1253
Hong Kong
[15 MARCH 1993]
to protect the inhabitants of Hong Kong as far as we could after independence against events which one 1 hopes would not occur in a democracy.
That leads me to wonder whether we are not concentrating too much on the single issue of democracy and whether there is not an important bastion of protection available to the people of Hong Kong in the choice, appointment, powers and independence of the judiciary and the entrenchment of the human rights legislation that it will interpret. Without that, democracy will be a fragile barrier, since I do not doubt that it is one which mainland China could subsequently dismantle, albeit over a long time. Without democracy, it will be the only barrier to protecting the people of Hong Kong from events for which we would not wish to be responsible. Can my noble friend tell us what progress has been made in that direction and what we can look for?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I appreciate the comments of my noble friend. Of course we agree with the view that the strengthening of Hong Kong's democratic institutions is the best guarantee of the freedoms about which he spoke. Hong Kong has been much more fortunate than many other places; it is probably the most free of any in terms of press freedom in Asia. The Hong Kong Government have always taken the view applauded by my noble friend in following the pursuit of justice and ensuring that human rights are maintained, that there are existing and continuing avenues for redressing grievances arising from human rights complaints and the active role being played by the courts. That is what we should be and are doing. But that does not mean that we should not concentrate also on bringing the democratic rights to the people of Hong Kong.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that in order to understand the Chinese attitude at the present time, we must be aware of certain domestic political strains between factions inside China, inside Peking, on how China's reconstruction and development should be carried forward? All those who support that reconstruction and development, in which Hong Kong has already played a part and will continue to do, must be sympathetic to that.
was
Will my noble friend also re-emphasise that there is and has never been any difference between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor on any of the policy initiatives since the Governor appointed. Britain, Hong Kong and, indeed, China are lucky to have in Mr. Patten someone who is, in effect, a Cabinet Minister resident in Hong Kong to deal with these problems.
Finally, Hong Kong's economy seems to me to be well able to withstand these temporary disputes. But China must be careful not to increase the fears of the people in the street in Hong Kong at the prospect of 1997. It is in that context that I was worried by the comments of Li Peng, the Chinese Prime Minister, in his speech this morning.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I well understand the concern expressed by my noble friend on hearing Li Peng's speech this morning. To some
643 LD75/19 Job 3-6
Hong Kong
1254
degree we all share it. But I think it is very important to make it clear beyond peradventure that there is not. and has not been, any difference of opinion between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor of Hong Kong. Indeed, I am quite sure that if Mr. Christopher Patten were elected to another place he would no doubt once again be able to contribute to the affairs of our Government.
In relation to the domestic political strains in China, I would simply say that of course we are very well aware of them, but we are also very well aware that the enormous economic improvements in the southern autonomous region have everything to do with the favourable copying of the way in which things are done in Hong Kong. Much of China's new strength comes from the very example set by Hong Kong. That is being used both as an asset taken for granted by Beijing but at the same time it obviously widens the divide between different modes of thought within China itself.
Finally, I believe that the Hong Kong economy is indeed in reasonably good order. While the Hang Seng index may have come down now, it reached an all time high in late February/early March. We know that the Hong Kong economy continues to perform strongly, as was confirmed by Hong Kong's Financial Secretary in his Budget of 3rd March. The GDP grew by about 5 per cent. in 1992 and is forecast to rise by that amount again in this coming year.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, the noble Baroness quite rightly warned against taking too much notice of all those people who had formed their views on the basis of hindsight. That was very fair. But how would she answer the quite considerable number of very eminent members of the business community and very eminent former diplomats who forecast that this would be the situation which we would reach on the existing policies? I raise that simply as a question.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord is perhaps right when he asks why we did not see what was forecast by others. I think indeed that we did, but that does not alter the fact that it is absolutely right that the people of Hong Kong should have a full say in their own democracy. Without being given that opportunity, they would have good cause to complain about the actions of this country. Sometimes there are some very unpleasant stages to be gone through in changing a process, but they have to be faced up to. That is exactly what Her Majesty's Government and the Governor of Hong Kong are doing and are fully prepared to do.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: My Lords, I confirm my support for the Government and, in particular, for the Governor but add how delighted I am to hear that we are actually waiting for alternative views which are simply not forthcoming. Is it not true that the Governor has to legislate if there are to be local elections in 1994 and Legislative Council elections in 1995, which I understand the Hong Kong people desperately want?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. The Basic Law does not