1583
British Nationality (Hong Kong: Bill
19 APRIL 1990
British Nationality (Hong Kong, Bill
1584
That section allows the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to public servants who have worked abroad in colonial administrations. It enables the Government to offer citizenship to public servants of every rank, whereas the points scheme would clearly favour more senior officials. [Interruption.] How do I know? Who asked me how I knew? [Hon. Members: "Langbaurgh."] I should have guessed.
Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh): Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No.
Mr. Holt rose-
Mr. Hattersley: I shall give way in a moment.
Mr. Holt rose-
Mr. Hattersley: I shall gladly give way to the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) if he will tell me the five basic principles of the point's scheme that I have cited. Can he do that? [Laughter.}
Mr. Holt: The right hon. Gentleman-HON. MEMBERS: "One." The right hon. Gentleman-(HON. MEMBERS: "One."—and those behind him may think that this debate is funny and that the lives of people in Hong Kong are not important. This is not a game: it is a debate about people's lives and futures and the right hon. Gentleman is not doing Parliament or his party any good by his behaviour this afternoon. I suggest that he is honest with the public and that he stands up and tells the House how many people from Hong Kong the Labour party would allow into Britain.
Mr. Hattersley: It is because I regard this matter as crucial that I reject and resent the fact that hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh will vote for the Bill this evening without understanding the first thing about what is involved.
Some public servants will no doubt wish—perhaps even need to leave the colony after 1997. We shall certainly enable them to come to Britain. The Home Secretary's discretion-a major feature of both immigration and nationality legislation at present-can and will be used to assist other individuais-I emphasise individuals—who are in particular need of leaving the colony.
On 17 January the Foreign Secretary told the House that as we considered the Bill we shuld be mindful of our duty to the people of Britain as well as to the people of Hong Kong. It is to the consequences of the Bill for Britain that I shall now address my remarks. It now seems to be the Home Secretary's belief-it has always been the Foreign Secretary's belief-that most of the Hong Kong residents who receive British citizenship will choose not to come to Britain. The announcement by the Government of China that they will not recognise a second or dual nationality seems to me to undermine that conviction. My own view is that most of the 225.000 will not come immediately but will come eventuaily-in 1996 if they have not emigrated elsewhere. But I repeat that the number is not the issue. What concerns me-it is the nub of my passionate opposition to the Bill-is the damage that will be done to the interests and welfare of the black and Asian British. That damage will be real, practical and immediate. This is an immigration Bill as well as a nationality Bill. It confers the right of entry into Britain on men and
807 CD31 16 Job 411
women who do not possess it at present. New rights to new immigration-the extension of immigration-must be seen. at least during the lifetime of this Parliament. against the background of the Government's established immigration policy. About the principles of that policy -if "principies" is the right word-Ministers have been brutally frank. The rigorous control of numbers is said to be essential. The then Home Secretary-now the Foreign Secretary-was explicit in his words to the House on 16 November 1987. These are his words, not mine; they are his opinions, certainly not mine:
"there is a limit to the extent to which a society can accept"
Mr. Couchman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: No.
Mr. Couchman: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. In July the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said in the House that the Labour party recognised that 34 million Chinese could not be given the right of abode. On 20 December he said that 50.000 heads of households could not. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman-
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a matter for debate. It is not a point of order.
Mr. Hattersley: The then Home Secretary said on 16 November 1987:
"there is a limit to the extent to which a society can accept large numbers of people from different cultures without unacceptable social tensions. That remains our view. It is not an anti-immigrant view; it is a realistic view.
It would not be in the interests of the ethnic minorities themselves if there were a prospect of further mass inward movement. That prospect would increase social tensions, particularly in our cities.”—[Official Report, 16 November 1987: Vol. 122. c. 779.]
I repeat that that is the Government's view-the established principle of their immigration policy. Successive regulations have put it into practice. They have had the effect of reducing numbers and Ministers have boasted about it. What is more, adminstrative delays hold back the entry of men and women who are entitled to come here. The Government consistently refuse to allocate sufficient resources to reduce the queue. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester. East (Mr. Vaz) asked questions in the House during the week before the Easter recess. The answers that he obtained about the length of time that it takes, not to obtain the right to come here, but to demonstrate that right, was terrifying.
I have no doubt that if today we gave special priority immigration status to hand-picked residents of Hong Kong, the Government would hold back the entry into Great Britain of men and women with a far greater claim to British nationality. They would contrive more administrative delays and introduce new regulations. They would apply the primary purpose rule more rigorously. I remind the House that that is the rule that gives an immigration officer the power to read a husband's mind and announce that he cannot come to Britain because he is applying not because he wants to be with his wife but because he likes it here or wants a job here. The Home Secretary tells us that this is a Bill aimed at carefully chosen people with good jobs and good salaries. I know very well that he will compensate for that by keeping out