---

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interesting as the hon. Gentleman's trip to Hong Kong is, I am afraid that the rules of the House are very clear: we must debate only the Second Reading of the Bill. Allusions to other dimensions are acceptable, but there must certainly be nothing beyond that.

Mr. Fatchett: I was foolish enough to pre-empt you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which was a mistake on my part. I was saying--I am sure that you will acknowledge the point's validity--that while the Bill deals with one set of fears, others exist in Hong Kong. The individuals whom I was going to mention, and who are relevant because their fears still exist, are the war widows and the ethnic minority groups. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that the Government still have fears with which they must deal. The right measures have been introduced in the Bill, but I assure him that all the political groups in Hong Kong and the business interests recognise that other fears must also be resolved.

We are dealing only with a specific issue in this debate, but we must deal also with the anxieties and concern in Hong Kong. What impressed me was that against such a background, there is a great deal of robust optimism about the future. The society has very clearly stated values. It believes in the rule of law and has political accountability and an element of democracy. The through train post-1997 is crucial to the long-term economic success of Hong Kong.

My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) summed up the matter in the debate on the Gracious Speech when he said that Britain's involvement in Hong Kong and the role played by the British civil service will be judged not only in terms of what we have done over the past few years but by how we have entrenched and embedded a system for the years post-1997. That is the real criterion on which all our records will be judged.

What is clear is that, as part of the British record in Hong Kong, we have left a civil service that has maintained the rule of law and given to that island something of which we can be justifiably proud. That is why we support the Bill and, through it, we thank those overseas civil servants who have played their part in making Hong Kong the success that it is.

7.18 pm

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): May I say what a pleasure it is to be taking part in this short debate and what a pleasure it was to listen to the speech of my right

23 Nov 1995 : Column 858

hon. Friend the Minister, and that of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) who is also fairly new to his position in the shadow Foreign Office team.

Speaking as a past Foreign Office Minister and one who had responsibilities for Hong Kong between 1985 and 1987, and who since 1992 has been chairman of the active all-party committee on Hong Kong, I find it a great pleasure to be so much in agreement with both speeches.

Before dealing directly with the Bill, may I be provocative for just one moment? I fully agreed with the comments of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central about the legacy that we will pass on in Hong Kong on 30 June 1997. I think that we can be very proud of that legacy. I would only suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should act to convince the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is sitting behind him, of that.

In a debate on this subject at the Oxford Union some two weeks ago, in which we both took part, the hon. Member for Rotherham advanced some very extreme ideas. More to the point, he advanced the idea that Britain should be thoroughly ashamed of its position in Hong Kong. That is wrong, and I hope that the hon. Member for Rotherham will come to regret those remarks. I am moving on to the subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to hear that the hon. Gentleman is moving on to the subject because this debate is very specific.

Mr. Renton: I think that the Bill, quite simply, is a good housekeeping measure. The legislation is necessary, and the Government are to be congratulated on the speed with which it has been brought before the House.

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State took us through the basic points of the Bill very thoroughly. All hon. Members will be interested in the Bill's resettlement element and in the help that it provides to the members of the overseas civil service and the overseas judiciary who may decide to retire early. If they decide to retire early, it is important for them to know that they will receive assistance in resettlement. That provision may be a further encouragement to some people to retire early.

The main bone of contention in the Bill--perhaps the only one--is that to which my right hon. Friend referred: the peg at which the safeguard to pensions comes into play. That must be a balancing act, but, given the generosity of the pension arrangements in Hong Kong in recent years, which have been based on a substantially higher rate of inflation than that of the United Kingdom, the principle of comparability must apply. Therefore, the decision to make the peg--the point at which the Government would step in to help--the rate of 21 Hong Kong dollars to the pound is, frankly, not unreasonable.

I am sure that the Bill will not have a long Committee stage. It is an advantage that we have discussed that important issue this afternoon and, as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central said, perhaps, having got that out of the way, there will be time at some stage in the future for us to debate some of the other matters to which he referred: a Bill of Rights; the new Special Administrative Region passport and whether it should be visa free, as I hope it will be; and the point that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) raised about the considerable confusion that any interim legislative assembly or interim governmental body in Hong Kong which came into effect before 30 June 1997 would cause.

23 Nov 1995 : Column 859

I am very pleased that the Governor of Hong Kong has already gone on record as saying that he could not possibly support that idea. In such a debate I hope that we might also be able to consider the position of the new fully elected Legislative Council in Hong Kong. I appreciate, however, that those points are not in order this evening.

I certainly support the Bill and hope that it will reach the statute book very quickly.

7.23 pm

Sir Russell Johnston (Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber): Pretty well every hon. Member who has spoken thus far has subscribed to the general view that the Bill is non-controversial. Indeed, the Library research paper describes it as

"a relatively straightforward piece of legislation aimed at creating similar conditions for Members of HMOCS in Hong Kong as have applied in the past when colonies have passed out of British sovereignty."

Nevertheless, it is a fact, of which I am sure the Minister is aware, that there are some in the Overseas Service Pensioners Association who do not take quite that line and feel that they have not been as fairly treated as has been claimed. It is only appropriate and right that their opinion should be ventilated. We are, after all, talking about a very limited number of people. The essential argument that some of them use is that the proposals laid before the House do not provide safeguards equivalent to those afforded to expatriate pensioners in other former colonies who enjoy 100 per cent. protection of the original purchasing power of the pension awarded to them on retirement.

One such pensioner, Mr. A. Thorne, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones). I should like to read out a couple of paragraphs from his letter to which the Minister might be able to respond in his winding-up speech. I shall not read out the first page as it deals mainly with the divisor, a matter already raised by two Conservative Back Benchers. Mr. Thorne wrote:

"HMG claims that the proposed safeguard scheme will protect Hong Kong pensions at a sterling value broadly equivalent to those paid to comparable former UK public servants despite any evidence that they can be fairly equated."

Well, that is an argument, I suppose. Mr. Thorne develops it in the next paragraph when he states:

"Apart from the obvious defects in arriving at the divisor, no account has been taken in these comparisons of the differences that result from the fact that, in the absence of a ministerial system, Hong Kong civil servants, at every level, carry a degree of responsibility and public accountability which home based civil servants are shielded from. Accordingly, a simple comparison of Hong Kong salaries with those of officers in equivalent ranks and grades of the home civil service makes no allowance for such extra burdens. It follows that the comparisons which have been made in formulating this pensions safeguard scheme are not on a like with like basis."

I do not necessarily espouse that argument, but it deserves a response. I hope that in due course the Minister will provide one.

I shall read one more sentence on the question of the divisor. The correspondent alleges:

"Despite many requests from individual pensioners and OSPA, the officials charged with drawing up the scheme have refused to provide calculations showing how the divisor of 21 has been arrived at."

That could also be dealt with in Committee.

23 Nov 1995 : Column 860

We are approaching the end of the time in which we are responsible for Hong Kong, but it is important for people at every level to remember that many questions still need to be answered and criticisms are still being made. I was delighted when the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), during his recent visit to Hong Kong, made a commitment with regard to the 6,000 or 7,000 ethnic minority group. I wish that the Government would follow his good example.

I should not like to think that the Government have devised a scheme that treats pensioners and the widows of pensioners from Hong Kong any less favourably than pensioners from the other 42 or so colonies. The trouble with many actuarial measures is that they are often too complicated for simple people like me to understand. It is very important that pensioners clearly understand these measures and regard them as fair.

---