British Nationality
(Hong Kong) Bill
1 MAY 1990
know: the geriatrics who ordered the bloodshed will not be there much longer, certainly in 1997, unless they have some wonder drugs.
I have not been to China and, like most outsiders, I confess that I am baffled by what goes on there. As the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford explained, There have been 40 years of upheaval and turmoil. There was the great leap forward-the time when everyone was supposed to have a steel furnace in his back garden. Then there was the baffling cultural revolution, followed by changes in the leadership. At one time Deng Xiaoping was in his disgrace, as a capitalist. Now he is the paramount leader. What happened to the Gang of Four? I do not pretend to understand, but I agree with the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford that, through all those upheavals, China kept to its international agreements. So why should we now assume that China will not keep to its international agreements? What evidence is there that that will happen?
We respect
the views held by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), but he does not know what will happen in Hong Kong or Peking in seven years' time. That is not criticism of him, because no one else knows. Who can prophesy what will happen in London, or anywhere else, in seven years' time? None of us can. Should we assume that it will all be for the worst rather than the better? The international agreement was reaffirmed in Peking last month, so there is no reason to suppose that it will not be adhered to. It is in everyone's interests, including those of China, to ensure that that agreement works.
I hope that there will be no Armageddon in seven years' time, but if there is, it will be not for this Parliament, or the next Parliament to resolve the proplem, but the one after that. It is utterly wrong and the height of irresponsibility to move populations round the world permanently and irrevocably because of transient factors, such as the events in Tiananmen square ог hypothetical, unpredictable, future circumstances. We should not move populations half- way round the globe because we happened to have a nightmare one night.
The idea that we should dish out passports by the million because they will never be used is inane. I am amazed that intelligent and educated people can work on such an assumption. I have never heard such a proposition before. We would have to honour that obligation and we should not take the issue of millions of passports lightly. How would dishing out passports on such a scale contribute to stability, never mind strengthen it? It must be destabilising to say to so many people, "Here is your ticket to get away. That is the opposite of what we should be doing and we will engender a self-fulfilling prophesy. The couple of million people who have not applied will start to wonder why they have been left out and the idea of getting a passport along with everyone else will be put into their minds.
I spoke earlier about our relationship with China. I do not believe that this approach has been discussed or negotiated with the Chinese Government. I understand
Standing Committee A
26
that they say that they will not recognise these passports, as they do not recognise dual nationality, so those holding them will not be able to enter or leave Hong Kong after 1997. Therefore, they will be virtually obliged to leave Hong Kong by that date, so such a measure will be completely counter-productive and will do nothing for confidence.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Francis Maude): The hon. Gentleman referred to the Chinese recognition or otherwise of such passports. The joint declaration entrenches the right of people to come and go, and the hon. Gentleman has spent some time persuading us that the Chinese, as I believe, will remain committed to the full implementation of the joint declaration.
Mr. Leighton: I have great respect for the Minister and hope that he will discuss such matters with the Chinese Government between now and 1997. I should have thought that he would have discussed that proposal before. I have not discussed such matters with the Chinese Government as that is not my job, but I have read the reports of Chinese spokesmen who have said that they will not recognise the passports and that they are against the proposal. The Minister of State should work to reaffirm, and make a success of, the joint declaration, and I do not understand how the passport proposition can assist in that process. If things go badly in future, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), fears this country would have to take action, but that is a matter not for this but for a future Parliament. We must not foolishly and recklessly precipate such an event now, and that would be the effect of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: I shall deal first with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). He expressed his views with much sincerity and I have a great deal of sympathy with his objectives. However, the Government must resist his amendment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) said, three million plus BDTCs are resident in Hong Kong and many other members of the population are eligible to apply for that status. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland proposes no limit to the number of others who might be recommended for British citizenship under the selection scheme. With the best will in the world, it is not practicable to give all those people the right of abode in the United Kingdom.
As an illustration of what we should do to stand by our undoubted obligations to Hong Kong, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland referred to the Portuguese and Macau and urged us to emulate their example. Portugal is offering Portuguese citizenship to the citizens in Macau but, all told, only 100,000 citizens are involved. That is under half the figure of the total package proposed by the Bill.
The problem of numbers is understood not only here, but in Hong Kong. That said, we are committed to doing as much as we practically can. All that is open
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.