FRIVATE
F. 10
1209
British Nationaliry Bill [H.L. 1
[13 DECEMBER 1993]
that it would be divisive to do so. But, since the British nationality package, that is no longer so. We had clear evidence of that earlier this year when, in an excellent speech, my noble friend Lady Dunn said that doing something for those people now had the unanimous support of the Legislative Council. So far as I know, there has been no opposition in Hong Kong to such a
move.
All nationality questions are enormously complicat- ed. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made that very clear. Because of that, I should like to see the Government take on the Bill themselves. I should like to see officials of the Home Office using all their ingenuity and skill to draft a measure which would hit precisely the problem we are all trying to aim at and nothing else rather than using their skill to block any proposals.
Apart from my noble friend Lady Dunn, another very eminent person who has great experience of Hong Kong is unable to be with us today. I refer to my noble friend Lord MacLehose of Beoch. He has asked me to say how sorry he is not to be present and that he supports what I have said about the need to do something for this group and my hope that the Government themselves will act. I believe that the ball is now being kicked in the right direction. I should like to see the Government pick it up and run with it themselves. But above all I should like to see it get beyond the goai jine.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, about 25 years ago when, with the exception of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, none of your Lordships present today was in your Lordships' House, we had a debate which went even later than the debate today. The House was considering a Bill. We had the Second Reading, the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading all between half-past two in the afternoon and eight o'clock in the morning, when we staggered out of the Chamber. On that occasion the Bill was about some Asians who had been domiciled in British colonies for some time-for generations-and had been promised iliai if they came under pressure from the successor governments in the colonies they would be given citizenship and right of entry to this country.
The pressure arose chiefly in Uganda under a dictatorship but in Kenya as well. The government of the time ratted on the agreement and, supported by the official opposition-the parties were then on opposite sides of the House to where they are now-passed a Bill which denied citizenship to those people. It was a very shameful episode in the history of this country's decolonisation. It was a complete going back on a pladas. Mr lain Maclend acknowledged that he had made the pledge on behalf of the Government of which he was a member and that we should stand by it. There was very little doubt that the pledge had been made.
With that memory of my blooding in your Lordships' House-I remember in Committee trying to move amendment after amendment at one o'clock, two o'clock and three o'clock in the morning, with the support of Lord Brockway and my noble friend Lord Foot-it is not surprising that I do not believe that we should take the Government's word for what they will
619 LD#3/49 Job 7-10)
British Nationaltty Bill (H.L.)
1210
do under pressure. They did not then and I see no reason why in the future they would do so. Let me put it like this. We ought to be safe rather than that those people should be sorry. It is very important that we not only get an undertaking but that we actually put the Bill on the statute book so that those people have rights on which they can rely.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords. I strongly support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. This matter has been debated before as well as being the subject of a Starred Question earlier this year. I find it disappointing that Her Majesty's Government have not so far shown any sign of being willing to appreciate the case which has been so clearly made for the Government to look again at their stance on this matter.
The arguments for a change of heart have been strongly put outside this House by the Governor of Hong Kong; the Hong Kong Legislative Council and the All-Party Foreign Affairs Committee. The case was put to your Lordships in the debate on 15th July by two distinguished former governors, the noble Lords, Lord MacLehose of Beoch and Lord Wilson of Tillyorn; by the senior member of the Executive Council of Hong Kong, and also by my noble friend Lord Glewertur, with all his experience as past Minister of State with responsibility for Hong Kong.
Do Her Majesty's Government not think that this collective wisdom and judgment of so many people, with such a depth of knowledge of Hong Kong, suggest that a more generous attitude should be taken towards the concerns of the non-Chinese and the non-Chinese ethnic minorities of Hong Kong?
The Government have maintained that the BN(O) passport will give its holders a proper nationality. Exactly the opposite view is taken in Fransman's British Nationality Law (1989 edition). It states on page 436: "a person who is a B.N.O., like one who is a B.O.C., possesses not so much a nationality as a qualification for U.K. travel
So it comes down to a matter of opinion as to whether a BN(O) passport holder has a recognised nationality or not. This, of course, need not worry the Hong Kong Chinese holders of BN(O) passports because they will be able to take up full Chinese nationality and would be possessors of a special autonomous region passport after 1997. That is not the case for the non-Chinese minorities.
But even assuming that this minority, who for the most part are of Indian or Pakistani origin, wish to become Chinese, it is unlikely that they will be given the chance because, as we have heard, the Chinese nationality law is based largely on ethnicity or race. They will be left with a travel document and not a valid passport.
As regards the right of abode, certainly they have that right in Hong Kong after 1997 as long as one accepts that they will be at the mercy of any amendment to the Basic Law that may be carried out. That is a point which will not be lost on them, as it was amendments to our