*
r
I
C
C
1
Γ
J
1
T
:
755
Hong Kong Bill
21 JANUARY 1985
So the changes that we are anticipating are not so sudden or out of character as some suppose. The co- partnership in industry between the two countries, about which we talk a great deal, has existed for a long time. No one has ever quite known the scale of it because it has not been over-advertised, especially when the political climate in Peking has been uncertain. There is evidence of increasing interdependence between China and Hong Kong. The meteoric growth of trade between the two countries shows how that is happening. Trade has increased fivefold in five years. In 1984, entrepot trade increased by 130 per cent. That is an illustration of what has happened with the opening of the door from China to Hong Kong.
In the course of 1984 China overtook West Germany and the United States to become Hong Kong's second and most important export market. That might be thought to be not unnatural for neighbouring countries, but in 1978, before the "four modernisations" were announced, China ranked only 37th in Hong Kong's markets. There has been an enormous increase in the connection between the two countries and Hong Kong's role as an entrepot has been transformed. Re-exports to and from China have more than doubled every year since 1978, and it was thought that they would amount to HK$25 billion in 1984.
An article on Hong Kong appeared in the Financial Times on 3 January. It read:
"Hong Kong will remain the main doorway to the only remaining huge undeveloped market in the world People here have a shared language and culture, and they have commercial links throughout the mainland that it would take a Western businessman years to develop.”
In addition, the container port is the third most active in the world and is about to become the second most active. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), China goes to Hong Kong for its technology. The signing of the agreement on the Daya bay nuclear plant has been the most significant development for many years. When this Bill is debated in another place I hope that Lord Kadoorie, the Chairman of China Light and Power, a main partner in the project, will be there to tell us all about it.
I stress the growing interdependence between the two countries because it shows that the economic scene is changing so quickly that it is impossible to visualise Hong Kong in 1997. It is certain that Hong Kong will be a very different place when we hand over our sovereignty. We in the United Kingdom will find it hard to keep up with developments.
There are signs also that political changes may come faster than we anticipated. It was apparent during the debates in December that most of us agreed with the Green Paper produced by the Hong Kong Government on electoral reform and the subsequent plan. I understand that an unexpectedly large number of candidates are likely to come forward for district board elections, which will be taking place shortly. There is a great variety of candidates. The somewhat lukewarm interest that we assumed would be taken in the voting procedure may prove wrong, and we may have to move faster than we expected.
I was extremely glad when I read in the newspapers two or three days ago that the successor to Sir Philip Hadden Lave as chief Secretary is to be David Aikers-Jones. I am sure that those who know David Aikers-Jones will agree with me that he is an admirable choice. He has served the Hong Kong Government in the New Territories for the past
ĥ
Hong Kong Bill
756
20 years and he has great knowledge of China, the Chinese language and Hong Kong. There will be general delight that he has moved into such an important post at such a critical time in the history of the territory.
Over the past year UMELCO has supplied us with three papers prior to our three debates. The changing nature and content of the papers tells the story. The first paper, which was published in May, consisted of a long list of matters of concern to those in Hong Kong, and genuine matters of concern they were. It consisted also of a long list of assurances and undertakings that they needed in the agreement. I and many other hon. Members wrongly thought that UMELCO was asking for too much. I doubted whether the Chinese Government would go that far. In the event, I was wrong, and the agreement obtained was much more favourable and much more detailed than I had ever expected.
The second UMELCO paper was published on 29 November 1984 before our debate. It reflected the success as set out in the agreement. It was a reasoned paper accepting the agreement and giving the reasons for doing so. The four critical areas on which assurances had been sought had met with satisfactory assurances.
We have now been supplied with the third speaking note. It is a much shorter document than the papers which preceded it. That is because so much of what had been asked for had been granted. However, that does not mean that we are left with no worries. Most of the worries that can be dealt with by the Bill relate to nationality. The paper concentrates on the status of the new passport, nomenclature, statelessness and so on. That does not mean that they are the only remaining worries, but they are important worries with which the House must deal in the next few weeks and months. I very much hope that the Government have listened to those who have asked for sympathetic consideration of those nationality worries. For example, are we giving enough time? Would it be a good idea to put off the Report stage and Third Reading for a while so that we can hear more views from Hong Kong, as has been suggested?
But whatever happens we must remember a point that has already been made several times, and that is that during the next few years the people of Hong Kong will be watching Britain to see whether our commitment to that "territory continues undiminished until 1997. Today they will be looking to see how we deal with their worries about nationality. That is the first test of commitment that we must pass. I hope that the Government will do all they can to pass that test.
5.30 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down): It would be wrong if the Bill were to receive a Second Reading without there being placed on record a remonstrance against what is proposed in the matter of nationality, and against the manner in which what is proposed is to be executed.
I shall deal first with the manner in which the proposal is to be carried out. I admit that when I read the White Paper that was debated a few weeks ago and saw the reference to an intended alteration of our nationality law, it did not occur to me that it would not be carried out by legislation. I am afraid I had forgotten that the Foreign Secretary is the same person as the right hon. and learned Cuzinan who once devised a way whereby, through a Bill of only five clauses, the House could divest itself of all the rights that it had laboriously acquired and defended
393
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.