HL Deb 10 February 1988 vol 493 cc242-7

5.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Glenarthur)

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which has been made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs about the White Paper on Hong Kong. The Statement is as follows:

"A Hong Kong Government White Paper, The Development of Representative Government: The Way Forward was published in Hong Kong earlier today. Copies of the White Paper have been placed in the Library of the House.

"The publication of the White Paper marks the end of a wide-ranging review of developments in representative government. A Green Paper, published in May 1987, sought the views of the Hong Kong community. It set out a range of options for possible change; none was ruled out in advance. The Green Paper elicited a widespread public response. We were also able to benefit from a wide range of views expressed in this House during the debate on 20th January.

"The White Paper discusses the full range of issues raised in the review. The main decisions which it announces are as follows:

  1. (a) 10 directly elected members will be introduced into the Legislative Council in 1991;
  2. (b) in 1988 the number of appointed members in the council will be reduced from 22 to 20, and the number of members elected by functional constituencies will increase from 12 to 14. In 1991 the present system of election by members of district boards will be abolished; but the urban and regional councils will each continue to elect one member to the council;
    3. 243
  3. (c) links between the urban district boards and the urban council will be strengthened;
  4. (d) the governor will continue to be the President of the Legislative Council for the immediate future.
"We are committed to the steady development of representative government in Hong Kong. We believe that the decisions set out in the White Paper mark an important step in that direction; and that they represent a balanced and reasonable response to the views expressed by the people of Hong Kong and their representatives".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement to which we listened with great interest. We are all aware of the natural sensitivity of the Hong Kong community to these critical developments. It is essential that all parties in this country should seek to present a united front in ensuring that the joint declaration is fulfilled in the spirit as well as in the letter.

We must not appear to be abandoning Hong Kong or letting matters drift during this transitional period. I believe this to be the view of Her Majesty's Government. I was glad therefore to note the words in the Statement: We are committed to the steady development of representative government in Hong Kong". We strongly support this reaffirmation. I assume that Her Majesty's Government have kept in the closest touch with the Government of Hong Kong throughout the preparation of the White Paper and on all other developments.

I am bound to say that my first reaction to the main decisions in the Statement was one of some disappointment. I think that the White Paper might have proposed more than 10 elected members in 1991; but it is I concede a step forward. Can the noble Lord say what will be the reaction of the community in Hong Kong to this decision? Has this surfaced yet? Can he also say whether further steps towards democratic rule are envisaged between 1991 and 1997? I presume that this is not the final stage of democratic development.

Finally, we all appreciate that the most important event will be the Basic Law. It is encouraging that China has involved Hong Kong in the drafting process. Can the Minister tell us when the draft Basic Law will be published? What further opportunity will be given to the people of Hong Kong to comment on it? What role will Her Majesty's Government have in relation to the provisions of the Basic Law. I hope that the House will be given ample time to debate these matters in full in due course.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, we agree with both the major points made by the Leader of the Labour Opposition. We are naturally with the Government in their attempts to achieve an orderly handover. We also share the noble Lord's disappointment about how much is planned to be done at present. There has been a recent consultation on which the Government base both their decision on what to do and the speed at which to do it. It has been obvious to anyone who has looked at the questions asked and the pattern of the responses that it is virtually impossible to draw any precise conclusions about what the people of Hong Kong want to see from that consultation.

Naturally we welcome the appearance of directly elected members in 1991. The increase in the functional constituency members is not entirely to be welcomed. This is an element of the corporate state which does not usually turn out to be extremely good in democracies. Obviously the Government fear that what they may do will create a turbulence which will make the handover difficult. Is it not the case that one is more likely to get turbulence from not doing enough than from doing too much? How much confidence do the Government have that they are at present not doing too little and too late, and especially to late? Very precisely, when is it proposed to do more between 1991 and the end of the lease?

Lastly, do the Government have it in mind to look beyond the liaison group and build officials of the Beijing Government into the structure of the Government of Hong Kong at a suitable medium-low level in order to give them a direct, hands-on experience—always under British control—of what it is a government do and must do to maintain the sensitive freedoms upon which the prosperity of Hong Kong depends?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet, for their response to the Statement. I am especially gratified that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, should have stressed as he did the need for a united response over this most important matter both in spirit and in the letter.

The noble Lord asked whether the Hong Kong Government had consulted Her Majesty's Government on this matter. I can assure the noble Lord that there is, and has been, the closest consultation between both governments on the subject, and the decisions which the Hong Kong Government have taken in the matter have been fully endorsed by Her Majesty's Government.

As to whether the people of Hong Kong are satisfied with the White Paper and its contents, I must say that we have had no report yet of any media coverage because the White Paper was only debated in LegCo earlier today. However, I can say that the White Paper accurately reflects the result of the review. It contains something for everyone who has made a representation to the consultative process. I sincerely believe that it is a result which is as good as it possibly could be in all the circumstances.

Naturally, there will be some people who will be disappointed, but I think it will be widely accepted by the people of Hong Kong as a balanced decision. I hope that now the White Paper has been issued the people of Hong Kong will rally to the decisions which have been taken and will do what they can to ensure that they work as smoothly as possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested that we might be doing too little too late. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was most concerned that 10 directly elected seats in 1991 would be too few. I must say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the White Paper is a significant step forward. On timing, it is not right to make a major constitutional change in 1988 when opinion is as sharply divided as the noble Lord observed. There are also strong arguments for letting the Legislative Council continue for one more term rather than undergo a second restructuring—because that is what would be required—after only three years. The directly elected seats in 1991 will in fact constitute 17 per cent. of LegCo. It is important to bear in mind that a further 16 seats (28 per cent.) are indirectly elected. Therefore, this is an impressive and significant step forward and it leaves room for possible further development before 1997.

As regards other developments about which the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Kennet, asked, the White Paper recognises that representative government will need to continue to evolve to provide continuity and a smooth transition in 1997. Those longer term issues will have to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Basic Law after its promulgation in 1990. The need will be to ensure that structures can develop smoothly up to and beyond 1997. It is important that there should be a clear indication of timing for the next step in 1991, and that is precisely what the White Paper provides.

In regard to the Basic Law and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, about its publication, I understand that the full text of the draft Basic Law will be formally published, after refinement, in May of this year. The people of Hong Kong will then have four months to comment upon it before it is further revised, after which there will be opportunities for further comment. That procedure, of course, takes place before the promulgation in 1990.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether Chinese officials from the People's Republic of China would be included in the consultation structure, and so forth. There can be no question of incorporating Chinese officials into the structure of government for the simple reason—indeed it is a principle which the Chinese share—that it is the people of Hong Kong who rule Hong Kong as agents of Her Majesty's Government. Therefore, I do not think that his proposal is one which even they feel is a realistic possibility.

I turn to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we should have a debate on the subject. That is an important matter and one of which I am sure the usual channels will take note.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I am not an international diplomat; so I will put a direct question to which I do not expect an answer. Will the Minister tell us how far we have received assurances from the Chinese Government that some sort of elected representative government will remain after the takeover?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness appreciates that there are exchanges with the Chinese Government on a wide range of matters, including, of course, Hong Kong. That is helpful and beneficial. However, I cannot give an answer to that point, but I can assure the noble Baroness that the consultations we have are extremely fruitful.

Lord MacLehose of Beoch

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It covers an area of great importance to people in Hong Kong. I, for one, shall want to study it carefully. Meanwhile, there is one point upon which I would like clarification. Is it a firm decision as to what will happen up to 1991? Will nothing change between now and then; or, is the arrangement subject to yet more debate and possible amendment?

Lord Glenarthur

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, whose experience in Hong Kong matters is of course well known to everyone, especially to those who live in Hong Kong. I agree that the White Paper merits the close study which I am sure the noble Lord will give it. As regards further study between now and 1991, the answer is that there will be no change on that particular issue. However, through the auspices of the joint liaison group, there will be further consideration of how the process up to 1997 will be implemented.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, I, too, welcome the Statement and wish to study it more closely. However, one aspect worries me a little. I accept the view of our Government and the Hong Kong Government that it is far better to postpone change and have it right, than to introduce something now which is not right. But there will be many people in Hong Kong who will be disappointed that there is a postponement, as the Minister has already said. Can the Minister give the House an assurance that there will not be any further postponements from 1991?

Lord Glenarthur

My Lords, as I said earlier, I accept that there will be those who will feel disappointed because they have a particularly strong view that direct elections ought to be introduced earlier. But certainly the 1984 White Paper did not make a commitment to introduce direct elections in 1988; it merely noted the state of opinion at that time. The 1984 White Paper undertook to review the position in 1987, and that undertaking has been carried out to the full. So the options were left open, including the possibility of direct elections in 1988. I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that a very great deal has happened since 1984; the joint declaration itself was signed, which was a historic event if ever there was one, and the Basic Law to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, referred is being drafted.

It is only natural that this and other factors should have affected people's thinking about direct elections. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord MacLehose, there are means for consultation to take further the whole range of issues involved in the changes which will come about in 1997.

The noble Baroness asked me a specific question earlier and I should perhaps have said that the joint declaration provides that the legislature of the Hong Kong special adminstrative region, when it becomes that, will be constituted by elections. But it is not specific on the mode of those elections. I think that to some extent this answers the point which she raised.