ASSURANCES TO ETHNIC MINORITIES
RECE
INDE
HKD 340/6.
2 4 JUN 1993
*FICH
BARONESS YOUNG ON 14.03.85:
Debate on Hong Kong Bill
EXTRACT FROM HANSARD
I will turn now to the question of the right of abode. The Government do not believe that there is any justification for providing right of abode in this country to any group of BDTCs in Hong Kong who do not have it at present. The same would of course apply to British Nationals (Overseas) after 1997. The first reason for this is that the agreement itself guarantees the right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997 to persons who have been resident in Hong Kong for seven years or more and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence, and also to persons who before the establishment of the Hong Kong SAR only have the right of abode in Hong Kong. This would, I believe, cover all the non-Chinese BDTCs in Hong Kong unless they are only there temporarily and have a right of abode elsewhere. I believe that this provision is an entirely satisfactory guarantee of the right of abode in Hong Kong.
It has been widely recognised, not least in your Lordships' House, that the agreement provides a satisfactory framework in which the present way of life of all the people who live in Hong Kong can be maintained after 1997. The Government believe that it is a good agreement and that it will be effective. The people with whom we are now concerned - that is to say, the non-Chinese BDTC's in Hong Kong are by definition people who have made their lives in Hong Kong, many of them descendants of people who have lived in Hong Kong for many generations. Their personal and family connections are with Hong Kong not the United Kingdom. To suggest now that we
-
should give them the right of abode in the United Kingdom, exceptionally, is to suggest that we are not confident that the conditions in Hong Kong after 1997 will be such as to permit them to remain there. This is not the belief of the Government, nor do I think it is the general belief of this Committee.
The second reason why the Government are opposed to giving the right of abode in the United Kingdom to sections of the community in Hong Kong is that we do not think it would be right to discriminate in favour of one section of the BDTC population in Hong Kong. We believe that it would be deeply resented by other sections of that community who of course would continue to constitute the vast majority. In the Second Reading debate I think that some of your Lordships may have dismissed rather easily the feelings of the Chinese BDTCs who constitute the overwhelming majority of BDTCS in Hong Kong. I believe that most of them would argue that if we were to give the right of abode to any one section of the community, they should have it too. For this reason the amendment now being considered would in my view be extremely divisive in Hong Kong, and divisive at a time when we should be doing everything we can to promote harmony and
assure.NAT
SLM
1
81
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.