TKUN BUNU KURO DILL UNIT
91
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
06.06.1990 11:23
10 MAY 1990
Standing Committee A
NO. 4
92
ANNEX E
treaty. However, on 12 June Sir David Wilson stated that it is
"important that nothing should be done which could throw any doubt on these documents”.
For that reason he advocated granting right of entry to this country.
Whatever the hon. Member for Caithness and Suth- erland (Mr. Maclennan) thinks about my decision on this, there is no doubt that the Governor of Hong Kong, OMELCO and all the others who made rep- resentations to the British Government and to Mem- bers of Parliament wanted a right of abode or right of entry. That position has changed and we come to the Bill. The opposition of the Labour party, and the con- siderations of immigration law on the status of citizen- ship established in the British Nationality Act 1981 drove the Government to offer British citizenship.
I accept that right of abode has difficulties, but any change, such as that which we are discussing, to a right of abode would have required primary legislation. That primary legislation could have included pro- visions for a special right of abode with the ability to bring children and so on. That would have contradicted our immigration and citizenship laws, but so does the Bill. We are trying to have a unique and special pro- vision, but the Government will not succeed because they will be faced with very heavy demands in other unique situations in which there may be stronger kin- ship tics with this country and greater call on the Government's sympathy and understanding.
The Government say that the Bill will not set a precedent, but I believe that that is incorrect. It will drive a coach and horses through our immigration and citizenship laws and will be prayed in aid on behalf of many minority groups in difficulties, many of whom may be relatives of people who have lived in this coun- try for many years. The provision of British citizenship is a difficult matter. I accept the argument that the right of abode must be introduced in special circumstances to fulfil the needs that Hong Kong citizens demand and that without such a Bill we cannot amend the law successfully in the way suggested. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed, No.2, in page 1, line 8, at end insert-
"The Secretary of State may register as British citizens any persons who are settled in Hong Kong, who are British Dependent Territo- ries Citizens. British Overseas Citizens. British Nationals (Over- scas). British Protected Persons or British subjects and who can show that they are entitled to no other citizenship or nationality status."—[Mr. Darling.}
Question put, That the amendment be made:
The Committee divided: Ayes 6. Noes 9.
[Division 2]
Darling, Mr.
Foulkes, Mr. Leighton, Mr.
AYES
McFall, Mr. Maclennan, Mr. Pendry, Mr
NOES
Boswell, Mr.
Brandon-Bravo, Mr.
Coombs, Mr.
Davis, Mr.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr.
Hague, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Lightbown, Mr. Lloyd, Mr.
Question accordingly negatived.
12 noon
Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 1, line 8, at end insert-
**(1A) The Secretary of State may register the spouse of any British citizen where that British citizen has died before 30th June 1997 and would otherwise have no right of entry or abode in the United Kingdom.".
The Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 40, in schedule 2, page 5, line 5. at end insert- "(c) the spouse of a person registered under section I(1) of this Act where that person has died after such registration.”,
Mr. Darling: This amendment is rather like the one on which we have just voted and it refers to those who have a need for assistance from the Government, as opposed to an economic need, or for whom it might be expedient to stay in Hong Kong for the time being.
There are two categories of people referred to in the amendments. First, there are the spouses of British citizens. If a British citizen dies before 3 June 1997, his or her spouse would have no effective right of abode in the United Kingdom. Those who have married British citizens could find themselves stateless or at least in an uncertain position. Some may have other citizenships, but others may not. Secondly, amendment No. 40 refers to those who fall within schedule 2. 1 shall discuss that matter later as it is a separate point.
We tabled the amendment because the matter was raised on Second Reading from the Conservative Benches. In reply, the Home Secretary said:
"Spouses will have an absolute right to enter the country, although three years' residence will required after that for them to obtain British citizenship."—{Official Report, 19 April 1990; Vol. 170, c. 1574.]
The first thing that strikes anyone who know anything about the immigration rules-I should have thought that the Home Secretary would have been in that happy position-is that spouses do not have an absol- ute right to enter the country. Indeed, one of the running sores in our immigration rules and practice is the notorious primary purpose rule that every spouse must satisfy before entering the country.
We could imagine an elderly couple living in Hong Kong, in which the husband is a British citizen but his wife is not. When he attempts to come to this country. his wife must prove that the primary purpose of their marriage was not for her to gain entry here. They must answer certain other questions, such as proving that they have met, whether they have adequate accommo- dation and whether they are likely to have recourse to public funds. The Home's Secretary's bold assertion that such spouses would have an absolute right to enter the country does not bear too much examination. I hope that he has re-examined the matter, but if he has not, I strongly urge him to do so before we have another deate on the immigration rules.
6 JUN '90 11:16
01 273 4189 PAGE.002