781
(LORD HENLEY]
Hong Kong
[LORDS]
he Chinese Government. I can confirm that it is in the Chinese Government's interests that Hong Kong should remain prosperous after 1997. We believe that it should also remain democratic, and we do not believe that it would be in the interests of the Chinese Government to disturb the processes which have already started and which might disrupt any chances of prosperity continuing and growing.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, I had hoped, having had relations with Hong Kong for many years, that 1997 would see a transfer of power and responsibility between the United Kingdom and China in a way in which there was friendship and confidence. I do not think that the Government can believe, from the interventions made today, that this House feels that that is likely to be achieved. I do not blame Her Majesty's Government entirely. I believe it is the result of a lack of understanding. My noble friend Lord Callaghan said that the Chinese are not democratic. All that I can say to the noble Lord is that in all my experience, the People's Republic of China has honoured every agreement, political or commercial. I believe that the agreement that was made between Mrs. Thatcher (the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, as she now is) and the People's Republic of China will be honoured to the full.
My anxiety-one which I am sure will be felt most in Hong Kong tonight-is that the handing over of power will not be in the spirit in which the agreement was made. Therefor Hape that the Minister, while recognising his difficulties in not having direct access to the department, will see that the message of this House that will go to the Secretary of State is that we shall need to recover the spirit of the original agreement, and to find ways and means by which all the problems can be overcome. To say that we wish to see a democratic structure in Hong Kong is, I have to say to the noble Lord, rather light. I recognise that, having been a Minister of State in the Commonwealth Office who tried to bring some of it about. But there was resistance and difficulty. I think that it is probably too late now to go to the very threshold of antagonism between the two great countries who will have to make the success of that agreement possible and right for the people of Hong Kong. I hope that the noble Lord will recognise genuine anxieties, not only here but also in Hong Kong, and that some new steps have to be taken to recover some of the goodwill that we had together when we signed the agreement.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, any feeling in this House will certainly be taken note of by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. He will certainly take note of what the noble Lord had to say, and also note the remarks of all other noble Lords. The noble Lord said that it was all rather late. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, said, we have to start from where we are. It is no use pretending that we have not done things in the past. There were reasons why we could not do things in the past, and no doubt the noble Lord will know why he could not do things in the past. I say to the noble Lord that 1997 is still four years away. Much can happen in
404 LD79/22 Job 3-10
European Communities Order 1993
782
that time. We shall certainly continue to negotiate and to seek agreement so far as is possible with the Chinese Government in the best possible interest of the people of Hong Kong.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend accepted the message from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, which I believe was very wise. As the noble Lord said, it was based on experience. Hong Kong is not a new problem for Parliament. We have been involved in these matters for many years. We have had delegations from Hong Kong and we have had duels. year after year. I do not believe that anyone who listened to the exchanges over those years expected the position to be very different to what it is. It was quite clear that, as we got nearer to the hand-over date, the real difference between rigid communism and our democrat- ic approach would show itself. The only message which ought to come out of what has been said is this: all the best with continuing the negotiations; achieve what you can, but the vital aim at the back of our minds is, however it ends, in or before 1997, it must not end in acrimony. It must be ended in the spirit in which the agreement was made. Quite apart from individual items, which will be battled for, let us see that that overall spirit is not completely lost.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I simply could not agree more with my noble friend. These matters must not end in acrimony. Perhaps I may add just one rider. They must also end in the interests of the people and the.. economy of Hong Kong.
European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) Order 1993
5.15 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness: rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th November be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that this House approve the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (European Investment Fund) Order 1993.
Noble Lords will recall that a year ago in Edinburgh at the conclusion of the UK's presidency of the European Community, the European Council agreed a package of measures to promote economic recovery in the EC. One of those measures was a request that the ECOFIN council and the European Investment Bank give urgent and sympathetic consideration to the establishment of a European investment fund. That work has now been substantially completed, with agreement being reached on the precise role of the fund and on the draft statute which sets out its rules of operation. So the Brussels European Council on 29th October was able to commit itself to bringing the fund into existence by the new year.
The new fund had its origins within the European Investment Bank. That is one of the Community's least-known and perhaps least appreciated institutions.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.