---

Column 402

Riddick, Graham

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Rost, Peter

Rowe, Andrew

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Ryder, Richard

Sackville, Hon Tom

Sainsbury, Hon Tim

Sayeed, Jonathan

Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shelton, Sir William

Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Squire, Robin

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)

Stradling Thomas, Sir John

Sumberg, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thornton, Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trippier, David

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Waddington, Rt Hon David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Waller, Gary

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Warren, Kenneth

Watts, John

Whitney, Ray

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Wolfson, Mark

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Younger, Rt Hon George

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Tony Durant and

Mr. David Lightbown.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 9

Universal Franchise

The Secretary of State shall not register any British citizens under this Act until such time as the membership of the Hong Kong Legislative Council is elected by universal franchise of all Hong Kong citizens over the age of 18 years.'.-- [Mr. Foulkes.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Madam Deputy Speaker : With this it will be convenient to consider amendment No. 50, in clause 5, page 3, line 19, at end insert-- (4A) The Secretary of State shall not make such an order until after an election has taken place in Hong Kong for the Legislative Council in which over 50 per cent. of the members are directly elected, by adult universal suffrage.".

Mr. Foulkes : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is completly different from the other measures, which were intended to try to bring some much-needed improvements to a bad scheme in a bad Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) amply demonstrated earlier. The new clause is a device to initiate a debate on democracy in Hong Kong. It serves to reaffirm our view that the Government are approaching the matter of confidence, stability and prosperity in Hong Kong in entirely the wrong way.

We do not accept that giving a bolt hole to an elite group in any way resolves the fundamental problem of confidence, which affects all the people of Hong Kong, whether they are British dependent territory passport holders or whether they are covered by the scheme. The Government should approach the matter in an entirely different way.

---

Column 403

The correct approach is to deal with the matter as a foreign policy issue, as a diplomatic issue, and not one of nationality or of immigration. A full, vibrant and active democratic system in Hong Kong is one of the three essential elements to our approach. I shall return to that point in a moment, because it is the substance of our new clause.

We should also work for a reaffirmation by China of its belief in one country, two systems. We and the Chinese should remember that that means communism and democracy--not just communism and capitalism. Democracy is an essential part of the other system that will continue in Hong Kong as part of the one country, two systems process. The Government of China must be encouraged to indicate by their words and, more important, by their deeds over the next few years that it remains in their interests for Hong Kong to be in much the same form as it is now--a gateway to the western world. That must be the case, whatever the complexion of the Government of China.

Recent signs of internal conflicts among the octogenarian leadership in Peking increase the prospects of changes between now and 1997, almost any outcome of which is likely to be helpful to Hong Kong. However, we recognise that, should that not be the case, we must have a fallback position. Should a crisis develop in Hong Kong, there will be an international responsibility to find a haven for Hong Kong citizens in countries that have traditionally received immigrants from the territory. Britain, however, must take the lead in ensuring the effectiveness of such a safety net provision. At a time when democracy has replaced the tyranny of dictatorship in most Latin American countries, and when universally in this House we greatly welcome democracy replacing the oppression of communism in eastern Europe, is it not absolutely outrageous and ridiculous that the British Government are resisting the introduction of full democracy in a territory for which we have direct responsibility? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) conceded in our debate on 19 April, successive Governments of both parties are culpable in this matter. Some cynicism from China about our motives, or those of some of us, for being enthusiastic about democracy is understandable.

It is true that for some time the majority did not demand democracy in Hong Kong, but that does not diminish or detract from the case for full democracy or from the strong and overwhelming desire now within the colony for full democratic development. That was already growing when I visited in 1988. The Government's failure then to respond to pressure from Hong Kong and from the Labour and other opposition parties gave the wrong signals to Peking. Instead of asserting our right to govern until the end of June 1997, we were perceived to be willing to kow-tow to the Government of the People's Republic of China. The Minister denied that in Committee, but, whatever he says, we were seen to be giving the Government in China an effective veto over our decisions in a territory for which we have responsibility until the end of June 1997.

At times, the Government have suggested that the people of Hong Kong are not sophisticated, intelligent, able or articulate enough for full democracy. That has been suggested from the Dispatch Box and from the Conservative Benches. It is manifest nonsense to anyone who has visited Hong Kong or who knows of the vibrant

---

Column 404

democracy of the local elections for councils which have relatively little power--indeed, even less power than councils in Britain have under this Government.

The Government have argued that the joint declaration does not give a specific guarantee of full direct elections. However, it says, even in respect of the special administrative region after 1997, that the legislative council shall be constituted by elections. What do we understand by elections, other then direct elections and the universal franchise of all adults over 18? The device of functional constituencies is a mere fraud on real democracy and involves only a small percentage of the people of Hong Kong.

There was also a widespread perception within the territory after the signing of the joint declaration that there would be a start made to direct elections in 1988. That did not take place. Yet in Committee the Minister quibbled about whether the figure should be 18 or 20 out of the 60 seats, arguing that 18 was nearly 20 and that the difference was neither here nor there.

In February, the Foreign Secretary spoke of a substantial element of democracy which can endure and further develop after 1997. The Opposition believe that all members of the Legislative Council should be directly elected as quickly as practicable. Indeed, that was the recommendation of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs chaired by the right hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell).

We also believe that the Chief Executive, who is effectively the Chief Minister of the Hong Kong Government, should also be elected by universal adult franchise. He or she and the Government should have their responsibility directly to the legislature clearly spelled out.

11.30 pm

We also believe that political parties should be not merely allowed but encouraged to operate freely in Hong Kong as quickly as possible. Incidentally, we deplore the recent arrests of political activists involved in demonstrations for democracy in Hong Kong. I hope that the Minister will say that the Government also deplore those arrests and are taking action with the Governor and the Government of Hong Kong to secure proper justice for those people.

We also see no reason why the franchise should be limited to people over the age of 21 when the voting age in Britain, throughout the European Community and in most democratic countries is 18. As we heard in an earlier debate, it is the age accepted for categorising dependent relatives. We would like to see the voting age for Hong Kong elections reduced to 18.

We would also like to see constituencies of roughly equal size. At present, one constituency is twice the size of another because of some arithmetical division.

Mr. Maude : What about Scotland?

Mr. Foulkes : In Scotland, the constituencies are all roughly the same size.

Although I personally warmly welcome the decision that the voting system for the colony is to be similar to our own, that might not find favour with all my colleagues.

Democracy in Hong Kong is vital to give new, deep, long-term confidence to all the people of the territory. It is necessary to provide the balance to and control of the capitalist system. It is an essential element of the second

---

Column 405

system within the one country, two systems set-up of China after 1997. Democracy in Hong Kong is essential to provide maximum protection of the freedom and liberties of the people.

We believe that the Government are heading down the wrong road with the Bill. I have outlined again today, as my colleagues did on Second Reading, a positive alternative to deal with confidence in Hong Kong. The new clause seeks to postpone the introduction of the Bill's provisions until an essential element of democracy in the territory is tackled. I have pleasure in commending it to the House. Even more, it provides us with an opportunity to discuss an important element for the future of Hong Kong-- the establishment of a full, vibrant, active democracy essential for its future.

Mr. Wells : Both China and the British Government are treaty bound to introduce elections to the legislature and elect the chief executive by 1997, so the introduction of democracy to Hong Kong has been settled despite much objection from some of my hon. Friends who claim that it is not necessary. They say that Hong Kong has existed without democracy, has been successful without it and needs to continue without it. I believe that a moment's thought given to that idea will dispell it.

The hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) set out the reasons why democracy should be by universal sufferage. I entirely agree with him. However, without delaying the House too long at this time of night, I want to take the argument a stage further. The fact is that in Hong Kong we must replace the British Government and its officials in the form of the civil servants who play the role of Ministers in the legislature and we must make certain that all the instruments of democracy are in place so that the capitalist system can be controlled.

However, I further believe that, without the democratic process being in place, capitalism will not work ; it will descend into monopoly, corruption and chaos. Only with the accountability that is necessary to and imposed by a democratic system will Hong Kong continue to work after 1997. I believe that, with democracy firmly established, there is every reason to be confident that after 1997 Hong Kong will be successful.

However, we in this House should know that democracy is one of the hardest systems to make work. It demands some commitment from every single elector- -even if only putting a ballot paper in a box every five years. If that was all that democracy was, of course, it would not be sufficient for Hong Kong, which must develop ways to gain support for measures taken by the legislature. The idea must be established that when a majority in the legislature is in favour of a particular item, the minority who fail to win --as it looks as though those of us who hold these views will fail to win tonight--will accept and abide by the majority decisions and the rule of law.

Such concepts take a great deal of time to root. I have had experience overseas and have found that many educated and privileged people--those principally to whom we are seeking to give 50,000 passports, and many more- -are the most reluctant to take part in democracy or to breath life into the democratic institutions that must be established. That is because previously they have been privileged and have had access to powerful positions and

---