1129
Hong
[ LORDS ]
Kong
1130
[BARONESS SEEAR.]
dive has been such unasal unanimity throughout the House, we should
should read significance into the fact that there are no Labour Back-Bench speakers. I hope that he will also confirm that we can be reassured that the Labour Party-the official Opposition-supports the main arguments which have been so powerfully voiced and so strongly supported in your Lordships' House today.
It remains only for me to address the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne--that indefatigable warhorse on the Front Bench. We know that he cannot give us straight answers to these questions today; but the feeling of the House must be plain to him. Can he not say that the Government will at least look at the issue of increased aid to the people of Vietnam? Can he say whether they will respect and perhaps even attempt to extend the period for voluntary repatriation and that they will do a great deal more to ensure that the people concerned know what are the opportunities and conditions? Can he also confirm that the Government will cease to be so frightened about giving rights of abode in this country?
I find it very difficult to understand why this capitalist Conservative Government is so frightened of letting the people of Hong Kong into this country. Indeed, such people seem to me to be the archetypal marketeers and the best source of prospective yuppies, so beloved to the Tory Front Bench, that they could possibly find. Therefore, the idea that such people would be a burden on the country is hard to accept. I would lay a wager that for every person from Hong Kong who comes into this country, there will be two new small businesses within two years of their arrival.
Will the noble Lord please say that the Government are open-minded in this matter, and that they are prepared to change their attitude from the miserable, guarded and nervous attitude which they have adopted up until now?
7.34 \.
r
Cladwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are gra.ef to the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, for enabi..g is to have this debate today, and for his thoughtful and stimulating opening speech. As usual, we have heard a number of expert speeches on the subject. I join noble Lords who congratulated the noble Lord, Lord Sharp, on his maiden speech. He made an admirable and witty speech and spoke with great knowledge, experience and wisdom. We look forward to hearing many speeches from him in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharp, referred to the Foreign Secretary's Statement following his visit to Hong Kong. I shall refer to the main points contained in Mr. Hurd's report. However, before I mention those, I must acknowledge the fact that Mr. Hurd had a very difficult task to perform in an atmosphere of apprehension and uncertainty. He conducted himself with dignity and sincerity. I feel that I must say this even if I do not agree with every detail of government policy. The difficulties facing the Government are complex. I am conscious that they
would not be less so if they had to be tackled by a Labour Government. I hope that that remark satisfies the popis Burones Lady Sees-
When the House debated the joint demaration in 1985, we did so in a reasonably relaxed atmosphere, as noble Lords will recall, because we had some confidence that after 1997 Hong Kong as a special administrative region would continue to enjoy essential rights and,
"a high degree of autonomy as well as executive, legislative and independent judicial power including that of final adjudication". These and other constitutional details are included in the Basic Law which is still under discussion. The tragedy, as many noble Lords have pointed out in their speeches, is that the events in Tiananmen Square shook the confidence of the Hong Kong community and that of the rest of the world. As the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, made plain, it is against that background that this debate is being held.
The Basic Law now under discussion is crucial. It is the Basic Law which will decide the future of Hong Kong. The proposals of OMELCO on the Basic Law appear to me to be reasonable. In last Wednesday's Statement, the Foreign Secretary said that the joint declaration must be made to work. He said:
"An important element in that is the extent and pace of movement to democracy in Hong Kong before and after 1997".-[Official Report, 17/1/90; col. 681.]
We agree with that. But, at that point, Mr. Hurd was not able to go into detail. He said that he would announce a decision within the next few weeks. Moreover, when the Prime Minister spoke to Dame Lydia Dunn yesterday she repeated that assurance. We hope that there will be a constructive outcome and that OMELCO's proposals for the evolution of the Legislative Council can form the basis of the development of a democratic structure in Hong Kong.
The acceptance of the OMELCO formula would give great confidence to the Hong Kong community, especially the financial and business community. OMELCO's recommendation is a modest one because there is a case for all members to be elected by 1995.
The point to note here is that this is well within the provisions and the spirit of the joint declaration. After all, autonomy means home rule, and home and affairs rule-that is,
foreign except defence-can operate through the agency of a directly elected legislative council which will in turn help to sustain the outstanding Hong Kong economy which is and which will continue to be so important to China. That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in his speech. We must continue to negotiate with the Chinese Government, but I see no good reason why that government should not accept this, as Mr. Deng himself envisaged two systems of government operating in one country? What is to be the difference between the two systems of government? Further, what difference did Mr Deng envisage when he made that statement? Ho must have had in mind the difference which results from the fact that Hong Kong has been a British territory for a long period, and that therefore the
H