1031
Hong Kong Bill
6 FEBRUARY 1985
j: is not democratic, giving guarantees about the future, use politics and guarantees are bad bedfellows. All we can do is what we believe to be in the best interests of all concerned.
Clause 1 deals primarily with the sovereignty issue, and there is no point in repeating all that has already been said. At this stage, there is advantage to be had by leaving a certain amount of fluidity in the Bill, certainly in respect of the nationality aspects that we shall be discussing lateṛ. I make one point in response to what the hon. Member for Hamilton said about there being some substantial time -and I am sure that he is right-before we come to debate Hong Kong again. However, I am sure that he, like the rest of us, did not want to imply that by passing this Bill we wash our hands of Hong Kong and lose interest in it. We should not seek to imply either that the House will not debate, discuss, or even, if necessary, legislate from time to time on the rights of individual citizens in Hong Kong.
In this clause we are dealing with sovereignty, and it is right that this should be settled once and for all, beyond peradventure, which is what the clause does. I support it. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton will agree that we should let it be known to all concerned-I am sure that the Government share this view-that if, as time goes by, changes need to be made in detailed aspects of the legislation, nothing that we do tonight will slam the door irrevocably on making changes in detail that may affect the rights of individual Hong Kong citizens.
Mr. Russell Johnston (Inverness, Naim and Lochaber): I shall be brief because we should not try to have another Second Reading debate on each clause stand part debate.
I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) who has given a good deal of time and emotional effort to the problems of Hong Kong for some time, despite the fact that, as he said, this has led to him being criticised somewhat. From the beginning, he was on the right lines, and we should salute the fact that he was so, despite the fact that when he originally expressed his views they were not universally accepted. Secondly, I am very happy to support, as did the hon. Member for Christchurch, what the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said. He will appreciate that the House is no longer simply bipartisan. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said that it was multipartisan.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth (Stockton, South): Bipartite. Mr. Johnston: Bipartite?
Mr. J. Enoch Powell (South Down): Cinquepartite. Mr. Johnston: That is far too clever for me.
Mr. Powell: Count up to five—five parties.
Mr. Johnston: It is a great pleasure to have the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) not only agreeing with me but doubling the number.
I have only two points to make. First, I support what the hon. Member for Hamilton said about the annual report-
It being Ten o'clock, The Chairman left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress.
$33
Ordered,
Hong Kong Bill
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
1032
That at this day's sitting, the Hong Kong Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Neubert.]
Hong Kong Bill
Again considered in Committee.
-
Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
were
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 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
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.