1
Bill
21 JANUARI
10.
**are as and when appropriate.
759
Hong Kong Bill
21 JANUARY 1985
and residence. That is not intended, we are told; yet in much of the discussion that has gone on in the run-up to this legislation, expressions have been used which strongly indicated that that might be envisaged. I remember the article in The Times on 27 September 1984 which said that we should give
"as broad definition as possible to those BDT passport holders eligible to settle in Britain under the discretionary terms of the 1981 Nationality Act.”
That is a misunderstanding of the British Nationality Act, but certainly it is a misunderstanding not confined to the leader writer of The Times, even though the Secretary of State specifically repudiated it in his speech.
If those circumstances arise, we shall be put in the dock. We shall be told, “You chose--not as a result of an agreement with the Government of China, you chose of your own free will, on your own initiative-to create a new form of what you, not we, call 'British nationality'. So these are 'British nationals'. You chose to give them what you, not we, described officially as a 'British passport'. How then can you refuse admission to your country, the country of ‘British citizens', to these people who claim a right to enter, implicit"- so it will be argued, as it has been argued in past years in other contexts -"in the very documents which you have given them."
I have no wish to see any of those who will lose their British nationality, exiguous though it is under the 1981 Act, as a result of the transfer of sovereignty made stateless. I would support any legislation designed to have that effect. I have no wish to see them in a position in which they are worse off than the citizens of any other country on the face of the earth in having no form of indentification as they seek, as many of them will, to travel. What I protest against is that we should place them and ourselves in a false position which will enure, if events should be less happy than we expect, to our discredit and to their disappointment in years to come.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South): What does the right hon. Gentleman propose should be the status of citizens of Hong Kong?
Mr. Powell: After 1997 we shall be in no position to confer upon the citizens of Hong Kong any status arising out of our national authority, out of our sovereignty, or to confer any nationality upon them through anything that this House can do. Yet I would not exclude our dealing with the problem when it is defined as potential individual statelessness-I would not reject consideration of that; statelessness would be a minority phenomenon-nor our securing international agreement to some kind of document which would give facilities to those persons on travelling. The hon. Gentleman is reinforcing my argument about procedure; for those are matters which it will not be possible properly to debate in the manner in which we debated-no one today is prepared to say that we were wasting our time in doing so -month after month and word by word the contents of the British Nationality Act 1981. We shall be denied that opportunity to consider in detail the situation of different categories of persons at present associated with the territory of Hong Kong or to find methods of defining their status, in so far as that lies with us, which do not create the openings for ambiguity, misunderstanding and deception which lie in what is proposed at present. Although we shall have a
1.
Hong Kong Bill
760
Committee stage on the Bill, it will not provide us with the opportunity to do what it is the duty of this House to do in enacting new British nationality law.
5.47 pm
Mr. Mark Robinson (Newport, West): It is always slightly daunting to follow the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), especially when he brings a perspective to our debates which often has a slightly different sense and direction from what we have heard previously. I cannot say that I agree with the points that he raised about nationality, but my reasons will become clear during my speech.
I welcome this opportunity to speak for the first time in a debate on Hong Kong. Contrary to the Private Eye style of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who took us on a tour d'horizon of his thoughts on the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in the negotiations, I should like to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, as well as to the Governor of Hong Kong, our ambassador in Beijing and their staff, who have done so much to bring this difficult negotiation to such a successful conclusion. The outcome-what we see in 1997 and beyond-will be a testimony to that agreement. It has not been easy, and the task that has been performed will be seen not just as historic but as having a special place in our experience of decolonisation.
All the previous negotiations that we have had to bring independence to other of our former colonies have not had the perspective and have not required the very special considerations of this one, not least because, rather than being a process of handing independence to a former colony, it has been a process of transferring sovereignty back to another power, and at the same time providing the conditions under which the community in Hong Kong can go on governing and existing within that system and in the style to which it has become accustomed under our own Government.
I had the opportunity to visit Hong Kong in the summer, and I pay tribute not only to the authorities there but to the Executive Council and UMELCO for the trouble that they took to ensure that I was made fully aware of their views - on the developments. It has been brought home to me how important it is to keep the people of Hong Kong informed through the Executive Council, about what is happening in the negotiations at every stage. The degree to which that information has been provided and the essential importance of confidentiality throughout this difficult process to ensure the success of the negotiations are not always appreciated in this country.
One of the main concerns expressed to me while I was in Hong Kong can perhaps never be legislated for in this Bill or any other legislation. The principal worry is about what will happen if the situation in China after 1997 differs from the present position. A parallel purpose to negotiations such as this one is to build trust and understanding. While bearing in mind China's record in honouring international agreements, we must not forget that Hong Kong's present position in terms of Government and the economy could have been upset by the Chinese Government at any time that that Government had the will . It will be helpful to remember that aspect during the process of confidence building which will be so important both before and after 1997.
Εν
395
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.