Ed VATE SEPTICE 146 Or IT r
(EARL FERRERS)
British Nationality Bill (H.L.]
[LORDS!
and I do not propose to add to that confusion. However, if the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, in Clause 2 were to be put into effect, they would in fact ship bonafte both to the ethnic minorities give citizenstup and to the spouse and child beneficiaries of the selection scheme which are not enjoyed by other British citizens who are born abroad. Clause 2 would enable those people to pass British citizenship to their children and, to a limited extent, to a further generation. That would be a privilege which is not enjoyed by other British citizens who are born abroad. In schoolboy language, "That's not fair”.
These are complicated matters. We took the action which we considered was necessary for Hong Kong in 1990 when we passed the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act. It was our view at the time, and it was also Parliament's view, that the selection scheme arrange- ments, together with the immigration assurance, struck the right balance between maintaining confidence in Hong Kong and limiting potential immigration to the United Kingdom. That has been achieved and there are no new special circumstances which would justify our making different arrangements for the ethnic minorities now. Their ties are with Hong Kong rather than with the United Kingdom, and our primary objective has been to ensure their security in Hong Kong.
My noble friend Lord Geddes referred to the LEPs. That is an extension of the airangements which is not nention in the Bill. The LEPs, like all others in the disciplined services class, have been given places in proportion to their total numbers, which are relatively small. Making more provision for them would undoubtedly result in pressure from other occupational groups where the number of places has been insufficient to meet demand. Parliament decided on a 50,000 limit on places.
For all those reasons the Government cannot support the Bill moved by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, even though I admire his pertinacity, his perseverance and one might almost say, but I will not say, his obduracy in pursuing the issue. He likes to push his boat through the water as far as he can. I admire him for having done so, but I am afraid that the Government cannot be towels in die boat as weii.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I shall not keep your Lordships long. I must confess that I am disappointed, though not surprised, by the nature of the noble Earl's reply to the debate. I do not propose to engage in a conversation with him and the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, about the precise nature of the Home Office, with which I worked for 11 years between 1966 and 1977. I have a fairly clear view of the degree of its adventurous and romantic disposition and its ability to plough forward in a progressive direction.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have spoken in the debate and for their support for the Bill. I would simply say this about the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The fundamental difference between the two sides in this controversy can be summed up in his statement that the Government
I
|
London Hospital Services
3.10 10
1220
took the view that there was no reason to suppose a change of government threatened this group. I would say in
response that the figures given by the noble Lord. Lord Geddes, concerning the number of applications under the selection scheme indicate that this group do not take that view. All that the Bill tries to achieve is to provide them with a safety net.
The noble Earl said that it was odd that we should advocate giving a right to come to this country to people who do not want to do so. It is not odd at all. They do not want to come to this country unless they are forced to. They fear that they may be forced to and they feel that they should have a safety net. That is what we provide in the Bill, and that is what the Government refuse to provide. That seems to me very sad.
A number of noble Lords in the course of today's debate set forth the reasons of practice and of principle as to why the Bill should be supported. One reason was the need for reassurance, to which I have referred. Another was the need, to which my noble friend Lord Beaumont referred, to be safe rather than sorry. Another reason was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, in the debate in July-and was repeated tonight-that the situation had changed since the decision was taken and that the fear that to make a special case for this group of people was divisive no longer existed. That point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dunn, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bluso.
The noble Lord Lord Wilson of Tillyera, and other noble Lords made the point that such a measure is an obligation of honour. We owe it to these people. It is rather shocking that the issue should simply be brushed aside as an inconvenience.
I am glad that the Government do not propose to put the Second Reading of the Bill to a vote. We should carefully consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, about the LEPs. They are a special case. They deserve consideration and are particularly vulnerable.
I wish to thank all those who have participated in the debate and to ask that the Bill be given a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed iv a Committee of the Whcic H
10.1 p.m.
BANN WHO
London Hospital Services
Baroness Jay of Paddington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have for hospital services in London following the Tomlinson Report and the reviews of medical specialties which they established earlier this jear.
The noble Baroness said:[My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so because it is over a year since the report by Sir Bernard Tomlinson on Lʊndon's health care service and medical education. It is 10 months since the Government made their proposals in Making London Better and six months since the review of medical specialties in the capital. At the same time, London's
624 LD83/54 Jub 8-7
I
རྩྭ་
L
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.