Johnston]
Hong Kong
15 JULY 1988
· Hong Kong Law Society, which I have met, asked Wilham Wade QC of Cambridge to give an opinion on the draft Basic Law. He encapsulates the problem most
cinctly and states:
"It seems clear to me from the general tenor of the Declaration
that the intention must be that the Hong Kong SAR is to enjoy genuine legal autonomy, with effective judicial protection.. Aimity Hong Kong will not be part of a federation, but the special arrangements set out in the Joint Declaration represent a unique constitutional amalgam of two wholly disparate legal systems. Autonomy of the political kind, depending merely on convention and international group faith, would be entirely insufficient in the circum- stances of the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong from the United Kingdom to China. It can operate only where there is an established political and legal framework within which conventions can become established and operate reliably. These necessary circumstances are completely absent in the Hong Kong-China situation. Furthermore, the conception of the relationship between law and politics is entirely different in China, where legal remedies against the state are not available, the judiciary play little part in public law, and the rule of law as established in British countries is unknown."
The Minister will be aware that there is general agreement about the articles of the draft Basic Law that create alarm-and I use that word intentionally. Almost all of those articles have already been referred to--16, 17, 18, 38, 169 and 172. I shall deal with them briefly before returning to the political and democratic aspects to which article 171 and annex III are relevant.
Article 16 contains the phrase that the National People's Congress may revoke SAR law. That turns on interpretation, which refers back to what I quoted from Sir William Wade and forward to article 169, which the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, in an extremely interesting speech. described as-
Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull. North): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Inverness. Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), but I wonder whether you. Mr. Deputy Speaker, could help the House? You are probably aware that, at this moment, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is making a statement in intentions Belfast
the Government's to announce regarding the Northern Ireland electricity industry, namely, that Kilroot phase 2 is to be dual oil-coal fired and that the next power station after that will be lignite fired. Tha is something that I welcome, because the Labour party and the trade unions of Northern Ireland have been urging it upon the Secretary of State for a long time.
I also understand that the Under-Secretary will make a statement about the Government's proposals to discover ways in which to privatise the Northern Ireland electricity supply and generation industry.
This is the second occasion on which a major statement concerning public investment in Northern Ireland has been made in Belfast without an opportunity for elected Members of this House and Members from Northern Ireland to examine the Minister and to discover the way in which the Government are setting about this problem. The Government have sought to avoid their respon- sibilities by means of a planted question in the name of the hon. Member for Beverley (Mr. Cran). I am sure that his new-found interest in the problems of Northern Ireland will be welcomed by the House.
358
Hong Kong
708
The Government's action is a flagrant breach of the traditions of this House and shows a contempt for the Members representing Northern Ireland, who have not been given an opportunity to examine the Secretary of State on this matter in the House today. Have you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, received any request from the Northern Ireland Office that it be allowed to make a statement in the middle of this debate?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman. I know of no such request, and certainly no such request has been made to me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks have been heard by those on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you know, it is fortuitous that I am here today in another capacity for another subject, but I have a strong constituency interest in this matter because Kilroot phase 2 will use coal from Barony colliery in my constituency as well as from the opencast mine. I have been pursuing this matter for some months, and there are two matters that concern me. One-
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot now pursue the points that he might have made had there been a statement before the House.
Mr. Foulkes: But these matters are of order. The Under-Secretary gave me a personal assurance that, before any statement was made, he would let me know the timing of that statement. I checked with my office half an hour ago and I have received no such information and no such warning from the Under-Secretary. I had an oral question down on 30 June and I have one down for 28 July, which would have allowed a statement to be made in this House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should raise those matters with the Minister and not with the Chair.
Sir Russell Johnston: I do not cavil at the perfectly proper point of order that has been raised by the hon. North (Mr. Hull. Member for Kingston upon McNamara), but I think that it is a pity that we have broken the continuity of this debate. That the hon. Gentleman has been forced to raise such a point of order is not a good reflection upon the Government. It is, after all, bad enough to have this debate on a Friday, the inconvenience of which has already been commented upon and is reflected by the attendance in the Chamber.
Mr. Couchman: The hon. Gentleman might care to reflect that, a fortnight ago, I was asked to speak at 10.57 am. but at 11 o'clock there was a statement and that resulted in a 50-minute intervention in my speech. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should consider himself extraordinarily lucky on this occasion, given that the points of order took up only about three minutes.
Sir Russell Johnston: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's sympathy.
I have already said that article 16 contains the proposition that the National People's Congress may revoke SAR law, which turns on interpretation. That refers back to my quotation from Sir William Wade and forward to article 169, which the Chief Justice of Hong Kong described in a speech as
"the most crucial article in the whole of the Draft Basic Law. The operation of the Basic Law depends almost entirely on its interpretation.”
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.