1579
British Nationality (Hong Kong Bill
19 APRIL 1990
British Nationality (Hong Kong | Bill
1580
I hope that right hon. and hon. Members who will vote for the Bill tonight have studied the points scheme, by which British passports will be distributed. British citizenship is to be awarded on the basis of a calculation that most urban district counc:is would regard as too crude for the allocation of council houses. I invite hon. Members who doubt that judgment to read paragraph 23 of the proposed scheme:
"In the event that a number of candidates scored equal points and all could not be accommodated within the places available for each group, the Governor would have discretion to choose whom to recommend for citizenship."
An urban district council that gave such power to a housing manager would be driven out of office. The Home Secretary understated the case when he told us that this is an unprecedented way of awarcing British citizenship.
The House is being invited to take or leave the points scheme. It is being denied any opportunity to amend it. It is not part of the Bill, but as it clearly will not be changed year by year there is no reason why it should be hidden away in secondary legislation. except the Government's hope that debate on the contents of the points scheme can be hidden away in a 90-minute debate late one night. Given the scheme's contents, that is hardly surprising.
I give another example of the scheme's absurdity, to which I hope the Foreign Secretary will give an explicit answer tonight. Paragraph 34 the scheme suddenly begins to refer to heads of households. 50.000 of whom will be granted British citizenship. How is a head of househoid defined? Is it a mun. Is it the highest wage carner? If a woman earns less than her husband but qualifies in the scheme through education and experience. can she still be granted British citizenship?
What about children? Paragraph 34 says that children under 18 will not be allowed to accompany their parents if the Home Secretary is not satisfied as to their good character. Are the Governmen: serious about that? Are they saying that when all the paraphernalia have been gone through, when the committee has sat, when the Governor has recommended and when the Home Secretary has rubber-stamped the decision. somebody will say "You and your spouse can come, but your children uncer 18 are not, in the Home Secretary's judgment, of good character." Is this a serious scheme, or was it simply cobbled together overnight?
If the scheme were simply ludicrous, the tragedy would not be so great, but it is also arbitrary and contradictory in a way that should disqualify it from serious consideration. In The Times today. Mr. D. A. White of Hong Kong described one of its consequences, to which I hope the Home Secretary will listen. May I have the Home Secretary's attention?
Mrs. Currie: On a point of orcer. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify for the House whether this is a debate or a statement from the right hon. Gentleman? Is it not time that he gave way to a Conservative Member?
Mr. Stuart Bell (Middlesbrough): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Is it on the same point?
Mr. Bell: I am seeking your protection as a Back Bencher. We are trying to sten to the debate, but Conservative Members ure consistent intervening without any sanction from the Chair. I do not wish to
challenge you. Mr. Deputy Speaker. but we require the protection of the Chair against those who are deliberately disrupting the proceedings of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Home Secretary and the right hon. Member for Birmingham. Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) have been generous in giving way, but I remind the House that many right hon, and hon. Members wish to speak. Interventions inevitably prolong speeches.
Mr. Hattersley: I hope that the Home Secretary will concentrate on the example that I propose to give him in a moment as it reveals that he was wrong in fact in an answer that he gave earlier. Mr. D. A. White of Hong Kong wrote to The Times this morning describing the contrary consequences of the Bill. Mr. White is British; his wife is Hong Kong-born Chinese. As a result of the iniquities of our general immigration law, Mr. White does not have an unqualified and unfettered right to bring his wife to this country. The Home Secretary said that he did. In fact, Mr. White has the right to apply to bring his wife here, but she has to pass a number of tests, such as the primary purpose ruic, to come to this country. Mr. White points out that if he were not British. but a British dependent territories citizen. he would certainly qualify for the points scheme and would thereby acquire the unfettered and unqualified right to bring his wife to this country. He says that he is penalised by the fact that he is British. He says finally that if he died before his wife, she would lose even the residual right to apply and to be examined. That does not scem right and I hope that the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary will justify such an anomaly.
Anyone who has residual doubts about the Government's fear that the points scheme is literally indefensible needs to read no further than clause 1(5). It
says:
"Neither the Secretary of State nor the Governor shall be required to give any reason for any decision made by him in the exercise of a discretion vested in him or under this Act and no such decision shall be subject to appeal or liable to be questioned in any court."
British citizenship is to be handed out according to a points scheme, which turns out, on examination, to be run not by the Governor. but by a group of Hong Kong officials who may well themselves be applicants. The points scheme would be ridiculous were it not wicked. However, the comparison, which I made a few moments ago, with local authority housing allocation may have been unfair. No housing points scheme could be so subjective or crude. No housing committee would deny an aggrieved applicant the right of appeal. No local authority would be allowed to avoid judicial review of its housing allocation, yet all those iniquities and absurdities are built into the scheme by which the right to be British is granted by a
committee of Hong Kong officials and then rubber-stamped by the Foreign Secretary and the Governor of Hong Kong.
Mrs. Currie: Will the right hon. Gentieman give way?
Mr. Hattersley: The injustices inherent in the scheme were unavoidable once the Government decided on the principle-if "principle" is the right word-on which the Bill is based. The Government decided on a number and then had to decide how the total was made up. If the Government were determined to have a selective scheme, they should have begun by deciding which categories of
805 CD31 14 Jub 4-6
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.