Page
235
Hong Kong
6 DECEMBER 1993
e today. However, I am optimistic about the remaining od of British sovereignty over the following three and a half years.
Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): Would my right hon. Friend accept from me, as a recent visitor to Hong Kong, that the economy of the colony is thriving, not only internally but due to the great amount of direct investment in China? Will he therefore impress on the Government of China that it is contrary to their own interests to stifle the democratic and thus entrepreneurial spirit of the colony, as democratically expressed through the Legislative Council; and will he encourage the Government to continue the work that they are doing?
Mr. Hurd: I will indeed do that. The Chinese Government, the Government of the People's Republic, will make up their own mind about their own interests, but the evidence pours in all the time that the relationship between Hong Kong and China, instead of weakening, is developing fast in the economic field. That development enriches both sides. Hong Kong is growing as an asset, but the growth of that asset depends on it being an effective channel, an outlet, for China to the outside world. That in turn depends on retaining, ensuring, the present characteristics of Hong Kong, which are unique in the world and makes it, in my view, the most exciting place that I visit.
Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley): Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there will be widespread support for his declaration that the Government stand in defence of democratic principles, and that they wish those principles to be pressed through the ballot box, if necessary with the backing of international opinion, to ensure that the will of the greater number prevails?
Mr. Hurd: That is an admirable general principle, which the right hon. Gentleman and I had an opportunity yesterday to express in another context. I am glad that we agree as widely on that issue as we did yesterday morning.
Sir Peter Emery (Honiton): Does my right hon. Friend realise that there is only support in the House for his statement, but considerable rejoicing that the Government and the Governor are taking these steps, because there appears to be a degree of intransigence-not the most diplomatic term, but one that many of us may use on the part of the Chinese Government?
There appear to be delaying tactics which could continue for a long time and which would work against the best interests of the people living in Hong Kong. If that intransigence continues, will my right hon. Friend ensure that it is given a great deal of publicity? The rest of the world needs to know exactly what we are doing, and what the Chinese are trying to do.
Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. There is always a difficulty, when one hopes to continue discussions with somebody, deciding how much one says about the discussions that have taken place already. We have to strike that balance. I believe that the reason why the Governor and his proposals continue to enjoy such wide support in Hong Kong is that he is no slouch in explaining them in terms that people in Hong Kong readily understand
and accept.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton): Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that what worries the Chinese
23 CD65/4 Job 1-10
Hong Kong
26
Government is not that there will be capitalism in Hong Kong, but that there could be democracy in Hong Kong? Does he accept that, although the House should accept and support the Patten package, it is a watered-down version of the consensus of the Office of the Members of the Legislative and Executive Councils? After 14 months of negotiations, we shall have a watered-down version of the watered-down version.
Will he therefore press ahead with what he has announced today? Will he press ahead as soon as possible with the rest of the Patten package? With only three and a half years to go, unless action is taken quickly, it will not be worth taking at all.
Mr. Hurd: Action has to be taken in time to provide for greater democracy in 1995. The Governor will work out he has not yet decided it—exactly what package he will put in terms of the main proposals for the elections in 1995 to the Legislative Council. We obviously hope, as I said, that we shall be able to resume discussions with the Chinese Government on some of the outstanding issues. However, that is not sure at present.
Mr. Michael Jopling (Westmorland and Lonsdale): Will the Foreign Secretary understand that the modest proposals he has made today will have wide support? To return to the question of what has gone wrong, which was asked by the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), does the Foreign Secretary recall the report by the Foreign Affairs Committee four years ago? The Committee reported having discussions on that very issue in Beijing. The Chinese officials concerned emphasised that the timetable for the introduction of representative government was a matter for Hong Kong.
Will my right hon. Friend continue to press on the Chinese the fact that many people here cannot understand why it was right then to move more quickly towards democracy, with the support of the Chinese Administration, whereas now, for some reason, the position seems to have changed?
Mr. Hurd: That is a fair question. The agreement that I made with the Chinese in 1990 for the elections in 1991 was for 18 directly elected members out of 60. That is the position in LegCo today. However, the Basic Law proposes to move that figure up to 30 by 2003 and to 24 by 1999. The principle is there is Chinese law-in the Basic Law-which was passed after my right hon. Friend first went to Peking. The question, why, in those circumstances, the Chinese Government are not willing to accept the Governor's modest proposals is one to put to them.
Dr. John Marek (Wrexham): Does the Foreign Secretary accept my support for his modest proposals? I believe that the overwhelming majority of hon. Members of all parties support his proposals. Will he pass that support on to the Governor and to LegCo?
Can the Foreign Secretary give an unequivocal assurance to the House? If he is to hold his head up after 1997 as having done his duty for Hong Kong, and if all of us, as Members of Parliament, are to hold our heads up, he and the Governor must not settle for one iota less than a system for the election committee and for the functional constituencies which is democratic, open and incapable of manipulation.
Mr. Hurd: In the end, it will not be for me or for the Governor to decide; the arrangements and decisions on the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.