1
1.
e
10
ir
ty
is
ve
ng
is
the
: a
ant
the
the
the res
I be
no,
t he
s of
was
>orts
ther,
lf of
ation rican
301
Hong Kong
17 JANUARY 1990
phants in appendix 1 of the convention. The reservation will apply only to Hong Kong and will allow Hong Kong traders time to dispose of their legally acquired ivory in an orderly fashion and enable workers and carvers to find alternative employment. After that, Hong Kong will be part of the agreed system. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that that will be a considerable advance.
Mr. Ivan Lawrence (Burton): Will my right hon. Friend make clear to the people of Hong Kong and the Government of the People's Republic of China that they could have given no greater total commitment to the future of Hong Kong economic, political and free-than that they were prepared to court electoral unpopularity by undertaking to let into this country as many people as they have?
Mr. Hurd: I have done so and it is clearly understood in Hong Kong. The people there follow our proceedings and discussions with great interest and-when they hear remarks which show a total lack of realism at what is happening there-anxiety.
Last summer, three major matters were pressed on my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord President when he was in Hong Kong: first, nationality; secondly, repatriation of the boat people; and, thirdly, the movement to democracy. We have taken the first crucial and difficult decisions on the first two issues. I have answered questions about the third, a decision on which will come pretty soon.
Mr. Bernie Grant (Tottenham): I find the Foreign Secretary's statement totally inadequate. After hearing about his expensive and well-publicised visit, I expected a bit more. Was he or his governor-who recently visited the Chinese Government-able to extract a guarantee from the Chinese Government about the security of the British citizens in Hong Kong after 1997? I say that particularly in view of statements from the Chinese Government about the peaceful demonstrations in Hong Kong which have occurred. I should like to know precisely what the Foreign Secretary's position is on that issue. Is it not a fact that the British Government are totally bankrupt of ideas on the Hong Kong issue and are merely following behind the coat tails of the Chinese Government?
Mr. Hurd: The Chinese Government are certainly concerned about some expressions of free opinion in Hong Kong. The Government and the governor of Hong Kong have made clear to the Chinese Government in many ways that an important aspect of Hong Kong is precisely that there is free expression there. If the Chinese intend after 1997 to incorporate into China a lively, vigorous and developing Hong Kong, they must accept that there will be freedom of expression and clear and rapid movement towards democracy. These are conditions of the prize; they are set out clearly in the joint declaration.
Dame Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston): Can my right hon. Friend give the House any information about representations that the Government may have made to Commonwealth countries in which there is space and opportunity to prevail upon them to offer passports to Hong Kong residents who may wish to leave after 1997?
Mr. Hurd: Yes, indeed. Since my statement on 20 December
have made representations to
we
165 CD64/6 Job 2-4
Hong Kong
302
Commonwealth Governments and to many other friendly Governments encouraging them to follow our lead and introduce schemes of the kind that we propose, which are designed to keep key personnel in Hong Kong-for example, people working for companies belonging to these countries. The French already have such a limited scheme, as does New Zealand in one respect, and we are doing what we can to persuade other countries which could introduce such schemes to do so. My hon. Friend may have seen that Congressman Solarz has proposed such a scheme in the United States Congress.
Several Hon. Members rose-
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have have regard to the subsequent business. The House know that there is an important debate and a 10-minute Bill, and that the debate must end at 7 pm before we go on to private business. I shall call three more speakers from each side and then I am afraid we must move on.
Mr. Jim Sillars (Glasgow, Govan): The Secretary of State said that the fear engendered by the events of 4 June has lifted somewhat in Hong Kong, but will he confirm that there remains among its population an underlying fear and apprehension of the Beijing regime, which is unrepentant about the events on 4 June, and confirm that they have cause for that fear?
Recently the head of the supreme court in China stated as a matter of policy that the Communist party is above the law. Given that background to the fear and apprehension, how does the right hon. Gentleman think the House should reply to questions such as I heard in Hong Kong? I was asked how it is that in my part of western Europe tears of joy are shed at people in eastern Europe escaping from Communist tyranny, and the people of eastern Europe are invited to join the European Community, which would give them the automatic right of abode in any part of the community, including the United Kingdom, yet we are prepared to consign Hong Kong to the Beijing regime with inadequate protection in terms of a democratic structure.
Mr. Hurd: It is tru that there continues to be an underlying anxiety. It l lifted a little because contacts have resumed in variou rays. At lunch yesterday, I sat next to a young busines: ian who had just returned from Peking, where he had een well received by the Prime Minister.
This underlying anxiety does not lead any of the Hong Kong Chinese to whom I spoke to question the fact that the joint declaration and the system being erected under it is the only realistic way forward for Hong Kong. Hong Kong wants us to make sense of the concept of two systems in one country, and the observations that the hon. Gentleman quoted will not apply in the special administrative region of Hong Kong.
Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West): Does my right hon. Friend concede that if approaching 250,000 people come here from Hong Kong with the right of abode that will permanently and irreversibly change the nature of the British people? If this step is to be taken and my right hon. Friend's Bill receives a Second Reading, does he agree that the measure should be considered by a Committee of the whole House?