667
Hong Kong
13 MAY 1986
claration. The fact is that the Chinese Government ieve that d the Indian minority with an effective form of nationality is a matter for this Government and not for the Chinese Government.
Fourthly, my right hon. Friend seems to say blithely that if, in 1997, there is pressure for these people to leave Hong Kong, the Government of the day in Britain will consider sympathetically whether to admit them to the United Kingdom on a case-by-case basis. I am afraid that that has not assured the Hong Kong people or the Legislative Council. I believe that some of my right hon. Friend's statements are erroneous. People in Hong Kong to whom I have talked do not share my right hon. Friend's equanimity on this issue. They think that it is less than satisfactory to be given a vague non-binding assurance rather than a legal entitlement, which would at least put their minds at rest. They do not want to be the boat people of 1997. They want effective citizenship which guarantees them the right of abode somewhere.
Of course, numbers are important, and I have always agreed with the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) on this point. Over the years we have made a total mess of immigration. It is not a matter of the total population of Hong Kong wanting to descend on this country. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) pointed out the difficulties if large numbers of people want to settle here. I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary-I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will give some thought to this also-that we have a cut-off date, for example, in 1990, by which time all non-Chinese BDTCs should be required to register, and those non-Chinese BDTCs who have no other nationality available should qualify for full British citizenship. The time to do that is now, not in 1997. A three-year cut-off period would at least give the authorities time to examine each application.
I believe that there is something called justice and that the people who have given great loyalty to Britain over the years are entitled to some consideration. They do not want to descend on this country. They want to stay in Hong Kong, because it is there that they have their families, homes and businesses. All I ask is that they should have some security and not be left as stateless persons. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister can give some assurance. If he cannot give any assurance,
I am afraid that I shall not vote in the Lobby with my hon. Friends.
11.23 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): The Government have wisely yielded on the two issues on which they should never have demurred in such a long series of debates. A sinner's repentance-to a Presbyterian, that is particularly attractive-is always a plus and a bonus. The Government have many pluses and bonuses to earn in the hereafter.
We are pleased that the argument for the passport endorsement making it clear that Hong Kong British people do not need visas to visit Britain has at long last been accepted. It is only right also that ex-service men who have done their duty by this country will be granted full British citizenship or the right to settle in Britain. The protracted arguments in debate after debate which have been required to achieve these minor corrections should never have been necessary. That sad fact shows how mean minded the Government of the present Prime Minister are.
Hong Kong
668
Hon. Members on both sides of the House know that there are many other examples of that meanness of spirit in many fields of policy. One of them, in this very matter of retreat from empire, is the continued refusal of the Government to accept their responsibilities Our responsibilities, British responsibilities-for the 11,000 or so British nationals in Hong Kong who are not ethnically Chinese and, who unlike those of Chinese origin, are not entitled to Chinese citizenship. Their status as British nationals (overseas) gives them no right to live anywhere and cannot be passed on to their children.
In this long series of debates Government spokesmen have trotted out all the old arguments of evasion, excuse and supposed explanation. Let me briefly try to counter some of their obfuscation. These 11,000 British nationals (overseas)
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: British overseas citizens.
Mr. Faulds: No, they will now be called British nationals (overseas) if the order is passed. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will catch up with that in time.
Those British nationals (overseas) are not planning en bloc to decamp from Hong Kong. Their lives are committed to that series of island territories. They simply seek the security of a proper citizenship, not a paper one. They do not want to have to leave their homes in Hong Kong. They just want that security of citizenship.
The agreement guaranteed right of abode to everyone who already has it but excluded non-Chinese from Chinese nationality. It is Her Majesty's Government's responsibil- ity to put right their statelessness. It is not China's responsibility as those people are not nationals and China has no ultimate responsibility for them. The Government know that very well. Although I have been a long time friend of the People's Republic, I am convinced that if we abdicate our post-imperial responsibility, future Chinese Governments will behave with proper consideration. China does not abandon or abrogate its international commitment.
There were earlier arguments put forward by Her Majesty's Government that the Chinese majority in Hong Kong would resent special treatment for the minorities. That devious pretence was put paid to by the Legislative Council's generosity in stating its understanding of the vulnerability of people without a secure nationality. Indeed, it has endorsed the need for special treatment.
Finally, there was the argument that the People's Republic of China would consider special treatment as showing that the United Kingdom and Hong Kong Governments lacked faith in the agreement. The Chinese Government is much too sensible and sophisticated to credit such nonsense. Indeed, the pro Peking press in Hong Kong supported the proposed changes. One newspaper, which takes the official line, called in question the right of abode in Hong Kong, proffered by Her Majesty's Government, as having anything to do with citizenship as such.
All those who know Hong Kong best from businessmen to parliamentarians-and there are many of them in the House from journalists to ex-governors of the place, have urged the Government to be generous in this last exercise of our colonial exit. It can be only the lack of vision and the mean spirit of the present Prime Minister that prevents a proper resolution of this last issue.
The Foreign Secretary is a warm-hearted and generous individual, and so, indeed, is the Home Secretary,
349
Page 90Page 91