| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Dalyell: One day the Minister will be long forgotten just as one day I suppose that we shall all be long forgotten. I do not doubt his good faith but a statutory annual report is totally different from one that Ministers promise in good faith from the Dispatch Box.
Mr. Oppenheim: I note what the hon. Gentleman says and I accept his concern. I hope that a Minister saying clearly on the record in the House that there will be an annual report is enough. If hon. Members are still dissatisfied, we shall consider their worries on that aspect. My strong view at the moment is that that should be sufficient. I have stated clearly that there will be an annual report; I hope that that is enough.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow raised another important issue when he spoke about what he called the licensing requirements of the short list of quite common chemicals. Some of them, such as carbon, are inert and others, such as sulphur, are relatively inert. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no licensing requirement for those chemicals. There are licensing requirements only for the very toxic schedule 1 chemicals. There is a reporting
requirement for relatively inert chemicals and it applies only to companies or organisations that maintain significantly large stocks of the chemicals as set out in the schedule. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and allays his concerns about research bodies and others needing to apply for licences for ordinary run-of-the-mill chemicals.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) raised the important issue of what can be done about non-signatories to the convention. We shall continue to press hard that all such states should sign the convention. About three quarters of the world's states have signified that they will join. A relatively small number are still outside the convention and we shall be at the forefront of states pushing to ensure that they sign. The convention proposes constraints on shipping scheduled chemicals to states that are not party to the convention and that element of sanction already exists. Of course, the convention's signatories will be able to consider other measures, as I suspect, in some cases, they will do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury was worried about the compliance cost assessment. I have already dealt with the question of whether we are over-regulating in that area, but my hon. Friend raised particularly the point that smaller firms may not be affected by declaration and inspection requirements. I can assure him that for schedule 1 toxic chemicals, the size of firm is not a factor, and small firms will not be exempt. The compliance cost assessment applies to the relatively not-so-toxic chemicals below the level of schedule 3 and discrete organic chemicals. We see no reason to apply those measures to smaller companies unnecessarily. The measures are not licensing, but reporting requirements, and the convention does not require those companies or organisations to record what they have got. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Honiton asked about the various posts involved in the convention and the inspection regime. I can assure my right hon. Friend that we have already passed details of the inspector posts and provisional technical secretariat positions to the relevant qualified UK experts. I understand that several have already been interviewed. Some of the senior posts, such as the executive secretary, are already occupied by UK nationals.
The hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) mentioned the complaint made by UNSCOM to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about British equipment being found at Salman Pak. I understand that UNSCOM asked for details of supplies from the FCO to assist in its investigation. UNSCOM did not make any complaint and all the items it found were dual-use and not licensable. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further, he should approach the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The Member for Leyton also mentioned the important question of article X of the convention, which requires the United Kingdom to give a report to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons on the assistance that it gives to other states to protect them against chemical weapons. I accept that point, but the Government do not require special legislation to implement action.
I hope that I have answered all the substantive queries to the satisfaction of the House. I appreciate the spirit in which the debate has been conducted. I hope that our differences are relatively small because the legislation is important not just for our future as a nation, but for the future of the world. If the Bill is passed quickly, it will enable the United Kingdom to ensure the effective operation of the convention. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.--
[Mr. Knapman.]
Committee tomorrow.
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 50A(1)(a),
Question agreed to.
Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley):
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill is an enabling measure, which will allow the British Government to provide a package of benefits to certain overseas public servants in Hong Kong. My purpose today is to explain the background to the proposal, and to set out the package of benefits which we propose to implement by Order in Council after enactment of the legislation.
In 1954, the Government of the day published a White Paper on the future of the colonial civil service. That White Paper anticipated the process of decolonisation and considered how civil servants recruited from this country to work on pensionable terms in the colonies and other dependent territories would be treated when a colony moved to independence.
The White Paper recognised that overseas territories owed a significant debt to the efficient work of the men and women of the colonial service, and that the British Government had a special obligation towards them as a result of their having been recruited to their posts by the Secretary of State for the Colonies or through the Crown Agents. To give officers confidence about their future, the White Paper set out the conditions that they could expect to be observed upon independence. Those conditions included maintenance of their terms and conditions of service, safeguarding of their pensions, the ability to retire prematurely, and the payment to them of compensation. The White Paper also renamed the colonial service as Her Majesty's Overseas Civil Service, or the HMOCS. Judicial officers form a separate HMOJ, but I shall refer to the whole as the HMOCS.
A further White Paper in 1960 refined the arrangements. In particular, it provided that the British Government should provide financial assistance to the territories concerned to help them keep the services of expatriate officers after independence. The White Paper also provided guidance on how the compensation arrangements should operate, and established a resettlement bureau to help the HMOCS members who retired prematurely to find new employment.
Since 1960, 42 former British dependent territories have become independent. The British Government implemented the arrangements by making Orders in Council for the payment of compensation by the successor Government to members of the HMOCS for the loss of their career prospects and of the Secretary of State's protection. The Government also negotiated public officers agreements which required the successor Government to pay pensions at a fixed sterling exchange rate. In most cases, the British Government reimbursed the cost of compensation in the form of aid, and in due course took over the pensions as an aid measure.
There are some 700 members of the HMOCS in Hong Kong who were recruited on pensionable terms before the Sino-British joint declaration was signed in 1984. Those
officers are the last members of the HMOCS. They have contributed enormously to the success of Hong Kong, and many of them wish to continue in the service of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government after 30 June 1997. Like their predecessors in other territories, the officers are concerned about their future and need to know how they will be treated.
The Government considered the question of arrangements for the Hong Kong HMOCS at the time of negotiation of the joint declaration. To give overseas officers a guarantee that their services would be welcomed by the future Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government, China and Britain agreed, and the joint declaration makes it clear, that, after 30 June 1997, foreign nationals could continue in the service of the SAR Government on terms and conditions of service no worse than before. The joint declaration also provides that the pensions of all Hong Kong civil servants, which includes members of the HMOCS and their dependants, would continue to be paid by the SAR Government. Those pensions are, and will continue to be, paid in Hong Kong dollars.
Those important and far-sighted treaty provisions give members of the HMOCS in Hong Kong confidence that they can continue to work in the service of Hong Kong up to their normal date of retirement, and that their pensions will be paid. The joint declaration also provides that, after 30 June 1997, the top 20 to 30 posts in the Hong Kong public service should be held by Chinese nationals. Those members of the HMOCS who choose to stay on will not be able to aspire to the senior positions. Indeed, the process of localisation is already in full swing and will extend beyond those posts as a result of the need to build up a pool of local officers with enough experience to occupy the highest levels of government. The process of constitutional change will therefore inevitably limit the career prospects of members of the HMOCS in Hong Kong.
By 1989, the Hong Kong HMOCS was pressing the British Government to give its members the same package of benefits provided to their predecessors in other former dependent territories. Their representative body, the Hong Kong HMOCS Association, argued forcibly that its members were in the same position as their predecessors and that the British Government were honour-bound to treat them in the same way. It was supported by the Overseas Service Pensioners' Association--known as OSPA--which represents the interests of former members of the HMOCS from Hong Kong and elsewhere.
The Hong Kong Government judged that they could not provide a general compensation scheme. Hong Kong has a unified public service and the Hong Kong Legislative Council would not be expected to vote funds for special benefits for an exclusive group of expatriates. The only compensation that Hong Kong is prepared to pay is in respect of those officers who are required to retire for constitutional reasons or who are superseded under the localisation programme. Members of the HMOCS look to the British Government, rather than the Hong Kong Government, to provide them with compensation and pension protection which had been accorded in other territories.
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Chemical Weapons Bill, it is expedient to authorise--
(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State incurred in consequence of the Act;
(2) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of sums received by the Secretary of State in consequence of the Act.--[Mr. Knapman.]
6.43 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |