1577
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
19 APRIL 1990
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
1578
Mr. Hattersley: I certainly accept Mr. Walden's proposition that the Bill is the best that we could get from the Government. Mr. Walden is saying that a very small amount of help is better than no help at all. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell me whether he accepts Mr. Waiden's package in total or whether he accepts only part of it. As he had a hand in these matters some years ago, I suspect that he knows very well the betrayal of Hong Kong by the British Foreign Office.
Mr. Whitney: Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, I take Mr. Walden's proposition senously and I take the issue seriously, which the right hon. Gentleman is failing to do. Certainly it is right that we should stand up to Peking, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary suggested. The way to stand up to Peking and to make the Chinese Government understand their own interests is to pass and support the Bill. The way not to do that is to opt out and cop out of the issue in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman and apparently the majority of the Labour party intend to do.
Mr. Hattersley: I return to opinion in Hong Kong on the subject of the Government's plans. Mr. Lee Cheuk Yan of the Pro Democracy movement said that the Bill is "only for 50.000 housenolds. so for the majority of Hong Kong people is irrelevant.
That view, according to opinion polls, is shared by a vast majority of Hong Kong rescents, as 90 per cent. of executives. professionals and entrepreneurs, the people whom the Bill is supposed to benefit, say that the Bill will not promote stability, and 88 per cent. of young Hong Kong residents-the future of the colony-regard it as of no significance. Most peopie in Hong Kong believe in a united territory which will move towards the genuine democracy and the Bill of Rights that will give reality to the concept of "two systems within one nation" after 1997. The Government have chosen the diametrically opposite course. They have divided the colony between the favoured minority and the disregarded majority. No doubt they believe that by promising passports to Hong Kong's most vocal and induential residents, that has muted their opposition to the Government's failure to make proper progress towards the full democracy that Hong Kong needs and wants. The Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils was unanimous in calling for, a year ago. 20 elected members by 1991, 30 in 1995 and a fully elected Assembly in 2003.
Despite his predecessor's fine talk about the pace of democratic development reflecting the wishes of the whole community, the Foreign Secretary no longer even aspires to those figures and that resuit. Instead, he bends to the wishes of the Peking Government, and only half the Assembly's members will be elected by 2003. I want to ask him a direct question on this subject. Did the Prime Minister make any promises about Hong Kong when she dined. secretly as she thought, with the Chinese ambassador two weeks ago? Within 10 months of the Tiananmen square massacre. the Prime Minister was accepting Chinese hospitality. What hopes we had of the Prime Minister and the Government standing up for democracy in Hong Kong were extinguished when we discovered how she had spent her evening three weeks ago, allegedly in secret.
The Foreign Secretary's wish to accommodate China. which must be putting at risk the promised Hong Kong Bill of Rights, is a denial of the principle that his
804 CD31:13 Job 4-1
predecessor so often asserted-Britain's determination that it would not abdicate its right to govern Hong Kong in Hong Kong's interests before 1997. The Foreign Office and the Bill are now dividing Hong Kong to facilitate Chinese rule. The first step that Labour will take will be to increase confidence within the colony by moving towards real democracy at the pace demanded by the people of Hong Kong.
Mr. Roger Gale (Thanet, North): Speaking on radio not many days ago, the right hon. Gentleman said. presumably while trying to play to the anti-immigration lobby in Birmingham, that the Labour party, if given the opportunity. would limit the number of people allowed into this country. He further said that he did not know how or how many. Has he had time to think since and does he now know how and how many?
Mr. Hattersley: Let me assure the hon. Gentleman about something that even he, on reflection, will understand. Whatever else is represented by the Member of Parliament for Sparkbrook, it is not the anti- immigration lobby.
We do not intend now, or ever, to play the numbers game. There are a number of people in express and specific categories who in our view deserve the right to enter Britain. In a moment, I shall describe those categories, but we leave the numbers game to those who used to be led by the Home Secretary until he was coerced into supporting the Bill.
I shall describe in a moment how we shall deal with immigration from the colony, but first I want to make it clear that under no circumstances will we introduce a system that requires residents, in theory equal before the law. to compete with each other for a limited number of passports. The system that the Government propose is arbitrary and divisive. Its effect will be capricious and its result will be unavoidably unjust.
Mrs. Edwina Currie (Derbyshire, South): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment.
The Bill proposes that 50,000 individuals should be granted British citizenship. Why 50,000? Why not 40,000. 60.000 or 70.000, as the Foreign Secretary originally proposed? We know the honest answer to the question: 50.000 is the compromise between what the Foreign Secretary wanted and what the Home Secretary was prepared to agree. But, and I hope that the Foreign Secretary will answer the question precisely when he replies to the debate, what is the official explanation of 50,000? What is to be said to the men and women who just fail to qualify and who know that they are on the margin of qualification because they have compared their ratings in the absurd points scheme that the Government propose and have realised that they just missed out compared with more successful applicants? Why will they be told that only 50.000 will be allowed?
Mrs. Currie rose-
Mr. Hattersley: Not for the moment. I hope that right hon, and hon. Members who vote for the Bill-
Mrs. Currie rose——
Mr. Hattersley: The rule is that when I say that I shall not give way, the hon. Lady must sit down.