| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, first I pay tribute to the persistence of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in pursuing the Bill at this stage. I believe that he has behaved admirably and in the interests of the House and the country. Secondly, I should like to make one more plea to the Government to reconsider their position. It is not yet too late. This would be a small step to take but it would be of very great importance to our reputation. I make the appeal in sadness because I now have little hope of it being accepted. I also make the plea out of honour to my predecessor, the late Lord Bonham-Carter, who fought very hard for this cause. I am sorry that time is getting so short but still there is no success.
Lord Bramall: My Lords, even at this late stage I should like to add my strong support to that of many other noble Lords for the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, which seeks to grant full UK citizenship to a small group of non-Chinese British nationals.
When I commanded the British forces in Hong Kong in the 1970s I got to know this group very well. It provided a very large proportion of the security guards and attendants at the headquarters and installations of the British forces. Indeed, many of them had gone to Hong Kong in the first place precisely to serve in that capacity. In that capacity invariably they served the British Crown with the greatest loyalty, devotion to duty and reliability, whatever the alarms and excursions, of which there were quite a number. To those of us who have lived in Hong Kong it is quite clear that Britain owes them a great debt of gratitude and has a special responsibility for them. That is manifested by the unanimous and unequivocal support of the present Governor and past very distinguished Governors. For this country to allow a clearly identifiable group of Crown servants and their dependants to become stateless in terms of right of abode anywhere, and therefore without any security or protection for them to continue to live with full citizens' rights in Hong Kong itself, is a cruel and heartless way to repay these devoted servants.
I strongly urge the Government at this difficult time for Hong Kong, particularly when sovereignty passes, to show real understanding and compassion for this non-Chinese group and to honour their moral obligations to it.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I strongly reiterate the support that I have already expressed for my noble friend's Bill. At Second Reading my noble friend the Minister said that this group would continue to have a right of abode in Hong Kong because the Joint Declaration and Article 24(6) of the Basic Law guaranteed it for people who did not have a right of abode elsewhere. She went on to say that that had been reaffirmed in recent discussions with the Chinese Government.
However, there have not been a few recent examples where the Chinese interpretation of what has been agreed has differed from ours quite radically. This is likely to be another such case. What this small group asks for is status. The position was clearly and accurately stated by the Prime Minister, who said that this group did not wish to leave Hong Kong. They were settled there and their business and family ties were in Hong Kong, but they wished to be sure that if ever they came under pressure to leave they would have a country to go to. What possible reason can there be to continue to refuse to make one very simple gesture that will give these people the status to stay and avoid any likelihood or danger of pressure? It would demonstrate not only to them but to the Chinese, who will respect us for it, that we look after our own.
These people fought for us against the Japanese. They are our family and we owe them loyalty. This is a question of honour. To act now will remove a possible source of serious further embarrassment in our relations not only with the Chinese but with India and the Commonwealth. That would be another not inconsiderable advantage, especially when the Commonwealth Conference is due to be held here later this year. I am a simple soul. It seems to me that this gesture is small, easy to make and will earn us much goodwill. What government can afford not to make it?
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I agree with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Park, my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke and all those who have spoken in support of this Bill. My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke has said that the Government of China do not object to this Bill. I make one other point. The Government of China have stated quite openly that ethnic minorities will not be able to exercise citizenship as fully as the Chinese majority and have recommended that they petition the British Government for passports. This information has emerged through the Ximhua News Agency, which de facto is the Chinese Embassy in Hong Kong. That does not fill me with a great deal of hope that come the 1st July these people will be treated properly.
On a human level, only today I hear that there are people in this group who are increasingly desperate. They feel abandoned and stateless. They can no longer
call Hong Kong home. they are in a state of panic and feel quite scared. We are not dealing here with politics but a situation in which people just want to feel safe.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I should like to add one or two points to the speeches that have been made so far. First, I express gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, for piloting the Bill this far through this House. He will realise from speeches that he has heard this evening and earlier, especially the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, both today and at Committee stage, that his Bill has overwhelming support from all sides of the House beyond party and faction. What concerns me very much when I ask myself what possible reason there is to be opposed to this Bill is how without it we can make this small, vulnerable ethnic minority feel safe. How can we give them real security? How can we give them legal certainty? How can we give them what the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, referred to as status, full status as British citizens when they really need it?
What concerns me is that the Government's position in explaining the circumstances in which the guarantee will be honoured is still so obscure without the Bill as to leave members of this minority almost wholly in the dark as to when the guarantee can be honoured.
I asked some questions of the Government, and on 13th January the noble Baroness the Minister gave Written Answers to a series of Questions (Hansard, cols. WA 15-16), but I was really seeking some assurance without the passage of the Bill. The first Question I asked was whether the Government's guarantee to the ethnic minorities of Hong Kong of admission to the UK for settlement,
- "if ever they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong",
I also asked what the Government regarded as sufficient evidence of "pressure to leave Hong Kong" and of "discrimination" and "racial harassment". I asked how the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong could be "secure" in their knowledge of the Government's intentions in the absence of criteria. The Government's Answer was to refer me to the position set out during the Second Reading debate, which frankly clarified none of these points.
The noble Baroness--I realise compelled to do so--stated that the Government have no prescribed detailed criteria for operation of the guarantee, but did not explain why they had failed to give any criteria. Nor did the answers explain how the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong could possibly be secure in the absence of criteria. All that was said was that the Government had undertaken that the operation of the guarantee,
- "will not be interpreted narrowly or restrictively".
I also asked, finally, why the Government had said that they would admit members of the minorities only if,
- "they had nowhere else to go".
- "The guarantee applies only to those with nowhere else to go because members of the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who are not solely British nationals, but hold the nationality of another country, will have the option of going there".
What I would like to know, and I imagine the House would like to know, is why this tiny, vulnerable group are regarded as so unwelcome in this country that they are only to be admitted if they have nowhere else to go. Surely we should be giving the same generous treatment to them as was given, for example, by a previous Conservative Government to Ugandan Asians and that was given also to British Asians from East Africa and elsewhere who came as a result of the odious policy of Africanisation in the late 1960s. But, as has been said, the Government continue to oppose this very modest, very moderate, sensible Bill and leave the position quite uncertain. That seems to me to be the overwhelming reason to put the position clear on the statute book, unless the Government at this stage were willing to do it by an administrative announcement of proper, enforceable criteria. I am sorry to have taken so long, but I hope the position is clear.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should like to join the congratulations that have been given to the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, on the effort he has put into this Bill, on his great commitment and indeed on his success in achieving support on all sides of the House, with the exception of the Government Front Bench.
I regret very much that the Government do not see fit to support this Bill. It is probably not a secret but it is certainly widely believed that the Government are actually divided on this issue. Of course, they always formally speak with one voice, but many of us believe that the views inside the Government are divided and it is only the Home Secretary who is standing out against the Government supporting this Bill.
Listening to the arguments that have been put forward by the Government, I note that one of the points that has been made is that they are afraid that if they grant citizenship to this particular group of people, it will somehow open the doors to similar demands from other groups throughout the world. I would emphatically reject that. These people are in a unique position. We have never before handed a colony over to another country, least of all to a communist run country. In all other instances of decolonisation the countries concerned have been given independence. Therefore, people have been given a particular type of citizenship in the knowledge that they will continue to live in the same country, a country that is now independent and a country that has accepted the basis of the nationality of
some of its people. I refer, for example, to some of the East African countries. But here we have an entirely different situation. We are leaving a small group of people in a very vulnerable position without the basic rights that ought to go with the handover of a territory like Hong Kong to China.If this debate were taking place at a time such that a change of government could bring in new legislation before 1st July it might not be so serious. However, the Minister will know that both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat Party are committed to bringing such legislation in--certainly the Labour Party is, I believe with Liberal Democrat support--should there be a change of government after the election. But the difficulty is that the election is likely to be too late in the day for such legislation to be introduced by an incoming government in time to become law by 1st July. That is why the matter is so urgent and that is why it is important that this Bill goes to the House of Commons with the hope that the Government will have some change of mind and feel able to support it at the eleventh hour.
The numbers concerned are very small. We are talking about some 3,000 individuals. The principle is fundamental and I hope that even at this late hour the Government will show a change of heart.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page