I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important topic. Our debate will be followed with close attention by the people of Hong Kong to whom this matter is of great concern. I pay tribute to the members of the Executive and Legislative Councils of Hong Kong and to the Hong Kong Commissioner and his staff who have been extremely helpful to many right hon. and hon. Members in keeping them informed on this and on other subjects.

We refer to those who are the subject of this debate as boat people because originally in the 1970s they arrived by boat. They came mostly from South Vietnam, many of them were of Chinese race and, since South Vietnam had recently been defeated in war by North Vietnam, it was natural for them to cross the South China sea rather than travel via Vietnam on the land route.

We remember the harrowing scenes on our television screens of small unseaworthy boats, and the stories of attacks by sharks and pirates and the sinking of boats in storms. Such stories naturally and rightly evoked the sympathy of the world for the Vietnamese boat people. Since then, the situation has changed, and those who have been coming to Hong Kong in recent years have tended to come by land, many of them travelling all the way round almost as far as Hong Kong along the south China coast and then picking up a boat at the Pearl river. They arrive in Hong Kong as if they were boat people who had travelled all the way from Vietnam, which in most instances in recent years has not been the case. Nevertheless, because of our memory of the harrowing scenes of the 1970s, the boat people, as we continue to call them, still attract a great deal of sympathy and feeling among many people in many parts of the world.

The numbers of such people have varied from time to time. The largest number to arrive in one year was 66,000, and they came in the first seven months of 1979. In 1988, some 18,500 arrived, and in 1989 the figure was 34,500. I am speaking of those who came to Hong Kong. More than 14,000 have arrived this year. A few weeks ago, as many as 180 a day were arriving in Hong Kong. I am glad to say that that figure has now dropped, although it is still running at 56 a day—a substantial number. Ever since the 1970s, every year, significant numbers have arrived.

All this time, Hong Kong has, to its credit, followed the policy of first asylum. No Vietnamese migrant, whether arriving by boat direct from south Vietnam or from some other place, has been turned away. Partly because of that splendid record, 97 per cent. of the people who leave Vietnam clandestinely come to Hong Kong. We have to remember that Hong Kong is a crowded place. There are 5·8 million people living in an area only twice the size of the Isle of Wight. That is a density of 5,385 people per square kilometre, compared to our density of 230. Therefore, the refugees are even more of a burden for Hong Kong than they would be for a less populated country.

Up to about 1988, all people leaving Vietnam in these circumstances were treated by the world as refugees. However, shortly before 1988, the practice of some of the resettlement countries began to change, and they began to differentiate between those who were genuine refugees—those who came in the 1970s and early 1980s probably were refugees escaping from persecution or the fear of it—and those who were leaving for economic reasons.

As a result, resettlement from Hong Kong dropped off dramatically. In 1980, 37,000 were resettled from Hong Kong to other recipient countries, but in 1987 only just over 2,000. This change obliged Hong Kong also to change. Therefore, in June 1988, it adopted a policy of screening the Vietnamese arrivals. The screening is monitored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and its aim is to differentiate between those who are genuine refugees, who are placed in open camps, and those who are economic migrants, who are put into detention centres. Screening has shown that over 80 per cent. of those who arrive are economic migrants.

All this imposes a heavy burden on Hong Kong. As of 22 July—three days ago—there were 5,736 refugees in Hong Kong. Those who had been screened out as non-refugees numbered 18,194 and those awaiting screening and the results of screening numbered 37,770—a total of 61,700 people. If the same numbers were applied to the United Kingdom, given the difference in our population, 600,000 people would be here either as refugees or as people in detention. That would be regarded by the people of this country with horror. Our whole population would say, "This is intolerable. Something has to be done about it." Not surprisingly, that is the attitude of the people of Hong Kong who, for so many years, have put up with this burden. The cost has been substantial. Most of it has been borne by Hong Kong, although some has been borne by the United Kingdom.

In 1989, as a result of this change of policy and the introduction of screening, a conference of 75 countries was held in Geneva. It evolved a comprehensive programme of action, which has four parts: first, continuation of the policy of first asylum; secondly, the practice of screening; thirdly, resettlement in other countries for those who are genuine refugees; and, fourthly, repatriation to their countries of origin for those who are non-refugees. The first three parts of the programme have been successful; the fourth has not. Since March 1989, only 7,700 Vietnamese have voluntarily returned to Vietnam from Hong Kong. In that time, 53,400 have arrived and 5,100 have been born in the camps, so the situation has been getting worse.

It is universally accepted that people who move from one country to another for economic reasons should be repatriated to their country of origin. It happens everywhere else except in this case. It happens in this country. If somebody arrives from south Asia or the Caribbean without permission, not as a refugee and not seeking asylum but for economic reasons, that person is turned back. Hong Kong turned back 30,000 Chinese illegal immigrants last year. This is one of the sore points for the people in Hong Kong. Their own compatriots—cousins, uncles, perhaps even brothers—are sent back across the border, whereas the Vietnamese are accepted. There is no particular friendship between the Chinese and Vietnamese races.

The position of the United States is wholly illogical. It agreed to the comprehensive programme of action, as did Vietnam, but it is impeding putting that programme into practice. At the same time, it turns back, without any ceremony, boat people from Haiti, and the regime in Haiti is at least as oppressive as that in Vietnam. It turns back people from Mexico if they arrive at the border, and British people arriving at United States airports if they do not have permission to enter. The United States, like other countries, has recently been sending back Kurds from Turkey to Iraq, whether they like it or not. This is the universal practice for illegal immigrants. Therefore it is essential that the same policy should be applied in the case of Vietnamese boat people who are screened out as not being genuine refugees.

About a year ago, when I was in Hong Kong, I went to a detention camp, as many hon. Members have done. The camps are not very pleasant places to visit, because the overcrowding is so intense. Through the interpreter I asked a young, fit Vietnamese who had arrived three weeks before where he had come from and what he expected to happen to him. His reply was, "You in the west are so weak, I expect to end up in California." We must break that assumption, because as long as it applies these people will continue to arrive in Hong Kong. We must make it clear beyond doubt in Vietnam that non-refugees will ultimately be returned to Vietnam.

The fourth point of the policy evolved in Geneva in 1989 is not being put into force largely because of opposition from the United States. Because the United States is opposed to compulsory repatriation, so is Vietnam, because it is seeking favour and aid from the United States now that it has lost aid from Soviet Union. I recently discussed this question with the State Department in Washington, when I went over there with a small all-party group. We had a thorough discussion of the whole subject. We pointed out this illogicality, and the people in the State Department treated us courteously but did not have a satisfactory answer.

It is clear that the United States Administration still feel that it is inconceivable that people should be returned to Vietnam, a country that, in the folk memory of the United States, is a terrible place to be, whatever the changes in recent times, and whatever the improvements in life there. I asked the State Department officials what would be necessary before the United States would formalise its relations with Vietnam, and they said that there were two conditions. The first was that there must be a solution to the problem of prisoners of war and those missing in action. I fully understand the trauma that that still causes to people in the United States, and especially to the relatives of those who are missing.

The second condition was that there should be a solution to the problem of Cambodia. I said to the State Department officials, "Are you really saying that there must be a solution to the problem of Cambodia as a precondition? Surely the solution to the problem in Cambodia lies not with Vietnam alone but principally with the four parties in Cambodia. It lies with the Chinese and with other countries. Why are you saying that there has to be a solution to the problem of Cambodia when it is not within the power of Vietnam to produce such a solution?" We left it at that. I hope that the United States, a country for which I have great admiration and respect, will realise that the time has come to move on towards normalisation of its relations with Vietnam.

A possible way forward—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will deal with it when he replies—is the new concept of a holding centre in Vietnam to which non-refugees could be returned. The concept has been discussed by the Government with the Vietnamese, and it seems to me to hold great promise. Such a centre would be run by an international and impartial body and monitored by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

There is resentment in Hong Kong at the burden that the territory has had to carry for such a long time. Apart from the financial burden, there are pressures on accommodation and manpower and the dangers to which Hong Kong officials are exposed in the camps. There is resentment because of the criticism that Hong Kong receives from the world in spite of its humanitarian approach; for example, criticism that the screening process is not operated especially well, and that there is not sufficiently good accommodation for those who are in detention camps.

I hope that the people of Hong Kong will realise from this debate that there is a great deal of support for Hong Kong in the extremely difficult situation that it faces. The British-Hong Kong parliamentary group is one of the largest of its kind. We share the feelings of the people of Hong Kong, and we support the efforts that Her Majesty's Government are making. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will give us some grounds for hope when he replies.