Hong Kong (Nationaltry)
16 JANUARY 1986
but I wish that the Minister could be more forthright about Hong Kong people travelling to Britain and to third countries with BN(O) passports. After all, the BN(O) passport is being introduced later this year so that foreign Governments can get used to it. Unless the British Government give a bit more weight to their value. however, there is a danger that people in Hong Kong will exercise their choice of sticking with BDTC passports until the last minute in 1997. If we are to have more sense, the Government must be more forthright and committed.
The Minister will also be aware that there is in Hong Kong a considerable element of distrust in Britain. especially since the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981. I have referred to the hassles experienced by people from Hong Kong when seeking entry to Britain.
Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): I also apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. The hon. Gentleman said that members of staff at the Hong Kong Government office in London had encountered difficulties at Heathrow and Gatwick. That is a serious and disturbing charge. I am not criticising him for making it, but perhaps he could substantiate it. No doubt the Government would wish to be helpful as it would be inconceivable and awful if bona fide members of the staff of the Hong Kong Government had difficulties coming and going.
Mr. Dubs: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Many of the things that happen at Heathrow and Gatwick airports are inconceivable and awful. As for the Hong Kong Government office, I base what I say on a conversation with the London office of the Hong Kong Government when I was told that even its staff had had difficulties at airports. I am not saying that these people were turned away: rather they were subjected to hassle. I believe that "hassle" is the most appropriate word. The Hong Kong Government office in London may wish to make representations about that, following the intervention by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). The main point is that the Minister has been made aware of what has happened and of the anxiety about that matter.
I should like to refer to the position of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong and to the Legislative Council debate that took place early in December 1985 at which I was privileged to be present. I was able to hear the whole of that debate. Approximately 10,000 people are members of ethnic minorities in Hong Kong and have BDTC status. That group of people comprises approximately 6.000 people of Indian origin, nearly 2,000 of Portuguese origin and about 2,000 of Eurasian origin. The Minister did not fully recognise their problem, although other hon. Members have recognised that the ethnic minorities will not automatically become Chinese citizens. The ethnic minorities believe that they will have a lesser status in Hong Kong after 1997 than the bulk of the population of Hong Kong. They are concerned about their future because they will not have equal status. That is the nub of their argument.
The Minister is getting close to playing with words when he argues that BOC status is a way of avoiding statelessness. When the House debated the Third Reading of the British Nationality Bill in June 1981, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) succintly said:
"British overseas citizenship is not a citizenship but a subterfuge".[Official Report, 4 June 1981; Vol. 5, c. 1158.]
Hong Kong Nationalis)
1282
There is a danger that the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong will, after 1997, be given a very doubtful status that is tantamount to statelessness. That is the reason for their anxiety. As one of my hon. Friends said, they have no choice in the matter. The ethnic minorities were looking for comfort in the Order in Council and in the Minister's remarks, but I fear that they found none.
I should like to pay tribute to the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants which ably conveyed to us the case on behalf of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong.
As far as I know, there are approximately 400 prisoners of war in Hong Kong. They are mainly of Portuguese origin and they are seeking to gain British citizenship under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981.
I should also like to mention the civil servants and others in administration who have occupied sensitive posts under the present Hong Kong administration. That group includes the police special branch. They expressed their anxiety to me that their career prospects may not be bright after 1997. I believe that there has been an understanding that some of these people will be considered under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981. Can the Minister say a little more about that?
The Minister did not refer to the 8,000 or 9,000 Vietnamese who are in open or closed camps in Hong Kong. Hopefully that problem will not exist in 1997. Although their position is not directly affected by the Order in Council and today's debate, the fact is that, unless they are removed from Hong Kong by 1997, they will be in a very invidious position. I do not believe that this country has a responsibility to take every Vietnamese boat person, but we have a responsibility to take our share. If we do that, other countries will follow suit. We are not doing as much as we should and therefore the problem may continue almost until 1997.
I wonder whether the Minister has fully appreciated the many anxieties that have been expressed in the House and in what I have said. There are no precedents for the situation that will face Hong Kong in 1997. It is a matter not of giving Hong Kong independence but rather of handing Hong Kong over, on the basis of a Sino-British agreement, to another country. Therefore, the people of Hong Kong are entitled to sympathy and consideration from the House and the people of Britain.
I contend that the Minister has not shown that sympathy or understanding. The people of Hong Kong feel badly let down. As Lydia Dunn states in her letter:
"There is a good deal of lingering cynicism in Hong Kong about the gradual erosion of the rights and privileges of British subjects outside the United Kingdom as a result of successive amendments in recent years to the laws governing nationality and immigration".
The people of Hong Kong feel let down and the Minister must do something about that. He has not said enough this evening to give the people of Hong Kong, who feel that they are being missed out by the Order in Council, confidence that he understands their anxieties. In the absence of assurances from the Minister, the Opposition will have no alternative but to express their concern in the Division Lobby.
8.17 pm
Sir Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South): There are four main questions in the debate, and I want to refer briefly to each of them. The first is whether the British National (Overseas) passport will be acceptable to other countries,
659
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.