FRIVATE
DIE DAG OTA
F.3 10
47
British Nationality Bill (H.L. }
[13 DECEMBER 1993)
introducing such a Bill to try to effect that which the Government do not feel disposed to effect. The noble Lord is quite good at riding hobby-horses until he and the horse-and everyone else-gets totally exhausted by the process. He rode his hobby-horse tonight. The noble Lord will not be surprised to realise that, despite all his blandishments and persuasive oratory-and. indeed, that of vibes noble Luids —die Güvenmen are unable to support the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Tillyorn, whose knowledge of Hong Kong is, of course, remarkable and well respected, said that he wished the Government would pick up the Bill and run with it. I can understand him taking that view; indeed, if I had been in his position I believe that I would also have taken that view. However, I am bound tu ieii the nubie Lord that I musi disappoint him because we cannot do so.
The Bill before us is a Private Member's Bill and, despite the Government's views, we do not propose to vote against it. That would be quite inappropriate and against the tradition of your Lordships' House. However, I am bound to tell your Lordships what is the Government's view. The Bill is really concerned with statelessness. The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, explained that the Bill is concerned primarily with those Hong Kong British dependent territories citizens or Brush Nationals (Overseas) who have no other nationality and who, tharafova, without one of thous forms of British nationality, would be stateless. Most of the ethnic minority population in Hong Kong besides having British nationality have citizenship elsewhe- re-usually of India or of Pakistan. Those who are the subject of the Bill are those who have no second citizenship.
It has been argued strongly—the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, argued this—both today and in July that because of their unique position the 7,000 members of the ethnic minorities with whom the Bill is concerned should be given the security of full British citizenship. It has also been argued in the past that special arrangements should be made on the basis that the ethnic minorities concerned would otherwise be stateless after 1997. As I have explained on previous occasions, that is not the case. The Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, acknowledges that the ethnic minorities do and will continue to have a national status and it is only if they did not have a national status that they would be stateless.
Specific provision was made in Article 6 of the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 to deal with the possibility of statelessness. Under that order people who only had British nationality before 1997—that is, those who had British dependent territories citizenship or who were British nationals (overseas)—would retain British nationality after 1997. They would not therefore be stateless. The ethnic minorities will also continue to have a right of abode in Hong Kong. The Joint Declaration and Article 24(6) of the Basic Law guarantee that the ethnic minorities will have the right of abode in Hong Kong if they do not have a right of abode elsewhere. The Beijing authorities have said that ethnic
623 LD83/53 Job 8-6
British Nationality Bilt (H.L. I
1218
minonties are welcome to remain in Hong Kong and that they can apply, if they so wish, for Chinese citizenship.
The ethnic minorities do not at present of course, have a right of abode anywhere else other than in Hong Kong. This position will be no different after 1997. In the Government's view there is no reason to suggest that the change of sovereignty should threaten this particular group and that they should, therefore, be given special treatment in the form of a right of abode not in Hong Kong but in the United Kingdom. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke was worried about what would happen to these people in the future. If problems do arise, and if the ethnic minorities were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, we have said many times-the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to this this evening that the government of the day would be expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, said he remembered the case of the Asians in Uganda. I also remember that. The noble Lord said he did not trust the Government. Perhaps he did not, or does not do so, but of course the government at that time was a different one to the present Government. However, I realise he was talking about governments in general, irrespective of political parties, and I can sympatise with the general sccpticisin that automatically flows from all people as regards governments.
Of course one cannot ever tie any govemment into the future because one does not know what situation will emerge. But I can only repeat the assurance that, if the ethnic minorities were to come under pressure to leave Hong Kong and if they had nowhere else to go, the overnment of the day would be expected to consider with considerable sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom. However, these people do not want to come to the United Kingdom. They want to remain in Hong Kong. There would, therefore, be no long-term benefit in their becoming British citizens.
I always think there is something mildly incongruous in saying that in order that these people should stay in Hong Kong, where they want to stay, we should give them citizenship of the United Kingdom, which would enable them to come to the United Kingdom where they do not wish to come. What they want to do is to stay in Hong Kong. At present those who hold British dependent territories citizenship passports are free to come to the United Kingdom without a visa, but they do not have any superior rights of stay or employment over those who come from other countries and who are subject to normal immigration controls. After 1997 the position of these people will be exactly the same as it is
now.
I do not wish to get into all the technicalities of Clause 2 of the Bill and the legal and citizenship minefield which that encapsulates. I would only say this. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, was wise to steer clear of that issue, although he referred to BDTCs and BN(O)s and British citizens by descent and British citizens otherwise than by descent. He nearly got himself confused, as well as the rest of your Lordships,