733
Sir Geoffrey Howe]
1
Hong Kong Bill
21 JANUARY 1985
declaration, in which the Government of the United Kingdom declare that they will restore Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China with effect from 1 July 1997. In recent years it has become the invariable practise when the United Kingdom divests itself of sovereignty over territory to do so upon the authority of an Act of Parliament. The situation of Hong Kong is of course sui generis. In this case we are entering into an agreement with another power to terminate sovereignty as from a certain specified date. Nevertheless, the need for parliamentary authority for the termination of sovereignty remains the same: it is essential that this authority should exist before the Government ratify the agreement and thus create an international obligation.
The Schedule to the Bill deals with three aspects related to the agreement and the termination of sovereignty. They are, first, the changes in British nationality laws necessary as a consequence of the agreement and the associated exchange of memoranda with the Chinese Government; secondly, amendments to British laws in preparation for or consequent upon the termination of United Kingdom sovereignty and jurisdiction; and, finally, the provision of diplomatiic privileges and immunities to the five Chinese members of the Joint Liaison Group.
I deal now with nationality, and in this context I shall mention the reasoned amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell),
and my
learned Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and I made it plain in the House on 5 December that the legislation that we proposed to introduce would provide powers to make the amendments to nationality legislation that are necessary as a result of the agreement and the United Kingdom memorandum.
Those provisions are contained in paragraph 2 of the schedule, which enables a subsequent Order or Orders in Council to be made to ensure that British dependent territories citizenship cannot be ratained or acquired on or after 1 July 1997 by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong and to create a new form of British nationality that may be acquired by persons who are BDTCs by virtue of such a connection with Hong Kong.
Following consultations with the Hong Kong Executive Council, it is intended that the title of the new form of nationality should be "British National (Overseas)". It has not been easy to devise a title which meets all the necessary requirements. On the one hand, it needs to make clear that we are dealing with a form of British nationality. Nothing less than that would be acceptable in Hong Kong. On the other hand, it is essential that the title we choose can continue to be used after 1997. For this to be possible, the title must clearly carry no implication of a continuing constitutional relationship between Britain and Hong Kong after 1997.
I believe that the title we have chosen meets those needs. It has necessarily been the subject of careful consultations with the Executive Council. The completion of these consultations has enabled me to announce the title to the House today. There should now be adequate time to explain the choice of the new title-
Sir Paul Bryan (Boothferry): Will my right hon. and learned Friend repeat the title once again?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Certainly. It is “British National (Overseas)". The fact that my hon. Friend has intervened
Hong Kong Bill
734
o ask for that repetition underlines the point that I was making, that there needs to be adequate time to explain the choice of the new title to the people of Hong Kong.
Mr. Johnston: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way to me once more. He said that the title had been agreed after consultation with the Executive Council. Having talked to some of the members of the council, I understand that that title was about the seventh on the list of possible titles. I am not sure that it is true that the absence of any reference to Hong Kong in the title is acceptable.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the suggestion that the title should include a reference to Hong Kong is one of the factors that has been canvassed, for understandable reasons, but, for the reason that I have given, in our judgment, which was acceptable to the Executive Council after discussions, it would not be acceptable for the title to carry the implication of a continuing constitutional relationship between this country and Hong Kong. I readily accept that it has not been a matter of swift and easy deliberation to come to a conclusion about that, but that was one of the factors that we had in mind.
Mr. Christopher Murphy (Welwyn Hatfield): Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify, under paragraph 2(1)(b) of the schedule, the use of the word “may”, because I understand that there is considerable concern in Hong Kong over the use of the "may" rather than “shall”. My right hon. and learned Friend has just said what the new form of citizenship will be called. Can he tell us something about the citizenship and the documentation that will result from such a title?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to answer any point, unprompted, about the precise drafting of a subparagraph of a paragraph of a schedule. I shall decline my hon. Friend's invitation, but will note his point and see that an explanation is advanced in due course.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels (Leicester, East) rose~
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hope that my hon. Friend has a less subtle point to raise.
Mr. Bruinvels: I am certain whether my point is that subtle. My right hon. and learned Friend has just mentioned the constitutional purpose of the title of British National (Overseas). I am particularly interested to know -I am sure that the House is, too—what rights such people in Hong Kong will have after 1997. Will they be able to come to this country to settle permanently?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have now reached that point in interventions when I may conclude, at least for a time, that the intervention is likely to be dealt with in the rest of my speech. I shall therefore proceed to the next section to meet my hon. Friend's point.
- I can
If an amendment to the title introduced understand why it might be argued that it is desirable—— there should be an opportunity to do that, after the further explanation that I described, in another place. I said on 5 December that the schedule included a specific provision that the orders may include any measures that are necessary—this is a separate point-to ensure that no Pritish national or any child born after 1 July 1997 to a British national is made stateless as a result of the arrangements.
382
Page 105Page 106
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.