[Sir Paul Bryan]
British Nationality Bill
28 JANUARY 1981
to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for his assurance that the Bill is not designed to weaken the links between Britain and Hong Kong.
We in this House are not exactly agreed on what form this Bill should take. However, we are all agreed that something should be done to bring our nationality laws up to date. That may seem obvious to us, but I must tell the House that it is far from obvious to those in Hong Kong. I have frequently been asked there "If, as you say, our status and rights are unaffected by the White Paper and now the Bill, why must the description on our passports be changed? There must be some hidden motive behind this legislation." The main purpose of my speech is to obtain from the Minister of State the assurance that no such hidden motive exists, as well as several other important
assurances.
Hong Kong is deeply interested in the Bill. That is, first, because any alteration in citizenship means a great deal to people in practical terms. It is hard for us, with our British passports, our unquestioned nationality and right of abode, to understand the strength and depth of the feeling of those who cannot take such rights for granted. Not for us the frustration of being channelled into separate and lengthy immigration queues. Not for us the tedium of having to apply for visas if we wish to visit a European country. Above all, not for us the uncertainty of not knowing where we shall be allowed to settle and to make our homes in future. So people in Hong Kong sit up and take notice when their rights of nationality appear to be threatened.
Secondly, as my right hon. Friend has recognised, people in Hong Kong are sensitive to evidence of any weakening of the links between Britain and Hong Kong. That may seem curious to some hon. Members who are conscious of our long and, on the whole, successful administration of the territory, our evident commitment with our forces to the area and our long-standing investments in the territory. However, doubters can cite a chain of events that has in their eyes eroded the status of Hong Kong citizens over the past 20 years. It started with the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962. It was continued by the Immigration Act 1971 Act and it continues with the Bill. That is their view.
Other recent policies of the British Government have reinforced these doubts-for example, Britain's leading role in the battle with Hong Kong over textile quotas in 1977; the policy of making Hong Kong pay 50 per cent. more last year towards our defence costs, and the designation of Hong Kong students studying here as foreigners. That last development, involving greatly increased students' fees, has caused the most lamentable impression in Hong Kong. It means that many of Hong Kong's future leaders will be educated in America and Canada instead of in Britain, much to the disadvantage of this country.
With these serious doubts in the air, those of us interested in Hong Kong have taken the opportunity, ever since the introduction of the Green Paper on nationality, to impress on successive Home Secretaries the importance of ensuring that the Bill, when finally introduced, would do nothing to add to the uncertainty over the British commitment to Hong Kong.
In that we have been only partially successful. Had the Government followed the recommendations of the Green
*
British Nationality Bill
952
Paper, the people in Hong Kong now termed "British citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" would have become "British Overseas Citizens." Whatever assurances might have been given that their present rights would be unchanged, that title would certainly have caused deep misgivings.
We were therefore pleased when the Government did what was previously deemed impossible and introduced an extra class of citizenship, that of citizenship of British Dependent Territories, composed of countries with especially close relations with Britain. This would surely rank higher than the status of British overseas citizens, covering former colonies and territories with more distant connections with the United Kingdom. Hong Kong is by far the largest territory whose people can claim citizenship of British dependent territories.
The introduction of the additional category of citizenship, largely for the reassurance of those in Hong Kong, has not succeeded in that objective. Paragraph 16 of the White Paper states:
"The establishment of a separate citizenship for the British Dependent Territories would in no way alter the relationship between those territories and the United Kingdom, nor the Government's obligations and commitments to the dependent territories and to their citizens.”
However, the people in Hong Kong are still not entirely reassured. There is no doubt that they will be looking for a further firm and clear expression of Government assurance during the passage of the Bill, especially in Committee, and some concessions in clear evidence of the Government's recognition of the strength of their case.
One of the groups most concerned about the Bill are officials and unofficials in the service of the Hong Kong Government. The combination of clause 4(1) and the provision contained in schedule 1 are more restrictive in terms of the conditions of naturalisation than paragraph 70 of the White Paper and present practice. I strongly recommend that the implications of schedule 1 should be examined carefully in Committee so that the claims of those who have faithfully served the Crown in dependent territories will not be overlooked.
I recommend one small measure that would cost nothing and would not weaken the Bill-indeed, it would have no effect on the Bill. I recommend that the passports of Hong Kong citizens should carry the words “British (Hong Kong) Citizen", and that the passports of inhabitants of other dependent territories should similarly have the name of the territory inserted in the description of the passport. That would be appreciated by the people of Hong Kong and would be helpful in pointing out to officials in other countries that the bearer of the passport has closer links with the United Kingdom in terms of nationality than a British overseas citizen. I also hope that British missions overseas will be instructed to do their utmost to safeguard the existing freedom of travel by Hong Kong citizens.
If at the same time Britain's bilateral agreements with such countries as West Germany, Denmark and Spain could be extended to British (Hong Kong) citizens, the new passport would bring an improvement in the present situation, which would do much to restore confidence. It would be disastrous if any change in nomenclature were to lead third countries to require visas or other entry. certificates in addition to those now required.
I draw attention to two further clauses that are causing much concern. There is the feeling that the implications
$
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.