1401
9.2 p.m.
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
[LORDS]
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for asking this Unstarred Question. It is important that in your Lordships House the issue of Hong Kong and its future should be raised at regular intervals. I find myself in broad agreement with the tenor of what the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, said. I am sorry that he is mildly unhappy that Martin Lee and his colleagues have given themselves a liberal label, but that is their choice. Let me comfort the noble Lord. No one will ever affix that label to him in any of his political manifestations. I agree however, that the main issues we have to address are those of the Court of Final Appeal, which was discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and to which I shall return, the pace of democratisation and its impact, and the appointment of the Governor who will succeed Sir David Wilson.
In our previous debate we discussed human rights in connection with the United Nations. That is highly relevant to this Unstarred Question. It is not surprising that the people of Hong Kong, looking across to the mainland, should be anxious that they will not lose the rights and the freedom, guaranteed by their connection with this country, which they have enjoyed. The two main protections of those rights, to which we attach importance, are democracy and the establishment of an independent judiciary-the Final Court of Appeal. Hence, in this general question of the rights of citizens—it is relevant to what the right reverend Prelate said about freedom of religion- those two constitutional protections are very relevant. So also is the Bill of Rights to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
As other noble Lords have said, last September the first 18 members of the Legislative Council were elected and, as was acknowledged by the Foreign Secretary and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the elections were a great success. It is the view of many that if what was called the high degree of autonomy is to be assured, as specified in the Sino-British Declaration of 1984, the process of democratisation must not be slowed down. There are obvious pressures for it to be speeded up. But it should certainly not be slowed down. It should be continued on the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt. Moreover, if it is the case, as the noble Lord, MacLehose, said, that these matters are best left to the people of Hong Kong to decide, how better can they decide them than through elected representatives? Or does he honestly believe that they can decide matters better through unelected representatives chosen by the administra- tion? The answer is self-evident.
It has also been said that the most important thing is that Hong Kong should have stability. Stability is not intrinsically good. One can have bad stability as well as good stability. The governments in Central and Eastern Europe over the past 40 years were extremely stable, or appeared to be. However, one would hardly advocate them as intrinsically desirable.
The second protection against the abuse of power is the establishment of a truly independent judiciary. Hence the importance of the Court of Final Appeal, and the presence of common law judges outside their
708 LD25/50 Job 8-1
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
1402
jurisprudence. There is also the agreement made by the joint liaison group—and I do not pretend that I could mediate between the interpretation of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and that of the Legislative Council-which aroused the anxiety of the council because it appeared to say that only one of those judges at each session should be a foreign judge. I do not think that we shall be able to decide tonight who is right. However, I must confess that I find it very odd that members of the Legislative Council should so overwhelmingly interpret the agreement in that way, despite the persuasion of the Government, the presence of the Government's legal officers and, presumably, having every wish not to be alarmed by what had happened, if they were completely wrong.
I should point out that the only document that I have read on the matter is fairly specific in saying that the group also agreed to limit foreign judges to one in each city. I do not know whether that is a false interpretation of the decision. If it is, many people must have been profoundly misled and the agreement reached by the joint liaison group must have been unduly and unnecessarily obscure. That could hardly be desirable in such circumstances.
One would like to know how the Government will react to the anxiety that the agreement has caused. That is what matters. Will they listen to the anxieties expressed by the Legislative Council? Alternatively, do they agree with Mr. Wang, vice president of the China News Agency whose comment, when asked if he would listen to the opinion of the Legislative Council, was:
"Listen to their opinions? We have already told them our opinions and stance so there is no need to listen".
We have been told that it is unwise to confront the Chinese. However, it is very difficult not to call that statement confrontational. It is a comment that justifies the anxieties of the people in Hong Kong and their need for reassurance. As the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords have indicated, the Government need to instil confidence in the people of Hong Kong by reassuring them that their rights will not be completely abandoned.
Finally, the council-and this has been referred to by many speakers-attacked the British Government for delay in appointing a new Governor. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to reassure us on the matter. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Maclehose, said that Sir David Wilson did not look like a lame duck. Well, I do not know what he looked like: but it is a fact that that is generally considered as a misfortune when it happens to politicians who find themselves in such a position. Indeed, it happens to American presidents. No one thinks that it is a desirable situation in which to find oneself. I say that because to make someone in office a lame duck must damage that person's authority, no matter what else is done.
Lord MacLehose of Beoch: My Lords, my point was that Sir David Wilson was standing up frightfully well in the situation.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I accept totally the noble Lord's explanation. However, it means that the Government have more explaining to do. I say