17 Fifth Standing Committee on
Statutory Instruments, &c.
13 JULY 1993
Council was still uneasy about the cut-off dates. My impression is that the recent assurances from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary have caused that unease to abate. People understand the need for an orderly procedure to make the exercise work properly for the people in Hong Kong.
I remind the Committee that the Government have given assurances for the ethnic minorities, and I com- mend to hon. Members the debate in Hansard of 9 July. For those reasons, I recommend the orders to the Committee.
11.24 am
Mr. Allen: Perhaps I may come back on a couple of specific points, Mr. Jones. The Minister may wish either to respond to them or to undertake to write to
me.
The first issue relates to the five years' residence that is needed to gain BDTC status in the first place. The end date for BN(O) applications is 15 months before Hong Kong is handed to the Chinese. That will effec- tively prevent as many as half the Hong Kong residents currently without BDTC_status from gaining their BN(O) status under that schedule. That is a matter of concern to a number of people in Hong Kong. It is a technical question, but one that requires a practical answer. Many people may want to start the process, but the timescale would preclude them from gaining BN(O) status by the appropriate date. If it is more helpful for the Minister to drop me a line about that, I should appreciate it.
My final question on that subject was, I believe, about who would be entrusted with making the decisions to consider late applications. If someone has missed out all along the line, what would the process be? I referred to the structure for applying. Who would be in charge of that? What would be the criteria for those reconsidered cases Again, that is something of a mouthful, and I should not necessarily expect the Min- ister to answer immediately.
Finally, I floated an idea about the number of British citizenships available. The Minister has been very helpful in providing up-to-date figures. It appears that there is leeway, even within the 50,000 British citizen- ships available, to make some provision for ethnic minorities. I do not propose that he does that, but request him to consider whether it is one way to deal with this difficult problem-we have some responsi- bility towards this significant but numerically small group of people-and whether they could be accom- modated within the 50,000. Does the Minister feel that that might blow the basis of the scheme for the 50,000, which is on clearly written if not immediately under- standable criteria? Or, could an additional provision, wholly outwith the 50,000, accommodate those indi- viduals from ethnic minorities? I am sure that they would look forward with great anticipation to the Min- ister's answer. For the purposes of this Committee, I do not want the Minister to feel that he must immedi- ately give a comprehensive answer. However, a full
Hong Kong (Brit. Nat.) Order 1993 Brit. Nat. (Hong Kong) Order 1993
18
answer would be helpful and, if that means my corre- sponding with him, I should be more than happy to do
SO.
I thank the Minister for his remarks and the clarifi- cation that he has given so far.
11.27 am
Mr. Wardle: The hon. Gentleman raised three questions, with the third part being divided perhaps into "a" and "b".
The BDTC applications were mentioned. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that exercise ends on 31 March 1996. There must be a cut-off date. There is, of course, a deadline in terms of the transfer date, which has been known for successive generations. For that reason and for good order, we must work within dead- lines. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman to amplify that point, but that is the essence of it.
The composition of the appeal panel is still to be decided. Ultimately, the Governor will appoint people to the panel. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman is given any further information about the panel as it develops.
The hon. Gentleman talked of leeway in the 50,000 places. I describe that as his question 3a. His question 3b requested additional places to the 50,000 that are proposed. Grasshopperwise, I shall first tackle quest- ion 3b. Any additional places would require new pri- mary legislation. The 1990 Act was required to provide for the 50,000 places. The Government can see no need for another such exercise.
When the hon. Gentleman talked about leeway, he was right to say that some late slack in the scheme is likely to occur. However, that slack will be redistrib- uted within the scheme according to the formula that we have devised. I remind the hon. Gentleman that ethnic minorities, on behalf of whom he spoke so force- fully, were free to apply in the first tranche. They will be eligible to apply in the second tranche. A different category for ethnic minorities will not be established within the slack at the last minute. I have already explained the reasons for that to the Committee. Those reasons are also set out in Hansard of 9 July.
11.31 am
Mr. Allen: I wish to finish with one general point. The circumstances that we are discussing are probably unique, even in Britain's imperial and colonial history. To seek to hand a dependent territory back to the nation from which it was leased many years ago is unique. In view of that, I ask the Minister and his colleagues to be flexible. We have not found the sol- ution to the problem. The problem cannot be dis- patched, or put on the shelf and left. It will probably remain for the duration of the current Administration. Perhaps we shall have an election before July 1997, but a new regime, or a different party, will not have been in power for long at that time. Therefore, the circum- stances are the unique responsibility of this Government.