1
1565
Points of Order
19 APRIL 1990
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
1566
Mr. Speaker: The whole House knows-the hon. Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Heffer) got it right —that i said yesterday that, provided what Ministers or any other hon. Member says is in order it was not a matter for me. It is not for me to say if the Secretary of State's judgment was correct. I never said that the matter was sub judice, and it is not.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)
rose-
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Further to that point of order. Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I shall take Mr. Budgen first.
Mr. Budgen: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. Will you give the House your guidance on the second motion relating to the main business of the day, the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill? You will note that the Order Paper contains a motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition:
"That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Wholly different. separate and important considerations attach to that motion and hon. Members might take a different view on it than on the Second Reading motion. Will there be opportunities for a separate debate on the second motion?
Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Gentleman has been here a long time and he has often seen these motions on the Order Paper. It is not debatable, but it is certainly votable. I will now take Mr. Skinner. I hope that his point of order will not delay an important debate. The position has marginally improved. Now, only 48 hon. Members wish to take part.
Mr. Skinner: In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Heffer and subsequently to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. South Mr. Cryer) and the Shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), you said that it was not your responsibility, notwithstanding the points that have been made. particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South. It is pretty clear to Opposition Members that yesterday we had a Minister present who used the opportunity to cloud the issue and wriggle away from his responsibilities. If in future you spot that and realise that a Minister is trying to use the sub judice rule wrongly, perhaps you could consider giving extra time to hon. Members who want to grill the Minister, instead of allowing him to escape his responsibilities.
Mr. Speaker: I know what the hon. Member is trying to return to the question of how long I allowed the statement to run yesterday. I hope that some of his hon. Friends who could not speak in the subsequent debate yesterday as a result of points of order had a word with him.
Orders of the Day
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State. I repeat that there is great pressure to take part in the debate today. In the interests of equity, I proposed to give some precedence to hon. Members who were not called when we last debated this matter in July. I hope that Privy Councillors will understand that they may suffer thereby by being called later on the list. I propose to put a limit of 10 minutes on speeches between 7 and 9 o'clock, but I hope that those who are called before that time will bear that limit in mind in the interests of their colleagues in the House.
4.12 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move. That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hardly need remind the House that although since the second world war Britain has granted independence to many former colonies, rarely have we nad to make plans for handing over a territory to a foreign power, and never to a communist one. I certainly do not have to remind the House that the remarkable story of Hong Kong's economic success is one in which our own country has been and is intimately involved. Quite apart from what many, if not most of us, might regard as our moral duty to maintain the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong up to 1997 and to secure a smooth changeover in that year, Britain has an enormous stake, in terms of trade, investment and jobs, in Hong Kong's continuing success. This is a case, if ever there was one, where duty and the national interest march hand in hand.
It is with Britain that responsibility for Hong Kong rests over the next seven years. We must do our best to see that as long as we remain responsible for the territory, its prosperity and stability are maintained. That is what this Bill is about. I emphasise that our proposals, far from contravening the joint declaration signed in 1984, are designed to carry out the agreement's central purpose, which is to maintain Hong Kong's prosperity and stability in the run-up to 1997.
The Bill addresses a real and present threat to that objective. There are plenty of people who still want to go and live in Hong Kong-largely peopie without skills wanting to reap the economic benefits of making their homes there-but there are also many people leaving, who include professional, managerial and technical personnel in proportions far in excess of their numbers in the population. Indeed, 24 per cent. of all emigrants come within those categories, but represent only 5.5 per cent. of Hong Kong's population. Thirteen per cent. of Hong Kong's information science professionais—a classification which includes computer experts have been leaving each year. Hong Kong's economy and stability cannot indefinitely survive such a haemorrhage of talent and enterprise.
The rationale for the proposals now before the House remains as set out by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement on 20 December. First, current rates of emigration and reduced confidence pose a real
798 CD31 7 Job 2-7