TNAG-2372-FCO40-3447-Hong-Kong-nationality-UK-passport-scheme-British-Nationalit-1991 — Page 88

1585

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill

19 APRIL 1990

British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill

1586

[Mr. Hattersley]

people without good jobs and without salaries-husbands and wives who ought to be reunited with their families in Britain.

Men and women with an established right to come here will be passed over in favour of men and women for whom a new and absolute right is being created. Some of the most underprivileged families in Britain will be penalised while help is given to other individuals who, by definition. continue to enjoy a very great advantage.

I remind the House of the people to whom we currently refuse entry to Great Britain. Husbands of British citizens are prevented from joining their wives in this country on the most flimsy and artificial of pretexts. Dependent relaives are deprived of the night to spend their old age with their families. Many special voucher holders-east African refugees who were promised the right to come to Britain 20 years ago have still not received visas. Perhaps worst of all, children of British citizens were denied entry because they were adjudged, in the notorious phrase. not to be related as claimed. Now DNA tests have proved that the Home Office was wrong—that they are the children of British citizens-but they are still being denied reunion with their families. Every week. I see families who are deperately damaged, materially and emotionally, by those exclusions-families who are separated when they should be together. While such exclusions continue. I do not propose to vote for the priority entry into Britain of men and women who qualify by a committee's judgment of such intangible attributes as

"special circumstances; experience and community service".

Mr. Waddington: Now that the right hon. Gentleman has fully developed his argument, we can understand it. He has said, first, that he is worried about the possibility of 50.000 people coming here from Hong Kong because of the effect that it may have on community relations [HON. MEMBERS: "No. It was you."] No, that is exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said. On the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would allow some people to come here from Hong Kong. How, in the light of that, can he again refuse to answer the straight question that has been put to him now half a dozen times? If he thinks that 50,000 people coming here would be bad for race relations. but believes that some peple should be allowed to come here from Hong Kong, how many people does he believe should come here from Hong Kong?

Mr. Hattersley: I had no doubt that the Home Secretary would eventually ask me the numbers question because that enables him to support the Bill and still preserve his racist credentials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] In the meantime--

Mrs. Currie: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I distinctly heard the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) talk about the racist credentials of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary. That is surely unparliamentary and it was a disgraceful thing to say.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Gentleman used a phrase that is unparliamentary I am sure that he would wish to rephrase it.

Mr. Hattersley: Of course. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had I used a phrase that was unparliamentary, I should. as

808 CD31/17 Job 5-3

always, withdraw it without a moment's hesitation. However, the idea that the phrase "racist credentials". which I debase by saying that it is used in every debate on race that we have in this place, is in any way unparliamentary, is, to put it simply, stretching it a bit. I want to ask the Home Secretary a question about his policies.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there precedent for the proposition that the word "racist" is unparliamentary?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the House will leave those matters to the Chair. There are remarks which some hon. Members find offensive. I did not feel it necessary to ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that particular phrase, but I must tell the House that this is a very serious debate. There are strong emotions on both sides and these interventions prolong speeches.

Mr. Hattersley: The iniquity of what the Government propose for Hong Kong becomes clear when it is compared with the treatment now meted out to British ethnic minorities. For example, we are told-indeed it is the nub and basis of the Bill—that it is right that 50,000 selected Hong Kong residents should be allowed to enter Britain and bring their families with them. That is right because of their uncertainty about the colony's future.

If a Sikh woman from my constituency-Sikh and British marries a man from the Punjab, that man will be subject to a searching examination of his motives and intentions if he applies to come to this country. If he says that he want to come to Britain in part because he is uncertain about the future of the Punjab. he will be automatically denied entry to this country according to the primary purpose rule.

Anxiety about the future is a qualification for coming here if one lives in Hong Kong. If one is a husband wishing to join a British wife, anxiety about the future of one's country of origin anywhere else IS an automatic disqualification.

I am familiar with the cliche that two wrongs do not make a right. Like most cliches, it is true. However, that cliche does not apply to this situation. Applying the principles of the Bill would do more than leave the black and Asian British in their present state of disadvantage. It would increase their suffering by pushing them further down the queue. Their relatives would be kept out as the new entrants are allowed in.

I have read that the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has also expressed the view that Asian British living in his constituency would feel bitter resentment if their husbands, parents, wives and children were kept out of this country while new candidates with no immediate claim on British citizenship were allowed in. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is right. However, our attitudes towards the problem diverge from that.

For 10 years I have been arguing that husbands, wives and dependent relatives should be allowed into this country. For 10 years the right hon. Member for Chingford has been voting to keep them out. That shows a substantial difference in our attitudes towards the problem. I say to him and to others. whether he votes for the Bill tonight is no concern of mine. I shall vote against it because it is a bad Bill-bad in concept, execution. principle and practice.