§ Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date the United Kingdom ceased to transmit information on Hong Kong under Article 73(e) of the UN Charter; and for what reason this obligation under the Charter was disregarded.
687W
§ Mr. LuardThe United Kingdom ceased to transmit information on Hong Kong to the Secretary General of the United Nations under Article 73(e) following the General Assembly's approval, in Resolution 2908 (XXVII) of 2nd November 1972 of a recommendation by the Special Committee on the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples that Hong Kong should be removed from the list of territories to which that declaration applies. The United Kingdom Permanent Representative to the United Nations explained in a letter of 14th December 1972 to the United Nations Secretary General that, in view of the General Assembly's approval of the Special Committee's recommendation, Her Majesty's Government had decided that no useful purpose would be served by continuing to transmit information on Hong Kong.
§ Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish in the Official Report the substance of the letter dated 8th March 1972 (UN document A/AC 109/396) submitted to the UN Special Committee of 24 by Huang Hua, Permanent Representative of the People's Republic of China to the UN concerning the international status of Hong Kong; and if he will take steps to establish the current position of the People's Republic of China.
§ Mr. LuardThe following is the full text of the letter of 8th March 1972 from the Permanent Representative of China to the United Nations to the Chairman of the Special Committee
In connexion with the questions of Hong Kong and Macau, I have the honour to state the following:As is known to all, the questions of Hong Kong and Macau belong to the category of questions resulting from the series of unequal treaties left over by history, treaties which the imperialists imposed on China. Hong Kong and Macau are part of Chinese territory occupied by the British and Portuguese authorities. The settlement of the questions of Hong Kong and Macau is entirely within China's sovereign right and does not at all fall under the ordinary category of "Colonial Territories". Consequently, they should not be included in the list of Colonial Territories covered by the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. With regard to the questions of Hong 688W Kong and Macau, the Chinese Government has consistently held that they should be settled in an appropriate way when conditions are ripe. The United Nations has no right to discuss these questions. For the above reasons, the Chinese delegation is opposed to including Hong Kong and Macau in the list of Colonial Territories covered by the Declaration and requests that the erroneous wording that Hong Kong and Macau fall under the category of so-called "Colonial Territories" be immediately removed from the documents of the Special Committee and all other United Nations documents.(Signed Huang Hua, Permanent Representative of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations.The Government of the People's Republic of China have given no indication that their position concerning the status of Hong Kong has changed since the letter in question was written.
§ Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the guarantees offered by the Hong Kong Government in respect of contracts or loans for the Hong Kong Mass Transit Scheme contain provisions that they should be enforceable in courts in the United Kingdom should any default occur.
§ Mr. LuardNo contract connected with the construction of the Mass Transit Railway has been guaranteed by the Hong Kong Government. Guarantees given by the Hong Kong Government in respect of other loan facilities for the Mass Transit Railway Corporation do not involve a submission to the jurisdiction of the courts in the United Kingdom, except in one instance: in respect of a Euro-dollar loan facility guaranteed by the Hong Kong Government. In this instance, the Hong Kong Government submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts in the United Kingdom in respect of enforcement of the guarantee, which is also enforceable in Hong Kong. I understand that under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 the English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain suits against the Crown where the alleged liability of the Crown arises otherwise than in right of the Government of the United Kingdom. The question whether in the light of this Act the Crown in right of the Government of Hong Kong could submit to the jurisdiction of the English courts is a difficult one which has not been judicially decided.