citizens will be affected. I remind my right hon. Friend that in the case of Gibraltar and the Falklands we have done something for the people who live there.
Thirdly, my right hon. Friend argues that to accede to the requests of these people would wrongly imply doubt about the commitment of the Sino-British joint
348