37
China
6 JUNE 1989
fonowed to date, which is to try to identify the basis that commands the widest possible support in the territory and then to commend that to the draftsmen of the Basic Law.
Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, for more than 20 years I have been a proponent of good relations with China and the need to understand political developments in that enormously important country. Will he believe me this afternoon if I say that I share the universal revulsion that has been expressed at the conduct of the geriatric Chinese Government during the last few days? Does he accept that I strongly support the actions that he has adumbrated this afternoon? However, will he reconsider the statement that both he and the Prime Minister have made, that were there to be any lessening of the restraints on British nationals coming to this country from Hong Kong, a flood of 3-5 million people would be battering at the gates of Dover? Would it not be more honest to admit that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could get his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider the issue, it would be a matter of only 10,000 or 15,000 people a year, for six years, from the very limited categories for which, as he knows well, the Hong Kong Commission has been arguing the case for reconsideration? Will he discuss that specific matter with the Home Secretary?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I acknowledge the force of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. All who have watched with growing interest and enthusiasm the emergence of a new-style China during the past 10 years will share the hon. Gentleman's sense of deep grief at what has happened during recent weeks. It is important to note that there are still many people inside China and representing her throughout the rest of the world who also share that sense of grief. It is for that reason that we hope that common sense will be restored to authority in Peking before too long.
The hon. Gentleman rightly drew a distinction between the implied threat of a mass movement of people, which would happen if we tried to deal at once with 3-25 million people, and the alternative, to which I drew attention, of flexibility in the management of individual cases. That matter is certainly a topic for discussion between myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I do not ignore its importance.
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch): I share the disgust of the House and the whole of the free world for the unspeakable events in China. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in reality, our ability to influence what we would all like to happen-—that is, the emergence of what he described as a sane and balanced Government in Beijing-is infinitesimal? Would it not, therefore, be wise to avoid giving the present blood-stained leaders any opportunity to continue holding power by playing the xenophobia card?
As regards Hong Kong, will my right hon. and learned Friend repeat what our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so clearly said, that 1997 is not a date produced out of thin air but the date when our lease ends? The only alternative to an agreement with China is no agreement, an eventuality that would make political boat people out of the whole population of Hong Kong.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House although it needs no reminding of the
19 CD68/10 Job 3-3
China
38
inescapable facts of geography and history to which I referred in my statement. One such fact is the expiry of the lease in 1997. It is on that basis that we have secured the support of the House for the achievements of the joint declaration, to which the House attaches importance. My hon. Friend is also right to warn against xenophobia in any aspect of managing a problem of such complexity. I think that he would go too sar if he were to believe that the capacity of people outside China to influence the future there should be described as infinitesimal. Of course, the prospect of having influence upon a mass population of 1-25 billion and on the people who seek to govern that country is in one sense very small. Yet, if one thinks of the huge impact of the opinion of the rest of the world as a result of the openness that has come about in recent years, if one thinks of the incredible reality that the leader of the Soviet Union was there only a few weeks ago, being hailed as a champion of democracy, and if one thinks of the changes that have been able to have an impact on that society, the hon. Gentleman should not despair too much of the ability of the rest of us to make some impact on prospects for the people of China.
Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South): Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the great majority of people in China, as they learn the facts, must share the horror of the rest of the world about the events in Beijing and the massacre of citizens and students last Sunday? In those changed circumstances, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the speedy introduction of direct elections for the majority of the members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong would not only give the people of Hong Kong the best chance of securing their own security but would also be a demonstration to the people of China that it is possible speedily, responsibly and with restraint to introduce democracy?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I think that the hon. Gentleman has rightly put his finger on one of the most important new factors in the scene, a factor that has already affected the evolution of opinion in Hong Kong, the extent to which the shape of representative institutions in Hong Kong can serve not only as a bulwark for their own freedom but as an example to the Chinese people. It is with that in mind that we shall take account as urgently as would make sense of the evolution of new thinking on the topic within Hong Kong itself.
Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel): Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I regard what he has just said as of particular significance? The question of confidence for the future of the people of Hong Kong is a delicate matter upon which the future, not only of Hong Kong but of many of our own interests and those of China itself, hangs. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore take on board the strong feeling that many of us heard over the weekend from all sections of Hong Kong society urging him onwards with the firm commitment, that I believe he is making, to review again the process of democracy so that when the time comes we can really test in the 50-year period the one-country, two-system claim?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is more than entitled to remind me of the importance of the opinion and aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. Throughout all the months and years that I have been concerned with the question I have tried as far as possible to display sensitivity