HL Deb 14 March 1985 vol 461 cc233-48

3.28 p.m.

Baroness Young

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Schedule [Supplementary Provisions]:

Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 1: In the Schedule, page 2, line 33, at end insert— ("(5) An order made under this paragraph shall make provision for a British National (Overseas) who cannot claim citizenship of any other country to be entitled to be registered as a British Citizen if an application is made for his registration as such a citizen.")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List. In so doing, I wish first to remark that this is a question that has already been ventilated by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham in the Second Reading debate a short while ago. He then referred to the citizenship of St. Paul. In the days of the Roman Empire people could move freely from one place to another and, as far as I am aware, the Romans did not have the strict immigration laws that prevail throughout the whole of the civilised world today. Therefore, citizenship is, if anything, more important than it was in the days of St. Paul, when he was able to appeal to the protection of Caesar, as we hope that people who are given the new citizenships under this Bill will, in the last resort, be able to appeal to the protection of the Crown. But the protection that the Crown is able to afford to people on whom this new citizenship is conferred unfortunately is not parallel with that of Caesar. Therefore, I am afraid that we must depart from the analogy with St. Paul and look at more recent events in history.

One might do no better than to see what happened in the aftermath of independence in certain countries in East Africa where a former Conservative Government, in their wisdom, did allow certain people to retain British citizenship even though, at the time, they had no intention of leaving the country of their residence and coming to take up residence in the United Kingdom. I wish to underline the fact that I am instructed by the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations, on whose behalf I hope that your Lordships will agree to this amendment, who say that those it represents do not want to come to England but wish to continue with their lives and their businesses in Hong Kong. Those were the very words used when I spoke to the council on the telephone this morning. It wants an assurance that, if things did not work out, these people would have "somewhere to hang their hats". That is what we did for an earlier generation of people from the Indian sub-continent whom we caused to take up livelihoods in another part of what was then the British Empire. All that we are now asked to give is the same kind of privilege as was conferred on the East African Asians. They want to know that if anything should go wrong in Hong Kong—I hope, of course, that this is a very remote eventuality—there will at least be somewhere, as the council puts it, to hang their hats.

I wrote to the Foreign Secretary on this matter. I received a reply from Mr. Richard Luce, expressed in his usual courteous way, seeking to allay the fears expressed by the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations. He started by underlining the fact that no British Dependent Territories citizens would be left without a nationality or place to call their home as a result of the provisions of the Sino-British Joint Declaration on the future of Hong Kong and the related memoranda. He went on to state that anyone who, on 30th June 1997, was a BDTC by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong would be eligible to retain British nationality under a new form to be called British National (Overseas) for the rest of their lives. Even if such persons did not acquire this new status, he added, there would be no question of their being rendered stateless, because the Government intended that any such persons who would otherwise become stateless and children born after 1st July 1997 to former Hong Kong BDTCs, if they, too, would otherwise be stateless, would acquire British Overseas citizenship. But he did agree that there was a legitimate anxiety about potential statelessness among the future generations. This, he said, was a matter that the Government were looking into without having any commitment to prevent, through the opportunity that now exists in the legislation, this statelessness arising by some amendment in the law.

The Minister went on to refer to some of the provisions of the Chinese nationality Act and in particular Article 7, which says that aliens or stateless persons who are willing to abide by China's constitution and laws may acquire Chinese nationality upon approval of their application provided that they are close relatives of Chinese nationals, or that they have settled in China, or that they have other legitimate reasons.

In passing, I would observe that experts on nationality law who have examined the Chinese nationality law say that, if anything, it contains an even greater element of discretion than we have in ours. In our law, as your Lordships may recall from discussions on the 1982 Bill, the Secretary of State has a power to confer British citizenship on practically anyone he chooses. So, in a similar manner, the Chinese authorities may confer Chinese nationality on anyone they think fit. But the question is whether they would, in fact, do so.

It has been pointed out to me that if the ultimate intention was to allow people of Indian ethnic origin to take up Chinese citizenship, this could easily have been included in the agreement. I do not know anything about the confidential discussions that took place between our Government and the Chinese. I imagine, however, that the Government would have liked to tie up this loose end and that if the Chinese had been at all receptive, the provision would have been a mandatory one and not permissive—in other words, anyone born in Hong Kong or resident in Hong Kong and settled there at the time of the coming into effect of Chinese sovereignty in 1997 would ipso facto have been entitled to Chinese citizenship.

As I think the noble Baroness will agree, we find this provision in all the recent independence Acts on which I recall taking part in the debates, except perhaps that concerning Brunei, about which I am not sure. In almost every case that I can remember where a former dependency has become independent, the legislation has conferred the nationality of the newly-independent state on all those born in, or settled in, that territory at the time of independence. One would have thought that the Government might have pressed this strongly on the Chinese authorities and that the reason why it does not appear in the agreement is that they are not prepared to forgo the exercise of this discretion. The corollary of that is that they would prefer that these people should not be Chinese nationals and that they will continue to enjoy, if that is the word, the status of British National (Overseas) which is created under the Bill.

It is true that British Nationals (Overseas) who have lived in Hong Kong for seven years are granted the right of abode there by the Chinese under the terms of the agreement with the People's Republic. But that does not alter the principle that one country should not expect another to give a permanent home to its nationals and that British nationality is the only one in the world that does not carry with it the right of abode in the country of citizenship. Again, the parallel with East African Asians is very close. One objection raised is that separate provisions for the ethnic Indians would be racially divisive and would give preferential treatment to Indians against Chinese. That is not true, because some Indians in Hong Kong have Indian nationality and would not therefore be covered by this amendment. The decisive factor is whether any person now a BDTC in Hong Kong can claim another nationality as well as British National (Overseas) status, which is, in reality, only a travel document.

It has been a strong argument that the Government are confident that the Indian and other ethnic minority communities will want to remain in Hong Kong. And they do want to remain. The last thing that they want is to leave their businesses, which are mostly doing extremely well in the buoyant economy of Hong Kong. If the Government really are confident about the settlement that they have negotiated they will have no qualms in granting full British citizenship, which, as I say, would only be a safety net in the event that the agreement does not work out. Without such a safety net, it is likely that some of the business community will seek to take the opportunities now being offered of citizenship and settlement in other countries outside Hong Kong because they are afraid to stay there.

I should like to add a few words about the question of future generations. This, again, was a matter emphasised by the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations in our telephone discussion this morning. The status of BOC does not confer any right of transmission to the descendants. The noble Baroness will, I think, agree that this is a matter of some anxiety. Even if one thinks that the citizenship we are now conferring on people of non-Chinese ethnic origin has any value at all, one has still to deal with the question of what happens to the children and grandchildren of those people in future generations. I was talking to one particular gentleman born in Hong Kong whose family consists of three sons and three grandsons. He told me that if a grandson had a further child born after 1997, that child would have BOC status but the child born to a BOC parent after 1997 is stateless because the status is not transmissible. This is again a matter of some anxiety to the Hong Kong Indian community.

I think this is the penultimate opportunity which we shall have of dealing with this important question. I do urge that even though the numbers are very small—we are talking about between 4,000 and 5,000 people, perhaps—we should not allow this Bill to depart until we tie up the loose end which is left over from the agreement and we give proper security to a small group of people who have been loyal citizens of the Commonwealth and who deserve to have their future properly safeguarded by your Lordships' Committee. I beg to move.

Baroness Young

The effect of the amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would be to open the way for any British National (Overseas), and thus anyone who is a BDTC by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong before 1997, and who cannot claim any other nationality, to register as a British citizen. As British citizens, such people would automatically acquire the right of abode in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971.

There are two aspects to this question: the problem of statelessness and the question of the right of abode. I will deal with the question of statelessness first because this, of course, was a question which exercised the minds of your Lordships quite considerably at Second Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and my noble friend Lord Geddes spoke extensively about it on that occasion. It may be helpful, therefore, if I set out the position on this point once again, and confirm what was read by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which he received from my honourable friend Mr. Luce.

The Government's position is that no former Hong Kong BDTC nor any child born on or after the 1st July 1997 to such a person should be made stateless as a result of the amendments envisaged in the Bill. All former Hong Kong BDTCs will be able to acquire BN(O) status if they wish before the 1st July 1997. If they do this they will retain it for the rest of their lives. Any BDTCs who do not acquire BN(O) status and would otherwise be stateless—for example, if they are not Chinese nationals and hold no other nationality—will become British Overseas Citizens on the 1st July 1997. Children born on or after 1st July 1997 to former Hong Kong BDTCs who were Chinese nationals will of course have Chinese nationality. Children born to non-Chinese former BDTCs will acquire British Overseas Citizen status at birth if they would otherwise be stateless.

As I have indicated, during the Second Reading debate certain noble Lords also raised the question of what would happen to subsequent generations of children born to descendants of former Hong Kong BDTCs who held no other nationality—a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. On that occasion I said that the Government was as a matter of urgency looking at the problem of potential statelessness among future generations. The Government have now considered this problem further, particularly in view of the considerable anxieties expressed in your Lordships' House. We accept that there is considerable concern in Hong Kong among the non-Chinese BDTCs about the problem of potential statelessness in subsequent generations, and this is something which we take very seriously.

I think I must repeat the view previously expressed that it would not be proper as a general principle to grant British nationality indefinitely and without restrictions to the descendants of British nationals resident in a foreign country. However, we have decided that in the case of second generation children whose grandparents were Hong Kong BDTCs before 1997, and who would otherwise be stateless, it would be right to give them a similar entitlement to acquire British nationality to that which they would have had under the British Nationality Act 1981 if their parents and grandparents had remained BDTCs. I hope that the Committee will agree that this is a major concession, and I hope that it will meet the concerns expressed on all sides of the Committee.

3.45 p.m.

The relevant provisions of the British Nationality Act are contained in Section 17(2) and (3)(a) and (b) of the British Nationality Act. The provisions we envisage would be exactly parallel to these. They would provide that a minor would be entitled to be registered as a British Overseas Citizen on an application made within 12 months of the date of birth if, first, he was born stateless; second, one of his parents was a person who would have been a BDTC by descent at the time of his birth if it were not for the provisions to be made under this Act; and, third, one of his grandparents was a person who would have been a BDTC other than by descent at the time of the birth of the parent in question.

The general effect of this would be that a second generation child descended from a Hong Kong BDTC who was a BDTC otherwise than by descent would be entitled to be registered as a British Overseas Citizen. I should add that in the case of a child not so registered within 12 months of birth it would still be open to the Home Secretary, if he saw fit, to register him under Section 27(1) of the British Nationality Act.

I believe that the provision which I have just described will constitute an important additional boost to the confidence of the non-Chinese BDTC community of Hong Kong. It will provide an avenue for the continuation of a form of British nationality to the persons concerned until approximately the middle of the next century. If we look to the future, the Government believe that the right course for those who are permanently settled in what will then be a part of China ultimately is for them to become Chinese nationals.

I know that some concern has been expressed by those affected that they or their descendants will not be able to become Chinese nationals—again a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. However, the Chinese nationality law does provide in Article 7: Aliens or stateless persons who are willing to abide by China's constitution and laws may acquire Chinese nationality on approval of their applications provided that (1) they are close relatives of Chinese nationals, (2) they have settled in China, or (3) they have other legitimate reasons. We are, of course, speaking of people who are by definition settled in Hong Kong, which by then will be part of China. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was critical of the Government in not getting a further agreement on this point. I accept that it will be necessary for the Government to undertake further discussions with the Chinese Government about how such persons might acquire Chinese nationality. Our aim will be to ensure that it is possible for the descendants of non-Chinese former BDTCs to obtain Chinese nationality if they wish to do so.

Before leaving this subject, there is one further point I should like to make. It is that the Home Secretary has discretion under Section 27 (1) of the British Nationality Act 1981, if he thinks fit, to register any minor as a British Overseas Citizen. It would of course be open to any future Home Secretary to make use of this provision in relation to the descendants of non-Chinese BDTCs in Hong Kong if he were satisfied that in any particular case the circumstances justified it.

I hope that the measures I have described are sufficient to alleviate the concerns about statelessness on the part of non-Chinese BDTCs in Hong Kong. There will of course be a further opportunity to debate these matters when the Government bring a draft Order in Council before the House. But from the point of view of statelessness, I believe that the provisions of this amendment are unnecessary.

Before turning to deal with the question of the right of abode, I should mention that when I spoke earlier on of the description of the BN(O) status I may have missed out the word "overseas" when I was quoting a passage which explained the Government's position. I should like to correct that before going further.

I will turn now to the question of the right of abode. The Government do not believe that there is any justification for providing right of abode in this country to any group of BDTCs in Hong Kong who do not have it at present. The same would of course apply to British Nationals (Overseas) after 1997. The first reason for this is that the agreement itself guarantees the right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997 to persons who have been resident in Hong Kong for seven years or more and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence, and also to persons who before the establishment of the Hong Kong SAR only have the right of abode in Hong Kong. This would, I believe, cover all the non-Chinese BDTCs in Hong Kong unless they are only there temporarily and have a right of abode elsewhere. I believe that this provision is an entirely satisfactory guarantee of the right of abode in Hong Kong.

It has been widely recognised, not least in your Lordships' House, that the agreement provides a satisfactory framework in which the present way of life of all the people who live in Hong Kong can be maintained after 1997. The Government believe that it is a good agreement and that it will be effective. The people with whom we are now concerned—that is to say, the non-Chinese BDTC's in Hong Kong—are by definition people who have made their lives in Hong Kong, many of them the descendants of people who have lived in Hong Kong for many generations. Their personal and family connections are with Hong Kong, not the United Kingdom. To suggest now that we should give them the right of abode in the United Kingdom, exceptionally, is to suggest that we are not confident that the conditions in Hong Kong after 1997 will be such as to permit them to remain there. This is not the belief of the Government, nor do I think it is the general belief of this Committee.

The second reason why the Government are opposed to giving the right of abode in the United Kingdom to sections of the community in Hong Kong is that we do not think it would be right to discriminate in favour of one section of the BDTC population in Hong Kong. We believe that it would be deeply resented by other sections of that community who of course would continue to constitute the vast majority. In the Second Reading debate I think that some of your Lordships may have dismissed rather easily the feelings of the Chinese BDTCs who constitute the overwhelming majority of BDTCs in Hong Kong. I believe that most of them would argue that if we were to give the right of abode to any one section of the community, they should have it, too. For this reason the amendment now being considered would in my view be extremely divisive in Hong Kong, and divisive at a time when we should be doing everything we can to promote harmony and confidence.

I would say further that the fact that there should be no right of abode does not mean that it would be impossible for such persons to come to the United Kingdom. There are a number of avenues for BDTCs or BOCs to seek settlement in this country under the immigration rules. The same avenues would be open to BN(O)s. All such categories of people would, after settlement here, eventually be entitled to registration as British citizens under Section 4 of the British Nationality Act. In the unlikely event that any BN(O)s and BOCs came under pressure to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, we would expect that the Government of the day would consider sympathetically whether to admit them, on a case by case basis, in the light of their circumstances. The discretion to do this already exists in existing legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested that there was no provision on the agreement of Indians in Hong Kong to become Chinese nationals because the Chinese Government were not willing to have such a provision. This is not so. The Government did not seek such a provision. It is for the Indians in Hong Kong to apply for Chinese nationality after 1997 if they so wish. Article 7 of the Chinese nationality law clearly makes such applications possible.

This amendment goes to the heart of the Bill in a number of ways. I have spoken to the amendment at some length, and I hope that I have succeeded in convincing your Lordships that to pass this amendment would damage the Bill and would therefore damage the Government's plans for ratification of this agreement—an agreement which I think we all believe is an excellent one and much in the interests of Hong Kong and its people. We do not, I am sure, wish to put this at risk. I hope that, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

The noble Baroness has just made a very important statement. It is clear that she has given very careful thought to the representations about statelessness which were made in the House in the Second Reading debate on 19th February, when the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham and I, and I think one or two others, dealt at length specifically with this point. What is more important is that this afternoon the noble Baroness has made what I believe to be a substantial concession on a matter which we in this Committee and the interested parties in Hong Kong itself have brought to the attention of Government over the past few months. The assurance of citizenship for the grandchildren of those who are British Nationals (Overseas), born after 1997—I understand that is the concession—is indeed a very welcome step. I should like to thank the noble Baroness and her right honourable and learned friend for the undertaking to extend to a further generation the right of citizenship. I am sure it will further improve the climate of confidence in Hong Kong, especially among the ethnic minorities. It is a practical move which we support very warmly.

There is one point which I and others made on the previous occasion that has not been completely clarified: namely, the position with regard to identity cards. The Committee will know, having followed these debates carefully, that there is a good deal of nervousness about this situation in Hong Kong. The Chief Secretary there drew attention to Section 14 of Annex 1 to the Sino-British Joint Declaration, which provides for the holding of permanent identity cards to be stated in future BN(O) passports as evidence of right of abode in Hong Kong; he has said that the Government would be discussing with the Chinese authorities the wording of the statement with a view to ensuring that BN(O) passport holders would not have to produce their identity cards for immigration clearance. That seems to me to be a very important point in regard to the holders. I understand that the objective will be to ensure that after 1997 a BN(O) passport holder will not need to produce an identity card in addition in order to establish right of abode in Hong Kong.

The noble Baroness was good enough to deal at length with the question of right of abode, but this is a slightly different matter upon which I am sure she will be able to enlighten us. If she says that this is a matter which will require further consultation with the Government of the Republic of China, I shall understand this perfectly well because I realise that a good deal more consultation needs to take place. Having said that, once again I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her helpful concession.

Lord Geddes

I am sure it will not surprise your Lordships that I have a great deal of sympathy with the general spirit lying behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; but, with the greatest respect to him, I think it has been quite brilliantly trumped, if I may say so, by my noble friend on the Front Bench, with the gratifyingly welcome news of the extension to a further generation of British Overseas Citizenship. I thank her most sincerely for that. It is something that many of your Lordships and others have pressed for in past debates in the House. It is a significant step forward.

If I may say so also to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I am not at all sure that this particular amendment is in the right place. It seems to me to be an amendment that should rightly have been to the British Nationality Act itself. That is a very different subject on which many of your Lordships have held—and I am sure still hold—very strong views. This Bill seems to me to be the wrong place in which to put it. It has been mentioned that on racial grounds it might discriminate or would discriminate against ethnically Chinese. I raised the same point in the Hong Kong debate on 10th December, not on racial grounds but on purely moral grounds. It seemed to me to be quite indefensible to grant full British citizenship to an extreme minority and to exclude from that full British citizenship the majority of people with previously similar status. There never seemed to me to be any particular logic in that.

Others of your Lordships may disagree with my mathematics on the extension to the further generation of British Overseas Citizenship, but in round figures that seems to me to cover the period up to and slightly beyond 2050. There is some significance in the year 2050 because, even according to my simple arithmetic, it takes me 50 years beyond 1997. That surely is what the whole of this Bill is about. It is about 1997 and 50 years beyond that. It seems that the extension by my noble friend Lady Young of British overseas citizenship to a further generation has covered that point over the requisite period and, again, I thank my noble friend for it.

4 p.m.

My noble friend has mentioned, as, indeed, did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, Article 7 of the Chinese nationality law. With respect, I think that Article 6 of that law also applies to an extent in that non-ethnic Chinese are permitted to apply for Chinese citizenship. I do not intend to detain the Committee any longer on this point. My views are well known from previous interjections in debates such as this. However, perhaps I should say that however unpalatable it may be, there must be trust on both sides. Nothing can be so totally buttoned up as to be absolutely safe. Life in itself is not safe. The Chinese have said—and certainly from my fairly extensive knowledge of the Chinese I would go along with it—that they will abide by the Anglo-Sino agreement, that they will abide by their own nationality law.

We are talking of a situation 65 years hence. I have my hopes, but who knows what kind of Government we shall have in this country then or may have had in the interim, let alone what kind of Government are in office in other parts of the world? I really cannot give my support to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I believe that it is misplaced and, if I may say so, I think that it is now redundant, thanks to the very welcome extension of British overseas citizenship which my noble friend on the Front Bench has mentioned.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

Throughout the debate so far there has been the note as to whether a general matter of confidence is important. I should like to say a few words about that. I believe that much of the anxiety behind the noble Lord's amendment and much of the thinking behind the anxiety expressed by the Hong Kong Indian Association, which has also written to me, concerns confidence. Your Lordships may not have had the opportunity to read the major document entitled, The Arrangements for testing the Acceptability in Hong Kong of the Draft Agreement on the future of the Territory, but it is a very powerful document.

I believe that for the first time in this kind of political education there has been a tremendous attempt to discover what everyone concerned in Hong Kong really feels—the 5½ million members of that lovely part of the world, the 2½ million BDTCs, and, I should have thought, the 6,000 (but I bow to the figure of 4,000 put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury) important Indian minority there.

I have been most impressed by the summary of conclusions on page 32 of the document. Lest your Lordships' Committee should think that somehow I have discovered this information in some mysterious way, I must own to the fact that only yesterday morning I left Hong Kong. Therefore, I have done my best to get accurate facts. They are probably not as accurate as those of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, who telephoned Hong Kong this morning, but I have sought to get my facts as accurate as possible. Perhaps I may interject that famous names, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, sitting next to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, are still remembered with affection and trust throughout that glorious part of the world. Having arrived only this morning, I am still suffering slightly from jet lag.

If I speak for a little longer than normal, I ask noble Lords to forgive me. It is great to have come straight from Hong Kong to your Lordships' House. The attention that was given in Hong Kong to your Lordships' Second Reading debate on this Bill impressed me immensely. The debate went out live throughout the night, because Hong Kong is eight hours ahead of us, and the people listened to much of the debate on Hong Kong radio. They knew a great deal about what your Lordships said, which impressed me.

I return to acceptability, which I believe is the basis of confidence and the ground for confidence which makes this amendment either necessary or unnecessary. The report of the Assessment Office states that most of the people of Hong Kong found the draft agreement acceptable. The overall picture from the media was one of general acceptance, as was that of the principal representative bodies, which have unequivocally placed their support on record; and the overwhelming majority of organisations have also done so. Most individuals have said that they also find it acceptable.

The two matters that I wish to raise are, first, the question of nationality and, secondly, the anxiety as to whether the agreement will stick. I spoke to many people from all walks of life. I was in Hong Kong for a straightforward preaching conference, preaching every day, but I was able to see many people in between. One very sensible and senior Chinese in Hong Kong put the situation to me rather clearly. He said, "The confidence we have in Mr. Deng and the confidence we have in Prime Minister Thatcher are such that, so long as those two are running this show, this agreement will be all right". I thought that your Lordships' Committee would like to know that.

I now move from anything that approaches party politics to what I wish to say. I shall deal with the question of confidence. It was clear to me that the matter of the next generation worried the people in Hong Kong, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was quite right in drawing attention to the children. One of those who sent in critical comments about the agreement said, "We do not care what happens to Hong Kong for our own sake. However, we worry for our children".

The major concession which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has just announced will do a great deal to settle the anxieties among a very wide variety of people. At least everyone will be treated fairly and equally if this amendment is not agreed. However, I fear that if it is agreed, it will be divisive in Hong Kong, even though theoretically it may make us in this Chamber believe that we are caring for minorities, which is right. This House has always had a great sensitivity and tenderness towards minorities. However, the amendment seems to differentiate sharply between the smallest minority, the Indians, and the general minority of the 2½ million BDTCs.

Therefore, on balance, I believe that the major concession which the noble Baroness has announced today goes a long way towards quietening the anxieties that some people have. But I must underline that the general impression I received throughout the 10 to 12 days this month that I was in Hong Kong is that the agreement is sound; that it is the very best that could be produced; and that it has been received with much general acclaim. To go to the New Territories, to go to Sha-Tin, where 40 years ago, as a young chaplain at the surrender, I used to walk through the lanes and kick the stones away from the path, and to see this enormous new town, is to understand the confidence which the community has for the future of Hong Kong under the agreement which has now been discussed so fully.

Therefore, on balance, I think that this amendment should be resisted, but that words of encouragement and support to the people of Hong Kong should continue from this House because they are eager to know of our interest. I was rather naively asked the question: do you really care in the House of Lords? I replied that the number of noble Lords from all parties present during these debates shows that we care very deeply and that we want to support our friends in Hong Kong very fully. To quote most of your Lordships who have been to Hong Kong, we say again to them, "Kung Hei Fat Choi".

Lord Avebury

The attendance this afternoon does indeed, I hope, demonstrate to the people of Hong Kong the interest and concern which we feel about the welfare of all the people of that territory. I would think that they are going to be immensely encouraged by what they read in Hansard in the Minister's excellent speech.

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, this Committee is not engaged in a game of whist, or whatever it is he plays in his club, from which he gets the language that he employed in his remarks to the Committee. This is not an adversarial exercise, as the right reverend Prelate has just pointed out. We are trying to do the best we can for the people of Hong Kong all working together for what I should have thought was a common objective. We are getting fairly near it, as I judge from the remarks of the noble Baroness the Minister.

The noble Baroness made not one but two major concessions, for which we are all extremely grateful. There is the important question of the second generation, which has been alluded to by the right reverend Prelate. I am glad that he has emphasised the concern he discovered when he was talking to people in Hong Kong itself, and about which I have only heard on the telephone. However, I think it is well understood among your Lordships that there has been some nervousness, to put it at its lowest, which I hope the noble Baroness will have allayed.

The other point the noble Baroness raised which was of enormous importance was her saying that in the very unlikely event, as we all accept it is, that something goes wrong with the agreement, any future Government of this country would give sympathetic consideration to the situation of the few people we are discussing in this amendment this afternoon. I think that that was obviously as far as she could go.

I was not really expecting that the Government would accept the amendment as it stood, but I was hoping—and my hopes have been realised—that we would get some forthcoming response from the Government as a result of tabling the amendment. That was the object I had in mind, and that is the object which has been achieved. Although I must reserve the position until we hear what the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations have to say when they have read Hansard, I believe that they will warmly welcome the assurances which the Government have given this afternoon. Therefore, I have pleasure in asking your Lordships' leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Gridley moved Amendment No. 2: Page 2, line 43, at end insert— ("; and (c) as to the public service of Hong Kong and persons being members or former members thereof (including provision for the discharge of obligations to, or otherwise compensating, such persons and for the apportionment of liabilities arising therefrom).").

The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2, prior to giving the motives which lie behind my objectives I should like to say something about the words in my amendment which I wish to be included in the Bill. I have used the words "public service", and my amendment states clearly "persons being members or former members thereof". "Public service" covers not only members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong but other officers who fall within that category.

The present situation on these issues in Hong Kong, as to who qualifies, is not dissimilar to the situation which was found by Her Majesty's Government when they granted independence to Kenya. In that case, in Statutory Instrument 1963 No. 1969, the Kenya (Compensation and Retiring Benefits) Order in Council, the schedule had the following qualification to make. "Entitled officer" was there defined as "an officer in the public service". It also includes, under Section (c), a member who, is a member of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service or Her Majesty's Overseas Judiciary, or a designated officer for the purposes of overseas service. I respectfully suggest, from what I have said, that when an Order in Council is made for Hong Kong covering compensation and retirement provisions it will probably follow, as and where appropriate, the provisions made formerly in relation to the Order in Council for Kenya.

4.15 p.m.

Having explained the use of the words "public service" in my amendment, I now wish to state my motives for moving it. In doing so there lies no criticism whatsoever on my part of Her Majesty's Government for what to date they have achieved in the Hong Kong agreement, and particularly in securing a joint declaration with the People's Republic of China. Nor do I not appreciate the courtesy and consideration shown me by my right honourable and noble friend the Minister of State in an acceptance at Second Reading of the points I made regarding the importance of stressing the safeguards for pensionable status and other obligations which lie at the door of Her Majesty's Government.

I must nevertheless emphasise that in no other case, so far as I know, where Her Majesty's Government have granted independence to her former territories have any Brithsh Government given 12 years' notice ahead of their intention so to do, and of course that is the case in Hong Kong. In that connection the situation does not appear to have been clearly stated as to the position of Her Majesty's overseas civil servants, or cognisance given-of the fact that they have to wait for 12 years in a career service for action in respect of their pensionable emoluments and status.

I accept and appreciate what my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading, at column 507 of Hansard of 19th February, in her reply with reference to my desires regarding the safeguarding of the rights of public servants. But when my right honourable friend said that in respect of other territories these issues have generally been negotiated at the last moment before independence and signed after independence, I must emphasise that this is an anomalous position which has never applied hitherto and is now applying in Hong Kong, and in these circumstances Hong Kong is in a very special situation.

If my amendment is accepted it does nothing to fetter the hands of Her Majesty's Government in this Bill as to the manner in which it is drafted. It does not impose any time limit as to when Her Majesty's Government should act or exercise their obligations. The amendment seeks to include in the Bill what is obvious: that certain existing obligations and liabilities regarding pensions lie at the door of Her Majesty's Government. It seems to me appropriate that the words "discharge of obligations" are in the amendment which I have proposed.

In conclusion, I believe that this amendment would help Her Majesty's Government in retaining their public servants in Hong Kong—loyal servants of the Crown—in the most important work that lies before them in the 12 years ahead. There is valuable work to be done, and there are many difficulties which it will need the skill and devotion of experienced officers to overcome. I beg to move.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

I was not surprised to read this amendment because the noble Lord, Lord Gridley has been a loyal advocate of this small group of public servants from the start. I was present at the debate on the agreement on 10th September when I recall that he spoke most strongly, and emphasised that there is a widespread anxiety among the expatriate staff in Hong Kong about the future of their pensions. I have also personally received representations about them since then.

In the Second Reading debate on 19th February the noble Lord made a further strong plea and asked for an assurance from the Government that Hong Kong expatriate officers would be treated on a par with other officers similarly recruited by the British Government. He called in aid a number of documents which he argued ought to place officers on the same footing as other officers recruited for overseas service. I took advantage of the Library to look at one or two of the documents to which he referred and it seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, has been making a reasonable case which deserves a careful response.

In the Second Reading debate on 19th February the noble Baroness replied that the agreement will ensure that serving officers in Hong Kong will continue on terms and conditions including pay and pensions as they will be on 30th June 1997. That was the reply she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, at that time. I thought it was a helpful reply, so far as it went. But perhaps the noble Baroness can clarify the position beyond doubt by answering this question. Will the Hong Kong expatriate officer be on the same footing as other officers recruited by Her Majesty's Government for service overseas? It may be that the previous reply of the noble Baroness conceded that point, but it would help me and other noble Lords if she will repeat it and if necessary elaborate it now so that it may be put beyond all doubt.

Baroness Young

I am sure we have all listened with great care to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gridley. The purpose of this amendment seems to be to enable the Government to provide by Order in Council for matters relating to members and ex-members of the Hong Kong public service, particularly the payment of pensions and other benefits.

The first thing about this amendment is that it is not necessary for the purpose which I believe the noble Lord has in mind. The Government already have extensive powers to make provision for pensions and other benefits under the Overseas Pensions Act 1973. I hope that that answers the question that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, has put. Moreover, in the extremely unlikely event that these powers were ever to prove insufficient in the case of Hong Kong, it would be possible to amend or add to them by means of an Order in Council under this paragraph as already drafted.

The Government remain fully alert to their responsibilities for seeing that adequate arrangements are made for the payment of pensions earned in the service of the Government. As I explained to my noble friend Lord Gridley when he raised this issue during the debate on the Second Reading, the Government consider that the agreement provides satisfactorily for the continuity of service by members of the public service in Hong Kong on terms and conditions, including pay and pensions, no less favourable than on 30th June 1997.

In the debate on 19th February my noble friend Lord Gridley made specific reference to the position of members of Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong, and asked that a binding agreement, such as a public officers' agreement, be provided for them between now and 1997. While the provisions of the agreement in relation to pay and pension apply to members of HMOCS in Hong Kong as much as they do to other civil servants, I take this opportunity to reiterate the response I gave my noble friend on that occasion; namely, that the Government recognise the particular concerns of HMOCS officers in Hong Kong, and will continue to keep their interests in mind in the 12 years leading up to 1997, including the question of a public officers' agreement. I do not rule out a public officers' agreement in due course: such an agreement may prove to be the best means of laying down the provisions to be applied to HMOCS in Hong Kong in respect of benefits payable after 1997. It is equally possible that in the unique circumstances of Hong Kong there may prove to be other ways of achieving these ends.

In due course there will need to be discussions with the Hong Kong Government on this subject. But I might sound one note of caution: if we wish to make arrangements which will be truly durable, and thus provide a real assurance for HMOCS in Hong Kong, we should not make them precipitately or without full consultation and discussion of the issues.

I hope I have said enough to indicate that the Government are firmly of the view that in current circumstances the pensions and benefits of the Hong Kong Civil Service, including members of HMOCS in Hong Kong, are not a subject upon which there is a need to legislate in the manner proposed in the amendment before the House.

I was grateful for the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I think all parts of the House have in mind the needs of the Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong and I hope that, with the assurances that I have given on the future provision of the public service in Hong Kong, my noble friend Lord Gridley will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Gridley

I greatly appreciate what my noble friend the Minister has said in response to my amendment. I will look at what she has said when I receive Hansard at a future date. I am a little upset as I feel that no notice has been given to a point I emphasised about the difference which exists regarding the granting of independence in Hong Kong. There is a difference between Hong Kong and everywhere else where Her Majesty's Government have given independence to territories for which they were responsible. As I emphasised, the case lies 12 years ahead from now and concerns the remaining officers in the service of Hong Kong, who may be 30 years old at this time. They may have anxieties. Goodness only knows, we do not want any of them to leave the service of that country and seek employment elsewhere. They are loyal officers and I believe they would be most distressed if that ever came into their consideration. Therefore, there is this point about waiting for something to be written into a legal document to give the assurance that my noble friend has given. I greatly appreciate what she has said. We will look carefully at her reply to my amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.