1063
Dependent Territories
15 APRIL 1983
In fact, as the House knows, Parliament amended the Bilgive full British citizenship to Gibraltarians on the ground that, like the United Kingdom, they were in the European Community. More recently, full British citizenship has been given to all the Falkland islanders on grounds, it seems, of sentiment. The Government's original policy on this issue is therefore in ruins.
British dependent territories citizenship is the same as British nationality for the purposes of diplomatic protection and international law. Apart from the Hong Kong question, it is only a matter of time before full British citizenship is granted to the inhabitants of our remaining dependencies. When that is achieved, there will be no justification for distinguishing them from the inhabitants of the United Kingdom in any other way. I believe that ultimate absorption into the concept of the United Kingdom and islands for all our remaining dependent territories should be adopted as Government policy.
Looking ahead to such a development, I believe that the present relationship of the islands with the United Kingdom is not wholly satisfactory.
Sir Paul Bryan (Howden): Will my hon. Friend make it clear that he does not include Hong Kong in this?
Mr. Stanbrook: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I propose that all territories not able to seek or not desirous of seeking independence should be so treated-but not Hong Kong, which is subject to an international complication.
The present relationship of the islands with the United Kingdom is not wholly satisfactory. Their inhabitants, although they may all be British citizens, are not represented in the Parliament which ultimately determines their way of life. There is a need for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands to be represented in the British legislature. There is a growing demand from British residents abroad, especially those in the European Community, for the right to vote in parliamentary elections. The requirement of a residential qualification in the United Kingdom has long been a feature of our franchise, and I do not wish to see it abandoned. On the other hand, it is now well established that where there is local legislative devolution, there is no need for absolute equality of representation in the central legislature.
I conclude, therefore, that there is no case for direct representation in the House of Commons for British citizens resident outside the United Kingdom. Representation in this place should continue to be based on a suffrage qualified by a United Kingdom residential requirement. Any reform of the composition of the House of Lords, however, should provide for elected represen- tatives of British citizens resident outside the United Kindom, including those in the islands, the dependent territories and the European Community.
The abolition of colonial status, which I hope to achieve in that way, should help to improve our relations with the United Nations, but different considerations, primarily of international law, apply to Hong Kong and Gibraltar.
Hong Kong was acquired by the Unitd Kingdom partly by way of outright concession and partly by way of a lease which expires in 1977. There can be no doubt whatever that the United Kingdom will honour the terms of the lease, even though the present Government of China choose to deny the validity of the treaties under which we
547
Dependent Territories
1064
occupy the whole of Hong Kong. However, the whole territory is administered as one entity. It would be unrealistic to suppose that when the lease expires the Crown colony.could somehow be hived off and remain a dependency of the United Kingdom. To pretend that such a solution is possible would be an affront to the Republic of China, would destroy all the good will that has been built up in recent years and would put paid to any hope of preserving Hong Kong's immensely valuable trading position in the far east.
I am therefore very glad that the Government have recently taken the sensible course of speeding up discussions with the Chinese Government about the future of Hong Kong. The Prime Minister's visit to the colony and to China last year was a catalyst. Not for the first time --she performed the same function in 1979 with the seemingly intractable problem of Rhodesia-my right hon. Friend intervened in the conduct of our foreign policy to set it on a bold new course and one which has the best chance of extricating us with honour from a situation that would otherwise ultimately become untenable.
Self-determination in the strict sense has no part to play in determining Hong Kong's future. With our dependent territories elsewhere I have no doubt that the wishes of the inhabitants as to their constitutional future must be paramount, but Hong Kong must be an exception to that rule. It should be said in extenuation that the people of Hong Kong have never been misled by us into thinking that the British were in that territory to stay for ever. The very existence of the leased territories has been a perpetual reminder that British sovereignty, whether over them or over the rest of the colony, is temporary. That is not to say that Britain should agree to surrender the whole of Hong Kong without more ado.
We have a strong hand to play. Even as she is, under British rule, the Hong Kong economy is a tremendous asset to the Republic of China. A messy solution to the problem, or one which leaves ill will between the parties or among the Hong Kong population, would be a tragedy for the republic and the international community. Fortunately, the present leaders of China appear to be wise men who are well aware of the high stakes of the game that they are playing. Last summer, they agreed with the Prime Minister to maintain Hong Kong's "prosperity and stability" in the 15 years to the end of the lease. There is also a good understanding of what the Prime Minister said on the subject on 24 September 1982 in Peking.
The United Kingdom has gone out of its way to provide special arrangements for immigration of individuals to Britain in case of need. Ample notice of our withdrawal has been given. We should now concentrate on reaching an amicable arrangement with the republic so that the transition can be accomplised in peace and harmony over as long a period as is necessary to ensure that that rather splendid example of enlightened British imperialism continues to serve its people and international trade as well as it has in the past.
The only reason why Gibraltar is a special case is article 10 of the treaty of Utrecht 1713, which provides that Gibraltar should be offered to Spain first if Britain wants to dispose of it. We should, perhaps, not accept that as conclusive. If the people of Gibraltar want independence, there is no reason, apart from the treaty, why they should not have it. As a free port, Gibraltar could be immensely prosperous and serve the interests of a European