1645
British Nationality | Hong Kong) Bill
[Mr. Kaufman
19 APRIL 1990
decision in February it was for only 18 directly elected members next year-less than a third-followed by a third in 1995 and 100 per cent. not in 2003 but possibly in 2007. As was made clear by the Home Secretary's response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), the Government have sold out to Hong Kong on democracy by making a deal with those same Chinese to whom they finance trade missions, break their embargo and sell arms and with whom the Prime Minister secretly dines. Now, as a fig leaf to conceal that sell-out, they have put forward this muddled. self-contradictory and discnminatory Bill. The Bill does everything for the most favoured. For useful citizens such as social workers-
Mr. Tebbit: I sensed that the right hon. Gentleman was coming to the end of his speech, having given himself very little time to say exactly how his policy would work. His nght hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersiey) said that the Labour party had defined the categories of Hong Kong citizens whom it would admit. The night hon. Gentleman must know how many that amounts to. What is the number?
Mr. Kaufman: The Cabinet has played a numbers game within itself-HON. MEMBERS "Answer.] For his own purposes. the right hon. Gentleman is also playing the numbers game. We retuse to play a numbers game on Immigration. We say that the Bill offers nothing to useful citizens such as social workers, or to students who risk Chinese wrath by demonstrating for democracy as they did only a few days ago. It does nothing for trade unionists, who are always at risk from authoritanan regimes. It does nothing for specific groups which will undoubtedly be disadvantaged by Chinese rule.
The Opposition believe that action is necessary but that it should be action far different from that contained in the Bill. We agree with the Select Committee that the right of abode in Britain should be given to the Hong Kong ethnic non-Chinese. the Indians. We would give them an effective night of abode with a nationality, something that the Government have not done.
Although we cannot accept the Select Committee's recommendation of limited relaxation of United Kingdom immigration law, we agree that the Home Secretary's discretion under section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 should be used generously on an individual basis to conier British citizenship on public servants who might be at risk. We would also use the Home Secretary's discretion on an individual basis to allow entry for certain other people who might be at risk under Chinese rule, such as trade unionists. journalists and political activists.
We do not believe that it is possible to obtain or offer definite international guarantees, such as those proposed by the Select Committee, for British dependent territory passport holders. but we agree that international discussions should take place with a view to obtaining assurances about policy in the event of a crisis after Hong Kong is transferred to China in 1997. Above all, we do not accept the Government's agenda or that of their opponents on their own Benches which creates the impression that the Hong Kong issue revolves solely around immigration and nationality issues.
We believe that confidence in the colony among the overwhelming mass of the population who are certain to
38 CD31/47 Job 13-3
British Nationality (Hong Kong, Bill
1646
remain there after China takes over must be buttressed and reinforced in other significant ways. That is why a Labour Government on coming to office will look positively at the position and. as time allows. at the possibility of increasing the number of directly elected Members on the Legislative Council. It is not enough simply to keep the colony in satisfactory working order for Chinese sovereignty.
We. accepting the limitations of our power. assert that. until midnight on 30 June 1997. the United Kingdom remains the sovereign power in Hong Kong and should act accordingly. We do not see doing out a number of passports. as provided in the Bill. as a proper, let alone sufficient. exercise of that power. It is a substitute for it. This is a bad Bill, and we shall vote against it.
9.40 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As often happens when discussions take place across party lines. this has been a good, robust debate. It is remarkable that until 8:30 pm. although we had a string of Labour speeches, not one from the Back Benches was in support of the party line. Having just heard it. we can understand the reasons for that.
We are grateful for the sond, Shrewd support of my right hon. Friend the Member tor Blackpool. South (Sir P Blaker), my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman), for Lewisham. West (Mr Maples) and for Wimbledon (Dr. Guouson-Wickes), who went to Hong Kong, saw the position for himself and changed his mind, and of my right hon. Friends the Members for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) and for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who has long experience of these matters. I listened carefully to the critical speeches from my hon. Friends and to the criticisms in the speeches of our supporters.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) asked about heads of households. That simply means the individual selected under the scheme who will be eligible for registration. In theory, a husband and wife could both apply, but only one would be awarded citizenship as the principal beneficiary. He asked about character checks on children. I think that he was confusing the immigration rules, where character would not be an impediment, and the provision in the Bill. which has parallels elsewhere. that a character requirement is relevant for citizenship. If one thinks of a 17-year-old with a criminal record, one can see the reasons for that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend. West pressed my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary about the widows of British citizens. In Hunsard tomorrow he will see that my right hon. and learned Friend covered the point, but if he is dissatisfied, no doubt he will pursue it. The hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) and the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore I am sorry that I missed both speeches-asked specifically about vulnerable people, such as political activists and journalists. They are covered by the group 3 undertakings and would be eligible under the sensitive services scheme which is part of the Bill.
One of the main themes of the debate has been our relationship with China. My right hon. Friends the Members for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and for Brent. North (Sir R. Boyson all touched on that. We must tread a tightrope in our dealings with the People's Republic of China over
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.