TNAG-2053-FCO40-2926-Hong-Kong-parliamentary-matters-1990 — Page 134

1

1113

[LORD GEDDES.]

Hong

[ LORDS ]

hou Non is described-I quote from an article

prese

"unsympathetic, smooth talking hard liner who is likely to take a tougher line on Hong Kong matters than his predecessor”. Despite the commitment in the joint declaration that,

"the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region will enjoy a high degree of automony [and] will be vested with executive, legislative and independent judicial power”,

Peking announced as recently as the 20th of this month that only 18 members of Hong Kong's 60-seat Legislative Council would be directly elected in 1997. Even that 30 per cent., as the noble Lord, Lord Wyatt, reminded us, will have their power curtailed by a two-tier voting system which would give blocking powers to indirectly elected members. We cannot acquiesce in such a situation and must ensure greater and faster democratisation,

The 1984 joint declaration and its accompanying Chinese memorandum said that China was not opposed to Britain giving passports to Hong Kong people and that it was entirely an internal matter for the British Government. Less than a year ago the same Mr. Chou Non and Mr. Qian Qichen, the Chinese Foreign Minister, separately stated that Britain's decision on how many Hong Kong citizens would be granted citizenship was an internal affair of the British Government. But now Peking is criticising this Government's brave-I use the word deliberately-nationality package and even stated that any Hong Kong resident who has the right of abode in any country other than China will be disqualified after 1997 from holding senior government jobs.

I base my case this evening on the United Kingdom's duty to fulfil its contract with China. I have not raised what to my way of thinking is the equally forceful argument of our duty to the people of Hong Kong. As that is an argument which apparently has no weight with certain Members in another place, I have altered my line of reasoning in case they are more readily convinced by our obligations to China under the

the 1984 joint declaration. I must say that I was more than shocked by some of the opposition to the Government's recent nationality package. Frankly, to me it smacks of racism. It is apparently based on what can only be described as the amoral and immoral excuse that it is a vote loser. This Government to my knowledge have never been known to shirk their responsibilities on that score-and heaven forbid that they should start now.

Those who make the claim that it undermines the Government's pledge not to allow any more full-scale immigration have entirely missed the point. The point is as has been reiterated time and again that granting the right of abode in this country to the people of Hong Kong is the surest way to prevent large-scale immigration. No one can any longer be in doubt that the only way to encourage the people of Hong Kong to remain there is to give them the freedom to leave.

We should make no mistake. If China finds itself presented in 1997 with a Hong Kong devoid of its

Kong

1114

main resource there will be little or no incentive for it to abide by its side of the 1984 contract and noth my va the Chinese lendership's behaviour should lead anyone to expect that it will honour its commitment without a powerful incentive.

A great deal is being said at the moment about the internationalisation of the Hong Kong question and the provision of an international safety net for Hong Kong. What that means in practical terms is surely that countries such as Canada, the United States and Australia will in an emergency accept Hong Kong people. But obviously they will accept only those people whom they see as an asset to themselves. The force of world opinion, and this country's undoubted higher duty towards Hong Kong, will be such that this country will be forced to take the remainder. Quite apart from the Government's duty to China, or even to Hong Kong, that is surely not the way to fulfil our obligations to the citizens of this country.

If we hand over to China a Hong Kong devoid of the majority of its key personnel, China may well say that the subject matter of the contract has been altered and that it is no longer bound by the terms of the 1984 joint declaration. We have the clearest obligation to do all that we can to avoid that situation.

6.32 p.m.

Lord Diamond: My Lords, we should certainly consider ourselves fortunate to have been able to listen to such a well-informed and timely maiden speech as that recently made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharp of Grimsdyke. It is indeed fortunate that with his enormous knowledge of affairs in Hong Kong he is able to speak at this time. I congratulate him most heartily on his speech and in particular on its confidence-building atmosphere. Too many of the speeches that we make in our attempts to improve the situation ignore the fact that our first duty is to restore, not to destroy, confidence in the future of Hong Kong. I therefore repeat my congratulations to the noble Lord.

who Speeches by those.

are particularly well-informed, such as the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, have been mad with regard to the boat people. Therefore in the time available to me I shall restrict myself purely to comments about the economy of Hong Kong and the need to sustain confidence in it. In spite of the obvious fact that he major interests of the three parties in a prosperous Hong Kong are at one, and that the common accord between the two Governments in their negotiations on the Basic Law existed before June, there is no doubt that he events of Tiananmen Square created what has rightly been described as a haemorrhage of key personnel leaving their country, and a consequent need to take some overt action to restore confidence by attacking the malaise at its root level. By "malaise at its root level" I mean that every resident in Hong Kong would say to himself, "Things are fine now, but what if after 1997 they develop in such a way that my personal liberty nd prosperity are such that I must go?" It is to answer that question that the Government have come forward with their proposals which I warmly welcome and support, as do all my colleagues on these Benches.

--