2.3 10
1215
British Nationality Bill (H.L. ¡
[LORDS]
[Lord McIntosh of Haringey) Lord Bonham-Carter, has rightly capitalised on the victory which he masterminded in July. He has given this House an opportunity to show the Government that a vote of 60 to 48 in which 13 Conservative Peers, most of whom are not normally rebels, voted against the Government needs to be confirmed. It needs the House to pass legislation because the Government and the Minister in October of this year conspicuously refused to recognise the strong and unanimous feeling expressed by the House on 15th July.
The facts are entirely clear. It is obviously the case-it has never been denied-that the non-ethnic Chinese living in Hong Kong were brought to Hong Kong by a deliberate decision and invitation of British governments of Hong Kong over a period of many years. Those non-ethnic Chinese have performed valuable service to the Government and the people of Hong Kong. They left their own communities many years ago and often have extremely limited connections with those communities.
When the change takes place in 1997, a range of alternatives appear to be open to those people: first, it is suggested that they should have rights along with the other 50,000 citizens of Hong Kong who will benefit from the 1990 and 1993 orders. In July it was suggested that a number of them have taken advantage of those facilities. But of course that can hardly apply to the majority or non-etanic Chinese, any more than it can apply to the majority of any of the other citizens of Hong Kong. The 1993 orders, which were approved by your Lordships' House in July, make it more difficult. rather than easier, to apply by imposing a series of deadlines on applications in order, the Government say, to avoid there being a logjam at the end of the period in 1997.
Let us assume-we must do so-that most of those people will not fall into the 55,000 category. What happens then? We are told that they can remain protected by the Sino-British Declaration under the Basic Law. They cannot become Chinese citizens, because it must be said that Chinese citizenship law is racist. Nevertheless we were told in 1986 by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and again by the Minister in July, that, if there are difficulties, their applications to come to this country would be dealt with with considerable and particular sympathy.
But none of those is an adequate answer for a community of hardworking people who have served Hong Kong well. None of those answers solves the problem which was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, when he introduced the Bill; namely, that those people will, effectively, become stateless and that their grandchildren will be totally stateless.
There are additional arguments. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who was not able to be with us in July, made a case for locally enlisted personnel of the discipline services very similar to that made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton and I in July. I agree with the noble Lord. I do not believe that it is worth risking the Bill by moving an amendment to it, but the case which the noble Lord made is nevertheless extremely sound.
622 LD83/52 fob 8-4
|
British Nationauty Bill (H.L.]
1216
As has been said, it is very difficult to find new arguments because the Government have not answered the arguments which have been advanced. Those points were made in July and achieved the agreement of your Lordships. This Bill, moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. should also achieve the agree ment of your Lordships.
9.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Hong Kong always strikes a note of concord and sympathy with people back here in this country, and quite properly so. Of course, it has done so this evening. The
Lord Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Bonham-Carter, deals with a subject about which not only the noble Lord but also other noble Lords feel strongly. We saw that in July when we had a debate on Hong Kong Orders in Council. The noble Lords, Lord St. John of Bletso and Lord McIntosh of Haringey said that it is very difficult to find new arguments. I am bound to say that I rather agree with them.
were
The arguments previously put forward deployed both forcefully, strongly and quite correctly at that time. The Government also had to put forward their view. It was an important debate and one which ended in a vote whereby the majority of your Lordships took the view that the ethnic minorities of Hong Kong who had no other fona of ciúzenship ought to be granted British citizenship. The Government tank very cariguslu the matters which your Lordships raised and took note of all that was said in the debate. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary reconsidered the whole position. However, despite your Lordships' views, the Government did not feel that it would be appropriate to bring forward legislation to Parliament which would change the existing arrangements.
My noble friend Lord Marlesford said that he had a pretty shrewd idea of what I would say tonight. I congratulate him ou is prescience. I do not think that that is very difficult. I also congratulate him on his versatility in being able to mention such matters as the poll tax and the privatisation of water in a Second Reading debate on a Bill about Hong Kong.
I am bound to tell your Lordships-and I shall disappoint not only my noble friend Lord Marlesford but also my noble friend Lord Geddes-that the Government's view remains the same as it was when we last debated the matter. I should also tell my noble friend Lord Marlesford that I have always admired his knowledge of Whitchall. However, if he thinks that the Home Office (of which I have had the privilege of being an ornament for some six years now) is reactionary, inward-looking-and I think he also used the very unparliamentary word "constipated"-I am bound to tell him that, whatever he knows about Whitehall, that shows he does not know very much about the Home Office. It has always impressed me as being avant-garde, forward looking, exhilarating and an organisation which, in many respects, has to have a little bit of a rein put on it from time to time as regards its enthusiasm to move very abruptly in certain directions.
I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. for taking the cudgel into his own hands and for
F
I
}
t
F
T
t
t
>
t
;
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.