| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Wilson of Tillyorn: My Lords, I briefly reiterate my support for the Bill. Practically everything that could be said about the importance of this issue and the need to deal with it has now been said. With the amendment that has just been passed, the cap is put on measures which are practical and would be effective--and which, incidentally, would not, I believe, lead to the movement of significant numbers of people. Rather, it would give confidence to this group to remain in Hong Kong and continue to contribute to its success, as my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall has said they have done for so long.
We have discussed this matter over a long period, but time is running out for us to be able to deal with it in a way which is practical, effective and honourable. May I at this late stage appeal to the Government that if this Bill is passed by your Lordships' House tonight, if and when it gets to another place they will be prepared to give it a fair wind?
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I have but four brief points to make at this stage. The first is to reiterate the congratulations and sincere thanks of the House to my noble friend Lord Willoughy de Broke for his perseverance and to the memory, as the Liberal Democrat Front Bench said, to the late Lord Bonham-Carter, who instigated the proposal. We owe them both a great debt.
My second point is to my noble friend the Minister. I say how curious I find it that the present Governor of Hong Kong should be so much at odds with a Conservative government on this issue--a government of a party of which he was chairman until the last election. I am sure that my noble friend will, as always, listen most attentively to what is said. I hope that she will pass on to her honourable and right honourable
friends in another place that they should take seriously what not merely eminent past governors but the current Governor of Hong Kong have had to say on this subject.My third point relates to a specific issue. I hope that I am not giving away any confidences, but in correspondence between my noble friend the Minister and my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke under the heading of "The status of British Nationals overseas" it reads:
- "and as solely British nationals they"--
- "will also have British consular protection both in Hong Kong and when travelling overseas".
I know that it was 1981, but I recall taking a fairly active part in the then British Nationality Bill as it went through this House. If my memory is correct, that status lasts for two generations only. What happens to the third generation in view of the previous paragraph in which she mentioned the important safeguard that they can come to the UK if they come under pressure to leave? At that stage they are stateless.
My final point is the same as that made by all noble Lords: this is a very, very small issue. It involves a very small number of people. The "damage" that the Home Office may see in giving the Bill a fair passage is as nothing, but nothing, to the message that the passing of the Bill would give to the people concerned, to Hong Kong in general. We must remember that the Government have said again and again that from 1st July this Parliament, this Palace of Westminster, will not cease to pay close attention to Hong Kong. The message would go to the people of Hong Kong in general. It would go to the People's Republic of China. That is an important point. The message would go to the world at large that the British have not lost their--I know that this is a somewhat cliched comment--sense of justice and fair play. I again ask my noble friend the Minister to consider this seriously and so to recommend to her honourable and right honourable friends.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, I start by giving credit to the Government for what they have done about giving British citizenship to the reasonable demands of the people in Hong Kong. The one exception is the ethnic minority. That is causing resentment and, as the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, said, it could blow up. In these last months of our administration, surely we want to avoid an emotional and raucous row about the passports and nationality of this small but highly influential and admirable group.
The Government should bear in mind that if there were such a row, the large international press corps of Hong Kong would make hay of it to our very great discredit; in other words, this is an issue which, if mishandled, could go seriously wrong. The Bill offers a compassionate and honourable way out. I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I have listened with great care to the points which have been made both in this evening's and in the earlier debates on this Bill and
I fully understand the case which has been made from all sides. I do not in any way underestimate the importance which is attached to this subject. It is abundantly clear that this is a matter on which all your Lordships who have spoken not just tonight but throughout the Bill's stages hold very strong views.The Government are not insensitive to the concerns of the solely British Hong Kong ethnic minorities. It is precisely because we do understand the fears of this community that we have taken the steps we have to offer them the reassurance that, if they come under pressure to leave Hong Kong at any time from next July, they will be admitted to the United Kingdom for settlement. However, we believed, and continue to believe, that it is unnecessary.
I shall not repeat tonight all that has been said previously, other than that the ethnic minorities know that, should they encounter difficulties after the handover, their main concern would be their ability to come to this country, and that is already assured. As British nationals, they would be able to become British citizens after the normal period of residence.
I happen to be a proud parent who watched her daughter pass out as an officer from a military academy. I am happy to say that at the time I was watching she was in step, but I understand the point that my noble friend was making. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I spend a good part of every day answering his questions. He probably has the record in this House for asking questions. In fact I am doing some work on that at the moment. If he is not happy with my answers, and if I have not answered his questions, he should not be reticent in retabling the question or at least contacting me, because tonight is the first occasion on which I have heard that he was unhappy with my answers rather than not agreeing with them, or believed that I had been evasive when answering.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have difficulty about that. I gave detailed questions--too many, perhaps, because they were almost like a questionnaire--and to all of them, the answer was clear: "We will not publish criteria. What we have said is all that we will say." If that is not the position, and if the Government are willing now to publish the criteria, as they would in any other area of life relating to someone's status, so as to create what lawyers call a reasonable expectation that that would be the practice the Government would follow if that minority came under pressure, it would provide at least some real security and safety for that group.
I am sure that my questions made that perfectly clear. If I had thought that there was any hope of the Government doing so, I should have come back again. I am encouraged by the Minister's answer. If she is now saying that they will publish the criteria in more detail, then I am sure that the House would like to know that.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the points I made were in response to two things that the noble Lord said. The first was that I did not answer the questions; and, secondly, that my answers were evasive. I merely said
that it would have been courteous if I had heard that before this evening's debate because I should have gone back. Even if I receive a portmanteau of questions, I do not treat them as a portmanteau. Each question is looked at and is addressed in my answer.I shall address the particular point. I understand what the noble Lord is saying. He is saying that he did not agree with my answers as opposed to saying that I did not answer. When my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made the concessions that he did make, and which he made in a genuine attempt to address the concerns of those people, he said also that he did not agree that we should set down criteria.
It is difficult to be precise in writing about the criteria, which may differ widely. Pressure comes in many ways from many people. He said that, in giving them rights of residence, and ultimately over a period of time, citizenship in this country if they came under pressure, any attempt that has been made to write down the criteria always leaves out the possibility that something has been left out. If the criteria are set out it is difficult for them to be anything other than a guide. It was felt by the Foreign Office and by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he should not do that. It may be that the noble Lord believes that approach to be wrong, but it was a proper explanation. It was mentioned in the Prime Minister's speech, which I repeated on the first occasion when we discussed the Bill. We have referred to it in different ways as we have gone through the Bill and I cannot elaborate on that answer. I am not being evasive; I am saying that the view was arrived at that it would not be wise to write the criteria--
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page