1609
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
[Sir Peter Blaker]
19 APRIL 1990
refugees from Hong Kong whom we would be obliged to do our best to take, and we might be obliged to take more than those for whom the Bill provides passports.
I have received representations from several British companies with business interests in Hong Kong. I shall read a letter from Geoffrey Maddrell, chief executive of the Tootal Group, which I received in November before the Government announced the policy encapsulated in the Bill. He explains the links that his company has with China through Hong Kong. He says:
"The total turnover of companies"- that is in the Tootal Group-
"dependent on supplies out of China is around £75 million this year-
1989-
"and earns approximately 10 per cent. in pre-tax profit. The continued success of our investment and interest in China depends very largely on our key managers in Hong Kong", who are working in China supervising Tootal's joint ventures. He continues:
"However, in the current uncertainty surrounding British Government Policy all the senior managers are preparing to emigrate to obtain citizenship of Canada and Australia. They are taking this course of action as an insurance for the future, not because they wish to leave Hong Kong. In consequence. should they be offered right of abode in the UK, it is not their intention to exercise that right.”
He says later in his letter, and I repeat that it was written before the announcement of the Government's policy:
"Tootal would seek rights of protection for some 25 managers and their families by issuing them with a full British Passport with right of abode in the UK."
I spoke two days ago to Mr. Maddrell to discover his reaction to the Government's policy. He said that his managers are waiting to see whether the Bill is passed. If it is rejected, they will accelerate their attempts to move to Canada or Australia.
Mr. Tebbit rose—
Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds) rose-
Sir Peter Blaker: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
That letter shows two things: first, that the few passports that will be given to key people in Hong Kong will make a tremendous difference; and, secondly—this is the key point-that we are talking not about people who are keen to leave Hong Kong but people who want to stay there.
7.13 pm
Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): I agree with the right hon. Member for Blackpool. South (Sir P. Blaker) that all of us may face far heavier obligations and much more difficult problems in 1997 than we face today. We may have to take on far greater obligations to meet a disaster at that time than we are faced with at present.
Nobody can contribute realistically to the debate who is not prepared at least to identify the problem and to seek to remedy it. The problem will be between now and 1997. We are all agreed that there has been a massive loss of confidence in Hong Kong since the events of Tiananmen square. There is a heavy outflow of people who have the skills and responsibilities essential to the successful running of the colony over the next seven years and to its prosperity.
820 CD31/29 Job 8-5
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
1610
That is the problem. How will we—“prevent" is too strong a word mitigate or slow the outflow of people from Hong Kong who are necessary to it? I believe that my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Manchester. Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), who I understand will wind up the debate. have somewhat misled themselves in their arguments. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that his solution to the problem is to introduce democracy in Hong Kong. I am very much in favour of that and it is not impossible for Britain to do so-after all, we remain masters of the colony until 1997-but China has issued the Basic Law and everyone in Hong Kong knows that. However far democracy has advanced in Hong Kong, if the Chinese wish to roll it back they have the power to do so. Therefore, unless there is a great change in China. we cannot offer additional confidence to the people of Hong Kong by telling them that a Labour Government will introduce democracy in Hong Kong. It is no way out to say that we shall introduce democracy and restore confidence in Hong Kong between now and 1997. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has misled himself on that point.
My right hon. Friend also misled himself on another major point his assessment of the reaction of other ethnic communities in the United Kingdom to the passing of the Bill. I represent a large ethnic community and I can assure him that no such anxieties have been expressed by my constituents. I am certain that the grievances that my right hon. Friend properly expressed on behalf of the immigrant communities will be dealt with when а Labour Government take office. As my right hon. Friends and I expect that there will be a Labour Government within the next two years, putting right the grievances of the ethnic minorities should not be used as an excuse for denying people in Hong Kong the possibility and prospect of coming to the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend has misled himself on two quite major matters.
I shall deal briefly with the criticisms that have been made of the Bill. It has been said that the scheme is selective, which is so, but is anyone, except the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), realistically arguing for a general. all-embracing and non-selective United Kingdom scheme? With the exception of the right hon. Member for Yeovil. I have heard no one arguing for that. Critics say that we need different categories for selective admission in addition to those already in the Bill. To some extent, that is so, and I wholly share the views of those who have expressed the unsatisfactory position of the non-ethnic Chinese in China and the need for far stronger guarantees for their future, otherwise they will be citizenless after 1997.
I was glad to hear what the Home Secretary had to say about war widows and other widows, but there are other categories, including students, for whom the Select Committee recommended we should make special provision in assisting them to obtain nationality. I should like to see those categories included.
The categories are no substitute for a scheme to help to stem the exodus of key personnel from Hong Kong. War widows do not help in manning difficult positions in the Hong Kong police force, civil service or business, nor necessarily do ethnic minonties who are unfranchised or denied citizenship. Students certainly cannot assist in that
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.