Question
The Minister must now recognise the scale and sophistication of the Chinese Communist party’s efforts to undermine our country, this House and the security of Hongkongers who settled here to flee persecution. Despite that, last week the Home Secretary rather flippantly referred to Hongkongers needing to prove their lack of criminality to achieve settlement. It is, of course, vital that no one who is a criminal enters our country, but as we saw in the case of Wu Chi-wai earlier this year, the Home Office has treated a criminal record incurred under the anti-democratic national security law as grounds for refusal. Does the Minister accept that the Home Secretary’s remarks were clumsy and commit to working across Government to ensure that instructions are issued to immigration officials to fix that practice and ensure that Hongkongers fleeing CCP persecution are protected?
Answer
I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point. I am certain that the Home Secretary intended no offence by the remarks she made, but he raises some important points. If he were to write to me with them, I would be very happy to consider them further.
Verdict: AMBER (27/100) DEFERRED
The reply only partly answers the question. On the first point, the Minister engages with the Home Secretary's remarks and says she meant no offence, but does not say whether the Minister accepts they were clumsy, and instead offers general comments and thanks. On the second point, whether the Government will issue instructions on treating Hong Kong national security law records as grounds for refusal, the reply defers the matter and offers only to consider it further if the Member writes with specific points. Overall, the answer is mostly hedged and non-committal, so the asker would likely need to follow up for a clear position.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Minister accept that the Home Secretary's remarks about Hongkongers needing to prove their lack of criminality for settlement were clumsy? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply engages with the Home Secretary's remarks and says she intended no offence, but it never says whether the Minister accepts they were clumsy, instead sidestepping with 'some important points' and a thank-you. |
| Will the Minister commit to working across Government to ensure instructions are issued to immigration officials to change the practice of treating a criminal record incurred under the Hong Kong national security law as grounds for refusal, so that Hongkongers fleeing CCP persecution are protected? | Deferred | Hedged | The reply does not say whether the Government will issue instructions on treating Hong Kong national security law records as grounds for refusal; it only offers to 'consider further' if the Member writes with the points, which defers any substantive answer. |