T
VOU
3200
TOLUL KK
97
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Standing Committee A
98
3395
[Mr. Lloyd] British-born citizen and have the right, under the Home Secretary's assurance, to come here. Such person would not lose out on the right to come to this country, but she would not be registered as a British citizen. I hope, of course, that such circumstances will not arise.
Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I had always anticipated that, when a person was regstered, the registration of his or her spouse would be simultaneous.
Mr. Lloyd: That is what would happen.
Mr. Darling: That is what I thought. I just wanted an assurance that, if a key person dies after being regis- tered, the security given to the spouse will not fall by the wayside.
The main thrust of our amendment concerns the wives or husbands of British citizens. The Minister referred to the Home Secretary's concessions. In our previous debate, the Minister rightly said that he wanted to grant citizenship to avoid dubiety. He claimed a claim from which he has backed away that that was due in part to remarks made by the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman then invited me to say, on behalf of the Labour party, that I would honour the Home Secretary's concession. I should be happy to honour a concession that was along the lines of the amendment. Husbands and wives of British citizens are in a special position, and they deserve to be considered in such a way.
One problem with British immigration law is that, each time we attempt to codify it, ministerial discretion is placed alongside it. That is not completely satisfac- tory, as consideration would depend on the Minister involved, and which way the political wind was blowing at the time. While I am happy to say that an incoming Labour Government would give exactly the same con- sideration to those people in Hong Kong, I am not sure that that would give them the security that they seek.
It is no good the Minister saying that, if the Bill is amended in the way in which we suggest, all other related legislation would have to be similarly amended. The premise underlying this Bill is that it is special because of the special circumstances in Hong Kong. If it is special for business men, it must be special for the widows or widowers of British citizens who die before the colony is handed over to China. We are not being inconsistent by tabling the amendment; it recognises the section of people in Hong Kong with special cir- cumstances. I prefer to concentrate on those people rather than on business men, for whom I have precious little sympathy, as I have always made clear.
Although I said that I am happy with the Home Secretary's concession, it does not meet the difficulty. There should be certainty on this matter and people should not have to worry about it. The Minister has answered my point on amendment No. 40, which was a probing amendment, so I shall not press it. However, I do not intend to withdraw amendment No. 36.
Question put, That the amendment be made:- The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.
[Division 3)
Darling, Mr. Foulkes, Mr. Leighton, Mr.
Boswell, Mr.
AYES
McFall, Mr. Maclennan, Mr.
Hagua, Mr. Hughes, Mr.
NOES
Brandon-Bravo, Mr.
Coombs, Mr.
Davis, Mr.
Goodson-Wickes, Dr.
Lightbown, Mr.
Lloyd, Mr.
Wella, Mr.
Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 3 in page 1, line 15, at end add
"such directions shall be made by an Order in Council setting out the terms of sucha directions; and në such Order shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before ajd approved by a resolution of cach House of Parliament".
This is a straightforward amendment and need not detain us too long. Clause 1(3) states:
"The Secretary of State may by directions given to the Governor limit the number of persons id be recommended to him in any specified period; and any such directions may specify different limits for recommendations in respect of persons of different classes or descriptions."
In other words, the Secretary of State will be given the power to vary the scheme if he does not like it. That should be debated in Parliament. It would be wrong for the Secretary of State to pary the scheme without an opportunity to debate it. Apart from anything else, the progress of the scheme could be debated at that stage.
With such wide powers I anticipate that the Home Secretary could refuse to Have businessmen, or others, and accept only lawyers. Heaven forbid such a pros- pect! It is not satisfactory to give the Home Secretary such discretion, without Harliament having an oppor- tunity to express its views. Amendment No. 3 would ensure that when the Home Secretary exercises that power, he must do so by an Order in Council which can then be debated so that we have a chance to say whether we like what he is doing.
I appreciate that it is convenient for Ministers to have such power, but, given the anticipated difficulties with the way in which the points scheme will work, it would be wrong to allow the Secretary of State simply to get on with it. I am interested to know why the Minister will, as I assume he will, resist the amendment as it seems to be entirely consistent with open Govern- ment and accountability.
Mr. Leighton: That is why he is resisting it.
Mr. Darling: In light of what the Minister told us when we dealt with the first group of amendments this morning, the two do not square. I await the Minister's response.
Mr. Peter Lloyd: Amendment No. 3 would require that each tranche of registration under the selection scheme would need the separate prior approval of Parliament. The Government believe that that would serve no useful purpose. Our intention has been made crystal clear. The bulk of the 50,000 citizenship certifi- cates will be issued with the minimum of delay after the
ac
OFFICE PARLY
د الام AUCH
Page 165Page 166
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.