| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.29 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham): Like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I whole-heartedly support the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill, which is one of the building blocks that we are now putting in place in the lead-up to 30 June 1997.
Two weeks ago, I had the great pleasure to debate the issue of Hong Kong with the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) in a rather more crowded house at the Oxford Union. We debated the question of whether the British Government have betrayed the people of Hong Kong. I spoke on behalf of the people of Hong Kong because Martin Lee could not attend the debate, and the right hon. Gentleman spoke for the Government. My side won by a margin of 244 to 36, which showed not the power of my persuasion but the idealism of young people on key democracy and human rights issues.
Mr. Renton:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I take this opportunity in the post-Nolan era to declare my interest in the subject. I should have said at the beginning of my speech that I recently visited Hong Kong as a guest of the Hong Kong Government. I much appreciated their generosity and I have already declared my trip on the Register of Members' Interests.
The hon. Gentleman took a rather extreme view in the Oxford Union debate. He said that he believed that British passports, or right of abode in this country, should be granted to the 3.5 million Hong Kong people who currently hold British national overseas passports. His view was received sympathetically by the audience at the Oxford Union, so perhaps he would like to confirm tonight whether that is also the policy of the Labour party.
Mr. MacShane:
I do not think that we should have a re-run of the Oxford Union debate in this place, although I would be happy to participate. I was most affected by the arguments of young men and women--our future leaders and intellectual elite--who drew attention to the fact that some 250 million people from European Union countries have the right to settle and to work in the United Kingdom. They pointed to the unfairness of denying the same rights to 52 war widows and 7,000 stateless Asians who are neither Chinese nor of British origin.
We are slowly putting the building blocks in place, and I appreciate the measured contributions that we have heard tonight. In introducing the Bill, the Minister stressed its importance as a small, but important,
confidence-building measure. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, in his wider role as the Minister responsible for Hong Kong, will convey to the Chinese Government the deep concern of hon. Members which is reflected in early-day motion 82--which appears on the Order Paper for the first time today, standing in my name and those of other hon. Members--about the plight of Wei Jingsheng, a Chinese human rights activist who is now on trial for his life. There is some contradiction between the confidence-building measure that we are seeking to establish in law tonight and the decision of Beijing in that case which is likely to undermine confidence in a stable future for Hong Kong.
Labour Members have very few objections to the substance of the Bill. Hon. Members have referred to the plight of the war widows, the stateless ethnic and Asian people, and the status of the current British dependent territories passport holders who will receive national overseas passports after 1 July 1997. Other Hong Kong inhabitants will receive Special Administrative Region passports, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Mid-Sussex that they should be granted visa-free entry into the United Kingdom. I emphasise that point to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett).
Representatives of Her Majesty's overseas civil service have approached the Government in an effort to secure the best possible packages. They have considered the early retirement option and they wish to secure the value of their pensions after 1997. I hope that the Hong Kong dollar will remain stable. I hope also that sterling will be a much more stable and durable currency in the future through closer links with the process of European integration--but that is a subject for another debate.
I am concerned that civil servants and other groups in Hong Kong who are covered by the legislation will fall foul of article 23 of the basic law, which prohibits
Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South):
I shall not detain the House for long. It is important that we pass the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill, although it is a relatively insignificant tidying-up measure. We must reassure and restore the confidence of the few hundred people in Hong Kong who will benefit from it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) referred to the fact that the legislation will not benefit other civil servants in Hong Kong and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, all Hong Kong civil servants must wonder about their positions post-1997. The present chief executive of the Hong Kong civil service will be replaced by a new appointee after 1997. The Chinese and Hong Kong press have reported the remarks of a potential candidate for that post, the present Hong Kong Chief Justice, who has said that the Bill of Rights and other very modest measures go too far. It is worrying that already senior figures in the administration, the legal system, the civil service and elsewhere in Hong Kong are beginning to adopt a different way of thinking about matters that the civil service in Hong Kong administered in the past and will continue to deal with in the coming year.
Two years ago, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee dealt with Britain's relations with Hong Kong and China, and its report drew attention to a number of matters that I shall not discuss now as they are outside the scope of the Bill. It made clear its concerns about the need for a human rights commission, which the Government unfortunately rejected.
Mr. Deputy Speaker):
Order. The hon. Gentleman has been quite ingenious in continually mentioning the word civil servant and then proceeding to argue about some other aspect. I am quite sure that the usual channels will read the debate and recognise that both sides of the House would like a debate on Hong Kong, but that cannot take place this evening.
Mr. Gapes:
I take your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not pursue that line of argument any further.
Mr. Hanley:
With the leave of the House, I shall reply to this excellent Second Reading debate.
I am pleased that the Hong Kong (Overseas Public Servants) Bill received a warm welcome from the House. It is essentially non-political and technical and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) said, it is a good housekeeping measure that recognises the British Government's responsibilities to the last serving members of HMOCS.
I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett) for giving the proposals his full support and for the tone of his comments. I am extremely pleased that he is now more familiar with Hong Kong. Hong Kong is rather like a Chinese meal: soon after people leave it, they want to go back for more. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to return to Hong Kong. It is a remarkable place.
Mr. David Faber (Westbury):
This evening.
Mr. Hanley:
I am sure that this evening Leeds is more pressing.
I am sure that Hong Kong HMOCS officers and pensioners will appreciate the warm tributes that hon. Members on both sides of the House have paid to their commitment and contribution to Hong Kong over many years.
I was not surprised that the House focused on the detail of the package of benefits rather than the principle of providing Hong Kong HMOCS with a package in the first place. After all, we are not doing anything for Hong Kong HMOCS officers that was not done for their predecessors in many other former territories. I note that no hon. Member questioned whether such benefits should be provided and thus doubted the need for this enabling legislation.
All hon. Members recognise that the Bill is necessary and must be implemented without delay. I am glad, too, that the elements in the package that I outlined earlier, and that hon. Members will have an opportunity to consider in detail later, command more support. Any proposal that offers benefits and involves actual expenditure and contingent liability is bound to attract comment, particularly about the costs involved.
Of course, I recognise that other issues need to be resolved, some through the efforts of the joint liaison group, by negotiations between British and Chinese representatives, and others between the Hong Kong Government and the British Government. Although certain issues need to be resolved over the coming 18 months, it is most important to sustain confidence in Hong Kong--confidence in which I firmly believe--so that Hong Kong can continue, with the greatest degree of autonomy and continuity, its current system that has made it such a success.
May I almost intervene on myself and reply to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who mentioned Wei Jingsheng? My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that issue on 3 October with the Vice-Premier and Foreign Minister of China, Qian Qichen. We raise issues of human rights and specific cases of concern whenever we meet.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) made one small comment with which I disagree. He said that we refused to provide full calculations of the figures. I can assure him that I provided the chairman of the Overseas Service Pensioners Association with a full description of the methods used to calculate the 21:1 divisor, and my officials have provided numerous lists and tables detailing the Hong Kong and United Kingdom salary and pension comparisons. There are more than 50 pages of detailed calculations, and I am sure that I could provide them to the hon. Gentleman if he would like to work through them before the Standing Committee meets.
I conclude by saying a little more about the sterling pension safeguard scheme. I do not want hon. Members to leave tonight without understanding that it is not a bad deal for those for whom we have great admiration and wish to provide.
The proposed pension safeguard scheme differs from previous schemes and does not offer Hong Kong HMOCS officers full protection of the sterling value of their pensions at 1997 rates. Hong Kong pensions are currently paid in Hong Kong dollars with no guaranteed conversion rate to sterling, so the British Government will assume a new contingent liability for those pensions.
Let me explain why. There is a solid guarantee in the Sino-British joint declaration that the autonomous authorities of Hong Kong will continue to pay pensions after 30 June 1997. The British Government have full confidence that that provision will be honoured. I should tell the hon. Member for Rotherham that, although article 23 of the basic law sets limits to political organisations in Hong Kong having links with such organisations abroad, I am not clear whether that is relevant to HMOCS as article 27 of the basic law guarantees free speech and freedom of association, including labour organisations.
The Bill, therefore, addresses the assistance that should be provided to HMOCS pensioners over and above the existing arrangements whereby they receive their pensions in Hong Kong dollars with no protection against currency movements and having regard to guarantees in the joint declaration. Some have argued that the British Government should protect the full sterling value of Hong Kong HMOCS pensions, but it would be unfair to expect British taxpayers to provide such support as the salaries, and hence the pensions, of the Hong Kong HMOCS have a greater purchasing power than those received by their predecessors and their counterparts in the British public service. In addition, many former Hong Kong HMOCS officers have enjoyed big pension increases over the years, awarded by the Hong Kong Government. Indeed, they have deserved them, but those increases were based on the relatively high rate of inflation in Hong Kong, which has no relevance to the cost of living for pensioners who have retired to the United Kingdom, for example, thus the purchasing power of Hong Kong pensions has in many cases greatly increased since the officers retired, and the British taxpayer should not be asked to protect those windfall increases.
Claims that in some cases our proposed scheme would protect only about 60 per cent. of the sterling value of those Hong Kong pensions do not represent the full picture. The real test of the scheme is what percentage of the original sterling purchasing power of those pensions would be protected by the scheme. The answer is that, on average, the scheme would protect 80 per cent. of officers' Hong Kong pensions and 100 per cent. of almost all widows' pensions, so we have decided that the scheme should be based on the principle of comparability with the British public service. As I explained, we cannot offer Hong Kong HMOCS officers full pension protection. Equally, it would be wrong to leave them with no protection at all, however unlikely an exchange rate collapse might be. That is why we proposed the safety net.
The principle of comparability with the British public service strikes a just balance between the interests--for which the Government are equally responsible--of HMOCS and the British taxpayer. Two points should be borne in mind. First, the proposed scheme would provide a safety net that does not exist at the moment and, secondly, the chances of any significant liability ever being incurred under the proposed scheme are remote. In practice, the contingent liability is expected to halve after eight years and disappear altogether after 18.
I am grateful for the tone of the thoughtful comments by hon. Members on both sides of the House, showing good will both to the people of Hong Kong and its continued future and to the dedicated civil servants who have helped to make Hong Kong the success that it is and will continue to be.
"political organisations or bodies of the region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies."
Some civil servants--for example, judges who have served in British colonies and dependent territories--will find that, if they continue to live in Hong Kong after 1 July 1997 and seek to form quite normal associations so that their interests may be represented, under that article they will be unable to make representations and establish ties with their colleagues in other parts of the world. That is a fundamental concern about the post-30 June 1997 situation in Hong Kong and it has been raised with me during my many visits to Hong Kong in recent years.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |