| Home Page |
Column 291
Beaches and Coastline (Regulation)
3.32 pm
Mr. John McFall (Dumbarton) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate and control beaches and coastline ; and for other purposes.
I am presenting the Bill today because of my experience in my constituency, which has extensive beaches and coastline, where during April a voluntary organisation, made up of 500 volunteerss, collected 3,000 plastic bags and burned 20 tonnes of timber. In a month when the European Commission has confirmed that it is beginning legal action against the United Kingdom Government in the European Court of Justice because of dozens of polluted beaches which have failed the EC minimum standards, it is salutary to remember that an EC directive on pollution was introduced in 1975--15 long years ago. Despite that intervening period, we now find that 109 beaches in the United Kingdom fail the sewage test, and that other hazards have been highlighted.
The Bill will address the environmental concerns--and who is not an environmentalist now after witnessing the Prime Minister's indecent haste to become green? I remind hon. Members that in 1982, at the height of the Falklands crisis, the Prime Minister said : "When you've spent half your political life dealing with humdrum issues like the environment, it is exciting to have a real crisis on your hands."
We have a crisis every day on our hands. One therefore has to doubt the Prime Minister's political integrity while she demonstrates touching faith in her Secretary of State for the Environment who has been hauled before the European Court of Justice.
My Bill seeks to amend the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 (Commencement) (No. 1) Order 1988 in order to tighten up the penalties for dumping at sea. The Marine Conservation Society claims that dumping at sea is the main source of marine litter and that an estimated 500,000 plastic containers are dumped daily from merchant ships alone. It is also estimated that more than 100,000 marine mammals and 2 million sea birds are killed each year, due to eating or becoming entangled in marine debris.
My Bill would also institute more and better testing than the United Kingdom now undertakes under the EC directive. There are no standard virus tests. In the absence of such tests, my Bill would provide for testing for salmonella and the various enteroviruses, since these are the most serious risks to people's health that scientists hve demonstrated. The Government are not testing for these viruses on most beaches. Where tests have been carried out, the Government have not included the results for the percentage of beaches that have passed the test.
My Bill would also introduce, for sewage disposal, secondary biological- chemical treatment for all towns with a population of more than 5,000. According to the "Nature" programme in March 1989, the Prime Minister said :
"No raw sewage is discharged round Britain's coasts."
Column 292
I, like many other hon. Members, could take the Prime Minister to my constituency and show her that that statement is not true. There are many questions that one has to ask. Why, as we approach the 21st century, are 300 million gallons of sewage--much of it completely untreated--entering the seas around Britain? The debris is sickening to environmentalists. Dr. Mark Woombs, of the Knotts End study centre near Morecambe, where children come to learn about the environment, said in the Observer magazine of a few weeks ago : "Children come here to learn the difference between biodegradable and non-biodegradable matter. Instead, every time one of them comes back with a small green object which they think is a rare plant species. Unfortunately, I have to tell them what it is--a decomposed turd."My Bill would make it mandatory for signposts to be placed on all designated beaches detailing whether it had passed or failed the bathing water quality standards in the past year. The Bill would also provide for carrying out a proper national survey of the health effects of bathing in contaminated waters. It would also contain a provision for the allocation of £2.5 billion for a capital investment programme to bring Scotland's water and sewerage standards up to those contained in the EC directive. We are keen to ensure that the Scottish water industry receives equality of treatment with that in England and Wales, which received a Government cash injection of £1.02 billion and was allowed to write off £4.5 billion in the run-up to privatisation. It is important that Scotland should be treated in the same way.
I am aware that expense is always uppermost in the Government's mind, but the criterion should be quality, not cost. If, in their privatisation of British Gas, the Government could spend £350 million on telling the British public all about Sid, they can spend a fraction of that sum on telling people that bathing in contaminated water is no good whatsoever for their health. Just like the Government's statements, the odd green pellets that people pick up on the beach are not what they seem at first sight. That is why the need for the Bill is paramount, and that is why I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John McFall, Mr. Alun Michael, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mrs. Maria Fyfe, Mr. George Foulkes, Dr. Norman A. Godman, Dr. Kim Howells, Mr. Brian Wilson, Mr. Thomas Graham, Mr. Paul Flynn and Mrs. Alice Mahon.
Beaches and Coastline (Regulation)
Mr. John McFall accordingly presented a Bill to regulate and control beaches and coastline ; and for other purposes : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6 July and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
Column 293
Orders of the Day
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
New Clause 12
Governor's Annual Report
The Governor of Hong Kong should submit to the Secretary of State an annual report on the discharge by the Governor of his functions under this Act.'.- - [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
3.39 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peter Lloyd) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Speaker : With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 1-- Governor's Annual Report --
The Governor shall submit an annual report to the Secretary of State on the operation of any scheme made under this Act.'. Mr. Lloyd : The Government tabled new clause 12 having seen and approved the intention behind the Opposition's new clause 1. In Committee, we had a useful discussion about how Parliament could keep an eye on the way in which the selection procedures flowing from the Bill and the Orders in Council to follow were progressing under the direction and management of the Governor. In Committee, I said that periodical reports from the Governor to the Home Secretary that would be available to Parliament would be useful.
Both new clauses put that suggestion into legislative form. I hope that Opposition Members will not press their proposal but will support the Government's new clause in preference because it is slightly broader. For instance, new clause 1 would probably not cover registration for wives and spouses. New clause 12 would, by contrast, cover every aspect of the Governor's functions under the legislation. I believe that that extra reach would be welcomed by the House. I am grateful to Opposition Members for their initiative in taking me at my word in Committee and tabling new clause 1, thus providing the Government with an incentive to table new clause 12. I commend it to the House.
Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central) : I am grateful to the Minister for tabling new clause 12. As he said, it is probably an improvement on new clause 1 in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself. It would be useful for the House to be kept informed as to how any scheme introduced by the Bill operates and for the Governor to report formally, as well as informally and through other channels, on how the situation in Hong Kong is progressing. As the Minister said, new clause 12 covers slightly more points than were raised in Committee. It is not just the operation of the points scheme that I want the Governor to consider. It may assist the House if I outline two or three considerations that I believe the Governor should take into account.
The Bill is about the stability of Hong Kong and how the United Kingdom should best behave and react to the
Column 294
changing circumstances there. Individuals and groups of people in Hong Kong are not catered for under the Bill, and we should become more concerned about them as we move towards 1997. The question of spouses will probably be more conveniently dealt with under a later group of amendments, but there are other aspects that the Governor could usefully consider.The Minister himself mentioned the operation of the points system. The Committee dealt with it at some length, and it is not my intention to cover that ground again, though other right hon. and hon. Members may want to do so. Suffice it to say that we have some reservations about the operation of the points system. In particular, we believe that it will cater for only a narrow section of the people living in Hong Kong--those who have other choices before them. People who are left behind or who will not qualify under the points system will feel that the Bill does nothing to reassure them.
I should like the Governor's annual report to include an indication of how the system is working in respect not only of its application but of its effect on the population of Hong Kong as a whole. I should be particularly interested to know whether the jobs left vacant by people leaving Hong Kong are filled by others. A newspaper report two weeks ago indicated that about 40 people applied for each vacancy in the Administration. If that is so, we should be aware of it, so that we can keep our eye on the general position in Hong Kong.
3.45 pm
There are two or three other categories of people not dealt with in the Bill but upon which we touched in Committee. The first group is those with no effective nationality. You, Mr. Speaker, were not able to select our new clause that dealt with this point, and, although it is not my purpose to raise the matter now by another means, I think that I can legitimately touch on the point in this debate, because we are discussing matters that the Governor should take into account when preparing his report.
In Committee, we raised the plight of people who will have no effective nationality after 1997. They are mainly of Indian descent. I know that the Confederation of Indian Organisations has been in touch with the Minister, and that in response to that meeting he wrote to the confederation as follows :
"British nationals have the specific parliamentary assurance given on a number of occasions that if, against all expectation, any solely British national with no claim to Chinese nationality came under severe pressure to leave Hong Kong, the Goverment of the day would be expected to consider with considerable and particular sympathy their case for admission to the United Kingdom. We stand by that assurance."
For the avoidance of doubt, I gave an assurance on behalf of the Labour party in Committee that in the event of our being the Goverment at the time we would give these people the same consideration, unless their position had been dealt with elsewhere. I mention those people because it is all very well to offer them sympathy and assurances, but that may not be of immediate help to them. The Opposition remain concerned that these people, whom the Chinese do not regard as Chinese for obvious reasons, may find
Column 295
themselves in a difficult position, especially if there is any upheaval or internal division in Hong Kong at or about the time that it passes to Chinese control.Indeed, these people are excluded from holding high office under the terms of the agreement with China. I should be grateful if the Minister would give an assurance that the Governor will report on their plight, because if they are in difficulty Parliament should be aware of that, earlier rather than later, so that we can, if necessary, do something about it.
I need hardly remind the House that it is now about 20 years since the east African Asian British passport holders were given assurances following upheavals in east Africa, yet many of them are still waiting to come to this country under the terms of the assurances given by successive Governments. Many of them live in Hong Kong, and this loose end in British immigration law is unsatisfactory ; people are given assurances and told they will be dealt with under an informal or even a formal system but outwith the mainstream immigration regime, yet they find themselves left in the unsatisfactory state of having only travel documents. That is what British overseas citizenship is : it does not give the right of abode anywhere other than in Hong Kong. If these people find themselves in difficulty in Hong Kong, we have an obligation to them.
The Government have said that an assurance has been given to these people, but I submit that it is not much of an assurance. The Select Committee that went to Hong Kong last year specifically raised this problem and recommended that the Government deal with it. I mentioned two other categories with whom the Governor should deal. First, the House should be kept informed of the way in which section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 works. As the Committee heard, 180,000 people are in Crown service in Hong Kong. There have been 540 applications for citizenship under this section of the Act, of which only nine have been granted because only nine qualified under the terms of that subsection.
The Minister gave an assurance in Committee that section 4(5) would work alongside this measure, and I think that the Governor should report each year on the operation of the subsection and on whether any amendments to it need to be made. This is especially important, since Crown servants are to be relied on to keep Hong Kong going and sometimes put themselves in difficult positions because of that, so we should not turn our backs on them.
Finally, the Governor must deal with the issue of children. In Committee we did not manage to persuade the Government that children who are wholly dependent on parents but who are not minors should in some circumstances be granted citizenship so that they will not be left behind. I have in mind, for example, a family with three children, two aged 14 and 12 and one perhaps aged 19. If the 19-year-old were dependent on his or her mother or father--perhaps he was handicapped, or just living in the family unit, as children do in all parts of the world--it would be manifestly unfair if that family had to come to this country and leave one child behind. If the object of the Bill is to provide assurances and to anchor people in Hong Kong, it seems an odd way of anchoring people if one child must be left behind.
I said that family unity and the way in which minor children are referred to in the immigration rules and regulations needs consideration, because the United
Column 296
Kingdom is no longer in harmony even with EC regulations, where the age is 21 and not 18. That must be considered specifically with Hong Kong in mind, although clearly it might have other repercussions. We are told that Hong Kong is a special case, and I accept that, but the Bill remains deficient in many respects. Many people living in Hong Kong have a need to be looked after rather than a pure economic need, or are in a position where it would be economically more advantageous to keep them in Hong Kong. I am concerned that I am continuing to hear reports that many of the people who will qualify under the Bill will also qualify to go to Canada, Australia and other countries. We are forgetting, or leaving behind, those who may find themselves in difficulty as we approach 1997.Lest there be any misunderstanding, I reiterate that it remains the hope and wish of every hon. Member that conditions in China and Hong Kong will continue to improve, that the problems of 12 months ago will not recur and that the same transformation will take place on that side of the world as has taken place in Europe, particularly eastern Europe, over the past few years. We must guard against the possibility of things not going as we wish.
If new clause 1 is not accepted, I hope that the Governor will deal with those points, in recognition of the fact that there are genuine concerns among those who care not only about Hong Kong but about how the scheme will work, particularly in relation to those people whom it will not directly affect.
Mr. John Butcher (Coventry, South-West) : I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). The House hopes that circumstances will change and will evolve on mainland China, rendering the fallback positions enshrined in the Bill either irrelevant or unnecessary.
I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak to the new clause, which deals with the functions and duties of the Governor. It is an improvement to a certain extent, because it at least improves the channels of accountability to the House. None the less, I have grave misgivings about its workings and the criteria that the Governor will be asked to bear in mind. It is difficult to set yardsticks by which we measure our definition of the great and good residents of Hong Kong. Many hon. Members find that exercise morally excruciating and difficult to reach a firm view about, because we are being asked to do something that has proved virtually impossible in previous immigration laws and Acts of citizenship, not only in Britain but in other parts of the world.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West) : Does not it also introduce a wholly new idea and basis for immigration? It does not say that people may come to Britain because of their attachment to it, their desire to serve it or to throw in their lot with its people ; it allows them to come here precisely because they are, or may be, useful to Hong Kong.
Mr. Butcher : My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, but there is a piece of hard data that goes a long way towards answering his question. We see from the criteria that 50 points out of a total of 800 are to be awarded for "British links". Presumably that is the measurement by the Government and the Governor of the strength of loyalty that these citizens may have to the United Kingdom. I
Column 297
should have thought that, with a measure of 50 points out of 800, we can already see the pitfalls that lie in wait for anyone who tries to establish measures by which these people will be seen as worthy citizens of the United Kingdom should things go wrong in the colony. The concept of loyalty is an equally difficult concept to enshrine in these criteria and one that I have never seen in any legislation. I am talking about the broader loyalties of a Foreign Secretary in conjunction with the Governor to those who may be under threat in the colony of Hong Kong if things go wrong and about a couple of loyalties which will not enter into the Governor's consciousness but which Conservative Members must maintain--loyalty to our party's manifesto and supporters, and loyalty to the nation. As our party has said many times, we want good community and intra-community relationships to exist and the surety that there will be an end to primary immigration.We in this country have a moral obligation to those who will be under threat if the mainland Chinese do not honour the traditions and liberties of Hong Kong residents. Amendment No. 42, which may be discussed later in greater detail, expresses a genuine intention to define those people who may be at risk. It refers to people being "(a) in the opinion of the Governor, likely to be in danger of reprisals for services rendered to the Crown before 30th June 1997, (b) liable to become stateless after the transfer of sovereinty over Hong Kong on 30th June 1997."
Estimates have been made of the number of people in the so-called "sensitive" categories, including one estimate of 6,300 people. I do not know of any of my hon. Friends who do not recognise the Government's moral responsibility to those people. We may be talking about people who have served in the intelligence service or have been members of certain branches of the police force ; but what about the people from more mundane professions who may be in a sensitive position if the mainland Chinese so deem it?
Is a schoolteacher any less of a good citizen or any less loyal to his fellow citizens in Hong Kong or to his links with the United Kingdom than a wealthy employment and wealth creator in Hong Kong? Who is more worthy? How many times have we had debates in the House about the relative merits of certain categories in society? Do we not talk many times about the extent to which we could not create wealth in this country and the extent to which there would not be rich entrepreneurs and job providers if there were no decent trainers and educators to provide the human feedstock and the skills required to generate a dynamic economy?
Mr. Tony Marlow (Northampton, North) : My hon. Friend wisely, caringly and sympathetically outlined the relative problem that schoolteachers may face. Perhaps I may illustrate his point. Schoolteachers in Hong Kong probably now teach versions and elements of British history. We have a changing regime in China ; it is to be hoped that it will become more benign, but it may remain much as it is at the moment. If that happens, the teaching of British history in schools in Hong Kong may be regarded by the Chinese authorities as subversive. Although a teacher who has been teaching history under the existing regime may not be as wealthy or potentially as
Column 298
useful in the United Kingdom as some other citizens, he or she may be at a greater risk than them after 1997 if the Chinese Government develops as we hope they will not but as they could in adverse circumstances.4 pm
Mr. Speaker : Before the hon. Member for Coventry, South-West (Mr. Butcher) answers that intervention, I should point out that it seems to go very wide of the new clause. The hon. Gentleman must not raise points that may have been raised on Second Reading or allude, as he did a moment ago, to amendments that are to be called later.
Mr. Butcher : I am grateful to you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I should reassure you and my hon. Friends that I have undertaken not to detain the House for more than 10 minutes, so it would not be in my interests to stray too far from the new clause.
Having noted the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), I return to the criteria. A major problem lies at the heart of those criteria, which create a set of excruciatingly difficult dilemmas for the Governor, no matter how often he reports to the House through the Foreign Secretary. He is being asked to create lifeboats for key people in Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is a vessel full of people. What signal will the Governor be giving to the generality of the people of Hong Kong if he says, "Lifeboats are available only for 50,000 citizens"? How is that supposed to improve the morale of the ship's complement? That is the Governor's difficulty, and that is why I shall have grave difficulty in supporting the Government in the Lobby tonight.
The criteria are muddled. They illustrate the central moral dilemma that we have unnecessarily imposed upon ourselves, having already constructed criteria in the British Nationality Act 1981. If the proposals remain unchanged, in two or three years' time my hon. Friends on the Front Bench will have to live with some of the idiocies that the criteria entail, and although the controversy about the Bill may not be great this afternoon, the Bill will provide a framework in which we may face immense problems in three or four years' time. At that point, it will be too late for the House to reconsider its moral responsibilities, its loyalties or the practicalities of the Bill. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is genuine in his intentions, and I hope that, even at this late stage, he will consider the dilemma with which he will be confronting his successors as we move towards 1997.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : As long as it remains the responsibility of the Government to look after all the people of Hong Kong, it will be possible for Britain to take a decision about their future that may benefit them, without regard to the present provisions. It will be possible for the Government to reverse their decision and for legislative provision to be made to back up any change of course that may be necessary between now and 1997.
We must address ourselves to the limited scope of the scheme and to its adequacy and consider whether the Governor's annual report on his functions, as provided in the new clause, would make a significant contribution. In
Column 299
my view, it is an acceptable new clause, but it does not go very far because it confines the Governor to reporting on his functions under the Bill.The Governor's functions, according to the Bill, are no doubt capable of causing great trouble in respect of all those people who will be disappointed by the fact that they are excluded from the scheme for which the Governor and the Government will be responsible. None the less, those people are concerned about their future. If the Governor's report is intended simply to record how the scheme has operated, it will not tell us a great deal about Hong Kong or its political needs. It will certainly not greatly serve to underpin the Governor's difficult position in that country.
The new clause does not deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the difficult position of people who may well prove to be stateless following 1997. Those people may not enjoy the security of a right of abode in this country or the right to a proper passport entitling them to a right of abode anywhere or a right to be recognised as citizens of the People's Republic of China. They are not specifically provided for in the Bill. The Governor will have no duty to report on that predicament.
Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman has referred to stateless people in Hong Kong. Will he be kind enough to give us his impression of how many such people there are in Hong Kong, how they got to Hong Kong in the first place, and to what extent, given the different categories of people who are stateless in Hong Kong, the British Government and the British people have any responsibility for them?
Mr. Maclennan : Many are recent immigrants and some arrived in Hong Kong a long time ago. Many have come from the Indian sub-continent and there are many thousands of them. Representations have been made to many Members of this House about their predicament. They are not catered for specifically and the Government have not made any provision that will reassure them. That is a serious matter, and it is shown by the fact that the People's Republic of China, in its treaty arrangement with this Government, has not undertaken to recognise those people even as citizens of the People's Republic. The anxieties of that section of the community, for whom we have responsibility, are real and legitimate.
Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman is implying that some of the stateless persons in Hong Kong are possibly illegal immigrants. If that is the case, to what extent do we have responsibility for them?
Mr. Maclennan : If I had felt that that was the case, I would not have implied it ; I would have said it. Those people are in Hong Kong and they are legally resident there. However, they do not enjoy a proper prospect of citizenship following 1997. It is frankly deplorable that a British Government, at the end of empire, should walk out on those people. I am addressing the matter in the context of the requirement of a report from the Governor about his functions. I stress that that report will be narrow and will not enable us to consider what else should and must be done.
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) must be aware that we are not debating a fallback position. The provision will come into operation immediately. It does not depend on a change of
Column 300
circumstances in Peking or anywhere else. It is being brought forward now to deal with the present concern of the people of Hong Kong that Hong Kong's economy will be disrupted and the prospects of prosperity undermined if there is an exodus of people in sensitive positions in industry and commerce. Those people want the scheme on which the Government will be required to report to be drawn up quickly. They do not want to wait to see what is coming down the pike or to see whether the Peking Government become like Governments in eastern Europe. They want an assurance now. That is what the Governor will be reporting on.This proposal is not a great concession. It is a narrow point. Although it is not something that I would dream of opposing, we must regard it for what it is--a pretty thin concession.
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : I welcome the new clause. Without any offence to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I have no fear about the effect of any of the measures in the Bill on British immigration policy. That is no part of my argument, and even though I have had representations from my constituents, I hope that I can take as honourable a view as I took at the time of the issue of the Ugandan Asians.
We are dealing with the annual report of the Governor and the way in which he will discharge his functions when the Bill becomes an Act. Therefore, we must recognise that the Bill is a response by her Majesty's Government to events in Peking last year as they were perceived in Hong Kong to be likely to affect the welfare of the territory in future. People in Hong Kong would have been less than human had they not been undoubtedly alarmed and concerned about what was going on in the north and the likely implications for their life style in future.
Although my hon. Friend the Minister is a Home Office Minister, I hope that he will accept that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot be totally divorced from either the contents of this legislation or the Governor's report. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will agree that relations between Hong Kong and the People's Republic of China--and, equally important, relations between her Majesty's Government and the People's Republic of China--are an essential fact of life and must be an essential component of the Governor's report to the House, as proposed in the new clause. The report and the legislation flow directly from the 1984 joint agreement. That is the basis of legislation determining the relations of the future status of Hong Kong. Under that agreement, the British and Chinese Governments are committed to maintaining the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong. My concern about the legislation has always been that, rather than maintaining stability, it may do just the reverse.
There will undoubtedly be further changes in China between now and 1997. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) will allow me to make two points that he has made succinctly and forcefully many times, and which are of fundamental importance to the way in which we look to the future of Hong Kong.
First, there never has been any form of democratic regime in China. There probably in our lifetimes--
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington) : Nor in Hong Kong, for that matter.
Column 301
Mr. Adley : I shall refer to that point in a moment.There has never been any form of democratic regime in China, and the welfare, stability and prosperity of Hong Kong have never depended upon there being any form of democratic regime in China. However bestial one may perceive Chinese Governments to have been from time to time--it is quite arguable whether the present Government are more or less bestial than their predecessors--it is a fact of life that has always governed relations between Britain and China and between Hong Kong and China.
Secondly, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has said from a sedentary position, there has never been any form of democracy in Hong Kong. Many of the unelected
people--sometimes rudely known as "fat cats"--who purport to speak for the 5 million or 6 million people of Hong Kong probably have rather less knowledge of how the hawker in the back streets of Hong Kong thinks or what his concerns are than we may sometimes be led to believe.
On the Governor's report, we must recognise that the commitment of both Governments to prosperity and stability relate not only to how we and the people of Hong Kong regard the influence of this agreement on their lives, but how the people of China--the Government of China, in particular--regard the effect of this legislation on their commitment to the maintainance of prosperity and stability. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South will agree that some people who recognise the essential truth may have doubts about the following proposition. My right hon. Friend would agree that the welfare of the people of Hong Kong has always been best served when there have been good relations between the British and Chinese Governments. There has never been advantage to the welfare of the people of Hong Kong when Britain and China have been at loggerheads.
If one accepts that proposition, I am bound to say that the fact that the Bill was produced without any consultation between the British and Chinese Governments, or without the Chinese Government even being informed of Her Majesty's Government's intention to introduce the legislation, is not the best way to ensure the maintenance of good and stable relations between the two countries on which, at the moment and for the foreseeable future, the welfare of the people of Hong Kong depends.
I am worried that the issuance of passports under the Bill will deprive many Hong Kong citizens of their rights as Chinese citizens. I hope that I am not out of order if, in the light of the wording of the new clause, I remind the House of certain aspects of the two memoranda relating to passports and status which were attached to the 1984 agreement. I have the impression that not every hon. Member is entirely familiar with them.
4.15 pm
The first was submitted by the British Government and includes the following proposition : "All persons who on 30 June 1997 are, by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong, British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) under the law in force in the United Kingdom will cease to be BDTCs with effect from 1 July 1997, but will be eligible to retain an appropriate status which, without conferring the right of abode in the United Kingdom, will entitle them to continue to use passports issued by the Government of the United Kingdom."
Column 302
The Chinese Government's brief response includes the following : "Under the Nationality Law of the People's Republic of China, all Hong Kong Chinese compatriots, whether they are holders of the British Dependent Territories Citizens' Passport' or not, are Chinese nationals.Taking account of the historical background of Hong Kong and its realities, the competent authorities of the Government of the People's Republic of China will, with effect from 1 July 1997, permit Chinese nationals in Hong Kong who were previously called British Dependent Territories Citizens' to use travel documents issued by the Government of the United Kingdom for the purpose of travelling to other states and regions."
As both the British and Chinese Governments signed and accepted those memoranda, it is inconceivable that a British or Chinese Government could have introduced this legislation without recognising that they influence at least the spirit and, quite possibly, even the letter of the 1984 agreement. What has always worried me about the legislation and the way in which it has been handled is that, in the eyes of the Chinese Government, the British Government appear deliberately to have abused both the spirit and the letter of the 1984 agreement. That does not serve the people of Hong Kong well.
Mr. Marlow : The Government have said that their objective in the Bill is to keep people, particularly influential and important people, in Hong Kong. Many people who oppose the Bill fear that it will have the opposite effect. So far, the Chinese authorities have made straightforward statements, but if they make it clear that if any Hong Kong Chinese who accepts British citizenship under the provisions of the Bill will not be allowed to stay in Hong Kong or China after 1997, it will drive people out of Hong Kong.
Is it appropriate or right to allow a Governor in his report to react to circumstances in China which would lead him to believe that the provisions already in the Bill would cause people to leave Hong Kong, having the completely contrary effect to the Government's intention? Should he include that in his report and, if so, should Parliament be able to do something about it?
Mr. Adley : My hon. Friend makes a sound point. It is likely that the Chinese Government would deduce that people who take up their right to passports are, in effect, giving up their right to Chinese nationality, and therefore face the choice of either remaining in Hong Kong stateless or coming to the United Kingdom. Nobody is likely to want to take the chance of remaining in a country stateless. There is a real risk that the Bill will encourage people to leave Hong Kong.
My anxieties have nothing to do with my views on British immigration policy. I am worried about the effect of such an event on Hong Kong. There have always been many people leaving Hong Kong regularly for elsewhere in the world.
Mr. James Hill (Southampton, Test) : Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Adley : I will answer my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) first, and then I shall give way.
There has always been a regular outflow of people. Clearly, it is bound to fluctuate from time to time, but inevitably the constitutional changes that will take place in 1997 will create a great deal of uncertainty. In his annual report the Governor should address the likelihood that,
Column 303
when the Bill becomes an Act, instead of a regular flow of people from Hong Kong, there will be a risk of creating a flood. I do not use that word to be abusive or to imply that there will be a flood of people to Britain. However, there could be a flood or haemorrhage of people from Hong Kong all at one go.If one is trying to maintain the stability of a territory, in what worse way could one go about it than introducing legislation that risks creating a sudden haemorrhage of large numbers of people at one time?
| Next Section
| Home Page |