China-Hong Kong: Child Immigration (Hansard, 31 October 1994)

§ The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
): My Lords, we are discussing many issues related to immigration, including this one, with the Chinese side. These discussions continue.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it would be sensible to separate out the issue of these children from any of the other discussions that we are holding with the People's Republic, bearing in mind that the Chinese have an interest in seeing that the 64,000 children—not 75,000, as is mentioned in my Question—who will become eligible to enter the territory on 1st July 1997 do not all arrive at once with catastrophic consequences for the health, education and social services in the territory?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, the noble Lord is right. It is sensible to have a steady flow. That is why we welcome the increase in the daily permit quota for one-way immigration from China, which has recently been increased from 75 a day to 105 a day with a special emphasis on children. That should allow well over 100,000 Chinese to benefit from the scheme before the transfer of sovereignty. The Hong Kong Government are reviewing the case for a further increase, which would of course need Chinese agreement. The review will definitely include an assessment of the likely impact on Hong Kong's social services.

§ Lord Marlesford
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is rather encouraging that in this "nuts and bolts" matter, as in other such matters, notwithstanding the bad relationship in some other spheres, there are good and constructive discussions between Hong Kong and the Chinese Government? Is it also perhaps possible to separate out the children—that is, those under 18, from those aged between 18 and 21 all of whom are included in the global figure? Given the great shortage of labour in Hong Kong at the present time which contributes quite a lot to the inflation in that territory, might it be helpful to have an open quota for those aged between 18 and 21?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I think my noble friend is right. Not only on this issue—which 690 he described as a "nuts and bolts" issue —but on many other matters, too, at a practical working level real progress is being made. The 64,000 children who are now in China are aged under 20. I am not sure what the effect will be of separating out the 18 to 20 year-olds; but certainly that can be looked at in the review. When we assess the impact on social services, we are obviously talking about the younger children.

§ Lord Thomson of Monifieth
My Lords, will the Minister agree that as well as being a "nuts and bolts" issue, this is a humanitarian issue of a rather special character? Will she further agree that if the Government pursue these discussions with the aim of bringing about a speeding up of the process of immigration for those children, it may very well spill over and help the negotiations on other issues between Britain and the Chinese Government?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord that it is very much a humanitarian issue. But I think it is very important that it is handled in a practical way. Otherwise, the situation would simply get out of hand. That is why we have put a lot of effort into the whole review process, which now seems to be moving forward rather better; and we shall continue to do so.

§ Baroness Blackstone
My Lords, would it be better to have an open quota for the younger children so that they can join their parents in Hong Kong, not only for humanitarian reasons—certainly there are very strong humanitarian grounds, because it cannot be a good thing for families to be separated in this way—but also so that these young people are given the best possible education and training in Hong Kong and can join the labour force later where the Hong Kong economy needs their work and contribution?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, what the noble Baroness says is obviously most attractive in one sense. We are dealing here with about 51,200 children aged under 10. One has to accept that in almost all the cases where the young children have been left by parents they have been left knowingly and with other relations. The best that we can do is to pursue this matter in a very systematic and humanitarian way, bringing forward younger children as early as possible. But we will see how much more progress we can make. The April meetings, and the informal meetings in September, have certainly led to a better situation. We have now received agreement from the Chinese Government that they will resume the expert talks quite soon.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, has the Minister noted the particular case of Hai Ho-tak, which was taken up by ITN and which has caused enormous concern both in the colony and in the United Kingdom? The case relates to a boy aged six-and-a-half years who was brought up by his mother in Hong Kong after she had brought him in clandestinely; only when he went to school was it discovered that he was not born in the colony, and he was sent back to China. Does the Minister agree that this particular case provides good grounds for taking out of sequence the children of parents who are themselves lawfully resident in the territory and whose children 691 have been torn away from them at the age of six and sent back to China where they have no relatives to look after them?

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey
My Lords, I believe that we are all aware of the case of Hai Ho-tak. But his case was not isolated. Hai Ho-tak has close family in China: his sister, now aged 13; his grandmother; his uncle; and his aunt. The original decision to split the family was that of Ho-tak's mother when she came to Hong Kong in May 1988. I do not wish to sound in any way unsympathetic, but I believe that it would be right for Ho-tak to settle in Hong Kong in due course by applying in the right way for a permit, just as his mother, his elder brother and his eldest sister have done—his eldest sister coming to Hong Kong only in April this year. She obviously felt that she could do so because Ho-tak was being well looked after by the other relations back in China.