TNAG-2709-FCO40-3915-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-and-Par-1993 — Page 158

1249

Hong Kong

[15 MARCH 1993]

deteriorate quite so far. Somehow or other they seem to have gone badly wrong almost at a personal level. That will not help the resolution of the difficulties that are to come.

As we all know, the Chinese tend to take a long-term view of things, and are prepared to wait -particularly when they do not have to wait so long, against the deadline of 1997. Our prime responsibility is to the people of Hong Kong. It is to ensure that when 1997 arrives the hand-over of power is peaceful and the transition is smooth. Our first priority now must therefore be to do all that we can to see that sensible negotiations are resumed, and resumed quickly. In so far as the gazetting of Mr. Patten's proposals ends a period of uncertainty, they are to be welcomed. At least both sides now know more clearly what they have to deal with and what they have to negotiate about.

I should like to ask the Government two questions: one of detail and one perhaps more general. I observe in the Statement that the Foreign Secretary uses the words:

"But the key point is that the electoral arrangements in Hong Kong should be fair, open and acceptable to the people of Hong Kong”.

Does the use of that phrase add anything to the present position, or is it merely meant

to be declaratory of what it is? Secondly, how do the Government now see the immediate future? Mr. Li Peng's speech today is not exactly promising. But perhaps the noble Baroness can give the House a more up-to-date appreciation of the immediate situation.

Finally, the people of Hong Kong must themselves be involved in the process to decide the future of the colony and their representatives must therefore have the chance fully to discuss the Patten proposals. The Legislative Council should therefore continue with its consideration of the proposals, which in our view are perhaps somewhat overdue.

Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords. I should like to associate myself with the thanks that the noble Lord gave to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. We also welcome the Statement. There are two views about what have come to be known as the Patten proposals. One view is that the Chinese response was foreseeable, indeed inevitable, and that therefore the proposals were foolhardy. The other view-the one which we take on these Benches-is that the proposals were ingenious; that they fell within the terms of the Basic Law, the Joint Declaration and of the conversations held between the two governments at various times.

Thirdly, we take the view that, if anything, the proposals were overdue and that had they been introduced 10 or 15 years ago neither we nor the people of Hong Kong would find ourselves in the uncomfortable situation we are in today. That, I am afraid, is self-evident. But, that having been said, it is a case of "better late than never". It seems to me intrinsically unreasonable on the part of the Chinese Government to demand that the proposals be de facto withdrawn before any discussion about them takes place. It seems to me equally unreasonable for them to

641 LD75/17 Job 3-2

Hong Kong

1250

demand that it would be improper if any Hong Kong officials were present at those talks-bearing in mind that they have been present at the talks over the past 10 years. In all those respects, therefore, we welcome the Statement read by the noble Baroness. I must say that some of us take the view that what is happening is that the Chinese Government are testing the nerve of Her Majesty's Government. I think that our more open support of the Governor in the difficult position in which he finds himself makes it more rather than less likely that talks will be resumed.

Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Richard and Lord Bonham- Carter, for their welcome to the Statement. In a sense, a lot of people are being wise after the event-I do not mean those noble Lords, but many other commen- tators outside-when they say, as in the first view presented by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, that the Chinese response was foreseeable.

The point that I made in repeating the Statement, which I shall make again now, is that the Governor's proposals on broadening our democracy have, and have always had, our full support. But we have said right from the beginning that we are ready and have always been ready to consider alternative views. The final decisions, rightly, should rest with the Legislative Council. We have said that we respect its judgment, and that judgment is obviously consistent with our own international obligation; namely, the Joint Declaration, the Basic Law.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me why we did not announce the proposals earlier. That question was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. The Government's proposals were made in response to the development in Hong Kong in recent years of a wish for a moderately faster pace of democracy. The point about that is that the Basic Law does not contain practical proposals for that faster pace of democracy. It may indeed be that which is most feared in Peking. When the noble Lord, Lord Richard, asked me how we see the future, we can only say that we sincerely hope that we will have discussion with the Chinese. But as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, it is quite wrong to try to exclude from the discussions Hong Kong officials who have taken part in the joint liaison group as part of the British delegation with the Chinese, and who have taken part in other talks, and who suddenly now become unacceptable as members of the British delegation.

- I say only that in trying to resolve this very serious situation we are absolutely sincere in wishing to see a resolution which meets the needs and aspirations of the Hong Kong people, which is consistent with Basic Law and the Joint Declaration, and which indeed allows those fair elections. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, that in the spelling out of the phrase "fair, open elections" there is nothing different from what we have always said in that respect. It may have been phrased a little differently, but there is certainly nothing to be drawn from the use of those words today.