1111
European Community (Right of Residence) 8 FEBRUARY 1990 European Community (Right of Residence) 1112
bulg at the seams with new applications. We should se that there will be a significant and substantial
rec
extension.
One asks the question: have the British people been consulted about the changes? Can even the Minister understand the implications of the changes that he is pushing through? The reason I ask that follows the Minister's intervention. I am not sure that he can have satisfactorily read the directive; certainly I shall be fascinated if he can satisfactorily explain the definitions of families who will be able to come in.
I shall read to the House two or three lines from the Government's explanatory memorandum. The paragraph headed, "Policy implications" deals with the rights of dependants of EC nationals to exercise their right of residence in this country. It says:
"The new wording specifies that the family members who may benefit from the provisions of the Right of Residence Directives are those currently covered by Regulation 1612/68."
That is the change to which the Minister referred as not being very great. The paragraph continues:
"It is, however, proposed to include in the Council minutes a statement as to the possibility of a review of the given definition of members of family in the light of the outcome of proceedings on the proposal for a Regulation amending Article 10 of Regulation 1612/68.”
What does all that Euro-jargon mean? It means that no one has a clue as to what the definition of dependant, families or relatives of EC nationals who will have the right of residence in this country will be. If ever there was a foggy, inadequate, vague definition of dependant, this is it. The Government's explanatory memorandum, which is a polite title for the verbiage that I have just read, shows how extraordinarily vague the category of dependant will be.
As the category of dependant cannot be satisfactorily defined, will the Minister give a definition of the phrase, "non-economically active persons"? We are giving right of residence in this country to pensioners and other non-economically active persons. I am anxious about that phrase because I suspect that it will mean the unemployed, the unemployable, the underclass and the “don't want to work" class.
I say this with some feeling because I represent a constituency that was much troubled by what was known as the "dole-on-sea" phenomenon a year or two ago. As a result of boarding house keepers placing advertisements in the poorer districts because they could not fill their rooms, they were able to recruit large numbers of people who could not find work or, as we more often thought, people who did not want to work, to the south coast by a sort of magnet approach. All sorts of social problems flowed from that migration. I do not like the notion that we shall have a dole-on-sea syndrome with people from, not just the north of England, but the whole of Europe being attracted into a district. That is wrong and we need a much more precise definition than anything given in the explanatory memorandum.
Mr. Roger Knapman (Stroud): Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that, in the light of the greenhouse effect that some people are forecasting, the legislation could have the opposite intention?
Mr. Aitken: I presume that my hon. Friend means that my constituency is likely to become the Riveria of Europe.
571 CD80/51 Job 14-1
That would no doubt be agreeable but, once again, the immigration consequence of the document needs to be considered.
Hong Kong has been referred to tonight. In this House, certainly on the Government Benches, we are contemplat- ing a battle royal on the subject of Hong Kong. The heavy artillery of the Foreign Secretary and the big guns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) will shortly be locked in combat. We shall hear a great deal about the flow of Hong Kong immigration and whether we should give 50,000 passports.
If we look closely at the document and consider its implications because of the new rights given to EC nationals, residents and their families, we see that there is a huge, not just loophole, but bolthole, in the EC rules for Hong Kong residents and many others. The House may not be aware, but the easiest place in the European Community to get a passport today is Portugal. All one has to do, is buy a modest residence, keep it for three years -one does not have to live there and having done so, one can get a Portuguese passport and, therefore, become an EC citizen and resident.
Therefore, any Hong Kong nationals who are denied passports and entry into Britain simply have to club together, so that somebody buys a small villa in Portugal at a low cost. Within three years, under these extremely vague rules, they can bring in their entire family, dependants, and presumably many other relatives, without any of the checks and balances that exist under our immigration rules. If the British public want this, and it is intended by Parliament, so be it. However, such immigration by stealth, round the back door, through those EC methods, is not what this Parliament has yet accepted as right.
Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham): Will my hon. Friend consider that a Hong Kong resident would not have to go to Portugal to buy a villa, but would be able to go to Macau, just across the water from Hong Kong? All Macau residents will be able to move to Portugal at any time they wish.
Mr. Cormack: When my hon. Friend answers the point raised by our hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), will he consider that residents from Hong Kong, from wherever they come, are perhaps more likely to enjoy living in the climate of the south of France, than Bolton or Bootle? Therefore, the argument can be turned to good effect by those of us who feel that the Hong Kong people may come here. but many of them may choose to live not in Great Britain but in other parts of the Community.
Mr. Aitken: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is a case of special pleading and seems to be a question of hope over experience, because all evidence suggests that this country is still a mecca for people from all over the world. they come for language and many other reasons, and the flow of Hong Kong nationals within the Community, from wherever they come, is more likely to be to here than from here to other outlying parts.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) raises a significant point. It is correct-I omitted it—that the loophole is even wider than that which I illustrated when I spoke of people buying Portuguese villas. Hong Kong nationals can easily go to Macau, get
I
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.