1103
1102
t as a
or our
! and .main have
very
hon.
is on
ed in
⚫bate
.ion.
2 in
opt,
. his
the
ing
the
/ in
the
ind
It
:ve
his
ins
a
sis
he
he
of
27
re
S
[.
1,
022 - O A
e
1
Dependent Territories
15 APRIL 1983
be expressed. My hon. Friend has submitted over a long period a series of penetrating questions that deserve attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to the Turks and Caicos Islands. Some devastating criticisms were made by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Government's responsibility for the misuse of aid funds that occurred there. It expressed concern that a capital aid project costing well over £5 million gave rise to a continuing revenue commitment from the United Kingdom aid budget. It was referring to the Club Mediterranée scandal. The Foreign Affairs Committee made many other criticisms. There was the failure of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to monitor the risk of undesirable property speculation. I doubt whether the Minister will be able to deal with those criticisms in advance of the official response of the Foreign Office. It is right that my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South should have adverted to those criticisms in this debate. The Opposition await with interest the Government's response.
One of the three themes that I wish to pursue relates to Hong Kong, which has taken up a fair proportion of the debate, and rightly so. The hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), who knows much about Hong Kong, referred to Hong Kong as an economic and social miracle. There is no doubt that the considerable economic success that it has enjoyed is due to the hard work and devotion of the 5 million who live there.
I intervened in the speech of the hon. Member for Howden to ask him whether Hong Kong could be described as a democratic miracle. I regret that Hong King is hardly a great advertisement for democracy. There is great inequality of wealth, trade union rights are heavily circumscribed and political parties are banned. There is no democracy regarding the choice of legislature and executive. Many International Labour Organisation conventions that have been ratified by Britain do not apply to Hong Kong. Its record of crime and corruption is hardly. one that advertises Hong Kong favourably, and, in that light the Attorney-General of Hong Kong, speaks of adhering to the rule of law. A statement recording those temarks was read by the hon. Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan), and this appeared to be a slight case of misconception or even of double standards.
A difficult period lies ahead for Hong Kong as a result of the uncertainty that will inevitably have an effect upon it during the period leading up to 1997. However, there is no reason why progress should not be made in the advancement of democracy and trade union rights, which should be an integral part of its future. I think, too, that we should expect in that period a measure of social justice in Hong Kong, which is something that is barely witnessed
now.
I find it mystifying that a number of Conservative Members have declared their support for the Prime Minister's intervention in Hong Kong's future, although the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) gave somewhat clouded and qualified support for the way in which the Prime Minister dealt with the issue. I believe that she was singularly badly advised by the Foreign Office in the way in which the trip was organised. A considerable affront was caused unnecessarily to China. Th right hon. Lady heightened tension quite unnecessarily.
Mr. Dalyell: Hear, hear.
367
Dependent Territories
1104
Mr. Davies: The result of the visit was an unmitigated disaster.
Mr. Spearing: Without dissenting from my hon. Friend's conclusion, will he reconsider his use of "advice"? We are not sure what advice was given and we do not know, therefore, whether it was accepted. It is my recollection that the Foreign Secretary did not accompany the Prime Minister. Surely that was something for comment and criticism.
Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has rightly upbraided me. The Prime Minister is not one who listens very carefully to advice. I may have to acquit the Foreign Office but I doubt whether the Minister of State will comment on this. It would be a dangerous pursuit for him and I do not invite him to engage in internal controversy. Whatever the circumstances, the result was entirely avoidable. The various available scenarios must be conducted in a rather better and more carefully calculated manner than that which the Prime Minister chose to adopt. It was characteristic of the right hon. Lady's initial response to the Rhodesian situation, as it then was, when she wanted to go her own way and the Foreign Office, happily, was able to deflect her from that potential disaster.
The best advice that the House can give the Prime Minister is that she should stay out of Hong Kong in future and leave matters to the Foreign Office. I think that it will engage in a rather more civilised and sensible dialogue with the Government of China. It is a matter of great concern. Considerable British economic effort, Hong Kong economic effort and international economic effort has been devoted to Hong Kong for a long time. China has a clear interest and we must try to avoid conflict where it should be possible to work out a bargain that will be in the best interests of both Hong Kong and China.
I agree with the hon and learned Member for Burton he advanced his argument with considerable perception that the Chinese, rather than the British, aspect of the Hong Kong problem is an important perspective to bear in mind.
I invite the Minister of State to comment on the report which appeared in The Times on 13 April. It stated that 1,000 Chinese policemen were worried about their future after 1997 — no doubt some of them will be quite ancient by then. In 1997 most of Hong Kong reverts to China and the policemen are seeking British citizenship and the right to live in the United Kingdom. That plea emanated from a spokesman of the Police Inspectors' Association, which is evidently petitioning the British Home Secretary to grant its members citizenship on the basis of service in the colony. If the Minister cannot comment on that now, perhaps he or one of his colleagues will advise the House in due course.
The Falkland islands question has rightly taken up a considerable proportion of the debate. I shall not add to the post mortem on the battle of the Falklands. I wish to deal with the situation as it is now and the future. As I have said before · I am sure that this is the view of the overwhelming majority of Opposition Members, when they are here, and, indeed, of some Conservative Members on days other than Fridays
the present fortress Falklands policy is exposed daily as hopelessly inadequate. There are no links with the mainland. There is no sensible basis of land tenure to attract new population. There are no proposals for radical change.