Troika
is
Caps
word
22 March 1989]
[Mr Taylor Contd]
THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
RT HON SIR GEOFFREY HOWE, QC, MR ROBIN McLaren, CMG, and MR Alan Paul
That has been supported by representations by the Troika of the European Community in Peking this week. All of that is in the context of the commit- ments of the Chinese authorities to ensure overall respect for human rights.
Mr Lawrence
31. But even if the Bill of Rights is enshrined, will it not still be up to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to interpret what it considers the extent of that human right actually to be, so that they have the last binding work on the question on interpretation? And is there to be no reference to an international court of human rights as final arbiter, and should there not be in order to reassure the Hong Kong Chinese?
(Sir Geoffrey Howe) There are two answers to that. First of all, of course, there are very many countries that do not have any provision for refer- ence to the international courts in relation to this matter. European countries have made provision for that, so far as they have, by their voluntary and continuing adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights, if one is looking for some wholly outside agency. But the other, more practical point, is that the role of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress only arises in relation to the laws that are set out in Annex 3 and they do not have any application in relation to a wider range of matters.
Mr Rowlands
32. It is the six points or the six laws?
(Sir Geoffrey Howe) The other area, it goes without saying, is that the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress does have jurisdic- tion in relation to matters of foreign affairs and defence, and the situation in which the Hong Kong
courts would need to refer to the NPC for advice arises in the context of foreign affairs and defence. There is no jurisdiction for the Standing Commit- tee of the NPC in relation to matters of the kind with which you are concerned. It is only in relation to the listed matters and where questions of foreign affairs and defence arise.
Mr Lawrence
33. That is very reassuring.
(Sir Geoffrey Howe) That is the important fea-
ture.
Chairman: Can we leave the Basic Law specifi- cally and turn to the fundamental and agreed aim of achieving the smooth transfer of sovereignty, of which there are two component parts that I would like to focus on. The first you have already men- tioned, Secretary of State, and it is the question of localising and rationalising Hong Kong domestic legislation. Then there is, secondly, the question of the development of representative government in Hong Kong. We would like to look at both those issues. Mr Wells?
Mr Wells
34. Secretary of State, I wonder whether, first of all, we could establish exactly what the current
21
[Continued
position is on the development of government in Hong Kong. In a previous debate in the House of Commons the opinion given was that the Chinese Government were not prepared to see what was termed loosely a through trade, that is to say, a set of government appointments, elections, consti- tutional arrangements and so on which would con- tinue from the present time through to 1997 and beyond, that There would be a definite break in 1997 which had not yet been defined. Now, as I understand it, that position has changed and the
Chinese Government do now admit a situation where constitutional developments can take place in Hong Kong which will continue after 1997. Could you tell us how you interpret the present position?
train
• There
of
discussions
(Sir Geoffrey Howe) The twin objectives that all the discussion has been designed to try and achieve are, one, a recognition, a manifestation, of the change of sovereignty and, two, continuity nonetheless across the frontier of changing sover- eignty. When I say “frontier” I mean the railway junction, or whatever you like, of change in sover- eignty. That is a matter that has to be addressed and still is being addressed in relation to different parts of the system. You will find that in relation to the legislature the Basic Law does provide for the members of the LegCo who are in place in 1995 to remain in place beyond 1997 while taking the necessary fresh oaths of allegiance and so on. In that respect that objective has been achieved. Other areas, like the continuation of laws and legal the system, are set out in great detail. There are still areas to be addressed in the structure of govern- ment itself, which are still under discussion as a matter of executive consideration and they will no doubt form part of the agenda of the Joint Liaison arily appear, or would not appear, in the Basic Law buh Group because they are things that do not necess-
and are nevertheless of importance.
35. Thank you very much for that clarification.
I think the first area we would like to turn to is the constitutional position of the Governor and, of course, his successor after 1997. I wonder whether you can help us with that. We have had a memor- andum from the Hong Kong Government which describes the formal constitutional powers of the Governor and, of course, they are typically British in that they are there in theory but not there in
which the British have conducted themselves but, practice. This, of course, is typically the way in
dangerous set of assumptions. Now, can you on transfer of sovereignty, this can become a very
describe therefore how the powers of the Chief Executive-that is, the Governor as we call him- as laid down in the Basic Law differ from those of the Governor under our sovereignty?
here
еделде
(Sir Geoffrey Howe) There are differences being prescribed which are designed to produce changes between within the powers of the Governor now and the Chief Executive in the draft Basic Law. They mainly relate to his relationship with the legislature in a number of detailed ways. The Governor presides over the legislature, the Chief Executive will not do that. On the other hand, the Chief