§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Commission to inquire into corruption in Hong Kong will be permitted by its terms of reference to investigate the alleged responsibility of the police for charges at the Star Ferry tribunal against Mrs. Elsie Elliot, headmistress of a Christian school, after she had initiated the exposure of police corruption.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, a decision whether any corruption aspects of such a case should be considered by the Commission would of course be for the Hong Kong Government and the Commission to take when it begins operations next year. But Mrs. Elliot's complaints, if established, would have amounted to conspiracy, rather than corruption which it is the task of the new Commission to investigate.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that I was concerned with this case seven years ago? Is he aware that Mrs. Elliot was a Christian missionary deeply respected by the European community and regarded almost as a saint by the Chinese community? Is he further aware that she first exposed the corruption which is now admitted to be taking place in Hong Kong, and that there are grounds for believing that the charges against her at this tribunal were framed by the police who are still in the service of Hong Kong? Is there not therefore a 1030 case for an investigation by this anticorruption Commission?
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I was not aware that seven years ago he was concerned in Mrs. Elliot's case. Of course the Government are well aware of her Christian aspirations. However, my Lords, the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, headed by a Chief Justice of Hong Kong in 1966, carefully considered the allegations that police officers had forced two youths to make statements incriminating Mrs. Elliot in the Star Ferry riots and the Commission rejected these allegations. Indeed, my Lords, they criticised Mrs. Elliot for her lack of candour at the inquiry.
§ LORD BROCKWAYBut, my Lords, is it not the case that she declined to give the source of her information because she had given a pledge that individuals would not be identified? And as a result, did not her character so improve in the public estimation that she was returned by a greater majority than ever to the Hong Kong Council?
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I have no doubt that there were many extenuating circumstances in Mrs. Elliot's case. I can only say that it was very carefully considered; it was rejected and she was very much criticised by the judge who, of course, had nothing whatever to do with the police.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is now a changed situation in Hong Kong compared with 1966? Then there was nothing other than suspicion—there was no certainty—about corruption within the police force in Hong Kong. Now it is evident that it was there, and indeed that it was widespread. We appreciate the noble Lord's difficulty in speaking for a Department of which he is not a member, but would he undertake to draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the changed circumstances and to the fact that this lady has been subjected to very severe criticism over a number of years because of her continual complaint about corruption within 1031 the police which has now been substantiated? Would the noble Lord see whether ways and means could be found by which there could be a re-examination of all the circumstances surrounding this lady in her fight with regard to corruption in Hong Kong?
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I will certainly call the attention of my noble friend to the matter. The difficulty is that in the end it is up to the Hong Kong Government to decide what are the terms of reference of the Commission. I have no doubt that my noble friend will pass on to the Government the things said in this House this afternoon.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, it is true that it is the responsibility of the Government of Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is a Colony and at the end of the day it is this House, this Parliament, that has the ultimate responsibility for the good of Hong Kong. In these circumstances, will the noble Lord, without saying anything further in this matter, press on his right honourable friend the strong views that have been expressed by my noble friend and myself?
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALWe will, my Lords, with this one proviso: that although we have ultimate responsibility for the Colony they are extremely, shall we say, sensitive about their rights in the matter and the Government would not want to go too far.
§ LORD SHEPHERDMy Lords, they may be sensitive. Having been a Minister of State in the Commonwealth Office, with a responsibility for Hong Kong, I am well aware of it. But I think one may say to the people of Hong Kong that the Parliament at Westminster has a responsibility over and above theirs.
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I think that we may accept that.
§ LORD BROCKWAYMy Lords, I thank both the Minister and also my noble friend Lord Shepherd for what they have said. May I ask the Minister this question? Is it not the case that at the tribunal the President, who was then the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Hogan, 1032 said that he was sending Mrs. Elliot to the bar of public opinion, and immediately following that she was so revered in Hong Kong that she was returned as a member of the Hong Kong Council with a greater majority than she had ever received before?
§ LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYALMy Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord's information is correct.