§ 3.15 p.m.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government—
- (1) Whether it is true that on or about November 26 last a junk escaping under gun-fire from the mainland was arrested at Lamma Island by the Honk Kong Water
642 Police: and that this junk contained 52 refugees (27 men, 19 women, and six children); - (2) and whether a few days later these unfortunates were returned by Hong Kong across the Chinese Railway Frontier to the Chinese authorities;
- (3) if so, whether any serious attempt was made before doing so to pass on such of them as Hong Kong could not absorb to some alternative safe refuge such for instance as through the Red Cross or some refugee organisation under the aegis of the United Nations;
- (4) and finally whether, in view of the outstanding record of Hong Kong in such matters, it is not most unfortunate that such an incident should have taken place; and whether strict orders against its repetition should not be issued, bearing in mind the obligation entailed by the Declaration of Human Rights of June 18, 1948, which prescribes (Article 12(1)) that "Everyone has the right to seek and be granted in other countries, asylum from persecution".]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE)My Lords, it is true that on November 26 last year the Hong Kong Police intercepted a junk carrying 52 illegal immigrants. We have no evidence that this junk left the mainland under gun-fire. Two members of the party did say, however, that their boat had been chased by an armed Chinese junk and that their party had thrown fish bombs at it in order to get away. This story was not corroborated by any of the other members of the party and is believed by the Hong Kong authorities to be false. After the usual careful inquiry, the party was returned to China across the land frontier at Lowu on December 3, the Hong Kong immigration authorities having satisfied themselves that this was a case of attempted illegal entry. The question of asylum did not therefore arise.
As I feel sure the noble Lord is aware, the return of illegal immigrants to China is a frequent occurrence. In 1963, 1,883 were returned. I am glad to note that in the fourth part of the 643 noble Lord's Question he pays a tribute to the outstanding record of Hong Kong in receiving and caring for immigrants. As your Lordships are aware, more than a million immigrants have been absorbed into the Colony's population since 1949.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Marquess for his Answer, the first part of which does in fact confirm the truth of what I asked him to confirm in regard to two of my points. The actual number of persons is slightly different, but that really does not make much difference. What matters very much in the latter part of my Question is whether any alternative asylum was sought for these unfortunate people before they were returned, which on the grounds both of humanity and of international law should have been done. The more so, as I am informed—and I have no reason to doubt it—because an offer was made from a neighbouring territory not only to pay for these people, but to receive them. I yield to none in my admiration of Hong Kong—
§ LORD KILLEARNI am very sorry, but I am determined to pay a tribute to Hong Kong, if you do not mind. I have been there countless times. I started in Hong Kong first as long ago as 1902 and know the Colony extremely well. There is no greater admirer of it than I am. I am terribly pained by an incident of this kind because their record as regards immigrants is marvellous.
§ LORD KILLEARNMay I have an answer to the latter part of my Question?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am very glad indeed that the noble Lord has repeated his tribute to the Hong Kong authorities. It is certainly richly deserved. The point the noble Lord must accept is that this case to which he has referred was a perfectly normal, straightforward case of an attempted illegal entry and therefore the question of asylum did not arise. Illegal entrants to Hong Kong have to be returned to China. As I said in my 644 substantive reply, no fewer than 1,883 were returned last year.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I should like to ask one question as a matter of elucidation. One can say that a man is an illegal immigrant or one can say he is a political refugee. The noble Lord described them as illegal immigrants. Were they also political refugees? Were there any political aspects involved?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI am glad the noble Marquess has asked me that question. Your Lordships may have noticed that in my substantive reply I made it clear that careful inquiries had been carried out. These careful inquiries cover, among other things, the circumstances in which these people leave China.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThey were not political refugees?
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, could the noble Marquess define briefly the difference between an illegal immigrant, coming from such countries as China or East Germany or places of that kind, and a refugee?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEI should be pleased to answer a Question on that subject if the noble Lord wishes to put it down. It has no bearing on this Question.
§ LORD KILLEARNMy Lords, could the noble Marquess enlighten the House as to what an illegal immigrant is?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEYes, my Lords. Every day 50 immigrants from China are allowed into Hong Kong.
§ LORD KILLEARNWho gives them papers to that effect? There are no relations between the two.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, they leave China with exit permits from China and we have arranged in Hong Kong a quota system of 50 a day. This has been maintained more or less through the last year. Your Lordships will see that the life of the whole Colony would be threatened if there were not immigration control, and therefore it is necessary, if people try to break the rules, to send them back to 645 the country from which they come. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYMy Lords, I am not absolutely clear even now. I was very grateful to the noble Marquess for his Answer, but if a man was both an illegal immigrant and a political refugee would he be sent back? I ask that, because I cannot believe that any political refugee would have legal immigration forms.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNENo, my Lords. I think this is quite clear. I have been rather drawn on this question. This situation obviously arises in other parts of the world. But if a person can establish that he is a political refugee and the question of asylum arises, this is another matter. But in this case we were quite satisfied that there was no question of these people being political refugees running from possible persecution. Therefore the question of asylum did not arise.
§ EARL ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords, what happens when they get a permit from Red China for an exit into Hong Kong? Are these people who are given a permit by China to come out all political refugees, or are they coming out for some other purpose? That does not seem to me to be very plain.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I am sorry that I have not made myself clear. The position is that there are a number of people in China who, for one reason or another, wish to come into Hong Kong. One of the reasons given—a perfectly normal human reason—is that they have relations there. When they wish to leave China they should ask for exit permits from China. If they have not asked for exit permits from China, they have infringed the Chinese regulations. Therefore it is possible that if, over the 50 quota in a day, some people were returned who had not asked for their exit permits, they would have infringed the Chinese regulations and I cannot say what the Chinese authorities would see fit to do about these people. I hope that the noble Earl has followed the point. The 50 who come in every day 646 is a quota which the authorities in Hong Kong have thought it is possible for Hong Kong to bear. That is the position.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, arising out of the original Question and the supplementaries, it is obvious—and perhaps the noble Lord will confirm—that the quota of 50 is established by the Hong Kong Government in the light of their existing difficulties and the large number of refugees. But the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Killearn, has put on the Paper is: what efforts can be made to assist those people who wish to leave China and who can obtain permits to leave? If countries like the Philippines or Formosa and others were willing to take Chinese who were able to get an exit permit from China, would the Hong Kong Government uplift their quota in order that this could be achieved?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, this is a very difficult question. I was perfectly frank and straightforward in my reply. I think the noble Lord will appreciate that a number of people might say that they wished to travel on further, but, when they got to Hong Kong might not, in fact, do so. So we have to be particularly careful not to exacerbate a situation that is already very difficult.
§ LORD SHEPHERDIt could be conditional.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEIt is perfectly possible for people, as the noble Lord is well aware, to leave China to go to Hong Kong and then go on overseas. I have some quite interesting figures here which I will give, as your Lordships have gone into this in detail. In May, 1962 (which noble Lords will remember was the time of the tremendous exodus from China), at a meeting of the Executive Committee of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, a resolution was passed about these refugees and the Formosan authorities declared that they would be very pleased to take them. The total number of people who arrived in Formosa was 771, and the figures with which we were dealing, of course, were between 60,000 and 70,000.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords—
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CARRINGTON)My Lords, I wonder whether I might remind your Lordships that we are perhaps in danger of having a debate on this subject. We have had three Questions in 20 minutes, and we have three very important debates on Bills to come. I understand perfectly that this is an important matter. If your Lordships are not satisfied with the very full answers that my noble friend Lord Lansdowne has given, perhaps it would be convenient to put down an Unstarred Question.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, I appreciate the point that the Leader of the House has raised, but I was on my feet when he rose. As one who has visited Hong Kong, I appreciate the difficulties of the Hong Kong Government. There is the great overcrowding in Hong Kong and a terrible housing problem. I want to ask the noble Marquess whether, if someone comes on an exit permit from the Chinese Government, investigations are made to ensure that that person is not going to function in espionage or subversive activities in Hong Kong?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, I do not want to be drawn into too close detail about the exact nature of the investigations. The noble Lord, I am sure, can draw his own conclusions on exactly what these investigations are. But one of the important aspects of the investigations, of course, is that the authorities should be satisfied that the people are not fleeing from persecution; in which case, of course, they would receive asylum. But their background is, so far as possible, gone into, and the people concerned do all come from Kwangtung. They do not come from other parts of China. It is a stipulation, the idea being that if people come from Kwangtung they are more likely to be related to people in Hong Kong than if they come from any other part of China.