7.410
1207
[LORD GEDDES
British Nationality Bill [H.L.}
(LORDS]
occasion in July by both the noble Lord himself and every one of the other 14 noble Lords who spoke except, sadly, my noble friend Lord Ferrers for the Government. It will not be good enough if my noble friend states again tonight that the Government see the ethnic minorities in the same way as all other British nationals in Hong Kong. They are not the same.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, the BNO passport, which is the only one to which that ethnic minorities group will be entitled, is little more than a travel document and will, anyway, disappear after three generations. It does not grant the right of abode anywhere except in Hong Kong and it grants no nationality whatsoever.
As for the argument that members of the Hong Kong ethnic community can apply for Chinese nationality, I remind your Lordships, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that Chinese nationality laws are based on race and that (so I am advised) there has been only one instance since 1949—that is, in 44 years-when Chinese nationality has been given to a non-ethnic Chinese. It does not bode terribly well for the prospects for the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong achieving Chinese nationality. Therefore, I most sincerely hope that the Government will acknowledge the will of the House, as expressed on 15th July and will support the Bill tonight.
T
Noble Lorus will not be surprised if additionally press the case for another, even smaller group of people. to whom I have referred on various occasions in recent months; namely, the locally employed personnel (known as the LEPs). There are approximately 300 Hong Kong LEPS in the British Navy and 1,000 in the Army. They are ethnic Chinese personnel who have loyally and directly served this country that is to say, the British Crown, not the Hong Kong Government--for many years. They are now becoming only too well aware that their close association with the UK military will hardly endear them to the Chinese and they are deeply worried about their future. Their anxiety can only have been increased in recent weeks as they, along with the rest of the world, watched the negotiations with China break down. I made my views plain on that subject on numerous previous occasions, most recently last week. But I feel it is nonetheless relevant to reiterate that I am most concerned at Her Majesty's Government's stance; not least because I believe that it places the future of the people of Hong Kong, and in particular that of the LEPs, in such jeopardy.
Whenever the subject has been aired in the past the reply from the Government has always been that the LEPs, like other members of the discipline services, were entitled to apply for places under the British nationality Hong Kong selection scheme. That is true. But evidence of their extreme concern, if it were needed, is contained in the fact that in the case of the LEPS demand for places greatly exceeded supply while in other sectors demand was far more in line with supply and the consequent disappointment far less.
The actual numbers are so few and our obligations towards them so great that it seems to me to be
K18 LD83/48 Job 7-8
i
British Nationality Bill (H.L.}
1208
astonishing that they should not be treated as a special case, similar to those who are the direct subject of the Bill. Were it not for my reluctance to jeopardise in any way the success of the Bill I should have been minded to table an amendment to it providing for identical treatment for the Hong Kong military LEPs. I have so far refrained from so doing for the reasons I have just given. However, that does not mean that I shall in any way desist from pressing their case; nor does it mean that the Government can fulfil their responsibilities unless they acknowledge that the Hong Kong military LEPs must also be granted full British passports. Indeed, should my noble friend the Minister fail to give me real encouragement in that context when he speaks. I may still table a suitable amendment to include such Hong Kong military LEPs.
Meanwhile, I strongly support the Bill. When—and I sincerely hope that it is "when", rather than “if”—the Bill, amended or not, becomes law, it will demonstrate to Hong Kong and to the world that this country has not discarded its tradition for recognition of honour and moral obligation, as was so succinctly expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, during our debate on 15th July.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, the time is late and it would probably be a kindness to be brier. But that is not in any way to suggest that the subject is not an important one. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, when we last discussed it in July there was widespread support for doing something for this unique group of people. We owe him a debt of gratitude for persisting in pursuit of that solution.
The wording "non-Chinese ethnic minorities" has the drawback of rather dehumanising the group. It is perhaps not as bad as BOCs, BN(O)s and BDTCs; but it suggests a category rather than a group of people. They are real people with real problems, to whom we owe real obligations. Those real people are, above all, from the Indian sub-continent-between 5,000 to 7,000 of them, the number decreasing all the time. They have real problems, uniquely so. There are arrangements for them after 1997. They receive a specific form of travel document. If otherwise stateless, their children receive another form of travel document and so do their grandchildren. However, at the end of that time, there is nothing unless they obtain Chinese citizenship. As the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, pointed out, that is no easy thing. It is rather like generation after generation climbing up a ladder, the rungs of which become weaker and weaker until eventually the ladder gives out. Perhaps at this time of year one should say it is a beanstalk and the beanstalk eventually gives cur!
We have a real obligation to those people. They came to Hong Kong, many of them generations ago, because it was British territory. They served Hong Kong well, many of them in the government and in the disciplined services. Others
the contributed enormously to prosperity of Hong Kong. Therefore there are real obligations.
At one time there were plausible reasons for not tackling the problem. It was argued, correctly I believe,