TNAG-0903-FCO40-1113-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1979 — Page 27

25

ed Kingdom s born here. extend the are citizens hd colonies.

e door open tion because minor child- ionality law.

York): Will ve way?

ve way once

of that con- whole issue at the right

shows that citizen and as what legal bout whether of the Euro-

Rights?

a matter for mes for them natter for me y the accusa- racially dis- numbers of nority groups o intention of ging in their vided that the for immigra-

criticised for sexes and it settled in this ss favourably bring in their ation and the s from apply- en. A women citizen and ited Kingdom of abode here f abode. All

hy register as quire the right cumstances, it

ot

): I am grate- he is always In view of leman said in

the Member at this being a

257

Immigration

4 DECEMBER 1979

matter for the courts and that this House will be asked to approve his proposals tonight, surely the House should be advised by a Law Officer of the Crown about whether these proposals are in conformity with, or in breach of, the European convention?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am coming to that. Since the proposals put forward in 1969 by the Leader of the Opposition are exactly the same as mine, I should have thought that what happened then was the same as what is happening now. am surprised that anyone, in opposition should raise the matter at all.

I

I have already mentioned that under section 1(5) of the Immigration Act 1971 the wives of Commonwealth citizens settled here on 1 January 1973 must remain as free to come and go as they were before the passing of that Act. Clearly, therefore, men cannot be treated in precisely the same way as women. This emphasises the importance of the commitment to new Government's nationality legislation. We said that we would introduce a new nationality Bill to define entitlement to British citizen- ship and to the right of abode in this country. That remains our intention. Although we cannot introduce a Bill this Session because of the parliamentary timetable, I intend to publish a White Paper in the coming year.

Let me remind the House that the change in the marriage rules is not a novel one. In 1969 the Leader of the Opposi- tion, then Home Secretary, removed the right of entry of Commonwealth husbands and fiances. He said-these are his words -that the

"

abuse of the concession is inconsistent with the general scheme of Commonwealth immi- gration control ".

The reversal of the right hon. Gentleman's policy in 1974 by his successor in the Labour Government as Home Secretary was not undertaken without preliminary reservations.

In March 1974 the then Minister of State at the Home Office commented, in another place, as I reminded the House on 14 November, on the danger that

if this matter were to be mishandled by the present Government or by their successors we could experience a substantial new wave of House of immigration ".-(Official_Report Lords 28 March 1974; Vol. 350 col. 794-5.]

16 H 25

Immigration

258

In August 1974 Mr. Roy Jenkins never- theless changed the rules. But the ensuing increase in the immigration figures dem- onstrates the validity of his initial reser- vations about the change.

After the changes affecting husbands and fiances, the proposed change which has attracted most attention is the tighten- ing up of the requirements for the admis- sion of dependants other than wives and young children. We said that we would do that. We cannot accept immigrati ›n commitments solely by virtue of a per- son's preference for living in this country or the fact that certain family members are settled here. Children aged 18 or over will in future qualify for settlement only where the circumstances are of the most strongly compassionate nature. Special consideration will, however, be given to daughters under 21 who formed part of the family unit overseas and who have no other relative to whom they can turn.

Parents and grandparents aged 65 or over, and widowed mothers, already have to show that they are wholly, or mainly, dependent on children in this country who can support and accommodate them. In future they will also have to show that they are without other relatives in their own country to whom they can turn and that they have a standard of living sub- stantially below that of their own coun- try. I do not see why, when elderly rela- tives have a choice of living with rela- tives here or in their own country, the presumption should be that they should come here.

Several Hon. Members rose-

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sorry. I said that I would not give way again. I have given way several times.

Several Hon. Members rose---

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Richard Crawshaw): Order. The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he will not give way.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann (Mitcham and Morden) rose-

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentle- man must resume his seat.

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will reply to points at the end of the debate. I think that that is the best way of proceeding.