699
[Mr. Gerald Kaufman]
Hong Kong
15 JULY 1988
debate next Friday on the Official Secrets Act. It is enormously to the credit of the People's Republic of China that it is drafting the Basic Law in this way.
It is likely in a debate of this sort in which a number of right hon. and hon. Members who have taken a deep interest over a prolonged period in the affairs of Hong Kong will participate, that there may be comment on the detail of a large number of the 170 articles in the Basic Law. I shall confine my remarks to aspects of the Basic Law that involve continuity with present arrangements in Hong Kong-the through-train concept-or aspects of it that are relevant to the joint declaration, to which the United Kingdom is a party. The Foreign Secretary tiptoed around some of these issues using language that he will have phrased very carefully, and properly so.
I am glad to see that in all the alternatives advanced for
the composition of the Legislative Council direct election
剔
is to be involved. I am pleased that none of them contains a proposal for fewer than 25 per cent. of elected members and that one goes as high as 50 per cent. These proposals, made by a Government who have never entertained pluralistic elective democracy in their own territory, are encouraging and show up the timidity of the 18 per cent. proposal by our Government for the Legislative Council elections in 1991. It is remarkable that the Chinese Communists are showing themselves to
be more democratic than the British Conservatives in the matter of Hong Kong. I hope that when they decide to complete and ratify the Basic Law the Government of the People's Republic of China will opt for the 50 per cent. alternative stated in the Basic Law.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham): The right hon. Gentleman has just derided the fact that the proposal is to provide for 18 per cent. of members being directly elected in 1991. Is it not true that there will be a further election in 1995, at which time it would be possible to take a further step towards a higher percentage of directly elected members? Would not that be a step towards the sort of percentages he has mentioned for 1997?
Mr. Kaufman: It will be interesting to know what can be done. I suppose that the Government could try to leap ahead of the Chinese and announce a proportion higher than the Chinese Government would by then have decided upon. If so, that would be entirely undiplomatic. If they did not do that and stopped at 25 per cent., that would merely bring forward by two years a decision that had by then been made by the Chinese Government. They might, I suppose, split the difference and make it 25-2 per cent. I am not quite sure what good that would do. Although the hon. Gentleman's point is accurate, it does not get us anywhere.
It is also proper to refer to misgivings about some of the other articles. I would not give too much support to the Foreign Secretary's concern about a Gramm-Rudman amendment in the Basic Law. After all, the United States has had such a basic law to balance its own domestic budget but has never got around to doing it, despite the binding nature of that law. It seems a little anomalous to include a statement on economic policy in an inherently constitutional document. I doubt whether it will trouble people in Hong Kong in the long run. At the same time, I concur with the Foreign Secretary, if this is the
Hong Kong
700
implication of his remarks, that it is not necessarily relevant to have such a provision in a basic law and that it is more a matter for domestic legislation.
It is difficult for sympathetic observers to match four of the 170 articles in the Basic Law with the admirable commitments by the Government of the Chinese People's Republic in the joint declaration, to which I am confident the Government of China are determined to adhere. Article 16 empowers the Standing Committee of the Chinese National People's Congress to annul Hong Kong law on vague and unspecified grounds, and in non- conformity with the Basic Law. The article is not clear and it has aroused a great deal of concern in Hong Kong. I hope that the Chinese Government will examine it again during this period of revision.
Article 17 refers properly to the overriding powers of the People's Republic of China in respect of defence and foreign affairs which were reserved to the Chinese Government in the joint declaration. It is entirely proper, accepted and understood that that reservation in the joint declaration should be incorporated in the Basic Law. The article then adds overriding powers relating to what it describes as
"laws which give expression to national unity and territorial integrity."
It seems to people in Hong Kong- this is apparent from studying the reports of the debate which took place there yesterday—and to some of us too that such vague and unspecific powers could go far beyond the provisions of the joint declaration and could be capable of nullifying the firm and honourable commitments by the Chinese Government in the joint declaration. I hope that during the consultation and revision process the Chinese Government will examine this provision, which is arousing
concern.
Article 18 deprives the Hong Kong special ad- ministrative region of jurisdiction in defence and foreign affairs cases and of what are described as
“executive acts of the Central People's Government."
A number of observers regard this as a vague provision which could count against the Chinese People's Government's commitments. I am sure that the Chinese Government will be considering this issue during the revision process.
Article 169 gives the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress power to make binding interpretations of the Basic Law in all its aspects, not merely in defence and foreign affairs. There are misgivings about this. It is felt that it could limit judicial independence within the Hong Kong special administrative region.
Article 172 allows the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress to throw out any existing Hong Kong law that the Standing Committee declares to be in contravention of the Basic Law. That is a wide
power and I trust that it will be re-examined during the consultative and revisionary process.
There is one omission from the Basic Law as it has initially been drafted from what is in the joint declaration, and that is the provision for the Executive in Hong Kong and China to be accountable to the legislature in Hong Kong and China. I am sure that that is omission by error and not by deliberation by the Chinese Government. I trust, too, that that issue will be re-examined when the People's Republic finally decides the text of the Basic Law.
The matters that I have raised in detail are not in any sense criticisms of the Chinese Government. I am entirely
354