Hong Kong (Nationality)
16 JANUARY 1986
Hong Kong (Nationality)
1304
1305
[Dr. Jeremy Bray)
Britain exercises that power today. Tomorrow it will be exercised by China. To concede the point will cost Britain little, but it will count for much in Hong Kong and, through Hong Kong, in our relations with China.
The Minister has been far from hostile. I think that he will consider further the views expressed in the House. I hope that he can be more positive in his acceptance of our arguments.
9.45 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton): The debate on the treatment of non-ethnic Chinese has swung between two points of view. One is that that group including prisoners of war and service men should be allowed to become full British nationals but the Government have proposed that those groups should not be allowed in because we will upset the Chinese Government by not trusting their promises and it may open a gate to three million people who want to come in.
In my last half minute may I suggest a middle way- to treat applications for full citizenship on a case to case basis and on their merits. This is precisely the approach that the Government have adopted to stateless British citizens who no longer opt for citizenship of China. It is also the approach that is covered by section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 and exercised at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
If our hopes about the future of Hong Kong are fulfilled and China, as we hope and expect, honours its obligations. few people will be making applications. The procedural problems in judging each case on its merits would then not arise. I ask my hon. and learned Friend who has listened to this debate on behalf of the Government to take this suggestion of the middle way.
Mr. Dubs: I have confined myself to two or three minutes because I wanted to give as many hon. Members as possible the chance to have their say, although I realise that there is still much to be said.
کر
There has been much criticism of the order in Council regarding passports and their acceptability in Britain and other countries. The position of prisoners of war and the position of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. I believe that the overwhelming opinion of the House is to ask the Minister to look at all this again.
Whatever the Minister decides when the Order in Council comes back to us the Labour party, when next in Government, will certainly look at it again. May I remind the Minister that the Labour party is committed to the repeal of the Immigration Act 1971 and the repeal of the British nationality Act 1981. We would replace both of those measures with non-discriminatory legislation. In that context we would sympathetically review the claims of the ethnic minorities as well as claims from other groups in Hong Kong and elsewhere. We would thus arrive at a policy of nationality and immigration which is just and honourable.
The least the House can do is to ask the Minister to look at the claims of these people as a Labour Government would do as soon as we had the chance. We shall this
press to a vote tonight to keep pressure on the Minister. It may be that Government Back Benchers will support'us in the Division Lobby. Whether they do or not, we wish to make it clear to the people of Hong Kong and the people of
Britain that we are not satisfied with the Order in Council and we ask the Minister to think again before he brings it back to us.
9.53 pm
Mr. Waddington: This has been a good debate. although the beginning of the finale was rather odd. I do not propose to dwell on the undertaking just given by the hon. Gentleman. It is a most irresponsible undertaking, and it did not help the House to understand how the Labour party's proposals have anything to do with whether we should admit 400 or 500 ex-service men, or whether we should admit those in Hong Kong who are not of Chinese ethnic origin.
The House is indebted to the right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken, some with a close knowledge of Hong Kong, but all with concern for its future. We are here tonight because during the passage of the Hong Kong Bill the House asked that there should be a general debate on the draft Order in Council so that the Government could listen to and study various points of view before laying a final draft and asking the House's approval. I have listened and we shall study.
I remind the House and listeners elsewhere that this is a debate on the Adjournment. It is not a motion asking for approval of the White Paper or of a draft Order in Council. I was therefore surprised, as no doubt were some other hon. Members, to hear talk before we came here to the effect that the Opposition were thinking of dividing the House. If that is their decision, it is odd, as the whole object of the exercise is to have an open and frank discussion so that everybody can say what he thinks about the White Paper and the draft order and we can go away and think about it.
The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) asked about those who might be at risk after the Chinese takeover. I can only repeat that undertakings have been given to some people in Government service. As for the Vietnamese refugees, I remind the House that the number of people in the closed and open camps in Hong Kong has decreased by 2,500 in the past 12 months, which is moderately encouraging. The United Kingdom has recently agreed to take some 500 family reunion cases, in addition to those who are coming here anyhow under the orderly departure programme, and the ordinary family reunion criteria. We are working hard, and with some success, to persuade other countries to help more. We strongly hope that the problem of refugees in camps will be solved long before 1997.
I should like now to consider the endorsement in the passport to make it easier for people to come here and to get through immigration control. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Si- P. Blaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) and others mentioned this. It is not an easy problem. It would be odd to say that a person who does not have the right of abode here must not subject himself to immigration control like anyone else. I am aware of the worry expressed in Hong Kong, and I understand that they want to feel that they are receiving proper consideration. We shall think about the matter càrefully, in case we can arrive at an acceptable formula.
As for the ex-service men, there have been pleas for us to use the power in section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Many have already made claims under that section, and many more will do so. We have always said
that w
Friend
pains make
there :
servic
there
depriv
others Britis!
Mi
are no
Have under
M
unde:
consi
I
Chin
my!
Adle citiz
parti confi
been
argu peof
N
citiz
prov
mid
appl
mat
(Mr
Ker
1
Go
Chi
wh
nat
Suc
aut
apt
Go
ci
288