Part of Nationality and Borders Bill - Report (3rd Day) – in the House of Lords at 10:24 pm on 8 March 2022.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
Crossbench
10:24,
8 March 2022
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce Amendment 76, whose equivalent was moved in Committee but had its inception in the House of Commons. The amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, so it is an all-party amendment. It affects BNO eligibility for visas for young people; that is, those who were born after 1997, whose parents qualify but they themselves do not. This was in many respects an omission from the original scheme. I declare my interests as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.
The original plan was launched on
I pay a special tribute to and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has already been congratulated quite a lot today on her notable elevation to the Privy Council—perhaps because of what she did on this amendment. She and her noble friend Lord Sharpe have engaged very much with those who have signed this amendment. He has significant experience in Hong Kong, so this was close to his heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, made a very memorable speech in Committee, which was followed by many people in Hong Kong, let alone in this country, and it says an awful lot that someone who has held such high office in the past is willing to commit so strongly to this, to show that his affection and commitment to the people of Hong Kong remain completely unchanged. Like me, he continues to be concerned about those who will not qualify for this scheme, but that is not the point of the amendment. It is something that others must step up to the plate to do something about, but I hope especially that those living in other Commonwealth countries can follow the example that the British Government have set in issuing a Written Statement which was the upshot of conversations that we had in Committee; the Government
“intend to lay the changes to the Immigration Rules in September with the changes expected to go live in October”.
The Written Statement also details the welcome programme led by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Its tone and what it says at the end I particularly welcome:
“We look forward to welcoming applications from those individuals who wish to make the UK their home”.
The Government have taken a positive approach. They have engaged constructively, and this decision is worthy of this country and its special relationship with Hong Kong. It will allow young Hong Kongers who were not eligible for a BNO visa to avoid languishing in the asylum system, unable to work or study. This change of policy will allow these young people to settle more quickly and enrich British society.
I do not need to say very much more, other than to comment on one development in Hong Kong this week which underlines why life has become so difficult for people such as Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and others to whom we referred in Committee. Paul Harris, the former chair of the Hong Kong Bar Association and a veteran human rights barrister, and a man of great standing, has had to leave Hong Kong after police questioned him. It marks another dark day for human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong. His steadfast defence of Hong Kong’s beleaguered democracy and his Opposition to the draconian national security law provoked the ire of the Chinese Communist Party and made him a marked man. For those young people who joined many of the protests and demonstrations, this scheme will literally be a lifeline. I hope that we will then use our standing to convince other countries to follow our example and do the same by extending these lifeboat provisions to enable settlement—other Commonwealth countries especially, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which already have significant communities of people drawn from Hong Kong.
I hope that I have been relatively brief, since the House has a lot of other business to accomplish. I beg to move Amendment 76.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
The House of Commons is one of the houses of parliament. Here, elected MPs (elected by the "commons", i.e. the people) debate. In modern times, nearly all power resides in this house. In the commons are 650 MPs, as well as a speaker and three deputy speakers.
Right Honourable is a form of address used within the House of Commons, for members of the Privy Council. Members of the person’s own party will refer to them as ‘My Right Honourable Friend, the member for [constituency]’. Members of other parties will refer to them as ‘The Right Honourable Lady/Gentleman, the member for [constituency]’. The Privy Council consists of, among others, Cabinet ministers and a number of junior ministers as well as former office holders.
The Privy Council goes back to the earliest days of the Monarchy, when it comprised those appointed by the King or Queen to advise on matters of state.
As the constitution developed into today's constitutional monarchy, under which The Sovereign acts on the advice of Ministers, so the Privy Council adapted. Its day to day business is transacted by those of his Majesty's's Ministers who are Privy Counsellors, that is all Cabinet Ministers and a number of junior Ministers. Membership of the Privy Council brings with it the right to be called "Right Honourable".
The Privy Council still meets regularly, on average once a month, but, as with the Cabinet, most of its business is transacted in discussion and correspondence between its Ministerial members and the Government Departments that advise them. The Privy Council Office (which is itself a Government Department) provides a secretariat for these discussions, as the Cabinet Office does in relation to the business of Cabinet and Cabinet Committees. Councils are held by The King and are attended by Ministers and the Clerk of the Council. At each meeting the Council will obtain His Majesty's formal approval to a number of Orders which have already been discussed and approved by Ministers, much as Acts of Parliament become law through the giving of the Royal Assent after having been debated in Parliament.
Meetings are reported in the Court Circular, along with the names of Ministers attending (usually four in number). The Orders made at each Council are in the public domain, and each bears the date and place of the Council at which it was made. There is therefore nothing at all "secret" about Privy Council meetings. The myth that the Privy Council is a secretive body springs from the wording of the Privy Counsellor's Oath , which, in its current form, dates back to Tudor times. It requires those taking it to "keep secret all matters...treated of in Council". The Oath (or solemn affirmation for those who cannot take an Oath) is still administered, and is still binding; but it is only in very special circumstances nowadays that matters will come to a Privy Counsellor on "Privy Council terms". These will mostly concern matters of the national interest where it is important for senior members of Opposition parties to have access to Government information.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
