9
Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
13 JULY 1993
which BDTCs from Hong Kong will not be able to apply for a passport as British nationals overseas. That breaks an assurance made at the time of the discussion of the order that everyone who wanted to would be entitled to apply for that status.
The order also introduces a time limit for appli- cations for BDTC status from Hong Kong people. That status is the necessary passport for obtaining BN(O) status. As the Minister said, about half of the people resident in Hong Kong are not at present BDTCs but may gain the right to apply after five years' residence or after three years' residence following marriage to a person with BDTC status. Such people now have to apply for registration on or before 31 March 1996. That is less than three years ahead and only 15 months before Hong Kong reverts to China. Many people who would have qualified to apply will be deprived of the opportunity and will not be able to retain any British status after 1 July 1997.
The order proposes a ridiculously short timetable for application for BN(O) status. People are divided. according to date of birth: those born between 1967 and 1971 must apply before 30 October 1993. That means that young people born between those years have less than four months left in which to apply before the order comes into force. People aged between 22 and 26 are the least likely to be thinking about the future yet have the least time in which to make the decision.
The order provides that an application made after the stipulated date may be accepted if there are “spe- cial circumstances" to justify registration. In the Hong Kong context, that is not especially reassuring. I shall return to the question of special circumstances a little later.
The detailed bureaucratic regulation of applications will not bolster confidence in Hong Kong's future or stability. While it is good that the Home Office is thinking ahead to avoid a possible rush of applications near the deadline, as happened in the United Kingdom at the end of 1982 and 1987 as a result of the British Nationality Act 1981, it would be more sensible to solve the problem through greater publicity of the application dates and the appointment of more staff to deal with applications nearer to 1997.
Very often in Committee debates along this Corri- dor, hon. Members find that they end up asking Home Office Ministers to take adequate steps to provide sufficient staff to perform a particular task. I remember debating the Asylum Bill with the Minister, and we discussed the delay in processing asylum applications. Much of that delay was caused by the Government's unwillingness to employ enough staff at the appropri- ate time. The same problem arises, with the same Department, in connection with this order. The pro- posal to deal with the problem by restricting people's rights to apply, rather than by making adequate pro- vision for the applications, is wholly inappropriate, unjust and, I am sad to say, typical of the Department.
It is well understood that both the British and Hong Kong Governments should ensure that there is no
Hong Kong (Brit. Nat.) Order 1993 Brit. Nat. (Hong Kong) Order 1993
10
overwhelming rush for the new BN(O) documents and that there should be a well-managed system for pro- cessing and distributing BN(O) documents. however, members of the Legislative Council, many Hong Kong people and Members of Parliament are worried that this administrative measure may do more harm than good. For example, Mrs. Elsie Tu, Chair of the mem- bers of the Legislative Council, pointed out that under the phased programme proposed by the Hong Kong Government those who fail to apply within the speci- fied period will lose their right to apply for registration as BN(O)s. Given that people already feel profoundly insecure about their future in this exceptional moment of Hong Kong's history, it is thoroughly unfair that the Order in Council should add to their sense of unease.
As I said earlier, the order amends the Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986 by adding "a safe- guard" after article 4(3). The additional paragraph
states:
“An application for registration under paragraph (2) above made after the relevant date may be accepted if the applicant shows that there are special circumstances which justify his being so registered."
That is a highly qualified discretionary power to be vested with the Home Secretary and his Ministers. It may sound sensible and reassuring, but the proposed measure raises a number of problems. I should be grateful if the Minister would deal with these later when he speaks and use the opportunity afforded by this debate to come back on some specific points that have been raised not just by Members in this place, but by members of the Hong Kong Legislature.
First, there are no suggestions or explanations about what will be considered as "special circumstances”. Perhaps the Minister will put one or two of those on the record today, so that people in Hong Kong may have an idea about what that vague phrase means.
Secondly, the structure for consideration of late applications has not been explained. What will be the structure for considering late applications? That infor- mation would be useful, especially for those in Hong Kong who may seek to avail themselves of that facility.
Thirdly, is there a cut-off date for those cases? It is all very well having special circumstances and a dis- cretion, but when would that terminate? Would it be the day when the handover takes place? Is there a more advanced date than that? When is the very last point at which people will be forced into a decision that will affect them and their families-their children and grandchildren-for the rest of their lives? Such a decision must be taken with all due care and with the fullest possible knowledge of the respective dates to be employed by the Department.
Finally on this section, who will be entrusted with the role and powers to reconsider cases? Given the debates that we have had in other spheres on asylum and immi- gration and the abolition of the right of appeal in certain cases, it is absolutely essential that individuals in Hong Kong are wholly aware of their rights in respect of asking for cases to be reconsidered. The
Page 90Page 91
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.