British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
HOUSE OF COMMONS Standing Committee A
200
[Mloyd]
Sec4(5), which covers BDTCs in other dependent territories as well as in Hong Kong, will emain in force both generally and in relation to Hong Kong. It is not being repealed, nor does the Bill subsume it as far as Hong Kong is concerned.
What the Home Secretary was referring to on Second Reading were certain special arrangements introduced to give, in limited cases, rights of admission at the Home Secretary's discretion to people who have been exposed to special consideration and special factors in the course of serving Hong Kong or United Kingdom interests in a civilian or military role.
I hope that the Committee accepts that it would not be wise-indeed it could be prejudicial to the interests of those concerned-for me to go into too much detail about that section of the scheme. However, I can say that it will cover people in sensitive posts, including senior police officers, other public servants and military personnel who are identifiable by virtue of the nature of the work that they do. The scope of that section of the scheme extends beyond Govenment and public service to cover those in the private sector who may consider themselves to be vulnerable on account of their work or activities. Political activists, trade unionists—as referred to by the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) in an earlier sitting- and journalists have all been mentioned in our debates as potential candidates. If they are judged to have a good case, they may be recommended by the Governor for citizenship.
All cases would be fully and fairly considered on their merits, and where appropriate, on an anonymous basis.
11.15 am
Mr. Ernie Ross: Let me return to the Governor's prejudices. I can understand how he may feel that people who have worked on behalf
behalf of the establishment in sensitive areas should be judged highly. Given the record of the way in which trade unionists and political activists have been treated by the present and previous Governors in Hong Kong, how can we be certain that their ultimate fate will be considered sensitively.
The Governor may think that the best thing to happen to political activists, if he does not agree with their beliefs, is for them to be left in Hong Kong, perhaps at the mercy of what he may regard as a Government who are more attune to such people.
Mr. Lloyd: I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman said about the record of the Hong Kong Government. The Governor will consider matters fairly and objectively. A British passport may be the last thing for which some trade unionists would want to apply. If they do not have one and are vulnerable, it will not be because the Governor decided that they should not have one because they may have been a thorn in the flesh of the administration. I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Gentleman will accept that what he said is not correct. The slur that he cast on the objectivity and fairness of the present administration is wrong and he has no basis for making it.
Mr. Ross: Not only will I not withdraw my comment, I must tell the Minister that many people in this country will be watching carefully to see how the judgments will be made. It is not a general belief that the present and previous Governors have been helpful to political activists and trade unionists. We shall watch carefully to judge whether the Government are serious about trying to keep a balance among those who will remain in Hong Kong.
Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will watch carefully the way in which the scheme is applied. I welcome that, as I am sure that the Hong Kong Government do. We are trying to make the scheme as open and objective as possible, so that Members of Parliament and residents in Hong Kong can see that it is fair and objective. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be equally fair in his assessment of how the scheme is run.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said that a lottery would be fairer than the points scheme. I can imagine what would have been the reaction of the House, and indeed of the hon. Gentleman, had we proposed a lottery. I sympathise with his view that we should give citizenship to a much wider range and greater number of people in Hong Kong. I explained earlier in our proceedings why we cannot do that and why we must be selective, and that was a major theme in the Second Reading debate.
Having made that decision, we must devise a scheme, difficult and uncomfortable as it may be, under which the 50,000 people selected will be seen objectively to be key contributors to the Hong Kong economy and society and whose emigration, which is increasing, would diminish the prosperity of the territory and undermine its stability. We have tried to make the scheme as fair and objective as possible and that requires a substantial element of discretion being left with the Governor. He will exercise that discretion not to select specific people, but to select and set criteria for the distribution of special circumstances points.
The benefit of the scheme being discussed now, although it will not be set out in an Order in Council until well after the Bill is enacted, is that that enables the Government to take on board suggestions that are made in the Committee, the House and another place, and outside, both in Hong Kong and this country. I have suggested that the hon. Member for Edinburgh. Central and others may wish to make further comments after reflection on our discussion this morning. They will be very welcome and we shall consider them carefully.
I cannot accept amendment No. 38, not because I disagree with its thrust-I do not-but because we intend to give effect to its proposal in the Order in Council. It would not be right to lose the flexibility that the Order in Council will provide by including the amendment in the primary legislation.
Mr. Maclennan: The Minister has spoken about the sensitive service category, which will cover 6,300 people. That category is different from the other three
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.