661
nature
Hong Kong
13 MAY 1986
Dr. John Marek (Wrexham): I agree with my hon. Friend in the case that he has made about the unsatisfactory order. In view of the fact that the Government are now a lame duck Government fast approaching the end of their term of office,-only a couple of Conservative Members are making gesticulations, and other Conservative Members are being very quiet about this— will my hon. Friend in the next Labour Government reconsider the order in the light of the changing circumstances and the situation at that time?
Mr. Dubs: My hon. Friend has anticipated precisely what I was about to say. It is right that I should state what the next Labour Government's policy will be [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but the policies of the next Labour Government will be with us pretty soon. I am sure that Conservative Members are aware of that. The Opposition have a commitment to repeal the Immigration Act and the Nationality Act and to replace those measures with non-discriminatory legisla- tion. This will involve inevitably a wide-ranging review of immigration and nationality policy. As part of that review, we shall take into account the requests and claims of various groups, including those of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. We shall take those into account as the basis of a just and non-discriminatory immigration and nationality policy.
The critical date for the people of Hong Kong is 1 July 1997, and there will be a Labour Government in Britain many years before then. We shall be starting-
Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Dubs: I shall not give way. Other hon. Members wish to speak and I do not want to tresspass on their time. We shall be starting the process of reviewing immigration and nationality policy in about two years' time, when we shall be sitting on the Government Benches.
It would not have taken much for the Government this evening to show a little awareness of the real concerns of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. I do not think that the Home Secretary showed any real concern. He said that he had thought about the matter and had decided that the answer would be no. Some of the assurances that he tried to give the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong sounded singularly unconvincing. Indeed, it sounded as if the right hon. Gentleman was not convinced of what he was saying.
The ethnic minorities have the right to say that the Government have turned a deaf ear to their plea, and that is not good enough. For that reason, we shall be voting against the order.
10.58 pm
Sir Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South): My family connection with Hong Kong goes back 75 years, and in the previous Parliament, for a couple of years, I was the Minister concerned with Hong Kong at the time when the negotiations which led to the successful agreement that was initialed in 1984 were in their early stages. I take a great interest, therefore, in the success of Hong Kong and in the welfare and preservation of the way of life of all its people of whatever race. I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the decision that he has taken and on the terms of the order.
I pressed my hon. Friend the Minister of State on the endorsing of passports and on the matter of prisoners of
346
Hong Kong
062
war when we debated the draft order dealing with these issues, and I want especially to express my gratitude for the steps that have been taken on those two points. They have not been easy matters. I know that the drafting of the wording to go into the passport was not easy but, I believe that the Government have come to the right solution.
Another matter which caused anxiety some time ago was whether the BNO passport would be acceptable at all to various countries. We no longer hear about that. I quote it as an example of something which caused considerable concern in Hong Kong but which has now been shown to have had no substance. Those who live in the intense, active and intelligent society of Hong Kong sometimes get themselves into a state of unnecessary anxiety.
The most difficult question relates to the ethnic minorities. The Council of Hongkong Indian Associations will, I know, be very disappointed by the decision. As has already been mentioned, it has lobbied effectively. I want to make four points about this matter.
First, it is not correct to allege, as the Council of Hongkong Indian Associations has alleged, that the Government have broken their promises. It is perfectly clear from what was said in the previous debate that no promises have been broken. I speak with some feeling, because after the debate a few months ago on the draft order I was accused of having broken a promise. That statement was entirely without foundation. I believe it does not help the case of the Council of Hongkong Indian Associations if it makes reckless accusations of that kind.
Secondly, I wish to refer to the numbers involved. The Council of Hongkong Indian Associations referred to 10,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department referred to 11,500. But is this the full picture? There must be people who do not hold BDTC passports but who are entitled to apply for BDTC passports. Moreover, will not the children of the 11,500 be entitled to BDTC passports before 1997? They will swell the number to well over 11,500. It is unrealistic to refer to 11,500 or 10,000. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State who is to reply to the debate will say something about that question. Thirdly, I welcome the language used by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his answer to a parliamentary question on 23 April. In particular I welcome his statement that "we have concluded that the granting of British citizenship is not justified in the present circumstances."-[Official Report, 23 April, 1986; Vol. 96, c. 147.]
I emphasise the words "in the present circumstances."
That answer appears to me to keep the door a bit open. I welcome also the words that have already been quoted about the possibility that British nationals might come under pressure to leave Hong Kong. They show that the Government's mind is not closed. It is right to remind the people of Hong Kong that there are still 11 years to go before 1997. If circumstances change drastically during that time--I do not believe that they will--this matter can be looked at again. I want to emphasise to my friends in Hong Kong that the language used by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his parliamentary answer is, in the British parliamentary context, very important and significant. They are not empty promises. They will be regarded as very important, if ever they should become relevant.
Fourthly, we should try to be clear about why the minorities in Hong Kong are worried. They are not worried about the agreement. They think it is a good
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.