293
BOTANUARY
gratitude, or to show indifference towards them, is morally wrong and, as importantly, a symbol of our lack of concern in Hong Kong
I move on to the status of the BN:O› passport On the day of our last debate on this subject. I understand that the Hong Kong Government gave assurances that BDTC passports in the future. and those of the special administrative region, should state, albeit indirectly, the holder's right of abode in Hong Kong. Doubts remam over this and it is essential that the Government Take action to ensure that the new passport is as fully acceptable as present BDTC passports are for foreign travel. We were all reassured by what the Minister had to say about the progress of those negotiations. I hope that he will carry them through full energy, and take such opportunities, as he can to report progress to the House If he does not. Í hope that he will be questioned by hon. Members about the progress.
As to entry into the United Kingdom by people from Hong Kong, they must be given assurances that the new BN(O) passports will give freedom of entry for visits. At best, this should be operative for the period of validity of the passport and at the very least for a specified period. We should understand the position of Hong Kong well. because Hong Kong survives, as Britian always has, on its trading capacity. The future of the colony will be terribly threatened if international contacts were in any way inhibited by the status of the new passport. This matter goes into the heart of the survival of Hong Kong itself, and it is up to the British Government to take action to make sure that their rhetoric about wishing a secure future for the colony is honoured by their action. I was reassured to discover that the Minister is thinking seriously about this. The greatest issue in this debate is the position of the minorities. There are about 10.000 BDTC passport holders in Hong Kong who are not ethnically Chinese and who, therefore, unlike the vast majority, are not entitled to Chinese nationality. Many of these have been in Hong Kong under British rule for many generations. One family arrived with the British in 1842 and set up the first ferry service between the mainland and the island. Nearly all have served Britain over the years in one capacity or another. The Minister's proposals will. quite simply, leave these people stateless.
The Minister is frowning, so I shall describe their situation. They will have a citizenship for one country -Britain-in which they are not entitled to a right of abode, and they have a right of abode in another country -China-in which they will not have citizenship. I ask any hon. Member how he would feel if. for example, he had the citizenship of Britain but was not entitled to live here but was entitled to live in France while not having citizenship, even in the stability of the European position. We are thrusting 10,000 people into a hybrid insecure position while their future is worrying and somewhat opaque.
I am not in any way undermining the ability. strength and determination of the Chinese Government to honour their agreement. However, some of the rights enshrined in the Chinese national status are not honoured, and that must worry people living in Hong Kong. The future is unclear and it would be an abandonment of Britain's right to be called a civilised nation if we do not do something to correct this. We cannot provide assurances into the distant
future, but we must provide some for the interim perod between now and the time when we see how the new arrangements for Hong Kong are developing.
The non-ethnic Chinese do not wish to flood into Britain why should they? In most cases they run highly successful businesses in Hong Kong and are happy. However, they want the right of abode somewhere and feel justifiably aggrieved that they are being denied this. They should be granted full British citizenship. There are few enough of tem, and it would be disgraceful to leave them out in th cold or in a precarious position for our convenience.
There is no point in the Minister saying that this would encourage others, for the Hong Kong Chinese population agreed that the minorities should be regarded as a special
case.
The matter of Vietnamese refugees was mentioned by other right hon. and hon. Members. In the past, I have spoken in strong terms about the conditions of the Vietnamese refugees. I visited the refugee camps in Hong Kong just before Christmas and I found a vast improvement in the conditions under which they are held. However, the existence of the camps is an affront. The refugees' only crime has been to flee from tyranny to what they believed to be freedom. We can imagine their anger at finding themselves, as a consequence, incarcerated in barbed wire camps. However humane the inner regimes of those camps, they are still barbed wire camps.
We cannot solve the problem immediately, but it is up to Britain, as several hon. Members have already said, to take a lead in resettling those unfortunate people. I hope that the Minister will give the assurance that it is the Government's policy to solve the problem before 1997.
9.5 p1?
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch): I congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your excellent timing in returning just in time to call me! However, this is a serious debate. I was reminded of its seriousness for the people of Hong Kong by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), who spoke yesterday about the problems of his constituents. Even the hon. Gentleman would agree that those problems pale into insignificance beside the fears of the people of Hong Kong. In some ways their fears are unreal, but in certain instances, as has been mentioned already this evening, they are whipped up and generated by a variety of people for their own ends.
The hon. Member for Yeovil said that the people of Hong Kong are being handed over to China. We must recognise that that is inaccurate. Hong Kong is being returned to China. Unless we understand the historic context within which the British-Chinese agreement has been reached, we are in danger of making a range of allegations, assertions and assumptions that do nothing but harm to the prospects of the ong Kong people.
I am glad to be following my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Boothferry (Sir P. Bryan) as I always seem to be doing in discussions about Hong Kong. I echo the crucial point that they made. The agreement is an historic one. The future of the people of Hong Kong does not depend on the immigration legislation of this House. It depends on the willingness and ability of the British and Chinese Governments to do what they can to maintain stability and prosperity in Hong Kong. I reject- the use of such phrases as "if all else fails” and “fallback
665
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.