HC Deb 26 April 1967 vol 745 cc1784-92

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

11.32 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Govan)

I wish to draw to the attention of the House the constitutional position in Hong Kong. In its turn, that situation provokes many anomalies. The governing authority is completely non-elected. It is composed at executive and legislative levels wholly of officials and nominated persons. I make no challenge against their efficiency or their personal integrity, but they speak and act for a people who have no voice in their election. They have no contact with those whose welfare lies in their hands. They are a dictatorship and represent a type of government which is not tolerable to the British people. Yet we accept it in Hong Kong and our own Government approve, within the Commonwealth, a system which they profess to despise.

In practice, I found that the ordinary citizen of the Colony was not able to submit his grievances by private personal approach to any member of the legislative or executive councils. Public protest about individual or communal wrongs is impossible, because gatherings of more than nine persons are prohibited. Meetings can be arranged for defined purposes under specified auspices, but this rules out spontaneous demonstrations on matters of public importance, an inherent democratic right.

The result of this constitutional setup is that too much power resides in two few hands, which leads to abuses and to corruption. During my visits to Hong Kong I have had many complaints from people who felt that they had been deeply wronged. My attempts to right these wrongs even at home Ministerial level have never succeeded, and I am not convinced that all of them were without merit, nor am I alone in that view.

Reasons are, of course, advanced for this particular type of non-elected Government. We are told that the population of Hong Kong is divided between the followers of China and Taiwan. The dangers arising from this, in my view, are grossly exaggerated. They were advanced when an attempt was made three years ago to abolish the evils associated with the engaging of seamen for the ships that sail from the Port of Hong Kong, and while difficulties in establishing the new system were encountered in getting the men to co-operate in their own interests, these were overcome, and a fairer system of signing on now operates.

It should also be noted that the 1961 census showed that 40 per cent. of the population of the Colony was under the age of 15 and could have little knowledge, if any, of the October Revolution in 1949 and its consequences and implications. They have been born in Hong Kong, and in all probability have never been to China or to Taiwan. They can rightly be called Hong Kong-ers, and each year sees an increase in their numbers. Soon, they will represent a majority within the Colony. We cannot continue to repress them politically, and, of course, it is quite hypocritical for Britain to condemn those countries which deny democratic rights to their citizens while, at the same time, we pursue exactly the same kind of policy under the Union Jack in this corner of South-East Asia.

Already, it has been tacitly admitted that the existing form of administration in Hong Kong is no longer completely defensible, and some time ago His Excellency the Governor appointed a working party on local administration with the aim of devising a practicable alternative for the development of an effective and convenient system of local administration in Hong Kong which would take account of the size and complexity of the existing urban areas. It will pay attention to the planned creation of new towns in the new territories and the different stages of development in the rural areas; paying particular regard to the types of local authority which might be established. The working party will pay attention, also, to the composition of these bodies, their powers and functions, their sources of revenue, their staffing, their relationship with Government Departments and, lastly, the degree of control which should be exercised over them by the central Government.

This is all very orderly and planned. Hon. Members on both sides, like me, doubtless, accept the idea of order and planning, but any proposals of this nature must also involve the act of giving and saying what measure of power ought, at the same time, to be surrendered. At this point, however, the working party becomes cautious. There is no suggestion in its report of permitting the popular and elected voice to be heard on the Executive or the Legislative Council. These remain ex officio and nominated. Nor does it sweeten their non-democratic flavour to be told that the procedure in the Legislative Council is based on that of the House of Commons, for membership of those two institutions is attained by methods which are in total conflict.

No one expects this antithesis to be resolved forthwith. It must be recorded that free election to the sovereign body is a basic principle of democracy. The working party's report does not even record this fact, and even admitting that what I am saying may not be completely within the comprehension of the working party, nevertheless, in my view, it should have been dealt with.

This is particularly so since the report submitted by the working party of six persons has brought forth reservations from four about its recommendations. Nevertheless, I welcome the contribution which they have made to the necessary rethinking which must now be embarked upon about government, at local and central level, in Hong Kong. Yet I feel that the vision of the working party has been rather dimmed, for a great deal more than it visualises requires to be done to improve the physical and cultural conditions of the ordinary person in the Colony, in addition to improving his electoral rights.

Nobody needs tell me that. I have seen it for myself. I have also seen the wealth that exists so abundantly in Victoria Island and Kowloon. No one would dare contend that all those who helped to create it share fully in its distribution.

If the progress so openly manifest in Hong Kong is to be maintained full cooperation from all the people is necessary.

Mr. John Tilney (Liverpool, Waver-tree)

Does not the hon. Member agree that under the new electorate of the local urban council as many as 300,000 could be on the register, and yet only 25,000 have seen fit to put their names on the register? In fact, there are 5,000 fewer than on the original one.

Mr. Rankin

I am sorry that in the time available I cannot be drawn aside from the tenor of my remarks, but, to begin with, I do not accept the urban council. However, I shall not say more about that now.

I was saying that if the progress so openly manifest in Hong Kong is to be maintained, then full co-operation from all the people is necessary. This means that they must be identified in every way with the future of their homeland and its prosperity. That is the point at which the working party, the urban council and all other organisations, statutory and non-statutory, can play their part. Most of all, the Government, themselves, in my view and in that of many other people in Hong Kong, are far too selfish; for the simple reason that they keep too much power to themselves. Yet that very fact confers on them a greater responsibility to establish the conditions which make orderly progress possible and to provide the educational groundwork on which a democratic society can be built.

The Hong Kong Government must come down from Olympus, and bring their people into their councils; give them the feeling of belonging; which they do not possess now. That would be the strongest defence which the Government could build against the external dangers which they fear.

In fairness, I must point out that those dangers come from quarters not always mentioned. The difficulties provoked by conflicting ideologies are not disputed, but they are not eased by the presence of ships of war in Victoria Harbour, nor by the aircraft carrier which I saw last October lying off the New Territories and covering Canton. These American vessels were anchored in territorial waters giving offence to China and violating British and Hong Kong neutrality in the war now being waged in Vietnam. True, the soldiers of the United States are coming to Hong Kong for rest and refreshment, and that is a worthy reason for bringing them to the Colony, but surely they could have been transported in civilian craft when their visit is wholly peaceful.

If trouble comes to the Colony, it can arise from sources other than those in Taiwan or China. It might originate from the grip which the United States is now getting in Victoria and Kowloon. Her consulate harbours the biggest spy agency in South-East Asia numbering about 600, and when they are not engaged in their favourite game of China-watching, they are interfering in the legitimate business of Hong Kong merchants in order to influence them against trading with China. In my view, one step towards stopping these malpractices would be to give the people of Hong Kong a say in running their own affairs after their own fashion and for the benefit, not just of a few, but for all the people in the Colony. It is to that course that I would ask my hon. Friend to dedicate herself tonight.

11.50 p.m.

The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mrs. Judith Hart)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) for providing this further opportunity to discuss Hong Kong. We do not often have such an opportunity. We last had an Adjournment debate on the subject—as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) will recall—some weeks ago, but we can rarely discuss the Colony's problems at length.

For many years, my hon. Friend has closely concerned himself with Hong Kong's problems, and has continually stimulated the interest of the House in them. I know how many friends he has there, and, as he has shown tonight, how well he knows its politics and its perplexities. I was glad to hear his remarks about the integrity of the Government officials there, which I warmly underline. We all hold in high regard the Governor and the Colonial Secretary and their staffs.

My hon. Friend's last point was very important, as there is a genuine misunderstanding about the matter. It should be understood that Hong Kong is an important centre for air and sea communications and that visits from foreign aircraft and vessels—civil and military—are quite normal, as it is that foreign nationals should go there for leave and recreation. This is nothing new. It has been the practice for many years for troops from all South-East Asia to use Hong Kong as a leave centre. Because, in the last year or two, United States Servicemen on leave have been so well superintended, disciplined and rich, they have been welcome, and Hong Kong has been inclined to say, "Come back again."

But Hong Kong is in no way being used as a base by United States forces for military operations against North Vietnam. There are no United States installations or facilities of a warlike nature there and no repair facilities for U.S. ships have ever been asked for or given. Nor do they receive any other services or facilities than those of normal hospitality for foreign troops arriving on foreign ships. I am watching this closely, but, at the moment, see no reason why this should cause undue alarm in any quarter.

I have not yet been able to visit Hong Kong, but greatly look forward to the pleasure. But my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary was there only last month, when he discussed many local issues and saw a good deal of local industry. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when Colonial Secretary, was there in August and November last year. The Government are, therefore, well aware of Hong Kong's problems and the steps which need to be taken.

To put the matter in perspective, I was going to mention some of the Colony's achievements during the last few years, because we tend to talk much more about its problems than about its achievements. In spite of my hon. Friend's criticisms of certain aspects of life there, I think that he is well aware of the tremendous efforts of the Government there to cope with the population explosion and the problems of housing and education. Even though they have not solved all the problems, they have made tremendous efforts to that end and have achieved a great deal.

In view of the time, I will spend the remaining moments of this debate in dealing with the central problem of the constitutional development of Hong Kong. We start from a recognition of the fact that Hong Kong is quite different from any other of our Colonies. As I said in a previous debate—and I know that my hon. Friend will disagree with me, but I must express it as my view—because of Hong Kong's special position, it is not possible to think of normal self-government in terms of an elected Legislative Council. But this does not mean that we cannot envisage a considerable and meaningful extension of democracy at the local government level.

In my view, the Report of the Working Party on Local Administration, published in February, to which my hon. Friend referred, is of immense value. It is an excellent outline of the possibilities that are open for a decisive advance in local government in Hong Kong, in terms of functions and of democratic participation. I was impressed when I read the Report because it is clear that the Working Party has looked in depth at patterns of local government in Britain and elsewhere which might be helpful in finding the right solutions for the special conditions of Hong Kong.

Frankly, I believe it to be one of the best dissertations on local government in general and I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that the great depth of its analysis of what happens in Britain and elsewhere and what the possibilities may be is extremely interesting. At the same time, the Working Party has drawn attention to the special needs and peculiarities of the Hong Kong situation. It draws special attention to the fact that out of a population of just under 4 million people, 3 million live in built-up areas adjacent to the harbour, embracing the conurbation of Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Kowloon with very high population densities. It points out that although Hong Kong is a small place, in some of the urban areas the population density is as high as 5,000 persons per acre, among the highest in the world, while, at the same time, the population includes many differing groups of Chinese as well as other races.

The Report considers the types of local authorities which might be established and the criteria which might govern their establishment. It is not an easy matter, for in spite of its small size, it comprises several distinct component parts and these could not be fitted into the pattern applicable to England and Wales. The Report suggests that there might be three local authorities for the main urban areas, each with a population of about 1 million, and all three included in nine square miles.

Apart from the Greater London Council, only the City of Birmingham has a population exceeding 1 million. In England and Wales there are, as the Report states, 48 non-county boroughs with populations of less than 5,000. But more than 5,000 people may live in a single tenement building in Kowloon, and a local council for one or two tenement blocks can scarcely be considered a practicable solution. I mention these points to indicate that there are a number of difficult factors which require careful thought, and this is one of them.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) mentioned the apparent lack of public interest and the fact that only about 26,000 people registered when the franchise for the existing urban council was enlarged to 240,000 people. However, hon. Members will agree that there are obviously new factors to be considered in this situation. One is that if one has a council with very limited functions, it cannot be expected to evoke the same degree of public interest as one with wider functions which touch more closely on the various aspects of people's lives.

Although we may point to that from the point of view of the past, it should not necessarily be the guideline for what will happen in the future, with enlarged local authorities with new functions. My hon. Friend pointed out that there is a growing population in Hong Kong which is young and that, therefore, there are likely to be new ideas and interests. That is why we need not be dismayed by what has happened in the past.

The Report covers the powers and functions which local authorities might have. My hon. Friend did not do justice to the Report because he did not mention that some of the new functions will be vastly more extensive than the present limited ones. Some of the functions would be mandatory; others would be permissive. They include, for example—and I am only selecting some—running maternity homes, ante-natal and postnatal clinics and a health visiting service; the provision and operation of adult education, the provision of libraries, museums and recreational facilities and all aspects of entertainment. It covers the provision of personal services like homes for the aged, infants' crèches, and functions related to transport, liquor licences, the control of shops and commercial establishments and a number of functions normally associated here with a public health department.

Mr. Rankin

Will my hon. Friend assure me that she is not committing herself to the Report?

Mrs. Hart

No, I am not committing myself to the Report, for obvious reasons. The Report has been published so that there can be full opportunity in Hong Kong for public consideration of the matters which the Report sets out.

Before decisions are made, we want to take the fullest possible account of the views of the people of Hong Kong. We want to take account of any further proposals which local organisations or local bodies in the Colony may wish to make. I am sure that it is better to arrive at conclusions which will be generally acceptable to the public rather than build up something quickly which might wither away later. The Report itself says: It is men, not buildings, which make a city. My hon. Friend will remember that quotation.

It would be wrong of me to try to prejudge what local opinion in Hong Kong will feel and say about the Report, whether the majority will feel that the ideas that it presents are on the right lines—the report is not unanimous; four members signed it subject to reservations—or whether they will share the views expressed by my hon. Friend. We cannot prejudge this issue. What we can do, as a House, is to welcome the publication of the Report as a highly interesting and valuable study of the further possible development of democracy in Hong Kong, and we can express the hope that there will be real and genuine—

The Question having been proposed after half-past Nine o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at two minutes past Twelve o'clock.