TNAG-1395-FCO40-1867-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-debates-1985 — Page 98

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATE ON HONG KONG AGREEMENT, 5 DECEMBER 1984

VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MPS:

ROBERT ADLEY

(a) Unrepresentative handful of people who hold power in Hong Kong

have incentive to resist change; best guarantee for future would be

broadly based and legitimately enfranchised representative body.

(b) Must pay particular attention to citizenship of Hong Kong's

Indian community.

(c)

Only Soviet Union and Taiwan object to agreement.

PADDY AS HDOWN

a) Hong Kong people faced with choice of like it or lump it; many

feel angry or betrayed, but this not reflected in Commons debate;

HMG has not fulfilled moral responsibility to Hong Kong people.

(b) There should be an annual review of developments and the right

to debate it in Parliament.

(c) "O eration Haven" should be set up it might encourage China

to adhere to agreement.

(d)

Hong Kong representation on the Joint Liaison Group (JLG) should not be confined to expatriate government officials; it would be outrageous if future directly elected representatives could not

sit on JLG.

JACK ASHLEY

(a) Should consider Hong Kong's anxieties on rights and freedoms

carefully.

(b) Introduction of adversarial politics is unrealistic concept.

(c) Regular parliamentary debates important.

HENRY BELL INGHAM

(a) Fears about conscription: consideration should be given to idea of forming regular battalion with a role China could approve of. (b) Negotiate with China to keep Ghurkas in Hong Kong after 1997.

(c) Caution in moves towards direct elections.

(d)

should be liberal in interpretation of discretion

Nationality:

under BNA.

(e)

Importance of smooth transition.

Suggest annual debate.