(16)
Lord Goronwy Roberts
CONFIDENTIAL
der Methane 22
Mr
Baywony 4/2.
Enter
4/2
FABIAN PAMPHLET ON HONG KONG:
1.
BRITAIN'S RESPONSIBILITY
I have just read with interest the Fabian pamphlet on Hong Kong. As you know, my chief interest in Hong Kong within the Office is on the Labour Advisory side. I hone you will not mind my making one or two comments from this angle.
2.
Frankly, even if one discounts it by one half and accepts that the problem is partly "historical", the picture seems to me a disturbing one. I understand that a study is already being undertaken on the Hong Kong scene in general by the Planners and the Department. We could certainly do with an up to date, objective assessment of the labour situation. In this context, I should mention that, at the Overseas Labour Consultative Committee meeting on 30 January, it was agreed that we should produce a report on labour laws and social standards in Hong Kong (particularly in comparison with Asian states) which would be discussed by a working group of the OLCC. I hope that this may also prove a useful input to the work being done by the Office.
3. 1 have also seen a copy of Mr Milton's minute of 23 January on the pamphlet. I do not think Mr England's approach was "paternalistic" (paragraph 2). Nor do I think that the concept of greater accountability to the Secretary of State and Parliament (paragraph 7) should necessarily be seen as "usurping" the functions of the Legislative Council. For well known reasons, it is not possible to establish a democratic and representative system of government in Hong Kong. I do not therefore see why we should accept that Hong Kong affairs should be beyond the scope of Westminster control. Mr England's pamphlet shows how such autonomy has been achieved. without any corresponding degree of accountability to the vast majority of Hong Kong people. It is surely not "paternalistic" to demand that a small, powerful group of people who have happily enriched themselves as a result of the system should be accountable to the institutions in London which are ultimately responsible. Apart from the labour and industrial issues which I have referred to above suggest that this is one of the central issues which we should be looking at.
DR.
3 February 1976
Ted Rowlands
loo