95
Hong Kong
23 OCTOBER 1990
Hong Kong
296
[Mr. Alistair Darling]
I visited Hong Kong briefly after the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill received its Royal Assent earlier this year at the invitation of the Hong Kong Government. I repeat the assurance that I gave there and in Standing Committee; a Labour Government would honour all passports issued under the Act. We shall review the way in which the scheme has been operating when we come to office as the present Government have said they will. All passports granted under the scheme will be honoured by
us.
The Minister said that some changes were made after the scheme was originally opposed. By and large, those changes are an honest attempt to improve the way in which the scheme operates. I believe that the Minister has made a valiant effort to try to meet some of the criticisms that were made, although, as I said, I do not believe that he has succeeded in doing so completely.
The Minister referred to article 14, which deals with special circumstances. Although the Committee and civil servants in Hong Kong did their best to eliminate discretion on the part of the Governor by allocating a set number of points for the various qualifications set out under the scheme, it is the case, and it is bound to be the case, that judgments will have to be made as between one applicant and another. As a result of that, it is inevitable that some people will feel hard done by. It is particularly difficult to follow the Government's route on British firms. We have a responsibility to the entire colony in Hong Kong, not just to British firms. France in particular has favoured French firms, but we should remember that the entire colony, not just British firms, is the responsibility of Britain.
We should understand that the new Act was never designed as a safety net for the majority of the population of Hong Kong. It was never designed to ensure that the whole population would be able to leave or to get out in the event of some danger, although many people at the time thought that that was what it was supposed to do. The Act was an attempt to keep in the labour market those with skills that were in short supply in the colony, and, by definition, those who could migrate quite easily. People in that position could usually find jobs elsewhere. For that reason, the scheme can never be entirely fair because it tends to favour people who already have choices.
It is unlikely that those people would come to the United Kingdom, as I suspect, that they could get rather better jobs doing the same thing in different parts of the world. I do not think that that is a particularly real fear in respect of people who are likely to qualify under the scheme. But, because of their mobility, those who qualify under the scheme can in many cases qualify for other schemes being operated by various other countries. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that, if someone already has citizenship of another country, the points system will operate in such a way as to make it less likely—in fact, very unlikely for him to qualify under our scheme.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: Perhaps it will be convenient if I answer that point now. There are negative points for those who have nationality of another country-minus 200— which makes it almost certain that they would not be able to achieve British nationality as well. The scheme is weighted heavily against them, although they will be able
158 CD9/53 Job 13-11
to enter it should they wish to do so. The knowledge that they would be "minused" in that way would encourage few of them to do so.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful for that assurance, especially as, in the four days that I was in Hong Kong, several people seemed to be under the impression that they would probably qualify for our scheme as well as other schemes on offer. Some of the people who might have applied would have liked Britain as their first choice, rather than Australia or Canada. It is important that we do not end up simply giving a large number of people passports while other people receive none at all.
The people who are likely to qualify under the scheme already have other choices available to them. Anyone who thinks that the Act or the scheme has anything to do with expanding the opportunity for people in Hong Kong to go elsewhere should the need arise, should realise that the additional choices are being given to people who, for the most part, already have choices.
There is no doubt that the number of people who will be seeking passports will vastly outnumber the number of passports that are available. Because of that, there is a grave risk that there will be a sense of unfairness. With the best will in the world, any points scheme is discriminatory, and a large number of people will be disappointed. Those who operate the scheme have made every effort to avoid that possibility, but, none the less, it remains.
Under article 14—I dwelt on the matter at some length when we considered the Bill in Committee-the Governor still has much discretion. It is regrettable that the Government have sought to exclude judicial review. Individuals may feel aggrieved because their applications have been refused. They may feel that, in effect, they gave points to others who applied and were accepted, and who on the face of the applications seemed to be in exactly the same position as themselves. The risk of that happening has been reduced by spelling out the number of points that are available for certain qualifications, but it is one that remains.
It is regrettable that the scheme still maintains points for an applicant's wage level. That criterion is a classic example of the unfairness of the scheme. It attempts to equate additional value to society with higher remunera- tion. That is made clear in annex 3. It counters the Minister's claim that the scheme recognises merit and achievement. There are many in Hong Kong who have much merit and have achieved a great deal, but they will never qualify under the scheme because they are not at the top of the wage structure and have not achieved some other pre-eminence. Judicial review might have been an opportunity to set people's minds at ease. It might have provided an opportunity to put right some decisions that went wrong.
The Opposition do not believe that the Act and the scheme will determine the future of Hong Kong. It is obvious that the people want to stay there and will leave only as a last resort. The colony has always had a high turnover in it's population, however, and that is likely to continue. The determining factor in the success of Hong Kong will be the relationship with China and China's internal development. The opportunities for investment in China and the entire Pacific basin are there to be taken. Britain could help to provide for confidence in the region through British companies. Britain does not enjoy an especially high reputation in that part of the world. The
}
I
1.
ર
C