HONG KONG: GOVERNOR'S PROPOSALS (Hansard, 14 December 1992)

§ Baroness Chalker of Wallasey

The Government are quite certain that the Governor's proposals do not contravene either the Sino-British Declaration of 1984 or the Basic Law. Constant repetition in some quarters that they do contravene them does not alter the facts.

A steady increase in democracy in Hong Kong was envisaged in the Joint Declaration. Paragraph 49 of 18WA the Joint Declaration says "the legislature of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be constituted by elections". Given that the Legislative Council in 1984 (when the Joint Declaration was signed) was composed entirely of appointed members, this shows that the British and Chinese governments were agreed that the political system in Hong Kong should evolve from the all-appointed Legislative Council in 1984 to one that was "constituted by elections" by the time that the Special Administrative Region came into being in 1997. The Governor's proposals fit squarely into that process of evolution.

Nor do his proposals contravene the Basic Law. The Decision of the National People's Congress on the Formation of the First Government and the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, para 6, adopted on the same day as the Basic Law, with which it is linked, stipulates that the First Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1997 shall he composed of 60 members: 20 returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 10 returned by an Election Committee, and 30 returned by functional constituencies. The Governor's proposals fully conform with these arrangements.

By no reasonable standard could his proposals he considered "drastic". He has proposed extending the franchise of functional constituencies, while retaining their essential occupational characteristic. But functional constituency representatives would still be elected by economic category to represent people at their workplace. That is the essence of the functional constituency system. The Basic Law contains no definition of a functional constituency.

The other proposal which the Chinese have claimed has breached earlier agreements concerns the composition of the Election Committee. The facts are as follows. The Basic Law (Annex 1, para 2) lays down the composition for an Election Committee. But it also indicates (Annex 2, para 2) that this will not apply in the case of the first Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Basic Law does not therefore specify any composition for the Election Committee to return members in 1995 to what would then become the first Legislative Council of the Special Administrative Region. The exchanges we had with the Chinese on this subject in 1990 were inconclusive. The Governor therefore had to make proposals for the composition of this Election Committee. The proposals he has made are fully consistent with the five principles we proposed to the Chinese during the 1990 exchanges. They do not contravene the Basic Law, because the Basic Law is silent on this point. Moreover, it is clear that the Chinese themselves did not regard this issue as settled, since earlier this year they were discussing with visitors from Hong Kong various possible models for the Election Committee's composition.

On the more general point of the importance of our working in co-operation with China over Hong Kong, both the Government and Mr. Patten have said on many occasions that this is what they seek. On his 19WA arrival in Hong Kong the Governor described this as perhaps "the most vital and challenging" of the tasks facing him and went on to say "good co-operation with China is my sincere aim and my profound wish".

It is not the case, as some argue, that the Chinese were not consulted at all over the content of the Governor's October address to the Legislative Council. The Chinese Foreign Minister was fully briefed by Mr. Hurd two weeks beforehand, and at the same time a personal message from the Governor going over the same ground was given to officials in Peking. It was made very clear that these were possible, not firm decisions, and that we wanted to discuss them with the Chinese Government. This was not a subject it would have been politically possible for the Governor to discuss in secret with China before revealing any part of this thinking to the people of Hong Kong. Apart from any other consideration, that would have fuelled the already high level of speculation in Hong Kong and created a climate of great uncertainty and instability.

The British Government, and everyone who has Hong Kong's best interests at heart, hope that we will soon be able to resume a calm and constructive dialogue with China.