15
Fifth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
[Mr. Allen]
HOUSE OF COMMONS
We do not pretend to lay down a scheme to which the Government should say yea or nay at the moment. None the less, I hope that the Minister will accept that the representations that he and the Home Secretary have received come from a genuine and deep concern among the 2,000 or so families of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. Their concern is about not only their future in 1997, but their children's grandchildren's future for generations to come.
As we withdraw from Hong Kong, we must make proper provision for those who live there and, in respect of families of ethnic minorities, that provision is nothing less than a debt of honour.
11.15 am
Mr. Wardle: In replying to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, I hope that you, Mr. Jones, will not think that I am straying out of order if I comment on Bosnia. The hon. Gentleman saw a read across to Bosnia and said that the take-up of the 1,000 places offered by the British Government late last year was not yet completed. He is absolutely right. He attri- buted that fact either to the British Government or to the authorities in the former Yugoslavia---the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. For the sake of clarity, I should like to make it clear that the selection of individuals to fill those places is entirely a matter for UNHCR. The hon. Gentleman is right that all places have not been taken up. He might also be aware that I suggested to UNHCR that it expands the definition of people qualifying for those 1,000 places, so that more places may soon be taken up by deserving individuals. I perceive, Mr. Jones, that you have not ruled me out of order. I shall, therefore, come smartly back to the question of Hong Kong. I am grateful to you for allowing me that amount of freedom.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about flexibility. It is worth remembering that both statutory instru- ments--as I sought to make clear at the start-follow directly from the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990 and the selection scheme order of 1990, which set the ground rules for the first tranche. The hon. Gentle- man raised a point of order about input from the Legis- lative Council. The point of order is not something on which I would venture to comment, but when the Bill that became the 1990 Act was going through Parlia- ment, there was vigorous representation and lobby- ing quite rightly so. Since then, members of the Legislative Council and other people in Hong Kong and throughout the world have made representations both to the British Government and to the Governor of Hong Kong. The representations have continued and have been carefully borne in mind by the Government.
The matter of ethnic minorities seems to be the one that concerns the hon. Gentleman the most. In my opening remarks, I mentioned that that issue had been the subject of a debate on Friday. I would not wish to test your patience, Mr. Jones, or the patience of the Committee, by repeating everything that is in columns 647 to 652 of Hansard for 9 July, but I shall refer to three or four key points that were raised in the debate about ethnic minorities.
Hong Kong (Brit. Nat.) Order 1993 16 Brit. Nat. (Hong Kong) Order 1993
The Chairman: Briefly.
Mr. Wardle: I will do so briefly, Mr. Jones. As I told the House last Friday, the
"Joint Declaration and article 24(6) of the Basic Law guarantee the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong a right of abode in Hong Kong... The Peking authorities have said that people in Hong Kong who are not ethnically Chinese are welcome to remain and that it is open to them to apply for Chinese citizenship."
That is why
"the Government remain firmly of the view that it is neither necess- ary nor appropriate to introduce legislation to give the ethnic minor- ities British citizenship. They are, of course, free, along with all other BDTCs to apply for British citizenship under the selection scheme which was set up under the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990."—{Official Report, 9 July 1993; Vol. 228, c.650-651.]
The Government see no case for further action on the matter. The hon. Gentleman referred to assurances that have been given in the past, and I repeated those assurances in the debate in the House last Friday.
The hon. Gentleman cut-off dates and suggested that people should be allowed to be free of such disci- plined procedure. We are dealing with large numbers of people and the cut-off dates have been set for rea- sons of good order and efficiency. They will serve the people who wish to make the applications and will bolster their rights.
The hon. Gentleman, understandably, expressed concern about the "special circumstances" that would allow a person to ask for an application to be con- sidered even though the date by which the application should have been submitted had passed. Any sensible reasons that prevented an application from being made in time--such as ill health or absence from Hong Kong-undoubtedly will be considered by those moni- toring the appeals and, ultimately, by the Governor. Those special circumstances are built into the order to provide just the safeguards that the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
The hon. Gentleman talked about staffing. I can assure him that the number of Home Office staff who have been seconded for this exercise is up to scratch. The Hong Kong Government have also played their part correctly. The scheme is going according to plan. It is clear that applications for the first tranche will be completed by the end of this calendar year, by which time just over 38,000 of the 50,000 places will have been allocated. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the number of applications for that first tranche was just over 66,000. The number remaining for the second tranche, as determined by our proceedings today, will be slightly fewer than 12,000, or slightly more than 20 per cent. of the total number of places.
The hon. Gentleman agreed that the formula involved somewhat algebraic technicalities. Their pur- pose is simply to reflect as accurately as possible the patterns of emigration and the corresponding demand for places so that the system can be operated as fairly as possible. The hon. Gentleman said that the Legislative