1649
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
19 APRIL 1990
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
1650
[Mr. Douglas Hurdj
(Mr. Kaufman). Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and I have worked on such matters before.
The Immigration Act 1988, put through by the Home Office. tightened the controls in the way that we promised in 1987. Consideration of immigration control has been in our mind throughout this discussion, but there is another consideration that was not there in 1987, because the 1987 election was fought before the events in Tiananmen square. The further consideration is the need to keep Hong Kong going, as our last big colony, at the level of prosperity and stability that the British interests and reputation require. We have had to reconcile those two considerations.
We decided that, due to the first consideration, we could not accept the advice of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), which he repeated today, and let in ail the 3-25 million British dependent territories citizens
Mr. Ashdown: We would not be letting them in.
Mr. Hurd: or rather, give them right of aboɑe. We decided that that option was not compatible with our stand on immigration control. We decided that, due to the second consideration-what one might call the Tiananmen consideration-we could not say a flat no to Hong Kong.
I readily agree. as my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon said, that a compromise has emerged in the Bill. It is criticised by some as going too far, and by others as not going far enough. I think, as did my hon. Friend. that we have probably got it about right.
If we had sat back, said nothing, failed to produce a Bill, and said that it was all too difficult, and if our other policies had failed and Hong Kong had degenerated into chaos and anarchy, we might have faced a refugee problem that neither law nor administration could prevent. People could have come and claimed asylum as refugees. conceivably on a scale that would make the present measure look small.
I can understand Opposition Back Benches who genuinely favour a massive liberalisation of Our immigration laws. I have listened to them for four years. I do not agree with them, but I respect their point of view. However, why is it that the Opposition Front Benchers, having voted time and again for the relaxauon of particular aspects of immigration law, oppose the Bill? Is it because the people who are being offered passports are the Queen's subjects in our last big colony, rather than citizens of an independent Commonwealth country? Surely, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook can see the difference between our attitude to them and to a Sikh wishing to come from the Punjab, the stability and prosperity of which is a matter of interest to us, but for which we do not have the responsibility that we have for those in our last big colony of Hong Kong?
Mr. Hattersley: The responsibility that I believe we have in the case that I cited is to the British woman living in Britain who has a right to be united with her husband but is denied it by the Government.
Mr. Hurd: The record will show that the right hon. Gentleman equated anxiety about the position in the Punjab with anxiety about the position in Hong Kong.
Is the opposition to the Bill on the part of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen because these are professional people who we hope will stay in Hong Kong but who. if they came to Europe, would make a strong and immediate contribution to our society? Is it because some of them work successfully in a capitalist society or in public services of high reputation? Why do Labour Front-Bench spokesmen discriminate against those key people in Hong Kong? It makes no sense in terms of the principies that I am accustomed to hearing from the Opposition; it makes sense only in terms of an unprincipied effort to embarrass the Government.
The mask of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook slipped when he accused my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary of seeking to preserve his racist credentials. The mask slipped and a nasty little bit of prejudice peeped out.
It is not true to say that the scheme will be of no benefit to the whole community in Hong Kong, which wants the public services. the prosperity and the stability of the colony to be maintained. The whole population of Hong Kong has an interest in the success of the scheme.
The right hon. Members for Sparkbrook and for Gorton were both continuously pressed by Conservative Members about numbers. but as they dodged the missiles it became clear what they would propose. I do not know which right hon. Gentleman would occupy this never-never land, but one of them would come to the House with a series of complicated propositions about immigration from Hong Kong without giving the House any idea of the numbers involved. But numbers are important when making judgments on any matter to do with immigration control.
What would the Opposition have said, what would the uproar have been, if we had produced the Bill without including numbers in it? We decided to grasp this difficulty, to fix a total and to put it on the face of the Bill. where it now is. That is the honest and straightforward way to set about a difficult problem of this sort, and it contrasts favourably with the weasely way in which the Opposition propose to set about it-
Mr. Janman rose-
Mr. Hurd: Adjectives such as divisive. elitist and privileged which have peppered the Bill in Opposition speeches were. I am told, effectively dealt with by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. Of course a selective scheme has to select. Any process of selection. examination or even election separates those who succeed from those who do not-so much is inevitable. There is disappointment among the people who do not succeed, but I repeat that the services, the jobs, the success and the stability that we are seeking to maintain in Hong Kong benefit the whole community, not just those who get passports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes) greatly exaggerated my influence in this matter, as I assure him historians will record. He sought to draw a contrast between the interests of Britain and those of Hong Kong, but on a material point they are closely linked. Hong Kong is one of our largest overseas markets. Our trade with it, at £4 billion a
340 CD31:49 Job 13-10