PROCEDURE (Hansard, 13 June 1990)

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor (Southend, East)
I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following amendments: No. 11, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, leave out subsection (1).
438 No. 12, in page 3, line 2, leave out from 'determine' to end of line 4.

§ Mr. Taylor
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will forgive me for saying a few words on a matter that involves the dignity and honour of the House and the country during our lengthy consideration of the Bill. Even though my right hon. and learned Friend may be tired and want to go to bed, I ask them to listen as I move a small amendment which means a great deal for the honour of our country and the integrity for which we stand.
The Government propose that the Governor of Hong Kong may by regulations provide for the payment, at a time to be specified, of fees for registration applications. In other words, the potential 50,000 Hong Kong residents who may want to come to Britain, to obtain British passports or to stay in Hong Kong with British passports could be called upon to pay fees. I ask the Government to consider that 40 miles away from Hong Kong there is a place called Macau, where there are 90,000 Portuguese citizens. Those 90,000, under dependence, will be able to come to Britain. They can come here now and work here. they can have full rights of citizenship and access to our social security system, and that will cost them not one penny.
It is not a matter of cash alone. There is also the factor of who those from Macau can bring with them. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify the matter. Whom can a Hong Kong citizen bring with him? The answer is a restricted number of people. He can bring minor children under 18 years or 16 years and a spouse. The Government, in their desire to restrict the number of people coming into the country, have said, in effect, "You can only bring in a few." But what if someone is a Portuguese citizen of Macau? That person can bring a spouse, descendants under 21 years of age and dependants in the ascending and descending lines.
Whether we think the Bill is a good or bad measure I think that we must proceed with it now that promises have been made—we must have in mind the honour and dignity of the House. There is also the respect that we have for the people of Hong Kong and all that they have done for Britain. We should not treat them less well than we are treating citizens of Portuguese Macau.
Portuguese nationals abroad are treated in the same way as their French counterparts and they have the right of access to this country. For the citizens of Portuguese Macau the position is slightly different and the relevant date is 1 January 1993. Harsh words may have been used during the consideration of the Bill and the Government may not have made many concessions. I ask them to make only one concession for the sake of decency. How is it right to charge Hong Kong citizens a fee but not Portuguese citizens in Macau? It is not right. It is not just. Can they explain to me how it is right that a Portuguese citizen of Macau can bring far more relatives and older children without any restriction while citizens of Hong Kong will have to leave their older children behind? A citizen of Hong Kong might want to bring a son of 19 years with him. That is something that many of us would think about. What about our own families? The Hong Kong citizen will not have a chance of bringing his older children, but the Portuguese citizen of Macau will.
I appreciate that there are much wider issues that come within different treaties and that the Government cannot be asked to make changes for that reason, but surely they 439 will not enact a clause that provides that citizens of Hong Kong who are to benefit in some way from the Bill will be treated less well, and in a shabby way, compared with citizens of Portuguese Macau.
This is a small amendment and it is not terribly important. It is not an issue that will involve much of a clash with the Government. That being so, I think that they could make a gesture. We have obligations to the people of Hong Kong for the work that they have done for our country and for the help that they have provided. Surely they are entitled to be treated in a way that is not inferior to the citizens of Portuguese Macau. The numbers are different. We are talking about 50,000 in Hong Kong and 90,000 in Macau. I have no doubt that the Minister will say that the people of Macau will not all want to come to Britain, just as the Government have said that the people of Hong Kong do not want to come to Britain. I do not care if we are talking about 1,000, 10,000 or 20,000; we should not treat citizens of Hong Kong less well than the citizens of Portuguese Macau.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to make a small concession on a matter of honour and not of cash. I think that the decency of the British Government will be judged by the way in which they treat the citizens of Hong Kong.

§ Mr. Peter Lloyd
Applicants for British citizenship from Hong Kong will be treated in exactly the same way as any other applicant for British citizenship. It has long been our practice to charge fees to cover the cost, and I see absolutely no dishonour in that. It is possible that fees for Portuguese citizenship are not charged in Macau; I do not know. But I do not see why we should follow the Portuguese in that respect, as in several others: it depends on the merits of the case. I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East considers it a matter of honour.

§ Mr. Teddy Taylor
Surely there is a fundamental difference between these and other applicants. Applying for British citizenship from this country and applying from Hong Kong are rather different procedures. Does my hon. Friend accept that, under the Bill, someone coming to Britain from Hong and someone coming here from Macau will have exactly the same entitlements—that they will have the right to work and receive social security benefits? Surely there is a difference of principle.
440 If my hon. Friend accepts the amendment, the Government will lose nothing; we shall simply be treating all applicants in the same way.

§ Mr. Lloyd
People who arrive in Portugal from Macau could, if they were workers, have the right to reside and work here, but they would not be eligible for social security: I should perhaps underline that point, as it seemed to weigh somewhat heavily with my hon. Friend.
I do not think that honour is involved. I think that it is a matter of common practice. For those who apply for British citizenship, there is a scale of fees; a scale of fees would be set in Hong Kong. I consider that entirely appropriate, and I therefore suggest that the House reject the amendment.

§ Mr. Darling
In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not feel that I should embark on a long speech. Let me simply reiterate what I said earlier.
We made our position clear on Second Reading, and it was not accepted by the majority of the House. In Committee and on Report, we made a number of attempts to criticise the Bill constructively and, in our view, improve it; our suggestions were not accepted.
I do not propose to vote against Third Reading. I recognise that the Government have made an honest attempt to deal with a difficult position. None the less, I believe that that attempt is fundamentally flawed, and I therefore cannot support it.
I am sorry that improvements to the Bill were not made, but they may yet be made in another place.

§ Mr. Maclennan
Perhaps the most unsurprising thing about this Third Reading debate is that the Labour party has still not revealed its policy on Hong Kong. However, as the Liberal Democrats have well revealed their policy, both this evening and on earlier occasions, I shall not weary the House by expatiating further.