HL Deb 17 January 1990 vol 514 cc680-5

5.35 p.m.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on his visit to Hong Kong. The Statement is as follows.

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement on my visit to Hong Kong from 13th to 16th January.

"I went to show this country's continuing commitment to Hong Kong; to meet a representative cross-section of the community and to discuss the issues of prime importance to Hong Kong in the period before 1997. These are the operation of the nationality package which I proposed to the House on 20th December and the pace and extent of democratisation in Hong Kong. I also discussed the problem of the Vietnamese boat people and visited a refugee camp and a camp at which boat people are screened for refugee status.

"Hong Kong has become the world's eleventh largest trading entity because of the unique combination of British administration and justice and the talent and energy of its people. The immediate sense of fear caused by the events in China last June has lifted but these events did deal a substantial blow to Hong Kong's self-confidence and the exodus of the talent which is needed to keep Hong Kong prosperous has continued. We believe it is vital that these people should stay.

"Everyone to whom I spoke (in the Executive and Legislative Councils, one of the district boards, the business community, public servants and other groups) had hoped that the package which I proposed on 20th December would have made provision for more people. But they welcomed what we had proposed as a measure which would give key people the confidence to remain in Hong Kong. They recognise that it was not an easy step to take, and they are following carefully the discussion in this country. They all hoped that it will be possible for Parliament to give its approval and for the scheme to begin to operate. I assured them that the Government were fully committed to the proposal.

"The second issue which we discussed was the repatriation of Vietnamese boat people. No one in Hong Kong involved in the repatriation takes satisfaction in what had to be done, but the result achieved was necessary. Having seen the camps for myself, I am more than ever convinced that return to Vietnam in carefully controlled conditions is preferable to camp life with no hope of resettlement elsewhere. Hong Kong has paid a heavy price for its principled policy of first asylum. We cannot expect them to receive this year the same number of boat people —over 30,000 —whom they received last year. There is nowhere for these boat people who are not refugees to go. The policy of repatriation is therefore the right one, and I hope that this may soon be endorsed by the international community. I am grateful to my right honourable friend the Member for Aylesbury and the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, for their thorough and expert report on the first 51 who were repatriated before Christmas. I would welcome monitoring by the UNHCR and other agencies for all future returnees.

"No one in Hong Kong seriously disputes the validity of the joint declaration as the basis for Hong Kong's future after 1997. But confidence in the concept of one country, two systems was undermined by the events of last June. Since then, the Chinese Government have reaffirmed their commitment to the joint declaration and I believe we must make it work. An important element in that is the extent and pace of movement to democracy in Hong Kong before and after 1997. This is a subject, as I found, of intense concern and debate in Hong Kong and we are discussing it with the Chinese Government. Those discussions are continuing and I would prefer not to go into detail today. Our goal is to set in place a system, beginning with elections to the Legislative Council in 1991, which will satisfy Hong Kong's aspiration for democracy and which will endure after 1997. I hope, after further discussion, to be able to announce a decision within the next few weeks.

"Hong Kong, as everyone who knows it will agree, is the economic success story of a region which does actually boast several economic miracles. As you look across the border into China you see that the economic success has spread to the neighbouring province of the mainland. China is Hong Kong's largest trading partner and Hong Kong is also one of Britain's biggest markets in the region.

"All that could continue after 1997 —and the plans are dramatic —or it could be lost. The future of 5.7 million people after 1997 depends on three things: first, the talent and energy of Hong Kong's own people, and they are not in doubt; secondly, the attitude of the Chinese Government: there is much more which they need to do to reassure Hong Kong; but dialogue has been re-established and we must do our best to maintain it. Thirdly, Hong Kong's future success depends on Britain, the responsible sovereign power until 1997.

"After last June, this House rightly voiced its support for Hong Kong, and that of course has to mean more than words. The people of Hong Kong are realists. For example, they accept (though reluctantly) that we cannot give passports to all. They look to us over the coming years to take the necessary decisions as the sovereign power and to follow an active and understanding policy towards Hong Kong. I hope I convinced them that we would do so".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

5.41 p.m.

Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos

My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. Since this House is due to debate the current situation in Hong Kong next Wednesday, I should like to confine my response to three brief questions and not to enlarge on the Statement itself. Can the noble Lord indicate what proposals he intends making with regard to extending democracy in Hong Kong? Will he say what assurances, if any, he has received from the Chinese Government with respect to the long-term future of democracy in the territory?

On this side of the House we would also be grateful if the noble Lord could clarify the latest position with regard to the discussions on the Basic Law. Are these now resumed and can he say whether they are proceeding satisfactorily? Can the Minister further say whether the Foreign Secretary had discussions with the Office of the Members of the Legislative and Executive Council (OMELCO) and other organisations in Hong Kong in relation to the Government's proposal to give British passports to 50,000 Hong Kong heads of households?

We are grateful to the right honourable gentleman the Foreign Secretary for his generous tribute to my noble friend Lord Ennals and to Mr. Timothy Raison for their mission and their excellent report. Can the Minister say whether the Government intend to proceed with the repatriation of the Vietnamese boat people? What are the Government's immediate plans on that subject? Can the Minister further say whether there is any evidence that there will be more volunteers, especially in the light of the report compiled by my noble friend and Mr. Raison? As the Minister well knows, there are criticisms that serious flaws exist within the screening process used to assess which boat people qualify as refugees. Can he say what weight the Government give to these allegations? Further, are they making inquiries into them so that we and others may be quite clear as to what is taking place? Lastly, we shall return to these and other matters in the course of the debate next week.

Lord Bonham-Carter

My Lords, I wish to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement of his right honourable friend made in another place concerning Hong Kong and the Vietnamese refugees. I too propose to speak only very briefly on this occasion in the light of the debate that we are having next week on the situation. Then we shall have more time to discuss the subject and I hope that we shall also have more information.

I look forward very much to the answers which the Minister will give to the questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. I wish to add one other point which I do not see referred to in the Statement. There is no reference to a Bill of Rights. What has happened to that? It is an absolutely crucial measure of reassurance for the people of Hong Kong. Can the Minister say whether it is the case, as has been reported, that during conversation in Hong Kong it was indicated that the Government had abandoned the idea of having a Bill of Rights entrenched in the Basic Law? I shall be grateful if the Minister can help me concerning that matter.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Bonham-Carter, for their reception of the Statement. Both noble Lords said that the House will have a greater opportunity to discuss this matter a week today. I shall try to deal briefly with the questions that they have put to me. As regards democracy, my right honourable friend will wish to consider carefully the views expressed to him in Hong Kong. It must be clear that this is a complex issue. We wish to be absolutely sure that the decision we make is in the best long-term interests of Hong Kong.

As the Statement said, we would rather not speak about specific numbers of seats at this point because we are in negotiation with the Chinese on that matter. We can do whatever we like right now, but we wish to produce a solution which is acceptable to the Chinese in so far as it is maintained in 1997 and beyond that time.

On the whole we are satisfied with the draft Basic Law. We have made representations to the Chinese authorities about various parts of it and we shall continue to do so. We have agreed that these representations should be made in private. In order to make our representations effective we must respect that confidentiality. Our aim remains to ensure as far as we can that the Basic Law fully reflects the spirit and letter of the joint declaration and that it meets the aspirations of the Hong Kong people.

Dealing with discussions on nationality to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred, that was one of the main subjects that my right honourable friend discussed with all the people whom he met in Hong Kong including the Legislative and Executive Council. As regards the Vietnamese boat people, I wish to repeat my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my right honourable friend Mr. Raison for their excellent report, which I have read. As the Statement said, my right honourable friend is also extremely grateful to them. We shall have to look into the situation of more returnees, but there will certainly be no more until after the next meeting in Geneva which I believe is scheduled in two or three weeks' time.

We are aware of the Amnesty International report to which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred. We have received a copy and are studying it carefully. We are seeking the views of the Hong Kong Government on a number of specific points arising from the report. We are confident that the screening procedure is fair and thorough and that genuine refugees will not be returned to Vietnam. I believe that the report prepared by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and my right honourable friend Mr. Raison confirmed that no genuine refugees have been returned.

The noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, referred to the Bill of Rights. Work is currently proceeding in Hong Kong on the exact form that it will take. We expect an announcement soon but at this stage I cannot prejudge the progress of that work. The drafting of that Bill is a matter for the Hong Kong Government; the Chinese have not made any representations to us about the matter. If they wish to comment on the draft Bill once it is published for public consultation we shall be willing to listen to their views through the appropriate channels. I hope that that covers the main points raised, but we can go into further detail next week.

Lord Kennet

My Lords, as regards democratisation, I am happy to tell the Government how pleased we are that they appear to be taking the advice that we have been extending to them over the past five years; namely, that it would be both possible and desirable to go further than they originally intended. The noble Lord is obviously right when he says that it is up to us to decide what to do now. During their negotiations in Beijing, will the Government bear in mind that the Chinese Government have really forfeited any right to lay down the law in the light of the events of last June? That is a question of common morality.

In terms of political prudence, is it not the case that if the situation gets worse between now and 1997, the more democracy that the Hong Kong people have, the better they will be able to defend themselves morally and politically against the worst that the Chinese can do, but if the attitude of the Chinese Government improves between now and 1997 they will not mind how much democracy they find in Hong Kong when they take over?

Secondly, on the question of Hong Kong immigration into this country, the Chinese have accused the Government of breaking a memorandum annexed to the basic agreement. I hope that the Government are being more explicit with the Chinese Government about their reasons for saying that we have not broken it than they have been with Parliament and the people of this country. The Government's defence against the Chinese charge has been a little woolly.

Lord Brabazon of Tara

My Lords, I covered the question of democratisation to some extent in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. My right honourable friend will be considering carefully the views expressed to him in Hong Kong.

On the question of nationality and the Chinese reaction to it, I make it quite clear that the package is not aimed against China and will not damage Chinese interests. We believe that our intentions are entirely consistent with the joint declaration and the associated United Kingdom memorandum, which does not preclude the grant of citizenship before 1st July 1997. We remain fully committed to the joint declaration and to its full and faithful implementation. We have explained this to the Chinese authorities and I hope that the Chinese will come to recognise the package as a positive contribution to the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.