(CB):...It is
instructive to look back to a debate in this House on 20 January
1986 on the nationality provisions of the Hong Kong Act 1985. The
issue of nationality of veteran servicemen was raised by several
speakers, in particular Lord MacLehose, who was Governor of Hong
Kong for over 10 and a half years:
“This brings me to the case of the veterans … At the end of this
long era of British rule inevitably there are some debts to be
paid. The legislative councillors say that this is such a debt. I
am sure that they are right. I think the question of precedent or
of opening up claims from elsewhere can be greatly overstated. It
is just a matter of definition, and I suspect that the numbers
will be found to be small … we must bear in mind the very special
arrangements that we made in this respect for
Gibraltar and the Falkland
Islands. If exceptions can be made for them, surely an
exception can be made for these people. In this case it is the
gesture and the recognition of our responsibility that is so
important, and I hope the gesture can be made.” —[Official
Report, 20/1/1986; col. 91.]
The Minister winding up then acknowledged the strength of feeling
across the House on this issue. After outlining some perceived
complexities, he said:
“We shall need to look into these in a great deal more detail
before we can say whether it would be appropriate or possible to
meet the ex-servicemen’s request. But … I can assure your
Lordships that we shall give this the most careful
consideration.”—[Official Report, 20/1/1986; col. 102.]
That similar self-serving, evasive wording is still used today,
34 years on. The Government might argue that by grouping this
cohort with those employed in the Hong Kong Disciplined Services,
with the chance for some to be granted British citizenship among
the negotiated figure of 50,000, they discharged their
obligations. Some veterans did benefit, but it was wrong to group
them with Hong Kong government employees. They were uniquely
members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. It is not fair that some
benefited but others did not.
Under the military covenant, now is the time to correct this
unfairness and allow the 64 members I mentioned earlier to be
treated equally and fairly to right of abode. I have instanced
the favourable treatment over nationality of Gurkhas who served
in Her Majesty’s forces. That 1986 debate drew attention to a
similar treatment of Gibraltarians and
Falkland Islanders. Far from setting a precedent
by granting these veterans’ requests, there seem to be several
precedents already set, and the numbers are minimal. As Lord
MacLehose so pointedly said, to act fairly in this would be a
recognition of our national responsibility. So, will the Home
Office and the Government now cure themselves of repetitive
indecision syndrome, prove their fitness for purpose, and bring
this decades-long issue to resolution?
To read the whole debate, CLICK HERE
