HC Deb 06 February 1985 vol 72 cc1027-30

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

9.43 pm
Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

This is the crucial clause as it gives effect to the transfer of sovereignty from 1 July 1997. It is therefore appropriate at this stage to ask the Government a number of questions which have been outstanding since Second Reading.

We had a very long, full and illuminating debate on Second Reading, and I see from the press that many people in Hong Kong have read our proceedings and, through the press and other channels, have offered many views on the subjects with which we dealt on that occasion. Nevertheless, a number of loose ends remain that are not covered in the amendments.

Contrary to some of the views expressed in the colony, this is not a minority subject in the British House of Commons. Throughout the many debates in the past 18 months, the interest in Hong Kong, its people and its future has been outstanding. During that period, 73 Members contributed on at least one occasion in debates and questions on the subject. That is a fair record by any standard. A number of Members have spoken on several occasions while others have sat patiently throughout the debates but failed to catch the eye of the Chair. This has reflected the genuine and continuing interest and concern of the House for the people on the other side of the world whose future we are now debating.

At the outset, I express our gratitude to the Government for the time that has been allowed between the Second Reading and Committee stages. The decision to postpone Second Reading for 10 days was taken in response to a request from the Opposition. It has provided a valuable opportunity for hon. Members and people in Hong Kong to study the issues and come forward with considered views on them. I see from the local press in Hong Kong that the gratitude that we are expressing tonight is reflected in Hong Kong.

I examined the information provided to us about press comment, and must express gratitude to those who provided us with that information, including Mr. Colvin Haye, his assistants and the Hong Kong Government Office. They have provided full background information which allows us to see the views, not all of which are uncritical, of the Hong Kong Government, and to reach better decisions about the views that we have adopted.

9.45 pm

I can also fairly reflect the gratitude of individual Hong Kong people. I single out Mr. and Mrs. Y. W. Fong, who wrote to me on the back of a commemorative postcard—a first day cover of the official signing of the joint declaration. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) has had his attendances at the debate marked in the same way. Many other people have written interesting comments, which will be useful when we debate the technical clauses.

wish to ask the Government many questions about the transfer of sovereignty. This may be the last chance to ask questions and hear the Government's view for some time. I shall deal with the question of an annual report to Parliament. During the period to 1997, when sovereignty is handed over, detailed discussions will have to take place about the handover. Some of them will take place in the joint liaison group, but many will take place in the Legislative and Executive Council in Hong Kong. There is no adequate way for hon. Members to gain information about what is going on unless it is provided in an ordered form. The best way to provide information would be for the Government to provide Parliament with an annual report of progress.

During the last debate, many hon. Members were disappointed in the attitude of Ministers towards the idea of an annual report and of regular or semi-regular views on the issue. I hope that since then the Minister has had a chance to reflect, and that the Government will realise that we are not making a partisan point, but that it is a genuine desire of all parliamentarians to know precisely what is going on during that important period.

I have consistently said to representatives from Hong Kong, individuals who have written and the media that we believe that party politics should not play a major part in this issue. Obviously the purpose of the Opposition is to question the Government and to ensure that they are on their toes. However, there will be at least three British Governments before Hong Kong finally becomes part of the People's Republic of China, and we are almost certain that they will include Labour Administrations. It is therefore extremely important that all potential Governments are well briefed on what is going on behind the scenes and know how much progress is being made. We must know what progress will be made on the drafting of the basic law, which, although it is a matter for the Government of the People's Republic of China, is crucial to the people of Hong Kong. There will also be questions about the progress towards the new nationality that we shall be debating later this evening.

All those matters will be relevant to the transfer of sovereignty, and hon. Members have a right to know about them. The only alternative to the Government providing the information in an ordered form is to rely on the British and Hong Kong press. They will be the only ones to tell us what is happening and whether the progress is popular in the colony. I hope that the Minister can tell us whether we shall have such systematic feedback in the months ahead.

Secondly, if there is to be an annual report, or even in the absence of one, will Parliament have regular opportunities to debate progress towards the transfer of sovereignty? I hope that the Minister has changed his mind since Second Reading, and that he will say that, for example, a Select Committee will investigate the many issues that arise in the intervening period.

The third point on which I seek illumination is the drafting of the basic law. That will be part of the joint agreement with the People's Republic. Yet, as we know, the people of Hong Kong have an overwhelming interest in that law, and we are still not clear whether the consultation that the Chinese have promised with the people of Hong Kong will be formal or informal. Will committees be set up that represent directly the people of Hong Kong, or will there be less tangible consultation?

The only agency that can provide such information to the House is the Government. It would be helpful to know this evening whether the Government are in a better position now than they were two weeks ago to tell us whether the consultation will include local people or whether it will mirror the rather vague, albeit important, statements that have been made by the Chinese about the necessity for consulting people in Hong Kong.

Fourthly, in the period until sovereignty is handed over, the future prosperity and stability of Hong Kong will depend upon international acceptance of Hong Kong's unique status. We are still not clear about what will happen with the GATT and MFA agreements. The House will wish to know what progress the Government have made and how they intend to ensure that the enterprise on which Hong Kong's prosperity is based will continue. From press comment in Hong Kong during the past few months, this would appear to be a matter of acute and personal interest there.

We must also ask questions about the progress towards more domestic institutions in Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government have expressed their views, and decisions will soon have to be taken. A review has been fixed for 1987, and major decisions about the pace of change will have to be taken then. But a commentary from the Government, who still have overall responsibility for the structure of institutions in Hong Kong, would help hon. Members who are deeply interested in the introduction of more representative institutions there.

The methods by which the House of Commons debates such a Bill are foreign to many people, not just in Hong Kong but elsewhere outside the House, and some of our procedures seem archaic and bizarre and are easily open to misunderstanding. I hope that people outside the House, especially those who listen so acutely in Hong Kong to every word that we say, will recognise that the scrutiny that we are giving to this Bill reflects a proper concern for the anxieties of the people of Hong Kong for their future, and our continuing concern.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch)

I agree with almost everything that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) has said. We have done all we can to serve the people of Hong Kong to the best of our ability. I hope that it is not presumptuous to say to the hon. Gentleman that the fact that the House has been almost unanimous on this issue may not excite comment from those who look to this building only when it is in a state of apparent conflict. However, in terms of doing a serious job to the best of our ability, the way that we have tried to handle this issue is the best way to handle it on behalf of the people of Hong Kong, whose future we are trying to protect as best we can, within the somewhat limited means at our disposal.

I do not wish to break the spirit of bipartisanship, but the hon. Member for Hamilton referred to the possibility of there being another Labour Government before 1997, which is a matter best left to the hon. Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) to work out. I mention this because it illustrates the impossibility of any Parliament, even if it is not democratic, giving guarantees about the future, because politics and guarantees are bad bedfellows. All that we can do is what we believe to be in the best interests of all concerned.

Clause 1 deals primarily with the sovereignty issue, and there is no point in repeating all that has already been said. At this stage, there is advantage to be had by leaving a certain amount of fluidity in the Bill, certainly in respect of the nationality aspects that we shall be discussing later. I make one point in response to what the hon. Member for Hamilton said about there being some substantial time—I am sure that he is right—before we come to debate Hong Kong again. However, I am sure that he, like the rest of us, did not want to imply that by passing this Bill we wash our hands of Hong Kong and lose interest in it. We should not seek to imply either that the House will not debate, discuss, or even, if necessary, legislate from time to time on the rights of individual citizens in Hong Kong.

In this clause we are dealing with sovereignty, and it is right that this should be settled once and for all, beyond peradventure, which is what the clause does. I support it. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton will agree that we should let it be known to all concerned—I am sure that the Government share this view—that if, as time goes by, changes need to be made in detailed aspects of the legislation, nothing that we do tonight will slam the door irrevocably on making changes in detail that may affect the rights of individual Hong Kong citizens.

Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber)

I shall be brief because we should not try to have another Second Reading debate on each clause stand part debate.

I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), who has given a good deal of time and emotional effort to the problems of Hong Kong for some time, despite the fact that, as he said, this has led to him being criticised somewhat. From the beginning, he was on the right lines, and we should salute the fact that he was so, despite the fact that when he originally expressed his views they were not universally accepted. Secondly, I am very happy to support, as did the hon. Member for Christchurch, what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said. He will appreciate that the House is no longer simply bipartisan. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said that it was multipartisan.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)

Bipartite.

Mr. Johnston

Bipartite?

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down)

Cinquepartite.

Mr. Johnston

That is far too clever for me.

Mr. Powell

Count up to five—five parties.

Mr. Johnston

It is a great pleasure to have the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) not only agreeing with me but doubling the number.

I have only two points to make. First, I support what the hon. Member for Hamilton said about the annual report—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress.

Back to