HC Deb 06 February 1985 vol 72 cc1031-74

Again considered in Committee.

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

Mr. Russell Johnston

I support what the hon. Member for Hamilton said about an annual report. The view of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was not very clear on Second Reading. He spent a little time pooh-poohing the value of annual debates upon the Armed Forces. The Minister, who is sitting looking somewhat delphic on the Front Bench, suggested that this was an artificial exercise and that the Government, being open minded and willing to listen to argument at any time, would be only too delighted, if there were a great problem, to have a debate almost immediately. That suggestion was received by Opposition Members with a certain amount of dubiety. That dubiety has persisted. There is virtue in a regular examination of how matters are proceeding. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter and will agree that a regular report to the House would be of value. I do not mean that there should be a regular report in written form, but that there should be the opportunity to have a regular debate. This House produces a great deal of material in written form which is never debated, and because it is never debated it is never read.

My second point again supports what was said by the hon. Member for Hamilton. We hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to tell the House, if he can, how he envisages the basic law will evolve. That is of fundamental importance. The clause relates to the transfer of sovereignty. We are willing to transfer sovereignty if certain conditions are met. The agreement related to the meeting of conditions. This will result in a considerable diminution, in one sense, of the outright absorption of Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China. That reflects great credit upon the People's Republic of China. However, it means that we shall have a continuing interest in how the law in Hong Kong evolves over the next 13 years. If the Minister is able to say a little more than he was able to say last time about how this will be possible, the House will be grateful.

Mr. Bowen Wells (Hertford and Stortford)

I shall not detain the Committee for long on clause 1 stand part, but one major point needs to be made. When we hand over sovereignty in 1997 in accordance with the agreement, we will be handing over not only territory and people but also a system of government. It worries me considerably that, despite the two Green Papers issued by the Hong Kong Government, we have not sufficiently evolved the constitution of Hong Kong. In the true colonial tradition, the governor of Hong Kong has absolute power under the present arrangements there. The great merit of that system is that he is subject to the Foreign Secretary who is, of course, responsible to the House. The governor can be removed, and is removed every so often as appointments lapse and new people are appointed.

When sovereignty is handed over, that situation will no longer obtain. I know that people in Hong Kong have serious misgivings about adopting an entirely democratic or parliamentary system that is based on the British model. There are many reasons why that may not be the most appropriate model for continuing the government of Hong Kong. However, I do not believe that the Government of Hong Kong have begun seriously to consider several fundamental issues, such as the way in which the Executive will be kept under control and ruled by a democratically elected assembly. At present it is proposed that the democracy should depend on a very low level of almost district or tenantry government as the only elected body, which then appoints members to ever more senior bodies until the Legislature is reached. But that is far too narrow a democratic base upon which to work, and from which to constrain the executive power now held by the governor and his officials.

Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry)

Is my hon. Friend saying that the Hong Kong people are worried about the period between now and 1997 or about the period after 1997?

Mr. Wells

The quick answer is both. The problem is how to evolve the new institutions in the period up to 1997, and thereafter to know how they are to work once Parliament's power is removed. The question is how are they to be evolved in a way that suits Hong Kong, the Chinese people and the way in which their traditions suggest that they can be ruled. Over the years, one problem has been the difficulty of arriving at a political settlement within China that was acceptable to its people. Consequently, there have been many disastrous wars and civil wars in China that have held back its development.

Therefore, in the next 13 years we face a difficult problem in trying to evolve Hong Kong's constitution in a way that will preserve the basic liberties that are now enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong. The fundamental division of powers as between the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive has not been properly considered, particularly in the case of the Executive. At present, the Executive consists of the governor with his civil servants and officials acting—as we might say—as Ministers in the Legislative Council. But they are now to be retired to the sidelines. Nevertheless, the question of how the Hong Kong people are to control their Executive remains. I would hate to see us hand over the sovereignty of Hong Kong, with absolute power being retained in the hands of a governor and an Executive without proper democratic control which guarantees the freedoms of the people of Hong Kong and which they have enjoyed so far and which will be in stark contrast to the sovereignty to which they are to submit in 1997. Without that constitutional development, the people of Hong Kong will be vulnerable to the different tradition of the sovereignty to which they will be committed.

I urge Her Majesty's Government to work with the Hong Kong Government quickly to develop the Green Paper and White Paper issued by the Hong Kong Government, tailoring it in a sympathetic way to the needs, traditions and customs of the people there. It should not necessarily be a Westminster system, but one which will enable the Executive to be controlled by the people.

Mr. Tom Clarke (Monklands, West)

The hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was right to focus attention on the importance of the development of democracy, in an evolutionary sense, as we approach 1997.

There is the temptation to think only in terms of 1997 and to forget that there are 12 years to go before we reach that time. I hope that those years will be used, as the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford said, towards achieving a greater degree of democracy than has been the case hitherto.

It seems that we have been too ambivalent in our views about democracy. We must accept that existing laws must be adapted to meet the changing situation, and that situation will change rapidly as 1997 approaches. The basic law—to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and others have referred, and to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) devoted much of his speech when we last debated this subject—is vital. I gather that the Legislative Council agrees with that and has reservations only on the question of passports, an issue which concerns, among others, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).

We must give close consideration to the way in which the basic law evolves before Hong Kong begins to work, hopefully in harmony, with China in 1997. I hope that tonight we can continue to provide those concerned with an assurance that confidence on their part is not misplaced. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have an interest in encouraging confidence. That confidence is necessary, not just in Hong Kong but in relation to Hong Kong's association with China. In other words, there must be a clear understanding between Hong Kong and China as 1997 approaches.

The Committee will not be surprised to hear me say that a great test of the basic law of democratic development in Hong Kong rests on the way in which we approach the problem of the Vietnamese refugees. I remain disappointed that the Legislative Council has not managed to make that an item of major priority, bringing pressure on the British Government to respond to the Canadian and American debates about the refugees that are taking place. In dealing with this problem in the serious way it merits, we could send a message to China that we believe that it is important to develop in Hong Kong not only laws but a humanitarian approach to problems of that nature which will be an inspiration to China and encourage the Chinese to develop their own views on human rights.

10.15 pm
Sir Paul Bryan

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that China has probably accepted more of those refugees than any other country? I do not believe that the Chinese need any lessons in that direction.

Mr. Clarke

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is correct. None of us wants to score points, especially about China, because we are keen for the agreement to work. Hong Kong has lessons to learn. If those lessons come from China in the context of these negotiations, so much the better. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution.

Mr. David Young (Bolton, South-East)

Both sides of the Committee want the agreement to work for the people of Hong Kong. It is a long time between now and 1997. As one of the major signatories to this agreement, Britain must maintain the confidence in Hong Kong not only of business but of the people. There must be close liaison and discussions about what is evolving in Hong Kong. There are few democratic institutions in the region, at the moment but I think that such institutions will take off with the spur of change of sovereignty. The minority communities are deeply worried not only about passports but about the position of their children.

In Hong Kong, as in this country, people want a voice in the democratic system. I believe that hon. Members do not want just a formal debate on these matters that merely goes through the motions. This is a unique development. We are transferring over 13 years' not only sovereignty, but law, ways of life and institutions. If they are to be transferred smoothly and maintained, we need gentle touches on the tiller. Administrations in Britain and attitudes in China may change. Certain attitudes and institutions in Hong Kong will change. To retain the confidence and support of the Hong Kong people we need constant consultations between the British Government and the Hong Kong people. The results of those consultations should be reported at regular intervals of no longer than a year to the House for consideration.

We have heard of the Hong Kong people's worry about passports. At this stage, we cannot dot every "i" and cross every "t". No one challenges the good will with which we enter this agreement.

Members of the House, whatever their political differences, share an interest in the people of Hong Kong. We ask that there should be regular meaningful discussions on the Floor of the House at intervals of no more than a year. Now that we are moving towards the transition in 1997, that would be the way to gain and maintain the support of the people in Hong Kong whom it is our responsibility as Members of the British Parliament to sustain that relationship.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

The clause provides for the withdrawal of our claim to sovereignty over Hong Kong from 1997 provided that the Anglo-Chinese agreement is ratified and the appropriate documents are exchanged.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Mr. Wood) was right when he said that between now and 1997—if the Bill is passed—it is important to ensure that as far as possible the internal Government of Hong Kong is arranged democratically so that power can be dispersed within the community by the time of the transfer of power rather than be concentrated, as it normally is with colonial Governments, in the hands of the governor.

I hope that the Government will bear in mind, as a matter of urgency, the needs of the expatriate Civil Service in Hong Kong. Democracy may be the objective, but there will be a need to transfer and promote indigenous members of the service into various senior civil service posts in Hong Kong. I declare an interest, because I am a former member of Her Majesty's overseas Civil Service now on pension from Nigeria.

The House is taking insufficient notice of the fact that the people to whom I refer, who have had their conditions of service confirmed and who have been assured that their pensions will be guaranteed and that their rights of transfer and promotion will be maintained before and after the transfer in 1997, will have their conditions of service changed from the date upon which the Bill becomes effective, because there will be a deliberate policy to appoint to senior posts on promotion and transfer people of Chinese ethnic origin in preference to expatriate officers. The rights and conditions of service of serving expatriates will have been prejudiced from the word go.

The Government must arrange for those people to be able to retire with pension rights and conditions of service equivalent to those of officers in a similar position in the past when our colonies achieved independence. Previously, when colonies achieved independence, arrangements for the transfer of power were made rapidly between the final agreement with the parties following a general election and the assumption of power. In this case, there will be over 12 years of preparation. However, that is no excuse for failing to deal with the deterioration in the career prospects of members of the overseas Civil Service now serving in Hong Kong. By the time the Bill becomes an Act, their conditions of service will have changed.

I understand from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the rights of people in the Overseas Civil Service serving in Hong Kong are under active consideration. That is fine if it means that a public officers' agreement will be concluded and announced fairly soon, on which officers in Hong Kong may depend. However, if it is thought that the decision can wait for years because the transfer is not until 1997, a great injustice will be done. Many officers will leave the service prematurely, being willing to lose such pension rights to which they might have been entitled simply because of the insecurity that faces them.

Therefore, I ask the Government in this intervening period to make a public officers' agreement with the overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong as soon as possible, such as was made in equivalent cases in the colonies when they achieved their independence, so that the officers have security and may continue to serve in Hong Kong to its benefit in whatever post they have.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham)

I heartily agree with clause 1. I speak not in order to criticise it; it is absolutely the right clause. It is short, succinct and easily understandable by everybody. I worry about how much of it is understandable with regard to what will happen in Hong Kong itself. I shall refer to that later.

I should like to say a few words about an annual debate or progress report. At this stage I am not particularly concerned about what form it takes, and as we have 13 years to go it would be premature to say that, willy-nilly, it must be an annual debate or a report presented as a Command Paper. It is important for the Government to say that they would make provision, if necessary, through the usual channels. There should be provision, annually if necessary, for a debate. It may not be necessary, but it is important, if there is pressure from Parliament or a significant part of the House, for this major issue to be debated.

More importantly, from my point of view, we should have a collation of information. The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) said that it was not so important, but I believe that it is probably more important. We have information from the press and various publications, but it would be useful if an annual report were compiled and presented to Parliament, although not necessarily debated. It need not even be published by HMSO. It might be published in Hong Kong. I am not particularly fussed about how it is done. We have many things to do, and it would be useful for us to have something like that to take away and look at to see whether progress has been made in Hong Kong or whether there are matters for concern.

I should like to refer to consultation and getting the agreement of the people of Hong Kong to the measures that we are taking. I said this on Second Reading, but it is important to re-state it. I do not believe that all the people in Hong Kong, or anywhere near the majority, really understand what is proposed and what changes will take place, particularly what status they will have and what citizenship they will be entitled to. Such matters will hit Hong Kong as the years go by.

I do not criticise the efforts that have been made so far by the assessment office and the monitoring team, but it is vital that we continue to do our best to inform, persuade, educate and argue with people in Hong Kong about what will happen. There is not necessarily a general acceptance any more than a general non-acceptance. I do not know. I am sure that, although most Hong Kong people are apprehensive and worried, they do not really have all the information that is necessary to take a considered decision. But if the measure is to succeed, it is important that by 1997 there should be a general acceptance by the people of Hong Kong about what will happen to them.

10.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Bermingham (St. Helens, South)

Does my hon. Friend agree that as times passes various points or issues will undoubtedly arise and that as they do they should be debated? The only way to get general agreement is by general consensus and that can only come from debate. Therefore, debates should take place periodically in the Chamber.

Dr. Marek

I agree that information should be made available, but if there is general agreement I do not see the need for a debate. I am sorry if my hon. Friend disagrees, but I have no love of being in this Chamber when everybody is agreed. We should all go home early. It is important to be here when important principles are at stake. If we agree, we should not be too long, and I shall not be too long now. It is important to be here when we disagree, as we often do, but I would not insist on debates just for the sake of them.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber talked of tripartisanship. There is one Liberal Member present. It would be uncharitable of me to stick to the tenets of bipartisanship when there are other minority parties in the House. It is important that not only the Government and the Opposition but all the minority parties should be brought into the discussions. We should all be on the same side, working for a smooth transition of sovereignty from ourselves to the People's Republic of China. We should disseminate information as much as possible and learn in advance of different thinking on different Benches, so that, if possible, we can arrive at an agreed solution. If that cannot be done, clearly, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said, we should have a debate to decide matters.

However, I hope that such situations will be infrequent. One of the keys to a successful transition, certainly for the people of Hong Kong, is that we have a policy which has the agreement of all parties in the House. I hope that the Government will bear that in mind. Although we must argue about some aspects, such as nationality, in the schedules, I am sure that every hon. Member will welcome clause 1.

Mr. Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield)

This is a historic and unique occasion and it would be wrong not to contribute to a debate that is of such importance to 5½ million souls in Hong Kong. Listening to the contributions this evening I am prompted to say that over the next 62 years we must be involved in a vigil for those 5½ million souls. That vigil does not end in 12 years. That vigilance, in terms of a moral responsibility, goes on and on. The link between the people of Britain and Hong Kong is far too important to believe that it can be cut off in a short period of 12 years.

Vigilance will have to be expressed through the people of Hong Kong as well as through the British people in the House of Commons and there must be an appropriate mechanism through which that vigilance is exercised. I am not particular whether the mechanism is a Select Committee or a regular debate, but the vigilance must have an expression, and an annual expression would be appropriate. The vigilance of the people of Hong Kong must be maintained and that can best be done if there is steady progress towards more direct control of their affairs over the next 12 years.

I have spoken to people in Hong Kong and I have the impression that there is much support there for a steady movement towards a greater say in their affairs and not overnight democratisation of the processes by which they live. That means a larger say for those in the middle and at the bottom of the Hong Kong social ladder and not for the most privileged. All the people of Hong Kong must have greater identification with the decisions that are made in their name over the next 12 years and we must be vigilant about their future over that period.

There must be monitoring by the British and Hong Kong peoples over the next 12 years and beyond. We shall not have much direct influence over many changes in basic law but we shall have a moral influence. In addition, we shall have a role in monitoring the implementation of the proposed process of nationality. We have seen the way in which nationality provisions often take a turn that is very different from that which was intended. There are the unintended consequences of human actions and legislation and latent Government interpretation of the law. All those who have a large immigrant population in their constituencies know the difference between individual Ministers' interpretation of the law. We must keep a close eye on the spirit of nationality law and the way in which it works through.

There will be minorities in Hong Kong who will be deeply and badly affected by the operation of the proposed nationality law. That is why there must be constant vigilance. Where grievous wrongs are identified, they must be able to be corrected. If that message goes out from the House of Commons this evening, many in Hong Kong will feel better about their future.

Our close friendship, deep interest and central responsibility will continue over the next 12 years and beyond. No people can be severed from the British nation by legislation or the stroke of a pen. The bonds of friendship and unity will continue. I hope that those who are Members of this place and those who will replace us will keep in mind our long duty to and responsibility for the people of Hong Kong far into the future.

Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South)

I also should like to welcome clause 1 and to wish the people of Hong Kong well in the process that will take them to their new status in 1997.

Success will be determined by several factors. The first is internal circumstances in Hong Kong and the development of the new system of democracy, which I, like others, welcome. That must not cause upset or disruption or fears that might affect confidence in how Hong Kong is being run. I am confident that it can and will work.

The attitude of the Government in Beijing will have a profound effect on the success of the transitional period. I shall be interested to see how sensitive to the future of Hong Kong the Beijing Government are in drawing up the basic law and in understanding how the system operates. The system is quite different from that which operates over the border and it would not be surprising if the economic life of Hong Kong were not fully understood or appreciated.

I hope that the Government will help Beijing if difficulties such as I have mentioned arise. I am sure that there is good will on both sides and that the Hong Kong Government and the Hong Kong people will be only too pleased to help the People's Republic to enable Hong Kong's economic success to be sustained.

Mr. Adley

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is, perhaps, a difference of view between the establishment in Hong Kong and the large number of extremely articulate young people who feel that they have not been enfranchised in any way? Is there not a danger that, by listening to the establishment, the British and Chinese Governments will fail to realise the aspirations of the young people of Hong Kong?

Mr. Wrigglesworth

I hope that the British and Chinese Governments will listen to all of the voices. I have met many young people from Hong Kong, had lively discussions with them and thoroughly enjoyed doing so. They give every hope of a dynamic and prosperous future for Hong Kong. I believe that more than 50 per cent. of the population is under 21, so the voice of that generation must be listened to. However, it is important that the more senior voices of those in prominent positions in industry, for example, should also be listened to. I am anxious that the People's Republic should understand Hong Kong's very different system when drawing up the basic law. I do not lack confidence, as China has shown such understanding in the agreement. I thought that the People's Republic would never accept such an agreement. I am therefore confident that it will be sensitive to the different system that it will have within its orbit. Nevertheless, misunderstandings could arise, and there will have to be some sensitivity towards how Hong Kong works if there is to be no damage.

It is important that Hong Kong's economic prosperity be sustained. The people of Hong Kong, especially the young ones, have become used to continuing growth such as we have not seen in Britain in post-war and many prewar years.

10.45 pm

It is important that the Government should help Hong Kong to sustain its trading relationships and prosperity in the transitional period because nothing would give rise to a flight from the economy and to greater damage to its prospects than a slump in its economic fortunes in that period.

It is important that the Government and Parliament should help Hong Kong to sustain its position in the transitional period. I do not believe that regular reports and debates, as has been suggested by some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), are the best way to do that. That might give rise to all sorts of things building up in Hong Kong. Those of us who know Hong Kong reasonably well realise that if a debate is anticipated on a set date every year and a regular report, this will lead to great build-ups. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) commented, if problems arise hon. Members can raise them in many different ways. This has been done in the past and the ingenuity of Members will ensure that a debate is held when problems occur.

However, that does not mean that the Government can be let off the hook and that Hong Kong's affairs should never again be debated by the House. There must be debates, but I do not like the idea of a regular debate and report which would entail discussion of Hong Kong whether or not it was necessary.

Mr. George Robertson

Although there are undoubted dangers involved in the high expectations raised in Hong Kong by parliamentary debates, it would be equally dangerous to allow a number of issues to drift along on the tide of speculation without an opportunity being afforded to raise them in Parliament. It might be preferable to have something that people could observe as an authoritative sounding board rather than reading 70 newspapers juggling round the various factors involved.

Mr. Wrigglesworth

I can see that, but it is a balance of judgment. Indeed, I do not wish matters to be brushed under the carpet or misunderstandings to occur because the House has no opportunity to discuss the affairs of Hong Kong, but the press in Hong Kong, of which many hon. Members have had experience, can be very excitable; it may misinterpret what happens in Parliament and, indeed, may expect too much of Parliament. It is not wise therefore to build up expectations unnecessarily. In my judgment, it would not be helpful for Parliament to debate and to produce reports on Hong Kong regularly. Those hon. Members who take a close interest in these matters will ensure that the subject of Hong Kong is raised in Parliament in the period up to 1997 and that its progress will be monitored carefully.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce)

As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) said, clause 1 is the central provision of the Bill. It provides for the termination of British sovereignty over the ceded parts of Hong Kong and the termination of British jurisdiction over the whole territory from 1 July 1997. It is therefore appropriate that the Committee should have decided to debate the matter for over an hour, raising issues that go wider than clause 1.

I appreciate the way in which the House has approached the Bill and the future of Hong Kong and, above all, the common strand that comes through of the desire to see confidence in Hong Kong. That was the clear desire on both sides of the House.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hamilton for welcoming the time lag between the Second Reading and Committee stages which we effected after listening carefully to the suggestions that he and other hon. Members made that there should be more time to consider the Bill before the Committee stage. I shall try to answer the points raised as clearly as I can to enable the Committee to proceed to the other issues.

The point that has come through most strongly tonight, as on Second Reading, is the question of accountability to the House. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have given this a great deal of thought. As hon. Members will recall, on Second Reading we had considerable reservations about having an institutionalised system in the form of an annual report and debate. We thought that that would not necessarily accord with the demands of the situation. It is worth recalling, too, that this is the third debate on Hong Kong in two months, although I appreciate that there are special reasons for that which will not apply in future years.

My right hon. and learned Friend and I have responded to the views of Members in all parts of the House in deciding that an annual report on Hong Kong will be produced by the Government and laid before Parliament. The exact form has not yet been decided and the matter is to be discussed further with the Governor of Hong Kong, but it is expected to include a general account of developments in Hong Kong during the preceding year.

The hon. Members for Hamilton, for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) and for Bolton, South-East (Mr. Young) have all raised important points. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs is bound to take a close interest and the Government stand ready to cooperate with it. If it wishes to look into issues from time to time, we shall do our best to co-operate.

As to whether there should be a debate on the annual report, the House may wish to judge whether a debate is desirable or useful in the light of the report. If the House takes that view the matter can then be pursued through the usual channels. Equally, the Government or the House may judge on some other occasion that a debate should take place because something special has arisen.

I hope that my comments will be of some help to the House and will show that it is the Government's desire to co-operate as best we can. I appreciate the importance of the House continuing to take a strong interest in Hong Kong throughout the period in which the Government have a clear responsibility for Hong Kong, certainly until 1 July 1997.

The hon. Members for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber and for Hamilton referred to the basic law. The situation in that respect has not changed substantially since Second Reading. Drafting the basic law is clearly a matter for the Chinese Government, but they have made it absolutely clear that they will consult Hong Kong opinion on a wide basis. The mechanics of the consultation are not yet clear and this is a matter for the Chinese Government, but we welcome the fact that they have expressed the clear intention to consult Hong Kong opinion.

The hon. Member for Hamilton referred to international trade agreements. As he knows, provision is made for the special administrative region to continue with very important agreements such as the GATT, and the provisions for the Joint Liaison Group specifically mention the need to discuss how special arrangements can continue for GATT and other international agreements.

The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) spoke of the Hong Kong economy, which is doing extremely well in terms of growth and exports. I am sure that continuity of international agreements is an important factor in that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and the hon. Members for Stockton, South and for Huddersfield talked about democratic institutions and the pace of progress in that respect. As the House knows, the first indirect elections will take place in September this year for part of the Legislative Assembly. Looking back to the debate of 5 December and to Second Reading, I believe that it is the general view of the House that it is best to proceed cautiously towards the fullest degree of democratic accountability by the Executive, and that is what we are doing, taking the views of the people of Hong Kong very much into account. As the House also knows, there will be a further review of the democratic institutions and the constitution in 1987 in the light of the experience of indirect elections in the next two years. Obviously, the House and, above all, the people of Hong Kong will have another opportunity to express their views.

The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) raised an important point about Vietnamese refugees, of which I am aware. It has a bearing on this legislation because it also affects the confidence of the people in Hong Kong. I did not answer him on Second Reading because of the lack of time. We give the matter high priority. There are still 11,900 Vietnamese refugees in Hong Kong. I pay tribute to the people and Government of Hong Kong for the way in which they have tackled this major problem. They have coped with no fewer than 100,000 refugees since 1979, and they have done an admirable job in extremely difficult circumstances. The Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Home Affairs is taking evidence on that. I gave evidence this week. We look forward with great interest to its report.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

On 25 July the Minister gave me an extremely informative analysis of the present population of Hong Kong. One of the sections referred to 4,500 stateless persons of non-Chinese race, most of whom originate from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Does the 100,000 that he mentioned include that figure, or is that figure included in the 95,000 other foreign nationals?

Mr. Luce

Those 4,500 people are quite separate. At present they are stateless people. I think that 11,900 people are classified as refugees, who are foreign nationals. I am subject to correction on that. They are the clear responsibility of both the Hong Kong and British Governments, and it is our objective to find a durable solution to the problem.

My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) made an extremely important point about the officers in Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong. He reminded the House that he served in the Overseas Civil Service, as I did. The agreement on the future of Hong Kong provides satisfactorily for the continuity of service by serving officers in the public services in Hong Kong on terms and conditions, including pay and pensions, no less favourable than on the 30 June 1997. Those provisions apply to members of the Overseas Civil Service serving in Hong Kong and other civil servants. The resumption of sovereignty over Hong Kong by the People's Republic of China raises similar issues in respect of the Overseas Civil Service, as independence has in other dependent territories. With that in our minds, we address ourselves to questions about their futures. I know that my hon. Friend will retain a close interest.

Mr. Stanbrook

I shall certainly do that. However, with respect, my hon. Friend has not grasped the point, which is that once the documents are exchanged and the Bill is enacted the conditions of service for all expatriate officers serving in Hong Kong will have been changed because from then onwards the policy will naturally be to promote as many people of Chinese origin as possible. That will mean that, if the qualifications of an expatriate and local officer are equal, when they apply for a post, the local officer will almost certainly be promoted. That has an adverse effect on career prospects, with a subsequent loss of morale, unless such staff now receive the sort of guarantees of security which others have had in colonies in the past.

Mr. Luce

I appreciate my hon. Friend's point. The Hong Kong Government are reviewing the number of people in the Overseas Civil Service in Hong Kong, and they will consider the numbers in the years to come. I assure my hon. Friend that we take his points on board and that we are considering those matters urgently.

I have tried to answer the debate as best I can. I hope that I have answered it sufficiently to be able to commend the clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  1. Schedule
      2. cc1043-74
    1. SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS 18,266 words
Forward to