Full Hausard on ARD 34076,
or lisatul Documents folder
[15 JULY 1993]
British Nationality Order 1993
dependent territory citizens-and citizens-and
subsequently
tish nationals (overseas)—the order states that 31st March 1996 will be the cut-off date for the acquisition of British dependent territory citizenship.
Those proposals have caused some concern in Hong Kong, especially among members of the Legislative Council who were unhappy about the removal of the right to become a British national (overseas) at any time up to 30th June 1997. In their view, it was important that applicants should be able to retain their British dependent territory citizen status right up to the 1997 deadline.
There was never any question of applicants losing British dependent territory citizenship, and they will, therefore, be allowed to retain evidence of the fact that they are British dependent territory citizens by retaining their British dependent territory citizen passport when they register as British nationals (overseas) and when the acquire British national (overseas) passports. They will therefore have two passports: the British dependent territory citizen passport, which will last up to 30th June 1997; and the British national (overseas) passport which will be valid from the moment it is issued until and after 30th June 1997. On that basis I understand that the legislative councillors have withdrawn their objections to the order.
The orders have been produced in order that the transitional arrangements should proceed as smoothly as possible for the benefit of Hong Kong. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 10th June be approved [34th Report from the Joint Committee].-Earl Ferrers.)
6.34 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, as an amendment to the above Motion, at end to insert (“but that this House regrets that the opportunity was lost to improve the future security of the Hong Kong disciplined services.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Minister has presented the orders with his usual courtesy and clarity. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that he has presented them as being somewhat technical and administrative orders. They are more than that. These are people to whom we in this country owe a debt of honour stretching back over many years. They are people for whom provision has been made in the 1985 and 1990 Acts which, as your Lordships will recall, caused a great deal of controversy at the time. I remember in particular the interventions of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos when the Acts were first placed before Parliament.
However, the orders have never been simply administrative or technical. The orders now presented to the House appear to assume that the issues of principle have been resolved and that all we need to do is to proceed to the next, second and final stage of the implementation of the Acts. I wish to suggest to your Lordships that that is not the case; that in all the administrative actions that this country takes we must retain still our consciousness all the time of the needs ---they are often changing needs of the people who
203 LD44/27 Job 5-3
HKC 340/13
British Nationality Order 1993
388
live in Hong Kong, whatever passport they hold. After all, as we have been reminded by the debates on citizenship during consideration of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, there is a compar- able situation between Hong Kong and Macao. Portugal has taken a different point of view with regard to Macao which could well result in people in Macao acquiring European citizenship-citizenship of the European Union, and citizenship of Portugal --which would enable those people to come to this country while citizens of Hong Kong would not be able to do so. We have to bear that in mind, not as a primary consideration, but as a reminder of the nature of the obligation that we have to fulfil.
The amendment in my name, and the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, are being debated together with the two orders. It would clearly be improper for me to anticipate in detail the debate on the Motion to be introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. Therefore, I merely wish to say that we fully support his Motion. The Minister will reply before either the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, or I make up our minds what to do about the amendment and Motion standing in our names. We expect the Minister's reply to recognise the strength of feeling which exists about the issues and the need for a more flexible and humanitarian approach.
I have put down my amendment in consultation with my noble friend Lord Shackleton. Unfortunately, he did not meet the 12 noon deadline to have his name on the list of speakers. With the leave of the House, he will seek to speak in the gap. He will expand with far more authority and knowledge than I can on the needs of members of the disciplined services in Hong Kong.
In effect, the issues are the same: are we to be controlled by administrative procedures, or are we to ensure that we are in control of administrative procedures? When speaking to the second order, the Minister described a series of deadlines, of cut off dates, which will apply to people of different ages. That was not the expectation when the Bill was before Parliament. It was expected that there would be an opportunity for those concerned to acquire British national (overseas) status right up to the deadline of 30th June 1997. There was no suggestion that those aged 22 to 26 would suddenly become ineligible after October 1993. The suggestions are made by those who are not prepared to ensure that we have the manpower and resources to deal with major humanitarian issues at the time when people need them to be dealt with between now and 1997. The provisions are made by people who put administrative convenience above the interests of the people of Hong Kong.
Similarly, on the first order, the Minister started by saying that we were well on target to complete the first tranche. But then he admitted in detail the extent to which there has been a shortfall until now in certain of the categories. He has admitted that there is the possibility of a shortfall of at least 4,000 people which, even if we confine ourselves to the figure of a total of 50,000, could be used for other purposes. Can it ever be anything other than administrative convenience
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.