1403
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
[29 JANUARY 1992]
because to put someone in a situation in which he has to stand up frightfully well is hardly the way a distinguished public service should operate. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, that the treatment of Sir David Wilson was hardly desirable and that, if his governorship was not to be continued, his successor should have been announced. I hope, in the course of his response, that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will be able to provide us with an explanation as regards this unhappy affair.
In the course of the debate anxieties have been expressed which require to be answered. In the years to come, I hope that we shall regularly raise the question of Hong Kong and the importance of our obligations to that country.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, this has been an important and timely debate. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, for initiating it and for his opening speech. Although there are a number of critical issues to be resolved in Hong Kong, the noble Lord concentrated upon two of them in his Motion. Like other noble Lords. I shall therefore deal with those issues, although that does not mean that we are not mindful of the other problems which exist there.
we
The Motion refers, first, to democratic freedom. Noble Lords in excellent speeches effectively analysed that. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, on that. There are, as always, two schools of thought: those who want to proceed rapidly and those who favour cautious progress. Whichever camp support, we must agree that the elections of 15th September last year were a significant step on the way to democracy. We take elections as a matter of course, but the Chinese Government in Beijing do not. They regard them as a threat to stability. We think of them as essential to stability. Those are points of view which will, I hope, be reconciled over the years. But I feel sure that many of the leaders in China will have thought deeply about developments in Eastern Europe and elsewhere in the world. I believe that their wish is for as amicable a transition as possible in 1997; and, further, that they will observe the letter of agreements that they have signed. They know perfectly well that that has a bearing on their standing in the world.
The September elections, to which all noble Lords have referred, were for 18 members out of the 60 who sit on the Legislative Council. Of those, 12 went to the United Democrats; three others to parties allied to the Democrats; and three to independents whose policies are close to those of the Democrats. I was not surprised by that result, nor by the fact that Mr. Martin Lee emerged as the leader of that group of radical critics. He is an able man of integrity and determination. He polled more votes than any other candidate, and that counts for something. Neither China, nor the Government of Hong Kong, need worry too much about Mr. Lee. They are fortunate to have a man of his calibre in political life. He reminds me a little of Mr. Lloyd George who started in much the same way and ended up as Prime Minister.
709 LD25/51 Job 8-3
1404
Hong Kong: Democracy After 1997
What cannot be overlooked is that out of the 3.6 million people entitled to vote, only half registered. and out of those only 39 per cent. voted, which meant a turn-out of less than 20 per cent. of the eligible voters. This country must take some responsibility for that result because we did not encourage the march to democracy in Hong Kong during the long years of government there. Britain did many good things in Hong Kong, but we tended to be democrats at home and plutocrats abroad.
As my noble friend Lord Ennals said, we believe in the steady advance of democracy in Hong Kong. The Sino-British Joint Declaration of 1984 promised Hong Kong "a high degree of autonomy" and there is nothing here which implies that a local democracy should be excluded. China wishes to see a prosperous Hong Kong, which is very much in her interests, and that can best be achieved if there is an efficient local government authority. The Isle of Man may not be a precise model for Hong Kong but there are important lessons to be learnt there and also in the Channel Islands; and His Excellency, the Chinese Ambassador. whom we warmly welcome to this country, might be invited to visit those stable communities which enjoy a high degree of autonomy under the aegis of the British Government.
I think that a little more elasticity in negotiation might be helpful if we are to avoid some years of frustration and disappointment. With other noble. Lords, I warmly congratulate Sir David Wilson upon the honour conferred upon him and, like all noble Lords, look forward to seeing him in this House where I know he will make an important contribution. He has had a difficult tenure of office but he has carried out his duties with dignity and common sense, which I know to be true.
Noble Lords have stressed the need to appoint the right successor and there is a good deal of talk about that. What we need is a person with courage, political experience and common sense who can gain the respect of the people of Hong Kong and the Chinese Government; in other words, we are looking for someone very much like Sir David Wilson, because that is what he achieved. Above all, such a man must be given clear guidelines to enable him to do his job properly. We cannot afford to have a loose cannon on the deck in Hong Kong at this time. Whoever he is. I wish him well.
The noble Lord's Motion refers, secondly, to the administration of justice in Hong Kong, and that subject is developing into a conflict of views as the noble Lord and others have described.
The Government, with China and the Hong Kong Government, have agreed on the structure of the Court of Appeal, but on 4th December LEGCO called for the court to be renegotiated. It said the structure comprised the court's independence. As the noble Lord said, the voting was 34 to 11, with 13 abstaining. That has opened a new chapter of suspicion between the Chinese and British Governments. It only goes to show how sensitive is the atmosphere.
As I understand it, the position is that the 1984 Declaration and the Basic Law both provide that Hong Kong's courts shall have,