TNAG-1852-FCO40-2627-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1989 — Page 181

14 June 1989]

[Mr Shore Contd]

THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE RT HON SIR GEOFFREY HOWE, QC, MP, MR R McLaren and Mr A Paul

you told us, and of course that was some 10 days or so before the really terrible events of 4 June. It may well be that OMELCO will decide in light of this that they will be recommending a stronger element of direct election to make sure of the strength of the democratic institutions in Hong Kong. But either way, whether they were to recommend 50 per cent or higher amount for direct elections, are you saying to us you think that, given this authoritative statement of Hong Kong opinion, we should go ahead, even allowing for the difficulties about not necessarily coinciding with Chinese wishes? I understand all that but, given the new situation, are you saying you would be prepared to go ahead and back an OMELCO recommendation for 50 per cent or more before

1997?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) I think I would have to reply Governer in the same way as the Government did, that one of the premises of what we were discussing today is that the OMELCO view to which we have referred is a view expressed on 24 May before the events of the last three weeks. The OMELCO view and the views of the political groups in Hong Kong are quite likely-more than likely to have changed since then. So clearly we shall have to pay the closest attention to what emerges from their deliberations and from the other expressions of opinion within Hong Kong and elsewhere where it would be wrong to commit oneself to a conclusion on any single factor at this state.

Mr Jopling

984. Have you had any indications at all that OMELCO may be changing their mind and look- ing now for a quicker movement towards elected representatives?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) I do not think any collective indication at all, Mr Jopling, no. People have been reacting instantly to the horrors of the last few weeks, but clearly, as the Governor said, opinion will now have to be re-examined, reshaped and reconsidered.

Chairman: We are going to have to leave this very vital subject there because time is pressing.

Mr Welsh

985. Could you tell us your timetable for implementation of the Bill of Rights in Hong Kong?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) This is something which has to be implemented through the Hong Kong legislative system. I believe it is something that is regarded as important but I cannot tell you the timetable.

361

[Continued

is to be achieved at the right date, but that is for discussion/within the Hong Kong Government.

Chairman: Could we now turn to nationality, Mr Temple-Morris?

Mr Temple-Morris

987. I do not need to remind you, Foreign Sec- nationality and immigration issue, both in Hong retary, of the importance and sensitivity of this

Kong, where it generates, as you know, enormously strong feelings, and also on this side, where the

ask you generally about the moral obligation issues are potentially controversial. Could I first

question of the total population of Hong Kong, aspect, the 3.28 million question or, indeed, the

which some here have argued come within the subject to any questions any of my colleagues moral obligation argument, and after that, and might have on the general aspect, go on to explore what the Government means or what its intentions creeping into every Government statement on the are with regard to this word “flexibility” which is

sion of 3.28 million people: as a result of what has matter. First, the general moral obligation admis-

happened in Beijing recently, have things changed, Foreign Secretary, either in substance or, to use your own words, in focus in any way?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) We have always understood the responsibility that we have for the territory and the people of Hong Kong. The case which they have argued for some kind of assurance attached to their citizenship if they take it is something we have always understood and obviously the events of the last three weeks or more in Beijing have understandably led to a much greater sense of urgency in their expression of that opinion. But we have always to set our practical response to that alongside our wider responsibility through Parlia- ment to the British people as a whole and, as you will recollect, that was the basis of the conclusions that were set out in the 1981 legislation. Clearly the most recent events enhance their deep sense of anxiety and require us to re-examine how best we can discharge or responsibility, and hence the answer I have already given.

988. I want to be clear about this. Are you saying there is a distinction in precedent, if you like, in terms of our obligations vis-à-vis our own people here through Parliament to the people of Hong Kong? Are you saying our primary responsibility is to Britain and our secondary responsibility is the moral obligation to the people of Hong Kong? That seems to be creeping into what you are saying.

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) We have to discharge all those responsibilities and that is what Parliament sought to do in enacting the 1981 legislation. This

986. But there will be a Bill of Rights in Hong is what it has sought to do in relation to all this Kong?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) The decision will be taken by Hong Kong itself, but, as I indicated last time, the decision was then regarded as one of increasing importance. I think the pace of progress originally envisaged owed something to the prospective time- table for the Basic Law. That may now need to be put to one side if the progress on the Bill of Rights

legislation about citizenship and rights of access and so on, but I think we would deceive ourselves if we did not acknowledge that we were elected by the people of this country to enact the law of this country, like any other country enacts its own citizenship law.

989. Law can be enacted and re-enacted, as one

woc C He

Govenmar coa

رد