1. Dette 2018 PRIVATE OFFICE CAS OTL 3TB 199s
2.3.10
1211
British Nationality Bill [H.L. ]
[LORDS)
[LORD WILLOUGghby de Broke} Immigration Act 1962 which stripped them of their right to assume full British citizenship in the first place. And, of course, right of abode does not confer nationality.
Concerning statelessness, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Ferrers, has admitted that even such attenuated nationality as that held by the non-Chinese BN(O) passport holders cannot be passed beyond the second generation and that subsequent generations will indeed be faced with the possibility of statelessness. Do Her Majesty's Government believe that this properly discharges their duty as the sovereign power?
The Government have justified their refusal to respond to suggestions made in this House and elsewhere by falling back on the assurances given on several occasions that, were this minority to, "come under pressure to leave Hong Kong',
as it is dalinarely phraced the Government of the day. "would be expected to consider with sympathy their admission to the United Kingdom".
In his speech to this House on 15th July, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur referred noble Lords to his words of May 1986, when he stated,
"we should consider it an obligation upon any future government to treat with considerable and particular sympathy the case for admission to the UK".—[Official Report, 16/5/86; col. 1437.] But what do these phrases and words mean, above all to the 6.000 or 7,000 people whom we are talking about? Who is to decide what level of pressure triggers their adimission to this country?
What are these expectations and obligations? I rather doubt whether they would be binding on successor governments; they would merely be something for them to consider. As the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, pointed out in her speech in this House on July 15th, it has been the case in the past that Ministerial assurances on Hong Kong have been watered down.
Those undertakings are no doubt well-intentioned but they are imprecise. As my noble friend Lord Glenarthur pointed out, they may not necessarily have stood the test of time. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will clarify whether those obligation are a guarantee. If not, will he make that perfectly clear? If those words are a guarantee that non-Chinese minorities will be given British citizenship, I believe that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by giving them that nationality now.
9.25 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, has introduced this Bill following the resolution that was passed by your Lordships when the matter was extensively debated on 15th July, It is difficult to raise new arguments from those that were so convincingly explained in that debate, so I should like to reiterate a few of the arguments that I raised on that occasion.
We are all aware of the enormous contribution both socially and economically that the non-Chinese ethnic minorities have made to the development of Hong Kong and of the fact that many have lived in Hong Kong for generations and have few relations elsewhere in the world. As my noble friend Lord Wilson of Tillyorn has already mentioned, the numbers are between 5,000 and
623) LD83/50 Job 7-11
British Nationality Bill (H.L.]
1212
in
7,000. I find it difficult to accept the Minister's statement in his closing speech on 15th July when he said:
"It would be difficult to make a special provision to give the ethnic minorities British citizenship".—[Official Report. 15/7/ 93; col. 414.]
A central objective of Her Majesty's Government in their negotiations with China on Hong Kong has been the desire to protect the rights, freedoms and prosperity of all of the peoples they will hand over to Chinese rule in July 1997. Surely one of those basic rights must be the right of nationality. Despite the guarantees in the Joint Declaration and Article 24(6) of the Basic Law guaranteeing the ethnic minorities the right of abode in Hong Kong, there is a fear among many non-Chinese ethnic minorities that they will at best be granted second-class citizenship by the Chinese Government and could even be excluded from holding executive positions in business and the civil comics, I speak with a little experience in this matter because I studied Chinese law at London University and spent a year living in mainland China in 1982-83.
As much as the Government argue that Article 6 of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order of 1986 satisfies those rendered stateless by granting them British National (Overseas) status, many notable jurists claim that that will not be the case. In our debate on 15th July, die noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said that the view of Instice is that non-Chinese ethnic minorities are rendered effectively stateless.
Almost all noble Lords who have spoken this evening have said that the status of being a BN(O) does not give a person the right of abode outside Hong Kong and does not give British consular protection in mainland China. Furthermore, it is regarded by most as purely a travel document.
Although the Minister argued on 15th July that there had been a 60 per cent. success rate for those applying for British citizenship under the new selection scheme, is it not the case that points are allocated on the criteria of age, experience, training, education and special circumstances? Surely that points system could favour the more affluent and successful applicants over those who are less privileged.
In reply to the Starred Question which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on 20th October, the Minister said that, while there are strong arguments for granting British citizenship to non-Chinese ethnic minorities, there are equally strong arguments against. The point has already been made that there has been unanimous support from LEGCO, from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the other place, from Justice and from the International Commission of Jurists, so surely the not-contents are up against a formidable opposition which is in favour of the Government showing some flexibility in this case. It is with flexibility in mind that I hope they will consider the passage of the Bill.
As a Member of the Cross-Benches, I tend to be an observer of party politics in your Lordships' House. 1 am not surprised that such a humane approach has been made from the Liberal Democrat Benches. I should have been surprised and delighted if the Bill had been
th
th
SE W
ic
re
ว
al
Q
ir
b
0
b
3
F
1
C
D3 V com
t
F
{
!