1639
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
19 APRIL 1990
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
1640
We said that the scheme was unworkable. In 1988. the Home Office processed 70.800 citizenship applications. with 361 staff employed for that purpose. For the processing of the hundreds of thousands of applications for passports expected under the Bill, seven officials will be specifically allocated. That is what the financial memorandum to the Bill states.
We said that the Bill was elitist. Under its scheme, points for passport eligibility are to be awarded, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) said, on the size of earnings as a measure of success as well as for substantial financial investments. I am not surprised that, deriving from a party that once traded in the sale of honours. Social and Liberal Democrats support a Bill that introduces a trade in passports.
We said that the scheme was elitist. Two categories in the Bill, totalling 6,800. will mainly confer those passports on privileged persons invited to apply by the Governor of Hong Kong, basing his decision on personal knowledge and contacts. That is a recipe for favouritism and cronyism in the award of United Kingdom passports.
We did not realise that the Government's proposals would be such a complete muddle. The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge Sir J. Stokes) rightly described the Bill as "not thought out properly". We do not know even now whether the complete scheme is before the House. During his ludicrous visit to Hong Kong last week, the Minister of State. Foreign and Commonwealth Office, as he clowned his way around the colony, referred to an additional passport plan under which British companies will be able to second senior employees to Britain for a period that would make them eligible for passports. That would introduce a novel and totally unacceptable principle under which recipients of British passports would be selected by private individuals running companies.
Nor could we have forecast that the scheme would be so nonsensical. On the age criterion, positive points are awarded only for applicants aged between 30 and 40. At all other ages. points decrease. Under the experience criterion. 10 points may be awarded for each year of relevant work experience up to a maximum of 15 years. Between the ages of 25 and 30. and between 40 and 45, applicants will gain points for experience but lose points for being either too young or too old.
To understand the full absurdity of the scheme, let us consider the case of a woman aged 64 holding the office of Prime Minister. She would probably be regarded by the Home Secretary as a key worker. For the experience factor, she would receive a maximum of 110 points, and for education and training, she would receive up to another 100 points. British links could get her a further 50 points, and knowledge of English would probably clock up another 50. despite her tendency to confuse the singular and plural first person pronouns.
Under the special circumstance heading, as the criteria are subjective and non-accountable, she might win 50 more points for exceptional merit or outstanding achievements. On the other hand, she would win no points for public or community service, as such service in an official capacity is excluded from the scheme. So far, she wins up to 360 points out of a possible 800. However, she loses 200 points for being over 60. and ending up with only 160 points, she unfortunately would not qualify for a passport.
835 CD31 44 Job 12-6
The scheme is not only ridiculous. but is being put forward on an unprecedented basis. As his colleagues have done before him, the Home Secretary, echoed by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), said that the intention behind the Bill was that passport holders would not take up their right of entry to Britain. This is the first time in my 20 years in the House that I have heard a Government ask Parliament to enact a Bill on the explicit assurance that it will not be implemented. It is hypocritical to ask the House to pass any Bill unless the Government intend it to come fully into operation.
The Government are seriously misleading the House by claiming that the Bill will anchor passport holders to Hong Kong. The Chinese Government have made it brutally clear that, after Hong Kong becomes part of the People's Republic in 1997, the passports issued under the Bill will not be valid for leaving or entering Hong Kong, and that. to quote the words of a senior official of the Chinese Government who is dealing with these matters, the
passport holders
"will be considered Chinese citizens and thus will not be entitled to British consular protection after 1997."
In the light of such repeated pronouncements by the Chinese authorities. those awarded passports under the scheme. far from being anchored and encouraged to continue the administration and business life of Hong Kong, would be far more likely to use them to come here while the going was good and while the passports could be used. The Home Secretary was completely wrong in his response to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) on this matter.
Mr. Adley: To get the point clear, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that his point about the Chinese Government's attitude to the passports has not just emerged, but was referred to specifically in two memoranda, both of which were signed by both Governments in 1984?
Mr. Kaufman: The Chinese Government have made their position increasingly clear. On the very day that the Foreign Secretary announced the scheme, they made their position clear again. The Government should have been in no doubt on the subject.
In an effort to stampede support for the Bill, the Government have made much of what they call the "flow of emigration" from Hong Kong. The Home Secretary did so again this afternoon, as did his right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell). They claim that only this scheme can staunch the flow of emigration from Hong Kong. The fact is that, although there is, understandably, great concern in Hong Kong about its future after 1997, substantial emigration from the colony is nothing new.
When the House debated Hong Kong in July 1988, almost a year before the Tiananmen square massacre, the then Foreign Secretary, now Leader of the House, said:
"I turn now to another source of concern-emigration from Hong Kong... There can be no doubt that it is real, particularly among the professional and middle classes. Even so, the scale should not be overstated. We should remember that Hong Kong has had a tradition of emigration throughout its history. In the early 1970s the numbers emigrating were higher than they have been in the last few years." [Official Report, 15 July 1988; Vol. 137, c. 702.]
The latest figures show that, whereas in 1989—which included the six months following the Tiananmen square massacre-those emigrating from Hong Kong numbered
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.