1637
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
[Mr. Ron Leighton]
19 APRIL 1990
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
1638
or leave Hong Kong after 1997. Ownership of them will almost oblige their holders to leave before 1997; which is the opposite of what the Government say they intend.
Let no one pretend that the Bill can do anything for confidence. It will be totally counter-productive. Andrew To, a student leader. said that it would not restore confidence. He said that he was against any scheme that tried to divide Chinese loyalties. Instead of precipitating and encouraging a mad rush for British passports to get out of Hong Kong, and thus destabilising the colony, the Government should work to reaffirm and make a success of the joint declaration, which gives Hong Kong a further 50 years of autonomy after 1997—much the best prospect for the future. If-although there is no evidence of it yet -things look as though they are likely to go badly wrong, it will be for a future Parliament to address the problem. and not for us foolishly and irresponsibly to precipitate it unnecessarily now.
9.3 pm
Sir John Stokes (Halesowen and Stourbridge): In the few moments i have. I wish to speak briefly on the effects of the Bill on the British people. After 40 years of mass immigration, although considerable numbers are still coming in. people were beginning to think that at least primary immigration was over. Peopie looked to the Conservative party to be stricter on immigration controls than any of the other parties. The Conservative party has promised to end mass immigration, but now we are talking of allowing up to 250.000 Chinese people in Hong Kong the right to come and live here, let alone their dependants and others who may follow them. It is no
use the Government saying that only a proportion will exercise that right: that is far too much of a gamble for most people in an uncertain situation.
Speaking against the Bill is an occasion for immense sadness for me, because it is the first time that I have ever differed from my night hon. Friend the Prime Minister on an important matter. My admiration for her is unbounded, and I am deeply sorry to find myself opposed to her when her great services to Britain are being forgotten and she is the subject of so much attack and vilification in the press and the media. She always has a close understanding of how the ordinary people in these islands think and feel, and I can only assume that she was charmed by some of the emissaries from Hong Kong and persuaded by her Cabinet colleagues to go against her own fundamental instincts.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, whom I admire, was originally opposed to the Bill. I was disappointed that his opening speech did not contain a single sentence about the effect of the Bill on the British people for whom he is ultimately responsible. That leaves my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office. The position of Foreign Secretary is one of the greatest in the land and he has to defend our interests abroad and at home. In the last resort, even the humblest among us must look to the Foreign Secretary for protection. In this particulariy difficult situation, it would appear that my night hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has preferred to look after the interests of the Chinese
834 CD31:43 Job 12-3
people in Hong Kong rather than the interests of our people at home. I do not understand how my right hon. Friend can defend that judgment.
What have the Hong Kong Chinese done to be given such special privileges over and above the rights and duties that the Foreign Secretary owes to ordinary English men and women who have never voted for immigration, who never liked it and who wish it to stop? They do not want or like a multiracial, multicultural and multi-religious society compared with the old wonderful social cohesion that we had in these islands which made our history so successful and unique. We are now facing the problems of that mixture in our small island. The Bill will reopen all those old wounds and produce a further loss of confidence in the Government when they are going through a difficult patch.
Some will say that these immigrants are millionaires. cultured people and entrepreneurs. They may be marvellous people-I saw them in Hong Kong and there was much there that I admired--but they are still people of foreign extraction and we have too many of those here now. Therefore. I oppose the Bill with all the feeling that I can command. My entire political life has been to try to preserve all that is best in England. If I were not to oppose the Bill. I would be declaring all my political life to have been one long lie.
I am extremely sorry that we should make such a serious decision. It will
not please the Chinese Government, it will worry the Chinese in Hong Kong, it will be extremely difficult to work out and it will have a most depressing effect on the people of this country. I have not received a single letter in favour of the Billl, from the immigrant population or the indigenous population in my constituency or from anyone else: but I have received many against it.
What are we doing as a Conservative Government, the trustees for the ordinary people in this country, but letting them down in such an appalling way? It is a matter of great shame to me, and I cannot understand why it is being done. I am sure that it has been hurriedly thought out and not thought out properly. I fear that the debates here. which will be long and hard in this difficult summer, will create awful problems for the Government. When the Bill is passed, it will cause further problems and headaches for the Governor and officials of Hong Kong.
Nor do I like officials in Hong Kong, who are not accountable to anybody, deciding who should enter this country and be a subject of the Queen. This is a new Bill and a new change, as the War Crimes Bill was a new Bill. We must stop bringing such new Bills before the House. We do not like this Bill, we do not want it and I hope that it will be defeated.
9.9 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester. Gorton): The House should be well aware that the Labour party has firmly opposed the intention behind the Bill ever since it was first announced more than nine months ago. We described it as a charter for those with influence and affluence, and as elitist and unworkable. When it was published before Easter. our view was decisively confirmed. Before I sit down. I shail take the opportunity of replying to the debate to set out in detail the Labour party's policy on Hong Kong.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.