TNAG-2169-FCO40-3106-House-of-Commons-Foreign-Affairs-Committee-inquiry-into-Hong-1990 — Page 52

and doing in such a way that it will remain in force in the Hong Kong

after 1997.

62.

Mr Lawrence

But Article 39 goes on to say, "The rights and freedoms

enjoyed by Hong Kong residents shall not be restricted unless as prescribed

by law. Such restrictions shall not contravene the provisions of the

preceding paragraph of this Article." That is the bit you read out. The

concern is that this Bill of Rights, or the import of the Bill of Rights,

can be set aside by the Chinese authorities because they will be making or

be able to interpret the law. Now, that has always been the concern from

start to finish and originally I do not think there was a proposal for a

Bill of Rights and this Committee and everybody else said "Let's have a

Bill of Rights because that will somehow make sure that as far as possible

the decision-making process about whether something is a restriction of

individual liberty or not shall be interpreted not by Peking or the

People's Committee but by the courts in Hong Kong". Now, where have we

advanced along that line? If we are having some difficulty in getting the

human rights Bill referred to by Dennis Canavan accepted by the Director of

the Chinese Government's Hong Kong Affairs Office and if the Basic Law

leaves open the possibility of exceptions to the International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights if the law so says, are we any further along the

line of reassuring the people of Hong Kong that the Chinese authorities

will not, if they want to, set aside the human rights provisions?

(Mr Maude) I certainly do not think that can happen. The law is

applied in Hong Kong and will be applied in Hong Kong by the Hong Kong

courts. There may in some circumstances, and subject to conditions and

procedures laid down in the Basic Law, be an interpretation of the law made

36