23
Hong Kong
15 MARCH 1993
[Dr. John Cunningham/
they have any? It is regrettable that they have failed either in private discussions or apparently in public to present any counter proposals as a basis for discussions to resolve this deadlock.
The deadlock is serious for a number of reasons. For example, why are the Chinese now apparently objecting -I say “apparently objecting”—to the involvement of representatives of the people of Hone Kong when those representatives have taken part over many years in discussions about the future of Hong Kong? What has caused that apparent change of mind in Beijing? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure us and the people of Hong Kong that their legitimate right to be represented in any talks about their future will not be given away but will be safeguarded by Her Majesty's Government and the Governor? For example, what is to happen to the very important economic development of the new airport for Hong Kong? How will those proposals be affected by this continuing breakdown in the talks?
Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that he will continue, in line with the Governor, to make it clear to the Government of the People's Republic of China that delay cannot be endured indefinitely: that if legislation is to pass through Legco--I say "if legislation is to pass through Legco", because it remains for the members of Legco themselves to decide whether the proposals are acceptable to them, which will be a very interesting debate that we shall all watch with interest-that legislation cannot be delayed indefinitely, even though, and I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point, he insists that it is not too late for talks on alternative proposals to develop.
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman and, through him, to the people of Hong Kong and, for that matter, to the Governor that proposals to widen and deepen democracy in Hong Kong have had and retain our complete support, without any equivocation at all, but we want to see a resumption of talks between Her Majesty's Government and the Governor and the People's Republic of China in the interests, above all, of the future well-being of the people of Hong Kong.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support. That is a great help. He questioned me in particular on two points. His first question-why the talks about talks did not succeed—is one which he must address to the Chinese Government. I was reasonably hopeful a week ago, even a shorter time ago, that the different procedural obstacles that had come up were being resolved and that we would be able to start substantial talks. At the end, the difficulty focused on something that I mentioned in my statement. Representatives of the Hong Kong Government have taken part in this kind of discussion often before, without any difficulty. There was a suggestion from the Chinese side that their role and their designation should be, in some way, lessened or degraded. The implications of that are not ones which we could accept. It was really on that point that the talks about talks stalled.
On the right hon. Gentleman's second point, it is agreed between us and the Chinese and virtually everybody in Hong Kong that Hong Kong needs a new airport if it is to remain a first class international trade and financial centre. We went out of our way last year, as the House will recall, to take account of Chinese problems over the financing of
22 CD41/2 Job 1-3
Hong Kong
24
these arrangements. The result is the memorandum of understanding which the Prime Minister entered into. I believe that agreement could be reached quickly on these airport matters if the financial issues, in which the Chinese have a legitimate interest, were tackled on their merits. We shall seek to do that.
Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch): Is not the answer to the question of the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) about why the Chinese are not responding as, I am sure, we would all hope that the Governor produced his October proposals, which were supposed to be the basis of negotiation, unilaterally? That is what has caused offence in Beijing. Can my right hon. Friend confirm, lest there be any doubt, that the 1984 agreement remains the basis of our policy towards Hong Kong? In order to find a way in which both sides, or all three sides, can get themselves off the hook, would it not at least be worth while contemplating the proposition that an independent panel of lawyers should look at the simple, central question whether the Governor's proposals, made unilaterally last October, did or did not break both he 1984 agreement and, more importantly, the 1990 and 1991 discussions?
Mr. Hurd: I am not sure what my hon. Friend meant when he said that the Governor put forward unilateral proposals. As Governor, it is his duty-a duty that he does not share with anyone else at present-to put forward proposals for the conduct of the legislative elections in Hong Kong in 1995.
On 25 September, some time before the Governor published his proposals, I gave the Chinese Foreign Minister the text of what the Governor proposed to say. At all times, before and after the Governor announced his proposals, he, I and everyone made it clear that they were proposals and that we were perfectly ready to discuss them with the Chinese, just as they are open for discussion in Hong Kong.
As for my hon. Friend's suggestion, it is of course the Chinese who have most strongly opposed any inter- nationalisation of the discussion on these issues. On the legal points, the documents are in the Library and hon. Members can make their own decisions and conclusions, but we are perfectly clear that we are justified in saying, as I did, that the Governor's proposals are entirely compatible with the joint declaration-I confirm that that remains the basis of our policy—and that they are compatible with the Basic Law and with understandings reached in the context of the last Legislative Council elections. We are confident about that, but the talks that we seek should concentrate on the arrangements for the future, and I hope that they can be arranged on that basis.
Sir David Steel (Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the Chinese Premier's statement this morning that the Government's proposals appear to be designed to create disorder-if that is the correct translation-in the colony are viewed with total astonishment by members of all parties as it is perfectly obvious that the interests of Britain, as well as that of China and the people of Hong Kong, is to secure a smooth transition in 1997? Will he reaffirm that the Government of China still have some way to go to regain the confidence of the people of Hong Kong, which it lost in the events of two or three years ago?
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.