House of Commons Hansard Debates for 13 Jun 1990

Mr. Peter Lloyd : I cannot go beyond my right hon. and learned Friend's assurance, because it was intended to cover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said, Eurasians and other Asians--the ethnic minorities in Hong Kong who may not have Chinese citizenship after 1997. Who they will be is unclear because those who have Chinese citizenship is not something for us to determine--it is a matter for the People's Republic of China. Those belonging to the ethnic minorities who are not included and who are legitimately in Hong Kong not only have the opportunity of becoming British overseas citizens, as I described earlier, with their situation guaranteed under the joint declaration, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear--and I am happy to repeat now--that if pressure is put upon them despite the joint declaration and their rights

Column 316

under it, and if it became difficult for them to lead their lives in Hong Kong, we would look most carefully at any claim to right of settlement here, outside the rules.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor (Upminster) : I am by no means satisfied that those who will have British overseas passports and British overseas status after 1997 will be welcome in Hong Kong. The Chinese are not noted for their welcome of other ethnic groups within their own society. I have no reason to believe that the Chinese Government will take a particularly sympathetic view of the presence of the Indian members of the Hong Kong community after 1997.

It is unfortunate that the Government have come to the House today without being able to give precise figures for how many such people there will be. We have a duty to bring them here if we have to do so, so I fear that we may expect substantial extra numbers after 1997, over and above those catered for in the Bill, to whom we shall have to offer homes in this country. It is important for the House to know how many people there may be, and that that estimate should be incorporated in the overall total being considered today, rather than have us return to those people at a later stage--as I warn the House we shall inevitably have to do.

It is extremely important that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary reports regularly to the House, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West, (Mr. Madden) suggested, when the Governor reports to him. Nothing in the Bill says that he has to do so. I should like a categorical assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Home Secretary will report at least annually in detail to the House on what he has been told by the Governor. That is the least assurance that the House should seek.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : If my hon. Friend is saying that there should be an annual report made by the Governor to our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and that it should be available to the House, that is exactly what new clause 12 will achieve.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I am delighted to hear it. Perhaps I misunderstand the new clause. I thought that it only required the Governor to report to the Home Secretary--but if I have misunderstood the new clause, I am delighted.

It is also extremely important that the Governor should report on the speed and percentage of take-up in each category. I share the belief of the hon. Member for Bradford, West that there will be a sense of urgency among those in Hong Kong to make their applications for inclusion in the categories-- not least because of the number of applications likely to be made against the number of available places. As soon as the Bill becomes an Act, the Government will face a deluge of applications. There is a great danger that, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary comes to the House next year with the Governor's first report, all 50,000 places will have been filled, which would be a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister agrees. 5.15 pm

I again ask my hon. Friend to tell the House what guidance will be given to the Governor on the speed which he should fill the available places. If the scheme is to be

Column 317

successful, and if it is to be spread among the people whom we are attempting to benefit and to persuade to remain in Hong Kong, there must be an annual quota.

Residents aged 30 to 40 are more than likely to have young teenage children. My understanding is that, as soon as those children reach 18, they will cease to qualify under the Bill and therefore will be separated from their families, should their families decide to come to this country to live. That cannot be something that the Government envisage. It would impose enormous extra pressure on any Hong Kong citizen with a BDTC passport who wants to make an application under the scheme. If residents have children who will shortly be 18, they will rush to make an application.

When one considers the number of people involved against the number of places available, it is horrifying to think that anyone would seriously propose that the scheme have a stabilising effect on Hong Kong. I refer to the guidance on the working of the Act, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) attempted, rightly, to have incorporated in the Bill. Unfortunately, that amendment is not before the House today.

In the business and management category, 342,800 people are eligible under the scheme, but only 19,703 will be allocated places. In engineering, there are 57,300 possible candidates but only 3,230 places. In medicine and science, 44,700 would qualify but only 2,584 would be offered places. Members of my old profession, lawyers, will do particularly badly. Less than 1 per cent. of the 3,700 eligible will be allocated one of the 323 places. [ Hon. Members :-- "Too many".] I agree that we could do without further competition, but how will it stabilise the legal profession in Hong Kong if only 323 of their number will be offered passports? I await with breathless excitement to hear how my hon. Friend the Minister will satisfy me on that point.

The Governor will also have to report on the categories for residents in sensitive service and in the disciplined services. The number of places stated in the Bill to be available to those who have given outstanding service to the Crown, and who might be in danger if they remain in Hong Kong after 1997, is 6,300. Where does that figure come from? Is my hon. Friend the Minister satisfied that 6,300 is the number of heads of households who fall into that category? Nothing in the Second Reading or Committee debates, which I read in great detail, sets out how that figure of 6,300 was arrived at.

Mr. Butcher : If the House accepts that the 50,000 places will be rapidly allocated and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) will be among those asking for more categories of people to be admitted, are we not debating the beginning of the minimum bid, from which the bidding will go up when we come to debate the Governor's reports in years to come?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I agree. When the 50,000 places have been filled and an awful lot of people in categories to which places clearly must be allocated have been left, then the 50,000 which the Government have undertaken as a maximum will have to be breached. That is one of the reasons why I am worried and why it is essential that regular reports to this House show how we are progressing, so that we can take whatever steps are necessary either to allow more people in--I would find

Column 318

that difficult--or somehow to stem the flood in other categories and to alter the way in which we choose those who will come.

I hope that the Minister will tell me how the 6,300 figure miraculously appeared and how--there is nothing in the memorandum to tell us--if there are more than 6,300 in this category, a choice will be made between them. If I read the memorandum correctly, the points system does not apply to this group.

The points system does apply, however, to the disciplined services. Seven thousand places have been allocated to those services, spread across eight separate services on a proportional basis. Here, too, it is inconceivable that many of these services will have enough allocated places to satisfy the demand or to stabilise the position in Hong Kong, the latter being one of the two fundamental requirements that the Government seek to meet in the Bill. I am sorry to say that I am profoundly disturbed by the proposal that the memorandum should be adopted, but I welcome the new clause, because it will at least give the House a regular report on how the measure is being implemented.

Mr. George Walden (Buckingham) : I have followed my hon. Friend's argument, which he has expressed with a certain elegant scepticism, but I am left wondering what the logical conclusion of it is. It seems to me that it can either be that more people ought to be offered more places or that no one ought to be offered any places, which brings us back to the Government's point of view.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor : I am grateful to my hon. Friend ; sad to say, the amendment that I tabled has not been chosen by Mr. Speaker, so I cannot enlighten my hon. Friend on what the correct solution is. In my view, there are two categories that we have an honourable commitment to allow into this country : first, people who have done service that will put them in danger after 1997. I have dealt with them in some detail. Secondly, there are those who will be left stateless or with inadequate passports after 1997-- especially people from the Indian subcontinent, about whom I spoke earlier. If we gave the right of abode and citizenship to those two categories, we would fulfil our commitment to Hong Kong and the commitment that the Government have given to the people of this country, which was outlined so eloquently on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). In that way, we should avoid flooding this country with immigrants from other places, given that we are an overcrowded island experiencing great difficulties already with assimilating the immigrants whom we have taken in in the past 30 years.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford) : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Lloyd) for tabling the new clause in answer to some of the debates that took place in Committee. I admire the courteous and professional way in which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, North (Mr. Maude) conducted our debates in Committee, which greatly helped the passage of the Bill. Although I welcome an annual report, it has already been pointed out that the new clause is deficient, in that the report is to the Secretary of State, not necessarily to

Column 319

Parliament. So the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) will not get his way if the new clause is passed without amendment. Such a report may well go to the Secretary of State for the Home Department ; the Home Department is not known for releasing the least bit of information that could possibly be classified as confidential. I very much doubt whether the report will see the light of day outside a few offices and desks in the Home Department--unless the Home Office carries out what I understood to be an undertaking from the Minister that he would present the report to the House. That presentation and the report's contents are important.

If I understand the Government's argument aright, the report will contain no reference to categories of people not accommodated under the Bill--the Eurasian and Indian population, and the spouses who will be dealt with in an amendment to be moved later. Categories not dealt with in the Bill will be dealt with exactly as they would be under the British Nationality Act 1981. So the categories for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), in a caring and understandable way, sought exemption cannot possibly be included in such a report.

The argument that they should be accommodated by the Bill and dealt with in the annual report is symptomatic of the chaos that the Bill will create in Hong Kong because of the jealousies and hard feelings that will be generated when one person is selected and another is not. One category, for whom we have already heard special pleading on the Floor of the House, will not be accommodated by the Bill. The whole process of trying to select one person in preference to another is divisive and will profoundly undermine confidence in the future of Hong Kong.

Mr. Butcher : Is not the House coming to a general agreement that the Bill is custom designed to alienate more people than it placates? Are we not setting in train a series of rather unpleasant rows for the remaining years until 1997? Is this a way to draw up legislation and immigration and community relations policy in the colony? Will we not have to come back to the House in coming years for rows about categories of people who have not been successful, about further categories that should be considered and about further numbers? Surely the House should think again, even at this late stage, about the time-bomb that we are priming for future rows?

Mr. Wells : My hon. Friend is entirely right, and it will be worse than he has said. Although there is no appeal process, the people of Hong Kong are well educated and perfectly capable of sending letters. Most of those whom I have met--some of them from humble

backgrounds--are capable, for instance, of writing to my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South to outline their dissatisfaction, which I am sure he would then bring to the attention of Ministers.

I believe that the Minister introduced the idea of the annual report because of the constitutional outrage contained in clause 1(1), which specifies :

"the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens up to 50,000 persons recommended to him for that purpose by the Governor of Hong Kong".

It is quite wrong that a governor in a colonial country should be able to register people as British citizens without reference to an elected Minister who is responsible to this House.

Column 320

By introducing the annual report--I trust the Minister's undertaking that he will produce it for the House's inspection and debate, but that is not certain--the Minister will be accountable for the actions and decisions taken by the Governor and his appointed sub-committees. That is an outrageous innovation, to which we shall regret. That is the kind of ingenious and generous way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham has tried to meet the point. The Bill is difficult for him. He finds it difficult to change one jot or iota because of the consequences of so doing for immigration policy, particularly the interpretation of our law as enshrined in the British Nationality Act 1981.

5.30 pm

I hope that the report will state how many people applied for British citizenship, how many were refused and why they were refused. Many of these applications will be made by private sector companies and groups and even by people within the civil service, but there will be no explanation of why others have been left out. That will cause much resentment, and I hope that the report will explain why they have been left out.

Equally, the report should say how many people have been accepted and why they were accepted. The Bill has a specific purpose--to retain those in the service of the Government or of private sector businesses in Hong Kong. We need to know why they were offered British citizenship. We want to know how many people stayed, having been offered British citizenship in Hong Kong. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South and many people from OMELCO--I am glad to see that we welcomed the leader of OMELCO--believe that, once people have been granted British citizenship, they will remain in Hong Kong. But someone with young children who wishes them to continue their education will wish to move to Britain soon after they receive citizenship.

We should see whether the Bill is working as the Government said it would-- whether it is retaining those people in Hong Kong up to 1997 and beyond. Surely the argument is they should stay beyond 1997 and continue the amazing success of Hong Kong.

Mr. Tebbit : My hon. Friend is on the verge of making a point that has not been picked up by every hon. Member. Once these people are granted British passports, they are British citizens, but we would have no record of whether they have come to live in Britain, because we do not keep a record of British passport holders entering Britain. All we would know is whether they had left Hong Kong. We would not know where they had gone, whether they were intent on staying away or whether they intended to reside here. Many of them will be highly talented people, which is why they are being selected.

I can imagine the advertisements in the Hong Kong newspapers from British companies, once it is known that they have British passports, seeking to recruit them to work in Britain. They would be good employees for those British companies and they would have the right of abode here because they would be full British citizens. The door would be wide open for massive emigration from Hong Kong--the complete opposite of what the Government say they want.

Mr. Wells : My right hon. Friend is entirely right, and shares my concern. These people, once they have a British passport enabling them to travel freely, will have the

Column 321

opportunity to offer their services to many of the highest bidding companies not only in this country but elsewhere in the world. We have been assured by the Minister that the Hong Kong Government keep a record of those leaving the colony and of their destination, but they would not know whether they got off the plane on the way back to Britain or, as my right hon. Friend says, whether they had arrived here and are still here. It is essential that the report records those who have stayed in Hong Kong and those who have not, so that we can judge whether the Government's action is working as they said it would.

As we all know, the success of Hong Kong depends not on our giving 50,000 heads of households a British passport and citizenship but on the development of relations with China. If the purpose of the Bill is to try to reinforce confidence in the future of Hong Kong, the annual report should record and detail how relationships have been conducted between Hong Kong and China, not only at ministerial level, about which I hope we will hear, but at official level. With robust, continuous and persuasive effort and contact with the Chinese Government, confidence will build and hon. Members will be able to ascertain whether the Hong Kong Government are fulfilling the job we expect them to do--to try to get on with China, for the benefit of Hong Kong's future, as well as they can. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley).

The Bill's success will depend on whether the Government of Hong Kong have made the right proposals for democracy and a directly elected legislature in Hong Kong to replace the British Government, who have provided the Government in Hong Kong so successfully over the years. The successful functioning of that body and the participation of the Hong Kong people in leadership decisions will ensure that Hong Kong continues to operate as a capitalist enclave under democratic government, as the agreement of 1984, which we are treaty-bound to honour, sets out.

Mr. Adley : Hong Kong has succeeded despite there being no worthwhile democratic institutions there. As a matter of debate, will my hon. Friend comment on two points? First, why would changing that improve Hong Kong? Secondly, as the joint agreement calls for the maintenance of stability and prosperity, why does my hon. Friend think that fundamental change to the democratic institutions is in accord with the 1984 agreement?

Mr. Wells : Let me take the last point first. We are committed, by the treaty, to an elected legislative assembly and an elected or indirectly elected president or chief executive. Hong Kong has not had a directly elected assembly, and I have been a critic of that for many years, without success.

I have not been successful because the Hong Kong formula has worked. It has worked because those administering Hong Kong on behalf of the Crown have been responsible to this Chamber through the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. It has been possible to change the chief executive and the Civil Service. That offered an in-built means of preventing corruption from taking place. The tradition and culture of officials of the Hong Kong Government who are of British origin

Column 322

were also in-built. For that reason, they built houses and took account of the social conditions of Hong Kong, which is why we can see the culture and social ideas that have been a feature of this country repeated in Hong Kong. That is part of the great success of Hong Kong. Hong Kong's present problem is how to replace that. It must be done by treaty, democracy and a directly elected assembly.

Mr. Walden : Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be a little unfair to criticise the Government, as has been done implicitly or explicitly by both sides of the House, for provoking the Chinese by giving 50,000 passports to their future citizens and at the same time criticise the Government for not provoking the Chinese by moving towards democracy much faster than Peking wants and, incidentally, risking destabilisation of Hong Kong on a much broader and deeper scale than is risked by the Bill?

Mr. Wells : I do not accept that analysis. I am confused about the reason why the Government are prepared to offend the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government have issued press releases and sent letters saying that they regard this action as, in spirit, an abrogation of the treaty that they signed. They believe that we are not working in accordance with the spirit of the agreements. On the other hand, the British Government are not prepared to press the Chinese Government on the issue of democracy. When the Foreign Affairs Select Committee visited Peking, we went into this question in great detail, and the result is recorded in the Committee's report. Just before the events in Tiananmen square, the Chinese Government said that they were prepared to let democracy develop at the speed at which those in Hong Kong wanted it to develop. After Tiananmen square--I am not saying that it was a little lily-livered and in two minds before then-- OMELCO came forward with support for the establishment of democracy on a much faster time scale than has now been agreed.

I can only welcome the assertions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs that he will work to persuade Chinese Ministers to accelerate that programme so that there is a directly elected assembly and directly elected chief executive before 1997, so that the people of Hong Kong can begin to breathe life and credibility into those institutions and fulfil the work of governing Hong Kong democratically. I hope that progress on that democracy, which is essential for confidence in the future of Hong Kong, will be reported upon.

There should be a report on the economy and the way in which the private sector is acting. Much of the Bill has been stimulated by the private sector in Hong Kong being unwilling, understandably, to have some of the crucial skilled people and leaders in companies leave. I should like to be able to test the private sector's commitment to the future of Hong Kong. I should like to see in the report a paragraph stating how many of those people continue to reside and trade in Hong Kong, how many of the companies have sought different places for their headquarters and the extent to which these people, who are asking us to make this sacrifice, are prepared to make sacrifices for confidence in Hong Kong's future.

It is essential that we get the emigration numbers straight, and this should be clear in the report. There is

Column 323

confusion, as the House has demonstrated. Looking at the numbers purely in raw terms, the emigration figures this year are down compared with last year. Emigration from Hong Kong has always taken place, but in making a judgment on these matters, it is important to consider the categories emigrating. Whether the Bill is a success or not will depend on whether that emigration is stemmed and whether it is stemmed in particular categories.

The report must include a record of the Chinese Government's attitude to the future of Hong Kong. The future of Hong Kong and its people rests increasingly with the attitude, work and

confidence-building measures of the Chinese Government to build Hong Kong under two systems, one country.

5.45 pm

Mr. Timothy Raison (Aylesbury) : I share the surprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not appear to have any final power to override the Governor's recommendations as to who might be admitted. I am surprised that the Home Office agreed to that. I should have thought that there were circumstances in which such a power would be necessary. I should like to hear an explanation from my hon. Friend the Minister as to why this provision is not included in the Bill.

I should like to comment on what I believe would be an important part of a report from the Governor. The idea of such a report is welcome and I am glad that the report is to be made available to the House. When the Government first published their scheme, I was concerned because, in 1981, I had been heavily involved in the passage of the British Nationality Bill.

The principle embodied in that legislation was that British citizenship was to be based on a number of criteria, all of which implied close involvement in Britain. Those criteria were birth, descent, residence or marriage, and descent did not stretch far back into the past. I was afraid that the scheme might be used as a convenience by people in Hong Kong who would see it as a way of, to put it crudely, establishing a bolthole, and who would come to Britain to exercise their citizenship but might then disappear fairly rapidly for other parts of the world. That seemed to be a problem and a sense in which the scheme might be out of line with the philosophy behind the British Nationality Bill.

I was relieved, therefore, when the Government included in the legislation the provision that spouses and children--the dependants of those who were to be given passports--would be classified as British citizens by descent. That meant that, at least if they went overseas, they would not have the same power to pass on citizenship to the next generation and we would therefore not see the proliferation, which I feared, of British citizens living in many parts of the world who had no real links with the United Kingdom. The inclusion of that provision was one reason that led me, after much thought, to support the legislation on Second Reading.

I am concerned about one group of people living in Hong Kong who, by almost any common-sense standards, clearly have great loyalty to the United Kingdom but who may not be served by the Bill--employees of the British Council. As a vice-chairman of the British Council, I obviously have a particular interest in this matter. I am

Column 324

talking not about London-based employees but about the locally based employees. I understand that there were about 60 such employees in April.

These employees may well fall into one of the relevant occupational categories proposed in the draft scheme. They may be included in the information services or education groups, and of course I would welcome that. The question is whether they would score enough points under the points system. There are two respects in which they would obviously do well --command of English and British links. Those two categories would clearly be beneficial to them, but in neither case do they score highly in the proposed points system. They get only 50 points for each. There is a risk that people who are working for the British Council will not qualify under the scheme, which would be nonsense.

I am not asking for additional places ; I am simply saying that these people should be allowed to qualify. No group of people in Hong Kong serves the British cause more loyally, and often for a longer time, than British Council employees. I know that a similar argument could be made for the employees of the British Trade Commission and I am aware of the great importance of promoting British trade in Hong Kong, but it is specifically the British Council with which I am concerned. I therefore hope that it will be seen clearly from the first Governor's report that those who work for the British Council who have applied for British citizenship will be well served. I would go further : I hope that we shall not have to wait for the first Governor's report to get the reassurance that we seek. I hope that we may receive it from the Minister this evening.

Mr. Marlow : The Bill gives the Governor of Hong Kong a great many scarcely fettered powers. The new clause seeks to provide that the Governor should make an annual report on the discharge of his functions. My hon. Friend the Minister said that the report would be made available to the House. I trust that, in his closing remarks, he will make it clear that the report will be open to debate. The Bill has been introduced to deal with problems that may or may not arise in the future. The future is uncertain ; circumstances may change. It is vital, on an issue as sensitive as this, that as those circumstances change, the House should have an annual opportunity to debate the situation and to commend or recommend any changes that we may feel are necessary.

The Bill is about the way in which the Governor should discharge his responsibilities. I am sure that he should discharge those responsibilities in the light of commitments that have been given. Commitments have been given at many levels and by many different people. Initially--and the Bill is the result--commitments were given to the people of Hong Kong by Ministers or the Prime Minister to the effect that provisions would be introduced to allow up to 50,000 persons and their families to come to the United Kingdom. Those commitments were made by the Government ; they have not yet been made by Parliament, and it is not the role of Parliament to act as a rubber stamp for what the Government say they wish to do. We have other commitments, which go wider. We have commitments under international law. We have commitments within the European Community. We have commitments to deal with refugees and asylum. But we also have a commitment that is more important than all of those commitments put together : we have a commitment

Column 325

to the British people--to the people of these islands, whose only home this is. The Conservative party has made that commitment clear on a number of occasions. During our election campaign in 1970, we said in our manifesto that there would be no further large-scale permanent immigration into this country. The Conservative party won the 1970 election and has been in government for most of the time since that election. Since that time, however, we have had a migration into this country of between 750,000 and 1 million people from the third world.

I do not believe that what we have done since 1970 accords with the commitment that we gave in that year. In every election manifesto since 1970, we have given a firm, powerful--and, I hope, binding--commitment to the British people that we will take account of their fears and concerns about immigration. In 1987 we said : "We will tighten the existing law to ensure that control over settlement becomes even more effective."

Yet the Bill suggests that an extra 250,000 people of different cultures and ethnic backgrounds should be allowed to come to Britain, which is the only home--the already restricted space--that the British people have. To proceed with the Bill would be, should be--and will be, if the Bill is passed--a blot on the conscience of the Government. It is true that we have many commitments, but we cannot fulfil all of them. The most important commitment that we have made is the commitment to the British people, whose Parliament this is, who supported us, who voted for us and in whose interests the Government should act.

Mr. Maclennan : Does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that this Government--and this Parliament--are also responsible, as the only Government the people of Hong Kong have, for the people of Hong Kong, and that must also be weighed in the balance?

Mr. Marlow : I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman. I said that we had many commitments, and many of them are conflicting commitments. Obviously we must take account of the circumstances in Hong Kong. We have responsibilities to the people of Hong Kong and we must discharge them as best we can. I would wish the Government to do that. But the Government of Britain have an overriding commitment and it is to the people of this country. That has to come first. Mr. Maclennan indicated dissent.

Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman says no. I wonder whether he is aware that more than half the children in Inner London education authority schools are of non-British ethnic origin. London is our capital city. When those children grow up, they will be citizens of this country. That will mean that half our citizens--

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd) : Order. Mr. Speaker told the House that we should have a wide-ranging debate on the new clause, but the debate is now becoming enormously elastic, and I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the new clause.

Column 326

Mr. Marlow : As you have instructed me not to do so, Madam Speaker, I shall not follow up the intervention of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

The new clause says :

"The Governor of Hong Kong shall submit to the Secretary of State an annual report".

It will be an annual report on how he has done his job and carried out his functions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) suggested a number of issues which he thinks should be included in the report. It is also the intention of the Bill to keep people in Hong Kong. I believe that, if circumstances in China do not improve--indeed, if they get worse--anyone who has been offered a British passport will not delay or stay until 1997.

Such people will not keep the ship on course and their businesses running ; they will seek to get out with their families as soon as possible. If they have to get out, they will get out now. If they have to re-establish a career, they will do it early. If they have to get their funds, cash and investments out of Hong Kong, better safe than sorry. If they have a young family whom they want to educate, the sooner they can bring them to a country with a different system of education and get them on the way to being educated, the better. It is important that in each of the annual reports, the effectiveness of the Bill in fulfilling the Government's intention should be made crystal clear. Passports have been issued. How many people, having been issued those passports, will leave at the earliest opportunity? If the House has that information, we may be able to reach a view as to whether the Bill is correct and effective or whether we wish to amend it further.

In his report, the Governor should also make an account of changes in China. In the past year, the whole nature of Europe has changed ; the whole nature of the Soviet Union has changed ; it is to be hoped that the whole nature of the conflict between east and west--the cold war--is also changing.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : You have not changed.

Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman says that I am still the same. But the British people are still the same. I submit to the hon. Gentleman that my view of the Bill is shared by 90 per cent. of his constituents, just as it is shared by 90 per cent. of mine. The nature of circumstances in China could change, and if those circumstances change, the Bill may no longer be necessary. Again, the House may seek to amend the provisions in the Bill. As I have said, the Governor will have unfettered power. He will have a fantastic amount of power. According to clause 1(1) :

"Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens up to 50,000 persons". I presume that the Governor can decide how close to that figure of 50,000 that should apply. If circumstances in China change, I presume that the Governor will be able to reduce that number to 30,000 or 20, 000.

I am more concerned by the provision that

"the Secretary of State shall register as British citizens persons recommended to him for that purpose by the Governor of Hong Kong".

What would happen if my hon. Friend the Minister, in the discharge of his duties, was aware of the fact that a person in Hong Kong was connected with a criminal organisation

Column 327

such as the Triads and connected with someone who was already in Britain? Suppose the Governor had said that that person should be issued with a British passport and the Home Office felt that it was not appropriate for that person to enter Britain because of the activities in which he might well indulge and there was evidence that he might well indulge, my hon. Friend the Minister would be completely powerless to do anything about that.

Mr. Madden : Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is talking abject nonsense. The Home Secretary would simply issue an exclusion order stating that the presence of the individual concerned was not conducive to good order in this country, and that person would not be admitted.

6 pm

Mr. Marlow : The hon. Gentleman may say that, but that is matter of assertion and proof. If the person concerned has a British passport--

Mr. Peter Lloyd : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Marlow : Of course.

Mr. Lloyd : I hesitate to interrupt, because I know that I might give my hon. Friend cause to continue for another 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. However, I want to assure him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has a duty to assure himself that any recommendation from the Governor is of a person of the right character to receive British citizenship. If he is not so assured, he may not register that person as a British citizen.

Mr. Marlow : I accept my hon. Friend's assertion in principle. However, as I read clause 1, it appears that that is not the case.

Mr. Lloyd : Read the whole Bill.

Mr. Marlow : I have indeed read the whole Bill. Clause 1 would seem to allow that to happen.

Mr. Maclennan : The hon. Gentleman should not make such categoric assertions without reading clause 5, which explicitly gives the Secretary of State the power to reject a recommendation if he believes that that person

"is not of good character."

Mr. Marlow : I hear what the hon. Gentleman says ; no doubt this debate will continue for some time.

I am concerned about other issues in the Bill. The Governor will put forward a scheme which will be agreed by the House, but he shall be authorised

"to decide at his discretion between persons equally qualified under the scheme ;"

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us how the Governor will carry out that judgment of Solomon. Will there be a ballot? Will people draw straws? How will those details be considered? The Governor is getting a great deal of power. For the first time in British history, a civil servant, not an elected Government or a Minister, will be entitled effectively to award British citizenship to people from outside this country. That is a matter that should cause the House a great deal of concern, and I am interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about that.

Mr. Peter Lloyd : Although it seems a long time ago, I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland

Next Section

Home Page