British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
[16 JULY 1990]
Such widowed spouses were not included in the assurance given by my night hon. and learned Friend. However, we should like to consider some of the further points that my right honourable Friend has raised".—[Col. 396.]
He did not go any nearer to clarifying that position. When asked whether the widowed spouses in question would be allowed to enter the United Kingdom for settlement or merely permitted to enter and be required later to make application for indefinite leave to remain, he said.
"I am trying to remember the exact terms of my right hon. and learned Friend's undertaking, but I believe it is for settlement".{Col. 397.]
Later he said that he wanted I want to look again at this whole question. That, I think, is the end. We have not heard what the exact terms are, and we have not heard the result of his wanting to look again at this question. Indeed, Mr. Channon and his colleagues were not satisfied with the answer that he gave. Therefore, it is right that we should ask the noble Earl to outline in this debate his intentions about those spouses who have another nationality. As I say, these could be Japanese or Thai who may well have children in England, who have no more connection with the country of their birth and who have supported their husbands during their time in Hong Kong and who might wish to join their children in England. What would be their position?
It is true that there is an anomaly. Those who are offered passports under the scheme proposed by the Government will be able to bring their spouses and children into Britain, whereas UK citizens living in Hong Kong who have married citizens from other countries—those covered by this amendment—will not have the same rights.
Therefore. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a clear answer. We believe that our amendment will remove the anomaly and the worries that I have described and will bring parity. I hope that the Minister will look at the amendment seriously and will give an explanation which will satisfy that small but vulnerable group of people in Hong Kong.
Earl Ferrers: The whole basis of the British Nationality Act 1981 is that the acquisition of citizenship should involve a period of residence in this country. For the spouse of a British citizen that period of residence is three years. It is designed to ensure that the non-British spouse has some links with the United Kingdom, independent of marriage; and, there is, of course, no provision in the 1981 Act for widowed spouses.
The new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, represents a fundamental depar- ture from that position. It is essential to our proposals that existing nationality principles should continue to operate normally, except in relation to the 50,000 key personnel selected under the Bill and their immediate families. Nevertheless, I can understand that British expatriates in Hong Kong are anxious that their spouses might become stranded in Hong Kong in the event of their death.
In response to this legitimate worry my right honourable friend gave, during the Second Reading of
377 LD6/37 Job 6-5
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
726
this Bill in another place, an assurance which applies specifically to all British citizens in Hong Kong. He announced that the widowed spouse of a British citizen who was resident in the territory at the time of his or her death would be allowed to settle here as a concession under the immigration rules, as if coming here as the spouse of a living British citizen. I know that was a point of concern to the noble Baroness and I hope that reply met her approval. The concession was to apply provided that the widow or widower had remained resident in Hong Kong, had not remarried and did not have citizenship of a third country.
My right honourable friend has given further thought to the terms of that assurance. Widowed spouses having citizenship of a third country were excluded from it on the grounds that, if they found it difficult to continue living in Hong Kong, they would have somewhere else to go and would not need to seek refuge here. However, on reflection we accept the argument that, even where the spouse does have citizenship of a third country-the noble Baroness. referred to Japan or Thailand-he or she might well have a genuine concern about his or her position if the British partner were to die. My right honourable friend has therefore decided to extend the assurance to widowed spouses with a third country nationality. The assurance of settlement in the United Kingdom is therefore available, provided only that the widowed spouse has not remarried and is still resident in Hong Kong. The assurance can be taken up at any time, whether before or after 1997. British citizens resident in Hong Kong need therefore feel no reason to leave the territory in order to secure their spouse's future.
The Bill has been criticised for differentiating between the spouses of the 50,000 and the spouses of other British citizens. It is perfectly true that in granting the 50,000 immediate access to British citizenship the Bill would be treating them more favourably. The justification for that is the one I set out when I gave our views on Second Reading. The Bill is an exceptional measure directed at a specific group of people who, by definition, are essential to Hong Kong but who are leaving in large numbers.
I hope that explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness and that she will feel content with the assurances given.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I am most grateful to the Minister. He has responded exactly to the anxieties expressed. I repeat my gratitude and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Procedure]:
Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 2, line 17, leave out (“Governor of Hong Kong”) and insert ("Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 12, and I do so extremely briefly. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that it is not the Governor, with due respect to him, who is in charge of the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.