1397
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
[LORDS]
[LORD MACLEhose of Beoch continuing. They want an economic environment in which they and their families can prosper. That again they assuredly have, and I shall return to it. I was very glad about the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, referred to developments in China.
There is great deal of common ground in Hong Kong about what they want. Of course opinions inevitably differ on some matters, but the community is at one about the need to establish a sound relationship with China and to avoid measures which may generate instability through friction with China. I know what fun it is to confront China from the Benches of your Lordships House. It is an entirely different matter to do so from Hong Kong and a good deal less wise.
Noble Lords have referred to the issues which are under debate at present; for instance, the progress of democracy and the composition of the Court of Final Appeal. In both those instances the choice seems to lie between an ideal solution, which will probably not be agreed with China and so would add to uncertainty about the future in 1997, or accepting something workable now in the knowledge that it will not be an issue when the difficult time of 1997 comes. I am advised that about these issues there is no consensus in Hong Kong. I believe that the choices are best left to the people in Hong Kong and to their Legislative and Executive Councils to decide. I do not believe that we would be doing the people of Hong Kong a service by encouraging any particular solution. Our overriding goal should simply be to ensure the smoothest transfer of sovereignty in 1997 and the smoothest possible lead-up to that date.
This debate has raised various criticisms of the British Government and of what is happening in Hong Kong which may raise doubts about Hong Kong's future. I do not share them. I also sensed an underlying new feeling of optimism in your Lordships' House which I am not sure that I have felt before. I entirely agree that there is a current moving very strongly in Hong Kong's favour. The place itself is booming. It is the centre of a huge area of economic growth in South China which includes 60 million to 100 million people. Economically, it is the fastest growing area of the world, with huge benefits to the people who live there.
Let us remember that this is the product of Chinese policy. It is the product of Den Xiaoping's open-door policy, which has been persisted in during these difficult past years in China. Hong Kong is a key element in it. It was significant that Den Xiaoping himself, who so very rarely appears in public, made a public appearance a few days ago and reaffirmed that policy. He did that in Chungshan on the borders of Hong Kong. That is something from which we can take a great deal of confidence.
This economic thrust from South China is in fact underpinning Hong Kong. In considering the number of details that I am sure will come to your Lordships about Hong Kong in the course of the next few years, let us take comfort from the fact that this force is there and is working very much in Hong Kong's favour.
706 LD25/48 Job 7-8
|
8.50 p.m.
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
1398
Lord Geddes: My Lords, I wholeheartedly endorse the comments made by, I think, all noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, with regard to Sir David Wilson. I can best sum up by saying that our gain in this House is going to be Hong Kong's loss. He has done a quite excellent job for Hong Kong in extremely difficult and increasingly difficult circumstances. I do not, however, intend to enter the lists of the guessing game as regards his successor.
Not for the first time, we are truly indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt of Weeford, for bringing Hong Kong to our attention. His Question refers both to "the maintenance of democratic freedom and the administration of justice in Hong Kong after 1997”. All noble Lords who have spoken have addressed the former more general issue of democratic freedoms, and I should just like to make one comment in that context: that is with regard to passports, a subject that I have studied closely since the then British Nationality Bill over a decade ago.
In the Chinese memorandum of 19th December 1984, which was attached to the Joint Declaration of the same date, considerable comfort could, and hopefully still can be, drawn from what are now called marginal paragraphs 233 and 234 with regard to the Chinese recognition and tacit approval of British Dependent Territory citizens and their BDTC passports. However, the only reference to passports in the Basic Law is in Article 154, which refers to the government of the Hong Kong special administrative region issuing passports.
"of the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China to all Chinese citizens who hold permanent identity cards of the region, and travel documents of the Hong Kong SAR of the People's Republic of China to all other persons lawfully residing in the region”.
While I do not see a conflict between the Joint Declaration of 1984 and the Basic Law of 1990, I should be grateful if my noble friend Lord Caithness could advise the House whether those marginal paragraphs 233 and 234 in the Joint Declaration are still valid, whether British national overseas citizens and therefore holders of the BN(O) passports will be similarly recognised by the People's Republic on and after 1st July 1997, and why the Basic Law made no reference to either BDTCs or BN(O)s and their passports?
I shall now restrict my comments to "the administration of justice in Hong Kong after 1997” and in particular to the Court of Final Appeal. There have been numerous suggestions in the press and elsewhere to the effect that Britain has yet again in some way "sold out" to the Chinese in the matter of the Court of Final Appeal. Without for the moment commenting on the merits of the agreement reached in September last year by the joint liaison group, I think it would be appropriate first to look at the printed published text.
Article 82 of the Basic Law states as follows, and the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, has already mentioned this:
"The power of final adjudication of the Hong Kong special administrative region is vested in the Court of Final Appeal