TNAG-2168-FCO40-3105-House-of-Commons-Foreign-Affairs-Committee-inquiry-into-Hong-1990 — Page 217

CONFIDENTIAL

REPLY TO THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE REPORT ON HONG KONG

1. The Government made their initial observations on the report of

the Foreign Affairs Committee (HC281-1 of 28 June 1989) in their

reply of 1 December 1989 (Cm 927). A number of the detailed

recommendations in the Committee's report were dealt with in this

reply. But there were a number of other recommendations which the

Government's reply could not cover either because these questions

remained to be decided in the context of the drafting of the Basic

Law or because decisions had not been taken at that time as in the

case of nationality and constitutional development. The Foreign and

Commonwealth Secretary subsequently announced decisions on these

matters on 20 December 1989 and 16 February 1990 respectively. ______

\such cases the Government therefore took note of the Committee's

recommendations but did not attempt to give a detailed reply.

2. This paper contains the Government's observations on those

points in the Committee's report which were left outstanding in

their earlier reply because decisions had not been taken, namely:

The Joint Declaration and the Basic Law;

Actions within Hong Kong;

(i)

(ii)

(iii)

British Policy and Actions;

(iv)

Vietnamese Boat People.

THE JOINT DECLARATION AND THE BASIC LAW

Relationship between the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration

3. The Committee took the view that the Basic Law should be the

"son" of the Joint Declaration rather than of the Chinese

Constitution (paragraph 2.7). As the Committee recognises, the Basic Law is a law of the People's Republic of China. Specific

provision for such a law to be enacted by the National People's

Congress is made in Article 31 of the Chinese Constitution. However

the provisions of the Basic Law are clearly derived from the Joint

Declaration. The Joint Declaration provides that the basic policies

CATAAU (1)

CONFIDENTIAL