TNAG-2942-FCO40-4218-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-ethnic-minorities-1993 — Page 32

་

14 June 1989]

[Mr Shore Contd]

THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

RT HON SIR GEOFFREY HOWE, QC, MP, MR R MCLAREN and MR A Paul

go ahead and back an Omelco recommendation for 50 per cent or more before 1997?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) I think I would have to reply in the same way as the Governor did, that one of the premises of what we were discussing today is that the Omelco view to which we have referred is a view expressed on 24 May before the events of the last three weeks. The Omelco view and the views of the political groups in Hong Kong are quite likely more than likely—to have changed since then. So clearly we shall have to pay the closest attention to what emerges from their deliberations and from the other expressions of opinion within Hong Kong and elsewhere where it would be wrong to commit oneself to a conclusion on any single factor at this stage.

Mr Jopling

984. Have you had any indications at all that Omelco may be changing their mind and looking now for a quicker movement towards elected representatives?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) I do not think any collective indication at all, Mr Jopling, no. People have been reacting instantly to the horrors of the last few weeks. but clearly, as the Governor said, opinion will now have to be re-examined, reshaped and reconsidered.

Chairman: We are going to have to leave this very vital subject there because time is pressing.

Mr Welsh

985. Could you tell us your timetable for implementation of the Bill of Rights in Hong Kong?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) This is something which has to be implemented through the Hong Kong legislative system. I believe it is something that is regarded as important but I cannot tell you the timetable.

986. But there will be a Bill of Rights in Hong Kong?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) The decision will be taken by Hong Kong itself, but, as I indicated last time, the decision was then regarded as one of increasing importance. I think the pace of progress originally envisaged owed something to the prospective time- table for the Basic Law. That may now need to be put to one side if the progress on the Bill of Rights is to be achieved at the right date, but that is for discussion with the Hong Kong Government within the Hong Kong Government.

- Chairman: Could we now turn to nationality, Mr Temple-Morris?

#:

Mr Temple-Morris

987. I do not need to remind you, Foreign Sec- retary, of the importance and sensitivity of this nationality and immigration issue, both in Hong Kong, where it generates, as you know, enormously strong feelings, and also on this side, where the issues are potentially controversial. Could I first ask you generally about the moral obligation aspect, the 3.28 million question or, indeed, the

$

363

[Continued

question of the total population of Hong Kong (which some here have argued come within the moral obligation argument) and after that, subject to any questions any of my colleagues might have on the general aspect, go on to explore what the Government means or what its intentions are with regard to this word “flexibility” which is creeping into every Government statement on the matter. First, the general moral obligation admission of 3.28 million people: as a result of what has happened in Beijing recently, have things changed, Foreign Secretary, either in substance or, to use your own words, in focus, in any way?

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) We have always understood the responsibility that we have for the territory and the people of Hong Kong. The case which they have argued, for some kind of assurance attached to their citizenship if they take it is something we have always understood and obviously the events of the last three weeks or more in Beijing have understandably led to a much greater sense of urgency in their expression of that opinion. But we have always to set our practical response to that alongside our wider responsibility through Parlia- ment to the British people as a whole and, as you will recollect, that was the basis of the conclusions that were set out in the 1981 legislation. Clearly the most recent events enhance their deep sense of anxiety and require us to re-examine how best we can discharge our responsibility, and hence the answer I have already given.

988. I want to be clear about this. Are you saying there is a distinction in precedent, if you like, in terms of our obligations vis-à-vis our own people here through Parliament to the people of Hong Kong? Are you saying our primary responsibility is to Britain and our secondary responsibility is the moral obligation to the people of Hong Kong? That seems to be creeping into what you are saying.

(Sir Geoffrey Howe) We have to discharge all those responsibilities and that is what Parliament sought to do in enacting the 1981 legislation. This is what it has sought to do in relation to all this legislation about citizenship and rights of access and so on, but I think we would deceive ourselves if we did not acknowledge that we were elected by the people of this country to enact the law of this country, like any other country enacts its own citizenship law.

989. Law can be enacted and re-enacted, as one well knows, but dealing with the British side of this aspect, some people say that to blame Parliament before it has had the chance to decide, to say: “No, the British Parliament will never wear this. No, the British people will never wear it,” is a somewhat artificial, almost facile argument. I want to ask you how you see this with regard to Parliament and the people, bearing in mind recently in opinion polls that the reaction of the British people towards the moral obligation, 3.28 million argument has been remarkably generous, indeed in terms that only on Monday evening, in spite of the considerable eloquence of the Foreign Secretary, a vote was taken which came down very much in favour of