MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS OF
restrictively a fundamental breach of the Joint Declaration or to renounce the commitment, since no Parliament can bind its successor. Any such commitment would therefore be perceived in Hong Kong as hollow and would be unlikely to provide the reassurance sought.—(Mr_Ivan Lawrence.)
Question put, that the paragraph be read a second time.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 4
Mr Michael Jopling Mr Ivan Lawrence Mr Ian Taylor
Noes, 4
Mr Dennis Canavan Mr Ted Rowlands
Mr Peter Shore
Mr Peter Temple-Morris Mr Michael Welsh
Whereupon the Chairman declared himself with the Noes.
Paragraph 4.15 read as follows:
4.15 A fundamental breach of the Treaty could be expected to result in both an immediate flight and a subsequent longer term exodus of people from Hong Kong. It is not however in our view realistic to suppose that the United Kingdom alone can accommodate so large an influx of people as would be involved. If assurances are to be provided, as we believe they should be, they must therefore involve the International Community. Giving evidence on 12 June, Sir David Wilson told us that in what he described as an "Armageddon scenario," there "could quite rightly be a wider international responsibility”. The manner in which these assurances should be arranged within the international community is a subject of considerable difficulty. Sir Geoffrey Howe, on 14 June, said “In the ... last resort situation of events overwhelming the people of Hong Kong. then in those circumstances it is, I think, inescapable that the United Kingdom with its special responsibility for the territory would be the country to which they would look for treatment as refugees and we would have to try and discharge that responsibility with the help of others." This in effect offers nothing to Hong Kong BDTCs other than refugee status. Sir Geoffrey Howe told us that he did not believe that we should try to mobilise international support now since he did not expect that the necessary support would be forthcoming. We are conscious of how damaging to confidence and stability in Hong Kong could be the failure of any attempt to obtain specific commitments in advance from other nations. Nonetheless we must demonstrate to Hong Kong Britain's continuing and active commitment to the Territory and its people. Accordingly we recommend that the British Government should take the lead at the earliest opportunity, particularly with our EC partners and immigrant receiving countries such as Australia, Canada and the USA in establishing the definitive guarantees which could be put into place in the years ahead. We believe the accommodation of even several million people from Hong Kong would be quite possible if shared amongst the international community.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, after “others”, to insert the words
"This in effect offers nothing to Hong Kong BDTCs other than refugee status”—(Mr Ted Rowlands.)
Question put, That the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 5
Noes, 2
Mr Dennis Canavan
Mr Ivan Lawrence
Mr Michael Jopling Mr Bowen Wells
Mr Ted Rowlands
Mr Peter Temple-Morris
Mr Michael Welsh
Another Amendment proposed, in line 16, to leave out from “people” to the end of the paragraph and insert the words:
*4.16 Another suggestion is that Britain should share its primary responsibility with other countries who not only for humanitarian reasons may also have substantial reasons for wishing to secure Hong Kong's future and prosperity. Sir David Wilson confirmed that in what he described as an "Armageddon scenario", he believed that there "quite rightly could be . . . a wider international responsibility." Sir Geoffrey Howe, giving evidence on 14 June, said "in the... last resort situation of events overwhelming the people of Hong Kong, then in those circumstances it is, I think, inescapable that the United Kingdom with its special responsibility for the territory would be the country to which they would look for treatment as refugees, and we have to try and discharge that responsibility with the help of others." Furthermore if the circumstances under which these assurances were required arose, they could not be limited only to Hong Kong BDTCs but would apply to the whole population of Hong Kong. Although Britain's responsibility must be primarily to British subjects, if we maintain that an international response would be appropriate, we cannot limit its extent to British Hong Kong citizens, who, as we noted above, are not in a clearly
+