Previous Section Home Page

Mr. Julian Amery (Brighton, Pavilion) : Does my right hon. Friend realise that the far-reaching communique that was made soon after the summit is acutely embarrassing to those who have supported CND and unilateralism and to those who have been apologists for Soviet imperialism? When dealing with questions put to her, often by Labour Members, will she continue to practise the Christian virtue of forgiveness?

The Prime Minister : I agree with my right hon. Friend. Sixteen Governments agreed this most far-reaching communique , which sets the strategy for the foreseeable future. Precious few Labour Members would agree anything of it.

Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South) : Is not the Prime Minister's obsession with modernisation a back-door means of fuelling the arms race? As the Prime Minister has been talking about freedom and democracy, perhaps she will explain to the House what freedom and democracy British people have if nuclear arms are used--she has repeated that she is prepared to use them if necessary--to turn our part of the planet into a radioactive cinder heap?

The Prime Minister : Unless one is prepared to use weapons, they are not, and never could be, a deterrent. I say again that 16 nations across Europe and the other side of the Atlantic--the United States, Canada and the

Column 29

nations of Europe belonging to NATO going way beyond the European Community--signed the treaty, including other Socialist Governments. The Labour party could not sign the document and therefore could not accept the shield and defence of NATO. What a pity Labour Members are such a puny lot.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury) : Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the most critical reasons for our retention of tactical nuclear weapons is the overwhelming number of chemical weapons that the Soviet Union possesses--approximately one quarter of its forward stocks of ammunition? Does she further agree that those weapons give the Soviet conventional forces an overwhelming advantage, which is further enhanced by their numerical superiority?

The Prime Minister : I agree that the Soviets have colossal superiority in chemical weapons, a point that is dealt with effectively in this year's defence White Paper. In 1991 the older chemical weapons that the United States has stationed in the Federal Republic will be withdrawn and then we shall be without any chemical weapons unless modernised ones are substituted and stationed. In that case, our only response to the use of chemical weapons would be nuclear, and that is an additional reason for keeping nuclear weapons.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Why is it so difficult for the right hon. Lady to admit that a major change has taken place in recent times in the special relationship between America and the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister : The alliance between the United States and Canada and the European partners of NATO is as firm as ever it was, and it is that which makes our defence sure. The major change that has taken place has been in the approach, opinions and views of the Soviet Union, a change that would never have come about but for the firmness of people who share our views on defence.

Column 30


4.10 pm

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe) : With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to makea statement about events in China in recent weeks.

During the last few days, units of the Chinese army have been engaged in the violent suppression of peaceful and popular demonstrations in the streets of Peking. The indiscriminate and unprovoked use of military force has caused the death or injury of thousands of students and other innocent civilians.

I am sure that all Members of the House will share the worldwide sense of horror and join in the international condemnation of the slaughter of innocent people.

I summoned the Chinese charge d'affaires yesterday. I told him that the British Government and people were united in condemning the merciless treatment of peaceful demonstrators, and deeply deplored the use of force to suppress the democratic aspirations of the Chinese people. I told him that the British Government looked to the Chinese authorities to fulfil their obligations to Hong Kong in the joint declaration of 1984. I reminded him of the responsibilities of the Chinese Government to ensure the safety of British citizens and Hong Kong residents.

I expressed concern at the maltreatment of British journalists, particularly Michael Fathers of The Independent and Johnathan Mirsky of The Observer. We have since seen disturbing reports of the ill-treatment of Kate Adie of the BBC.

Our ambassador in Peking and his staff have been working round the clock to ensure the safety of British citizens and Hong Kong residents in Peking and, as far as possible, in other parts of China. The embassy has advised against travel to any part of China. It has also advised those who are concerned about their safety and have no pressing need to remain in China to leave immediately.

Since the cultural revolution there has been a substantial improvement in relations between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China as the Chinese Government have sought to broaden their contacts with the international community and to introduce economic and other reforms. Friends of China in this House and around the world must share the hope that sane and balanced government will be swiftly and securely restored in Peking. In present circumstances, however, there can be no question of continuing normal business with the Chinese authorities.

Her Majesty's Government have therefore decided on the following action.

All scheduled ministerial exchanges between Britain and China have been suspended. The visit of the Chinese Minister of Justice, who was due to arrive here tomorrow, has been cancelled. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has also cancelled his forthcoming visit to China.

The proposed visit of their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to China in November clearly cannot take place so long as those responsible for the atrocities over the past weekend remain in control of the Chinese Government.

All high-level military contacts with China have been suspended. All arms sales to China have been banned.

Column 31

At the same time, the Government are examining how we can respond to any requests for humanitarian assistance from non-governmental organisations.

The whole House will share the Government's special concern about the implications for Hong Kong of what has been happening in Peking. The Government understand and share the grave concern felt by the people of Hong Kong. We have all been deeply impressed by the strength and restraint of their response to what has happened. Everything that has been accomplished in Hong Kong has been achieved in the unique context of the geography and history of the territory and by the talent and enterprise of its people. All of that underlines the extent to which the future prosperity of Hong Kong must depend on a successful and secure partnership with the Government and people of China. That objective is enshrined in the commitments made by the British Government and the Government of China under the joint declaration. Those commitments were reaffirmed by the charge d'affaires when he called on me yesterday.

But it is self-evident that if we are to have confidence in the commitment of the Chinese Government to their obligations, there must be a stable and responsible Government in Peking. The British Government will stand by their obligations under the joint declaration. The Government and the House look to the Government of the People's Republic of China to live up to that international commitment as well.

The events in Peking must affect the prospects and procedure for implementation of the joint declaration. Consultations about the second draft of the Basic Law for Hong Kong have been suspended. It is also difficult to see how our own contacts with the Chinese Government about the future of Hong Kong can continue in present circumstances.

Meanwhile, I assure the House that we shall be conducting a thorough examination of the programme for advancing and consolidating effective democracy in Hong Kong. We are considering urgently what further steps can be taken to enshrine and protect Hong Kong's freedoms and way of life after 1997.

All of us in this House are acutely conscious of the wish of the people of Hong Kong to secure some form of assurance for themselves and their families. I know that this has been one of the issues studied by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Some commentators have recommended that a right of abode in this country should be given to the 3 million people in Hong Kong who hold British nationality. We share the desire of the House to do everything we can to enhance the security of the people of Hong Kong. On that basis, the Government are looking urgently and

sympathetically at the scope for flexibility. But the House will appreciate the reason why we could not easily contemplate a massive new immigration commitment which could--and the possibility cannot be disregarded--more than double the ethnic minority population of the United Kingdom.

Our overriding aim must be to do everything possible to secure the continuation of those conditions in Hong Kong that have led to its outstanding success over the last

Column 32

century. I hope the House will send a message to the people of Hong Kong reaffirming our commitment to their secure, stable and prosperous future.

The Chinese people are seeking from their Communist leadership rights and liberties which are taken for granted in the free world. The slaughter in Peking is a tragic setback to the campaign for democracy, but I hope this House will send a united message. China cannot ignore the lessons which are being learned elsewhere in the world. Economic prosperity and personal liberty go hand in hand. People will not for ever tolerate government by repression.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Gorton) : My hon. Friends and I condemn outright and in the strongest terms the abominable massacres which have been perpetrated in Beijing. Those of us who have great feelings of friendship for China and have watched its political and economic progress with hope and satisfaction are particularly appalled at this regression to barbarity. It is impossible for us to return to those attitudes so long as this bloodstained repression continues and until it is clear that those in control of China repudiate it.

The scenes of carnage on our television screens have horrified us all. I pay tribute to the courageous journalists who have reported the events, and in particular to the remarkable Kate Adie of the BBC who has risked her life to get the news to Britain.

We admire the swift and positive action taken by President Bush to demonstrate the anger of the United States.

We support the action which Her Majesty's Government have taken and which the Foreign Secretary has just announced. I wish, though, that as well as suspending arms sales--and of course we support that suspension--he would examine the possibility of cancelling all other exports to China, including exports of vehicles which could be used for repression of the civilian population.

I also ask whether the Foreign Secretary will consult the other Governments of the European Community to ensure that firm and concerted action is taken by the whole Community. I should be grateful if he could tell the House what action the United Kingdom Government are considering taking in the United Nations on this matter.

We have been told--and of course we welcome it--about the action which the Government are taking, so far as they can, to protect and assist British citizens at present in Beijing and any other areas that may be affected. Will our embassy also be accepting its responsibility for the safety of Hong Kong citizens--journalists, business people and others--who may be caught up in these disturbances?

It is essential for the Government to take whatever action is open to them to provide reassurance for the people of Hong Kong. In eight years their colony is due to be incorporated into China, but only if the safety, welfare and governance of Hong Kong remain the sole responsibility of this United Kingdom House of Commons.

As the Foreign Secretary knows, the Opposition recommended that elections to the Hong Kong Legislative Council should take place last year. That was not done. We now ask the Foreign Secretary urgently to consider the possibility of bringing forward the elections scheduled for 1991 if possible to this year, but certainly to no later than

Column 33

next year, and that a higher proportion of the Legislative Council be directly elected. This would be a signal to the people of Hong Kong of our concern for their assured democratic future and to the Government of China that Britain is determined that the terms of the joint declaration be adhered to by them as well as by the United Kingdom.

I suggest to the Foreign Secretary that as soon as possible he should himself go to Hong Kong to discuss the possibility of advancing the election date, as well as to explain to the people and representatives of Hong Kong what he means in his statement today by talking about flexibility regarding the right of abode in this country. I also suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should consider travelling as soon as practicable to Beijing to obtain from the Chinese Government the firmest possible assurances that the joint declaration will be adhered to-- [Interruption.] I would have thought that that would gain assent from the overwhelming majority in the House.

These are times of turmoil and I do not for a moment suggest that the Government should pretend to be able to do more than they can do. At the same time, whatever can be done must be done, for the sake of the people of Hong Kong and to make it clear to the Government of China that, while China should be welcomed into the wider world community as a great and growing power, that welcome must be conditional upon the Government of China conducting themselves in accordance with the standards of civilisation that they have been trampling on in recent days.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the generally supportive tone of everything that he has had to say because it is clear that on all these matters there is very widespread agreement in the House.

I begin by echoing his tribute to the journalists of the BBC, Independent Television and the newspapers, and indeed to those of other countries. One of the most remarkable features of what has been happening in the last few weeks has been the continued opportunity for the rest of the world to see what has been going on in Peking, and also for Peking to know what has been going on in the rest of China, as a result of the free transmissions of radio from the rest of the world. The openness which has been at least a part of what has taken place in China has played a crucial part in events thus far. The second question which the right hon. Gentleman raised was about the possibility of extending a prohibition to other exports to China, with particular reference to vehicles. Obviously all such questions must remain under consideration. Our basic principle is to subscribe to the position as outlined by President Bush, that it is important to maintain diplomatic, commercial and other human contacts, so far as is safe and possible, with the people and Government of China in order to try and retain the opportunity for recreating their previous open disposition.

European Community co-operation is under urgent consideration among the 12 countries and the Political Committee is meeting today. Already, the meeting due to take place between the Commission and a Chinese ministerial mission yesterday has been cancelled. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen that the Secretary-General of the United Nations has expressed his own personal and deep concern about what has happened and has called for the restoration of restraint and moderation in Beijing. However, it is also plain that there

Column 34

is particular difficulty in pursuing in that organisation questions about human rights affecting one of the permanent members of the Security Council.

I made it plain in my statement that the British embassy has been putting great efforts into protecting and establishing contact with all British nationals and Hong Kong people in Beijing and elsewhere in China, without differentiation.

The right hon. Gentleman raised the matter of representative government in Hong Kong. It is important to recognise that the changes that we have sought to introduce so far in that respect have been those that command the widest possible support in the territory.

Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley) : Matters have changed since then.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I will come on to that. It is also equally clear that in the light of recent events, opinion in Hong Kong has been evolving- - [Interruption.] Wait for it. Even before the events of last weekend, the Executive and Legislative Councils called unanimously for full democracy by 2003-- [Interruption.] That is what they called for. It is right that we should consider, in light of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and debates in this House, how we should respond to those views. I welcome the importance attached by the right hon. Gentleman to the joint declaration. That declaration embodies the substantial principles on which the future of Hong Kong should be built. The crucial point is to secure compliance with that declaration, translated into the Basic Law, as fully and effectively as possible by a responsible Government in Beijing.

I recognise that there is wisdom in trying to find an opportunity to establish contact with ministerial opposite numbers in Beijing as soon as it makes sense to do that. It is equally clear that it would not make sense to try to do so in the present circumstances. The suggestion of a visit to Hong Kong is sensible and I will discuss it with the Governor of Hong Kong in London later this week.

Mr. David Howell (Guildford) : After the atrocities and butchery in Peking at the weekend--which my right hon. and learned Friend has rightly condemned, as the world condemns them, in the strongest terms that our language allows--will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure, if and when discussions resume in the joint liaison group about implementing the 1984 treaty, that we seek to make it absolutely clear to the Beijing regime and its officials that if they want to see a stable and prosperous Hong Kong, as they say they do, they must accept and support every measure that we deem necessary to bring that about and to maintain confidence in Hong Kong? Will he also remind the Beijing regime, when discussions begin again, that its obligations to maintain the stability, growth and prosperity of Hong Kong and its people exist not only now and up to 1997, but for 50 years thereafter and in perpetuity?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the measured wisdom and authority of his remarks. I know that he and his colleagues on the Select Committee have been paying the closest attention to these matters in the important work that they have been doing. It is an important feature of the joint declaration that the Government of the People's Republic of China recognise,

Column 35

without qualification, the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government for the administration of Hong Kong until 1997, which is a responsibility that we shall continue to discharge to the fullest of our ability. It is also important for my right hon. Friend to remind the House and, through the House, the Government of the People's Republic of China of their responsibilities in the years that extend beyond 1997, under the joint declaration for a full span of 50 years, but in practice and aspiration way beyond that into the future.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown (Yeovil) : It is probably right, after our initial responses, to wait a few days to see how things develop in China. If democracy were to triumph in what is clearly a developing power struggle, everything would be well, but I am sure that the Foreign Secretary is right to begin to think ahead, in case the worst should happen. Is it not the case that, under the joint declaration, the army that we have seen butchering its fellow citizens on the streets of Peking will be on the streets of Hong Kong in eight years' time? Is it surprising, therefore, that the last vestige of faith that many in Hong Kong had in the joint declaration, has been severely damaged and will have to be patiently rebuilt?

Let me welcome two aspects of the Foreign Secretary's statement. He said that negotiations taking place under the joint declaration will be suspended. Will he use the interim to try to build up international support for the joint declaration, perhaps through the medium of the United Nations? I welcome, too, the Foreign Secretary's flexible attitude to the application of the British Nationality Act. Does he realise that many will be watching closely to see how that develops?

I ask the Foreign Secretary to consider three further steps. First, will he set as the target that he has identified for the development of democracy in Hong Kong the establishment by 1991 of a Legislative Council at least half of whose members have been directly elected? [Hon. Members :-- "Why half?"] At least half, as a first step, by 1991.

Secondly, when the excellent David Wilson's term as Governor of Hong Kong is up, will the Foreign Secretary consider providing a Hong Kong belonger to take his place--perhaps one elected from the Legislative Council?

Thirdly, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that all free western democracies have a real national interest in ensuring that democracy survives in Hong Kong? Does he agree that there may be a case for the Government considering a conference of the free western democracies to see whether an agreement could be reached whereby they could provide a last -resort sanctuary for the people of Hong Kong, as the ultimate bulwark for the survival of democracy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am impressed by the extent to which the right hon. Gentleman has learnt the case for patience. It is certainly right that we should await developments in Peking, because no one can yet foresee what will happen there, and much depends upon it. The right hon. Gentleman is also right--I welcome his remarks--to underline the importance of the joint declaration and of securing the effective commitment of the Chinese Government to that declaration.

Column 36

The right hon. Gentleman drew attention in particular to the need to mobilise international support for the joint declaration. It was for that reason that the declaration was drawn up in the form of an international agreement and registered by both nations simultaneously at the United Nations. For that reason, incidentally, when I presided over the 40th anniversary meeting of the Security Council--with the Chinese Foreign Minister--I drew attention to the importance of the agreement that had been arrived at between us. The then Chinese Foreign Minister endorsed the agreement in the presence of that body. The highest solemnity needs to be attached to that if the Chinese Government are to be reminded of the importance that we attach to the declaration.

The right hon. Gentleman made some suggestions. On the composition of the Legislative Council, I have already made it plain that options and opinions are evolving in Hong Kong as a result of recent events. As soon as a clear view emerges, we shall be considering the best and most effective way to give effect to that. That is one of the matters that I shall wish to discuss when I am able to visit Hong Kong. It is much too early to consider the replacement of the present Governor of Hong Kong, but the whole House will welcome the tribute that the right hon. Gentleman paid to the quality of Sir David Wilson, who has been bearing a heavy burden in recent weeks.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the prospect of an international conference on the refuge of last resort. I do not think that that is the right way of handling the matter. It is most important to concentrate not only on aspects of British nationality law but on the best way of restoring confidence in the prospects for Hong Kong.

Sir Peter Blaker (Blackpool, South) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that he deserves the support of the whole House for his excellent statement and for the line that the Government have been taking throughout on China and Hong Kong? Will he transmit to the people of Hong Kong the assurance that the House continues to remain deeply interested in their welfare and that they have our continued support?

My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the increased political awareness of the people of Hong Kong in the past few weeks and to the unanimous recommendation of the Executive and Legislative Councils calling for more rapid progress towards direct elections. Is not that a significant resolution? Does it not represent the first statement that gives the point of view of Hong Kong as a whole about the speed of progress towards direct elections--something for which the Basic Law drafting committee has been calling?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's support for my statement. I am sure that the people of Hong Kong will take note of the very widespread support throughout the House for the opinions that I have tried to express. There is a close and continuing interest in this Parliament's discussion of the affairs of Hong Kong, which is a natural reflection of the link between that country and the prospects of democratic government.

I acknowledge the importance of my right hon. Friend's last point. The resolution unanimously arrived at by the Executive and Legislative Councils before the events of last weekend is important and we should take account of it. We should do so on the same basis that we have

Column 37

followed to date, which is to try to identify the basis that commands the widest possible support in the territory and then to commend that to the draftsmen of the Basic Law.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East) : As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, for more than 20 years I have been a proponent of good relations with China and the need to understand political developments in that enormously important country. Will he believe me this afternoon if I say that I share the universal revulsion that has been expressed at the conduct of the geriatric Chinese Government during the last few days? Does he accept that I strongly support the actions that he has adumbrated this afternoon? However, will he reconsider the statement that both he and the Prime Minister have made, that were there to be any lessening of the restraints on British nationals coming to this country from Hong Kong, a flood of 3.5 million people would be battering at the gates of Dover? Would it not be more honest to admit that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman could get his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to reconsider the issue, it would be a matter of only 10,000 or 15,000 people a year, for six years, from the very limited categories for which, as he knows well, the Hong Kong Commission has been arguing the case for reconsideration? Will he discuss that specific matter with the Home Secretary?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I acknowledge the force of the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. All who have watched with growing interest and enthusiasm the emergence of a new-style China during the past 10 years will share the hon. Gentleman's sense of deep grief at what has happened during recent weeks. It is important to note that there are still many people inside China and representing her throughout the rest of the world who also share that sense of grief. It is for that reason that we hope that common sense will be restored to authority in Peking before too long.

The hon. Gentleman rightly drew a distinction between the implied threat of a mass movement of people, which would happen if we tried to deal at once with 3.25 million people, and the alternative, to which I drew attention, of flexibility in the management of individual cases. That matter is certainly a topic for discussion between myself and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I do not ignore its importance.

Mr. Robert Adley (Christchurch) : I share the disgust of the House and the whole of the free world for the unspeakable events in China. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, in reality, our ability to influence what we would all like to happen--that is, the emergence of what he described as a sane and balanced Government in Beijing--is infinitesimal? Would it not, therefore, be wise to avoid giving the present blood-stained leaders any opportunity to continue holding power by playing the xenophobia card?

As regards Hong Kong, will my right hon. and learned Friend repeat what our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister so clearly said, that 1997 is not a date produced out of thin air but the date when our lease ends? The only alternative to an agreement with China is no agreement, an eventuality that would make political boat people out of the whole population of Hong Kong.

Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend is right to remind the House-- although it needs no reminding--of the

Column 38

inescapable facts of geography and history to which I referred in my statement. One such fact is the expiry of the lease in 1997. It is on that basis that we have secured the support of the House for the achievements of the joint declaration, to which the House attaches importance. My hon. Friend is also right to warn against xenophobia in any aspect of managing a problem of such complexity. I think that he would go too far if he were to believe that the capacity of people outside China to influence the future there should be described as infinitesimal. Of course, the prospect of having influence upon a mass population of 1.25 billion and on the people who seek to govern that country is in one sense very small. Yet, if one thinks of the huge impact of the opinion of the rest of the world as a result of the openness that has come about in recent years, if one thinks of the incredible reality that the leader of the Soviet Union was there only a few weeks ago, being hailed as a champion of democracy, and if one thinks of the changes that have been able to have an impact on that society, my hon. Friend should not despair too much of the ability of the rest of us to make some impact on prospects for the people of China.

Dr. Jeremy Bray (Motherwell, South) : Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the great majority of people in China, as they learn the facts, must share the horror of the rest of the world about the events in Beijing and the massacre of citizens and students last Sunday? In those changed circumstances, does the Foreign Secretary agree that the speedy introduction of direct elections for the majority of the members of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong would not only give the people of Hong Kong the best chance of securing their own security but would also be a demonstration to the people of China that it is possible speedily, responsibly and with restraint to introduce democracy?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I think that the hon. Gentleman has rightly put his finger on one of the most important new factors in the scene, a factor that has already affected the evolution of opinion in Hong Kong, the extent to which the shape of representative institutions in Hong Kong can serve not only as a bulwark for their own freedom but as an example to the Chinese people. It is with that in mind that we shall take account as urgently as would make sense of the evolution of new thinking on the topic within Hong Kong itself.

Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that I regard what he has just said as of particular significance? The question of confidence for the future of the people of Hong Kong is a delicate matter upon which the future, not only of Hong Kong but of many of our own interests and those of China itself, hangs. Will my right hon. and learned Friend therefore take on board the strong feeling that many of us heard over the weekend from all sections of Hong Kong society urging him onwards with the firm commitment, that I believe he is making, to review again the process of democracy so that when the time comes we can really test in the 50-year period the one-country, two-system claim?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend is more than entitled to remind me of the importance of the opinion and aspirations of the people of Hong Kong. Throughout all the months and years that I have been concerned with the question I have tried as far as possible to display sensitivity

Column 39

to their feelings. During the early and difficult months of negotiation I went to the territory to try to explain to the people and to their representatives how the matter was proceeding. Perhaps no one recognises more than I do the importance of continuing to strengthen that bond of trust between the people and those who represent them, however indirectly, in this Parliament.

Dr. John Marek (Wrexham) : Does the Foreign Secretary accept that it was a welcome change to hear him say that he would consult the people of Hong Kong to bring forward democracy as quickly as possible? Will he also accept that the answer to the question whether democracy is wanted in Hong Kong was given not by Legco or by any sampling of opinion but by the people of Hong Kong in the last week, and that there is abundant evidence that the people want democracy to the same extent as the Foreign Secretary of any other hon. Member wants it for the United Kingdom? Will he therefore do his best to make sure that the consultations are as quick and as sharp as possible and that an announcement is made within the next few weeks to reassure the people of Hong Kong on this important matter?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I do not accept the opening remarks of the hon. Gentleman when he said that it is a welcome change that we have been engaging in consultation with the people of Hong Kong. Throughout we have sought to consult their opinions directly and through their representatives as carefully as possible.

On the second point, the hon. Gentleman is entitled to draw attention to the opinions expressed not only by the members of Legco and the Executive Council but by the people of Hong Kong more directly. He would not be prudent to urge us to jump to a single conclusion on the basis of that, however understandable it may be. We must consider carefully with those who have been governing Hong Kong in recent weeks and months as well as with the people of Hong Kong the right way of responding to the undoubted new needs that exist.

Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend share my recollection that in the lifetime of the People's Republic of China there have been massive and often violent upheavals every five years, such as the great leap forward, the back to the land campaign and the cultural revolution, leading to loss of confidence in Hong Kong, flight and a search for foreign passports? During that period the Chinese Government, of whatever complexion, still maintained their international agreements. Will my right hon. and learned Friend remind those who are seeking to use the present troubles to propagate their own ideas, whether on passports to this country or on elections in Hong Kong, of that fact and also point out to them that any such proposals must be considered against the overriding need to preserve the peace and prosperity of Hong Kong?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend, with his close experience of the territory, reminds the House of some important points. Of course, we have to consider all those matters in the light of our experience of the long history of relations between China and the outside world. It is certainly right to remind the House of the frequency with which the Government of China, even in recent

Column 40

circumstances, have emphasised their intention to continue to respect their international agreements. That was one point specifically made to me by the charge in the exchange of opinion last night. It is important not only to remind the House but for us to remind the Government of the People's Republic of China of their repeated commitment to international obligations.

Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) : Despite the problems and the inescapable facts of geography, is it conceivable that there could be effective implementation of agreements with the present leadership, with its bloodstained hands that have been responsible for the death of so many thousands of its own citizens?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : Plainly, so long as the leadership responsible for the events of the last few days, which the whole House has been mourning and condemning, remains in authority the matter will be fraught with a great deal of difficulty. That is why I responded to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) by emphasising the need for us to see how events unfold. In the long history of China one hopes that the events of the last few weeks may be regarded as only part of a chapter and that a new chapter will begin sooner rather than later.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris (Leominster) : While I in no way advocate the admission of 3.25 million people to this country, may I ask whether my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the evidence to the Select Committee of Lord MacLehose? Dealing with the difficult matter of categories, he said that for many years Governments in this country had used considerable ingenuity to keep people out of the United Kingdom and pointed out that it was perhaps time for them to use a little of that ingenuity to let a few in. How does my right hon. and learned Friend react to that, and how flexible is flexible?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : I am certainly aware of that observation by the noble Lord MacLehose in his evidence to the Select Committee. Of course, it was only part of a more substantial body of evidence. I have drawn attention to the need to recognise the case for flexibility. I think that I would be unwise to be cross-examined by my hon. and learned Friend any further on that at this time.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow) : Does the Foreign Secretary accept the analysis that some old men in Peking have, unforgivably, brought in the Manchurian army, some of whose grandfathers were probably the worst and most hated persecutors of the Chinese at the time of the Japanese war? In such circumstances are we wise to say that we should break off all contacts, because there are five or six different Chinas? In particular, what advice would the Foreign Secretary give to the city of Edinburgh with its contacts with Xian where the people probably disapprove, just as much as the House does, of what has happened in Peking?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : The hon. Gentleman has committed himself to some unusually wise observations. He was certainly right to draw attention--as I have tried to do--to the huge diversity of opinion within China, which is why so many of us have expressed the hope with great fervour, although not yet with a great deal of confidence, that the sane, responsible China will prevail. That is why he was right to point out the need to maintain contact and relations of a personal, political and cultural

Column 41

kind with the rest of China. It is in that way that we shall keep the spirit of democracy and the hope for the future alive in that great people.

Sir Philip Goodhart (Beckenham) : If the violence and the repression of democratic dissidents continue, is it not plain that another flood of refugees will be heading towards Hong Kong? Are we making any contingency plans to help the colony to deal with that potential flood of asylum seekers?

Sir Geoffrey Howe : My hon. Friend has drawn attention to a hazard that may develop. He will appreciate, of course, the extent to which Hong Kong is already facing very real problems from the number of boat people who for various reasons still arrive there. All I can say at this stage is that any question of refugee status for any individual would have to be considered separately and when it arose.

Mr. Jack Thompson (Wansbeck) : I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that I, along with four other hon. Members, have recently returned from China and Hong Kong. We were in Beijing during the beginnings of the student demonstrations about three weeks ago. I find it, therefore, heartrending to see on television the very same streets that I walked upon now covered with dead bodies, blood and wrecked vehicles.

The discussions that we had with the students in the square at that time clearly indicated that all that the students wanted to do was to talk to the Government. The end result of the Chinese Government not talking to the students or their representatives has been confrontation, chaos, conflict and death. Is not the lesson to be learnt that, when a Government refuse to talk to their people, the end result will be what we have seen on television during the past few days?

In the very brief time we spent in Hong Kong, we discovered that what the people of Hong Kong--I emphasise the people of Hong Kong--clearly desire from the British Government is a very early change over to representative government in Hong Kong. If it were possible for the Government to take that wish into account and to bring the elections forward, that would restore some of the confidence in the people of Hong Kong, which has been greatly shattered in the past few days.

Next Section

  Home Page