British Nationality Order 1993
[LORDS]
[LORD MCINTOSH of HaringEY] that has led Ministers, in full knowledge of the shortfall in some categories, to refuse to use that shortfall for the benefit of those who are not included? I am conscious that I should not intrude too far on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, but he understands the difficulty in which I find myself.
The difficulty which we all have is that we are talking about a place many thousands of miles away, but we behave as though we were legislating for our own home territory. We are not taking the views of the people of Hong Kong into account in the administrative arrangements that we make in the orders. We are not fully qualified to do so; we do not know what is going on. In this debate we have the benefit not only of the valued presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, but of many noble Lords who have direct experience of the situation in Hong Kong. They have a direct contribution to make, for which we are grateful. I suggest that it is slightly absurd that we should legislate in this detailed way for a country which has been encouraged by its present Governor- General-and good luck to him-to seek more democratic institutions in the time since he has been there.
Until I hear the Minister's reply, I am not certain what action I propose to take on my amendment to the order, but I know that the Minister should take seriously the view from these Benches, and I know that he will wish also to take seriously the view of other noble Lords participating in the debate. We are not satisfied with the provision being made. We do not believe that it should be the final decision between now and June 1997. We wish the Government to recognise the strength of anxiety which is being expressed both in Hong Kong and here. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, in rising to speak to the Government's Motion, I shall address the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I say straightaway that I am most grateful for the support given to my Motion by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I fully reciprocate by supporting the amendment which he moved so convincingly and powerfully. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will take into account the fact that the amendment is endorsed by no less a person than the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, whose birthday it is today. The noble Earl could easily give him a good birthday present. I wish to associate myself also with the statement by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, about our continuing duties and obligations to the people of Hong Kong and most particularly to the two groups we are discussing.
The whole thrust of British policy since negotia- tions with China about the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 began has been that we have tried, in the Joint Declaration and in the Basic Law, to do everything in our power to defend the rights, freedoms, prosperity and security of the people of Hong Kong after the transfer of power. That has been the thrust of our policy, and quite rightly so.
204 L.D44/28 Joti 5-5
о
British Nationality Order 1993
390
However, in addition to the group to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred, there is one small group of, at the most, 7,000 people, but probably less, and that is the group to which my Motion refers the non-Chinese ethnic minority groups, who are particularly vulnerable. I do not believe that that can be denied.
Under the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, after the transfer of power in 1997 members of that group will have a right of abode in Hong Kong. But they do not have the right to acquire Chinese nationality, although they have been told that they can apply for a "special Chinese passport”. They may or may not receive it, and it will not give them Chinese nationality. They will also have the right to have the status of a British national (overseas) which is, in effect, not much more than a travel document. It gives the holder of the status no right of abode anywhere except in Hong Kong.
According to Justice, the rights which the BNO confers are slim. British national (overseas) citizenship provides for consular protection abroad, except in China of which Hong Kong will become a part after 1997. It is precisely there that one would have thought there was most need for consular protection which will not exist. Moreover, the status of BNO runs out in the third generation.
In the view of Justice-I quote it because it has considerable legal qualifications-those people are being "rendered effectively stateless”. That view is shared by the International Commission of Jurists, as it will be by most people on the grounds of common sense. After all, what is the point or the meaning of belonging to a state if one cannot live there and does not have its protection? Those are the two rights which people who belong to a state expect to receive -the right of abode and the right to protection when one is not living there. As I understand it, neither of those rights will be available to that group of citizens.
In addition, it is probable that the United Kingdom will be in breach of its obligations under the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness 1961 which obliges signatories on the transfer of territory to ensure that,
"no person shall become stateless as a result”. That is not a matter that we can lightly set aside. It should be taken seriously. I hope that the noble Earl will deal with it in his reply.
In another place on 9th July, Mr. Wardle, Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, correctly identified the nature of the problem. He said:
“The question at the heart of the debate is whether special measures should be taken for that section of the Hong Kong community,'
Q
the section to which I refer—
"or whether they should compete, like everybody else, for the 50,000 British citizenship places”.--{Official Report, Commons, 9/7/93; col. 650.] The mistake that he makes is that this group is not like everybody else. It is precisely because they are not like everybody else that they feel. vulnerable, are vulnerable and deserve protection. If they were like everyone else, that is, Chinese, ethnically, they would automatically receive Chinese nationality after 1997. It is because they are not Chinese ethnically, and are
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.