House of Commons Hansard Debates for 27 Apr 1995

Column 1040

journalists operating in Beijing or the Chinese media operating out of China, such are the restrictions on press freedom in China. We should also have regard to freedom of assembly. We have discussed the marvellous economic growth rate in China. Although it has been achieved by business men and entrepreneurs, it has also been achieved by workers, whose rights need to be considered in Hong Kong. They should have trade union rights to assemble, negotiate and organise. In Tiananmen square, one of the most powerful movements that linked up with the students was that of the Workers Autonomous Federations. The number of recorded strikes and of arrests of democratic trade union organisers since Tiananmen square show that the example that the Chinese communist authorities in Beijing are terrified of is equivalent to Solidarnosc in Poland and workers movements around the world.

Last December, LegCo had before it interesting and important legislation on social and workers' rights, but Mr. Lau Chin-shek, a member of LegCo, put forward amendments taking those slightly further forward. He obviously had the support of a majority on LegCo, but the Government withdrew their own legislation. I shall return to that matter in a moment.

Given Governor Patten's regular forays to Europe, the United States and all over the world to make theme speeches, albeit of great interest and learning, it is strange that he is not here tonight. [Interruption.] I hear laughter from Conservative Benches. The Select Committee report was produced more than a year ago, but we have had few debates in the House on this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray), who is present in the Chamber, goes back some 30 years and knows that, when the House is debating Hong Kong--this may be the last full debate before July 1997--it is extraordinary that the man who is effectively the Minister responsible for that area is not present.

Governor Patten had a wonderful history teacher at his school. I know that because that history teacher happened also to be mine. Although I am several years younger than Chris Patten, I attended the same school. In our history classes, we learned about the importance of democratic development as the hope of history. The yearning for freedom is the marching song of all humanity, whether European, American, black, Asian or whatever. The Conservative party would probably place most emphasis on freedom in the economic sphere, but there should also be freedom under the rule of law.

If one country in the world has no visible rule of law, it is China. People should have freedom to travel, speak, write and read. Those freedoms were supported in the House in the 19th century and effectively in the 20th century. In my maiden speech, I paid tribute to the passionate commitment to those freedoms expressed by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) when he stood against his party's appeasement of Nazi Germany, a record of which he can be proud.

Those freedoms remain just as important in the 21st century, but China is now the country where they are most flouted anywhere in the world. If the continuing flouting of human rights and democracy in so many spheres continues unchecked, it will cause endless problems. Governor Patten's attempts to democratise in part the election process show that he understands that. He has admitted that all that he is doing with those functional democracies, about which my hon. Friend the shadow

Column 1041

Foreign Secretary made such fun, is to advance the electoral college in China to where it was in England in the middle of the 19th century. Despite his efforts to introduce some democracy in the legislative sphere, he remains a prisoner of Conservative philosophy. Although I support the general line of not seeking a huge party difference on this issue, it must be noted that Governor Patten, as a child of Thatcher and an appointee of the Prime Minister, cannot support in Hong Kong what is not supported in this

country--legislation to pluralise the press and guarantee human rights in the workplace.

That does not relieve the House of the responsibility to argue those rights tonight. What can we do? First, I agree with those who say that we must maintain an open policy of trade, investment and contact, not just with China but with the whole of that region. Secondly, we must embrace all the Chinas in the new networks of international bodies. China should be admitted to the World Trade Organisation. The United Kingdom should increase discussion, involving Hong Kong citizens in other international bodies such as the International Labour Organisation, the World Health Organisation and other relevant United Nations agencies in which Chinese issues will be discussed. I hope that, at the forthcoming UN conference on women, to be held in Beijing later this year, we shall make a forthright denunciation of China's barbaric practices with regard to its female citizens.

Thirdly, we should support the admission of Taiwan to the United Nations on a par with that other Chinese state, Singapore, so that Taiwan can play its part in the debate and decisions on the future of all Chinese people, not just those in China and Hong Kong but those who live in many other parts of Asia and the rest of the world. There has been much reference to one country, two systems. That was the old slogan which Deng Xiaoping developed to explain China's relationship with Hong Kong and Taiwan. It is now out of date. There is one system--authoritarian market capitalism--and at least three identifiable Chinese states: the People's Republic of China; Taiwan; and Singapore. If there is one iron certainty about China, it is that in the past 100 years, one has never seen, from one consecutive 10 or a dozen years to the next, the same outlook, approach and system being applied in China. Great changes happen as a result of either decisions from the top or pressure from below.

An aspect that nobody has mentioned--the debate is on China and Hong Kong as a whole--is China's military role. China is now developing into a major military power. It is building a deep-water fleet. It has missiles. China is selling arms all over the middle east. Its armed forces intervene in naval engagements over islands that are many hundreds of miles from the Chinese coast. I find it worrying that that giant state that is being created with a great deal of internal turbulence is now turning into a huge military power. Finally, I put it to the House that we have 800 days that are an opportunity to strengthen the civil society of Hong Kong--800 days to put right the denial of democracy over the past 150 years. Tongue-in- cheek, just after the joint declaration was announced 11 years ago, I suggested that we should leave all the white gwailos in China, but give passports to all the Hong Kong Chinese so that they could come to England and then we could watch Britain grow again. That was tongue-in-cheek, but the question of those people who have contributed massively to British wealth

Column 1042

and British companies and who do not at present have the right of abode in this country is serious. Reference has been made to war widows, and I very much hope that in his reply the Minister of State can make a concession on that issue.

It is not too late to act in areas of legislation that would sink deeper the roots of civil society in Hong Kong. The Government and the Governor can act and they should act now.

7.32 pm

Sir Rhodes Boyson (Brent, North): I approach this subject in a way rather different from other hon. Members in that I was in the East Indies fleet when we reoccupied Hong Kong--I almost said in 1845; perhaps that is why most of my hair has gone--in 1945.

I was too young to vote in the 1945 election, although I had already spent a number of years in the East Indies fleet. At that time, I was much more left wing than I am now and I was for decolonisation and for getting myself back to the United Kingdom very quickly. Neither the first nor the second took place.

Even then, there was a feeling about the decolonisation of the British empire. It is almost unbelievable that, 50 years later, we still have a Crown colony in Hong Kong. Two years after we reoccupied Hong Kong, India got its freedom, by which time I was in India, and freedom movements were stirring around the world. It is quite amazing to me that the one--possibly the last--colony that we will have, apart from tiny islands, is Hong Kong.

I welcome the agreement on handing over. It was inevitable that, at some stage, we would have to hand Hong Kong over. The balance of power in the far east has changed, whatever one's principles might be. It is changing fast now. Indeed, from the beginning, the Chinese could have cut off the water. They could have taken action and Hong Kong would have been untenable as a colony. It was only a matter of time before an agreement had to be made to hand it over, and it has been made.

It is my view--it is certainly not the view of every hon. Member who has spoken today--that this is an agreement between two separate sovereign countries, just as the treaty of Nanking was in 1843. The locus is two sovereign countries: Britain and China. It is an agreement not with Hong Kong but between two sovereign countries. From my conversations in the far east, and I have returned there regularly--indeed, I was there last autumn- -it is clear that it is a question not of an agreement with Hong Kong but of an agreement between two countries.

Hong Kong is not a party to the treaty, any more than Brent, North, which is an island of Conservatism in what is almost a sea of red in London at present, could on its own be a party to a treaty that we signed with Europe. From my conversations with people over there, I think that China is very well aware that the agreement is between two sovereign countries.

I think that it was a mistake to introduce an extended voting system without the agreement of the Chinese authorities. That has soured the relationship between us and somehow we have to get back to conversation and agreement. I think that that was a moral, if not a political, breach of the agreement.

Column 1043

Obviously, the balance of power is moving around the world. The 19th century was the century of Britain. The 20th century has been that of America and Europe and the 21st century will be that of China and the eastern states. What the majority Chinese people have done in Taiwan has been a miracle. What has happened in Hong Kong has been an economic miracle and a similar economic miracle is now taking place in mainland China. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) said, those changes are moving now from the economic to the military and other spheres.

We must somehow get around the table again with China, because time is running out, as if in an egg timer, to get concessions where we can. I hope that the through train can come back, because if it does not, there will be serious consequences for Britain and our relationship with China in the long run.

I intend to speak only very briefly. It is amazing that, 50 years from the time that I was first in Hong Kong, it is still a colony, while change has been going on all around the world. If it could be handed over well, we would be able to say that the British empire, having been one of the greatest empires that the world has known, has come to an end honourably and well. I very much hope that we can achieve that through the work of our Foreign Office--I served as the No. 2 to the Foreign Secretary for 15 months up to the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985--and skilful diplomacy and concessions where required.

I was very impressed this afternoon by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). I was not a Member when he was Chief Whip and became Prime Minister, but I realise now why he was chosen--because of his excellent China policy, which suggested his other abilities. It is the first time that I have congratulated my right hon. Friend in the House, but I do so with great pleasure this afternoon. I was inspired by his speech and if the Foreign Office wants someone to sort the matter out, it need only ring my right hon. Friend.

7.38 pm

Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West): I had not realised until this debate began that it is the first that we have had on Hong Kong in this Parliament, which I think must mean that I took part in the last such debate, some time ago. I did not expect that that would be the case.

I was intrigued by the speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), and I nodded along with it, thinking that it was brave and that he was saying things that needed to be said. There are indeed human rights abuses in the People's Republic of China. We should acknowledge that and not be afraid to say it and spell them out and ask what the answers to those questions are. The hon. Gentleman was right to make those points. However, there came a point when I stopped nodding, and that was when he ruined his speech.

What the hon. Gentleman said about the People's Republic of China is, of course, right. The People's Republic should be mature enough to discuss human rights with us but, by overstating the human rights deficiencies in Hong Kong, which he did, he weakened his arguments. He further weakened them by making comments that were wrong and unworthy.

Column 1044

The hon. Gentleman joined the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) in a rather narrow-minded and opportunist attack on the Governor of Hong Kong, Chris Patten. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South said explicitly--it will be clear in Hansard for those who did not hear it--that he could not back Chris Patten and that, if there were problems, he would not come to his aid, merely because Chris Patten was a Tory politician who might want to return to politics in this country. I found that an extraordinary admission. I do not think that any Conservative Member or, indeed, many Opposition Members, would take that view of a politician from another party who is trying to do a difficult and, let us face it, almost impossible job for his country.

Mr. MacShane: My criticism of Chris Patten is that he has not gone far enough. I would welcome his return to politics in this country as a civilising influence on the Conservative party.

Mr. Hughes: I go along with the hon. Gentleman as far as to say that Chris Patten is much missed in politics in this country and in my party.

However, the worst part of the hon. Gentleman's speech--the same flavour ran through a number of speeches by Labour Members--was his theory that everything could have been done better, that our noble Friend Baroness Thatcher failed and did not understand or try and that, if only cleverer people or people who cared a bit more had been involved, we could have sorted out some of the human rights problems before we agreed to hand back Hong Kong.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) said, it was crystal clear that Hong Kong was going to be handed back. We had 99 years' notice of that. If the Chinese would not play ball, and if they did not want to deal with human rights issues, or anything else for that matter, there was no way for us to make them do so because the deal was going to go through. I agree with my right hon. Friend that it was remarkable that such a good deal was done. One issue that has been brought to my attention relates to the construction in the Clearwater bay area of Kowloon of a 400 kV overhead power transmission system by the power utility, the China Light and Power Company Ltd. As many hon. Members will have read in the press, it is causing considerable alarm among local residents. It raises the wider question of the extent to which the Hong Kong Government will act to protect the health of their citizens and the right of local people to be consulted.

The power line is being constructed through what was one of the few remaining scenic parts of Kowloon and the route passes very close to people's homes. An alternative alignment was available, which would have taken the line away from residences, but it was rejected by the Government simply because it involved the possibility of felling trees in a small section of a country park area. Perhaps that was the right decision, although the local people whose homes were affected do not think so. The fact is, however, that the decision was made without their knowledge and they continue to object to a decision about which they learned only when the construction was announced. I do not expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to take time in his summing up to respond to that point, but I would be grateful if he would write to me about it.

Column 1045

Human rights and democracy are issues that have run through this debate and it is difficult to deal with one without the other. Of course the people of Hong Kong have every reason to be suspicious of the intentions of the People's Republic of China, especially in the aftermath of Tiananmen square, which still echoes down the years. However, the people of Hong Kong have chosen to accept the various changes to their legislation. They could have rejected what Chris Patten was trying to do and stuck with the view that had been the British Government's view for at least 90 years of British rule of Hong Kong. I do not think that that was the right view and said as much in previous debates.

I believed then, as I believe now, that we should and could have moved more quickly on human rights and democracy, but the people of Hong Kong know what the dangers are. They know what they are facing--they know what could happen in 1997 and beyond--but they have made their choice. I do not think that, from many thousands of miles away, we should seek to second-guess what that choice is or tell them that they should be going further or faster or that they should not have done what they have. They know the circumstances and the dangers but they have made a decision.

The criticism of Chris Patten in his role as Governor is misguided. I do not believe that the Governments could have reached a different agreement, nor do I think that a different Governor with a different approach could have achieved more. Nothing that I have read has persuaded me otherwise.

In his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Sir Percy Cradock said that pushing ahead with legislation despite Chinese opposition

"will do much more harm to Hong Kong than the alternative policy of co- operation with China on the best terms we can get." As far as I can see, he failed to back up his argument. What would have been achieved had these issues not been raised by Chris Patten? What would the Chinese Government have agreed to that they have not agreed to under pressure? The answer is nothing. I accept that, having lived there, Sir Percy Cradock understands a great deal about China, but I believe that the attitude that he adopted was craven. I am afraid that, in the past, it was characteristic of British diplomacy in that area to say that we should agree with the Chinese because theirs is a big, emerging nation and we should not quarrel with them. I accept that that is not the British attitude now and I am delighted about that, but I find no evidence to suggest that something has been lost by the harder attitude that has been adopted.

People often talk as if only Britain and the people of Hong Kong have anything to lose. That is not correct because the problem for the People's Republic is that it needs to be seen to make a success of the transition. It needs Hong Kong to work as much as the people of Hong Kong need it to work. That is why I agree with the optimism expressed in some speeches today.

Of course, China has a great deal to learn. If it wants Hong Kong to work, to earn money for the People's Republic and to be a window on the world for the People's Republic, it has to stop doing things such as rescinding McDonald's 20-year lease on the world's largest fast food restaurant, as happened in November 1994. What confidence does that give other multinational companies to move into China? If there is any flavour of that in Hong Kong, the People's Republic will suffer.

Column 1046

[Interruption.] If my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), does not like McDonald's, I suspect that, uncharacteristically, he is out of step with his constituents. I eat at McDonald's in his constituency regularly; I never ask his permission, but I hope that I have it.

The world is not entirely without leverage, however. It may be that the United States Administration would not take much notice and would continue to relate to the most favoured nation status that they accord the People's Republic, but I am sure the Senate and Congress would notice and that a future American Administration would take China to task if the transfer of power in Hong Kong went wrong. It is certain that the Government of Taiwan- -the big prize for the People's Republic--would notice. If they felt that the same would happen to them, there would be no prospect of talks on any future relationship between Taiwan and the People's Republic.

Although the premier of Singapore characteristically defended the People's Republic of China, even he warned that

"Hong Kong will be worse off if she does not retain the instruments of Government which the British brought."

I end my speech with a quotation from the Financial Times which summed up the problem faced by the People's Republic of China. It made the following comments on what the Governor Chris Patten was doing, the dangers of what was happening and the refusal of the People's Republic to discuss matters:

"At least this way he is giving Hong Kong people the chance to experience two years of relative democracy if they so choose and to leave China's rulers with the responsibility of dismantling it in the view of the world, if they so choose."

The transition is taking place in the view of the entire world and if China does not make a success of it, it is not only the people of Hong Kong who will suffer, but the People's Republic of China and it would not want that.

7.51 pm

Mr. Hugh Dykes (Harrow, East): Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me now. In a geographical sense, you have shown remarkable imagination by bringing together the scintillating cluster of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) and myself, representing the precious little area of north-west London that we cherish so much.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: And the Edgware general hospital.

Mr. Dykes: We could mention the Edgware general hospital, but that would be strictly out of order.

The debate so far has been both thoughtful and subtle. I commend the speech of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the equally measured, cautious and restrained presentation of the shadow spokesman for foreign affairs, the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who made a characteristically skilful speech.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West made some valid points with which I greatly agree. I reassure him that I was not criticising McDonald's, which is one of the most striking and awesome symbols of western culture. Its growth and expansion in Britain is a great saga of commercial success--I also enjoy its offerings. I am

Column 1047

delighted that my hon. Friend visits its restaurants in my constituency; I visit the ones in his constituency, so we have reciprocal gastronomic support.

I have visited the People's Republic of China many times and I declare a parliamentary interest as chairman of the Chinese-British parliamentary group. Even I, with my enthusiasm for that particularly occidental culture, felt dismayed when I looked out of the window of my room at the Beijing hotel just by Tiananmen square and saw a Burger King outside. That was in November 1992, and I am told that it may have moved since, so perhaps that will be the subject of verification on a forthcoming visit.

I have visited Hong Kong many times, but I have visited China many more times. As chairman of a parliamentary friendship group, my words tend to reflect both a great respect for the People's Republic of China and its remarkable achievements--although its political culture is not the same as ours--and an attempt, as an ignorant westerner, to understand China more than some of our colleagues. A clash of cultures occurs when Hong Kong bumps up against the People's Republic of China.

I also have to declare a commercial interest in Hong Kong as I am adviser to an international law firm that is establishing an international office in Hong Kong as a testimonial to its confidence in the future of the territory. It is interesting that the more sensible people in business circles of any provenance and country who work in Hong Kong already or are considering going there are much more open-minded in conversations about the People's Republic of China and what should be done, politically or otherwise, in future by that country.

One of the great diseases of western politicians is the dreadful condescension that we use when we refer to the People's Republic of China. I pay tribute to our colleagues in the Foreign Office for not doing so; one of their principal jobs is to get on well with foreigners. That is often criticised by hon. Members who say that we are giving away some vital national interest. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What has been achieved in the agreement with the People's Republic of China is unique. It is an extraordinary coming together of interests and I remain optimistic about it despite the huge difficulties involved. It is a great tribute to the past and present work of the Foreign Office.

By the same token, the agreement represents a remarkable achievement for the People's Republic in reclaiming its own territory, bearing in mind the dreadful history of the foreign presence in China and its surrounding territories and what we and other foreign nations did to the Chinese, although it was a long time ago and the world is now much more modern and open.

I cannot think of another example of a country reacquiring a territory that was plundered and stolen from it on unequal terms more than 100 years ago and being prepared to make political concessions on the future structures there for the sake of reassuring the local population and many other reasons, including self-interest. Although spokesmen for the People's Republic of China are often polite enough to say that the transition is definitely on equal terms, we have to face reality. We are a small, fading ex-colonial power and not on equal terms

Column 1048

with a unique and enormous country that is groping and grappling with great difficulty and with the enormous complexities of entering the modern world politically and economically.

The story so far has been stunning in economic terms and the remarkable history of recent expansion is understandably causing anxieties among the leadership in Beijing. It is facing problems that are difficult for foreigners to understand because of the linguistic problem and the sharply different culture, history and traditions of that amazingly interesting country.

China is the most fascinating country in the world for visitors. I have been there many times and I always feel great excitement about visiting it. In contrast, the excitement that we feel when visiting Hong Kong is caused by its capitalist razzmatazz, and Conservatives in particular feel that Hong Kong is uniquely impressive and special.

What has been done so far in the People's Republic of China is a totally different scene. If one considers the extraordinary misery, squalor, degradation and brutality of the political past of China before the revolution and the new regime, one can begin to understand the background to the anxieties of senior members of the political classes when they begin to grope towards whatever form of representative government may emerge in the People's Republic of China in future. It is crazy for us to say, "We have our cosy Westminster and occidental patterns of conventional bourgeois democracy to bestow upon you with immense kindness and here you are, you Chinese chappies. Please accept it from us, bow down and say thank you."

The old attitudes of foreigners in China was a disease as far as the Chinese were concerned and the older ones remember some of its worst manifestations. The previous Kuomintang regime was the internal representation of that external foreign brutality and corruption. It takes time to make a psychological adjustment. I make no excuses for the examples of the lack of human rights in China, but the Tibet saga is grossly exaggerated. I visited Tibet once, but perhaps that was not enough. I am a reasonably experienced observer of different foreign scenes, and the idea that the entire population of Tibet is oppressed is nonsense. It has made remarkable social and economic progress, albeit under a regime that practises collective public ownership of all means of production and exchange--apparently the sort of thing that Labour is giving up.

Neither Tibet nor the People's Republic is, in our terms, an example of free-floating capitalism and effort but manifestations of capitalist growth, fast economic expansion and the acquisition of new production and factories are stunning. I urge hon. Members who have not visited the People's Republic to seize an early opportunity to do so.

The public ownership of assets remains the norm in the People's Republic but the Chinese authorities and their commercial entities have acquired significant mobile and immobile assets in Hong Kong. By July 1997, the People's Republic will already own substantial chunks of Hong Kong's economic activity. That will be a force for stability and continuity.

It is not for us--other than in the framework of the unique treaty-plus agreement deposited at the United Nations, under which the Chinese have obligations that they must respect over a 50-year period and which

Column 1049

embraces two systems in one country--to tell the Chinese, as the future owners of territory originally stolen from them, what to do and how to do it. We may express our opinions but it would be out of order to lecture them and to insist that they must do as we say. That approach causes enormous resentment in Beijing. I criticise not any particular person or persons but the general attitude.

I first visited Hong Kong many years ago--long before Beijing had begun to indicate that it was too late to think of sweeping changes to internal democratic structures. Incidentally, turnouts at the quasi-elections have been modest, with some exceptions. We should not get too carried away with how splendid the new democratic structure in Hong Kong is. Before Beijing indicated that time was running out, and when I asked naively as a first or second-time visitor to Hong Kong, "Why don't they have democracy?" I was told repeatedly by grand, elegant and well-paid business men that the British Hongs as well as the newly emerging Chinese Hongs--who represented outside capitalist interests rather than Chinese traditions--said that democracy was not wanted. There was no question of ever having it because Hong Kong was a British colony and would remain so. Subsequently, reversion to China loomed and common sense prevailed.

Limited democratic structures are already in place. I hope that there will not be excessive conflict and tension between now and 1 July 1997. If resentment in Beijing is so great by then that it is put in a bad mood, that will not help anyone. I am not saying that one should indulge in appeasement or be pusillanimous but we must be realistic. The tragedy is that Britain lost the opportunity to introduce universal suffrage in Hong Kong many decades ago. It was thought that it was easier to run the capitalist system. I will not go into the sordid details of what occurred in those days, but Hong Kong has improved remarkably since. There are probably no significant sweatshops left. There may be small back-street examples, but I am sure that the authorities are vigilant in rooting them out. We must avoid something of which the Americans are sometimes guilty when they are selective about their definitional basis for human rights. They say, "That's our pattern, folks, so you must accept it. We will be the determinants of human rights classifications in other territories." In the Falklands, the interests of the inhabitants were paramount, but when the Americans wanted a military base in Diego Garcia, its entire population-- who had dark skins, by the way--were swept away into east Africa, despite their protests. When the Turks kill Kurds in eastern Turkey, against whatever political background, the Americans do not protest, but if Saddam Hussein or any Iraqi laid so much as a finger on a Kurd, America would go berserk. Such selectivity in Asia and elsewhere--I do not refer to genuine idealists who want human rights implanted everywhere--generates wrong arguments. No attention is paid to different cultures.

I hope that plural political systems will develop in the People's Republic, but it is for its leaders and the Chinese people to determine how that will happen. I understand why those leaders, having seen the chaos and degradation that existed before the revolution, worry over how to handle that change in an enormous country. Political control in the remote provinces is different from that in large cities. How will that be accommodated while allowing much more democracy and freedom? The

Column 1050

emphasis has been on the unique dictatorship of the proletariat, on the traditional Marxist pattern. I hope, with my political views, that that will fade, in concert with remarkable economic growth of the kind already seen in the People's Republic. Again, it is for the Chinese to decide such matters without outside interference or lecturing. The culture in that unique, special and unusual country is often difficult for us to grasp, partly for linguistic reasons. The suggestion is that the future Government in Beijing will be similar to those of the old days, when the revolution exercised iron discipline--excessive in our terms--over people not prepared to be part of it. We saw that over a much longer period in the Soviet Union, but that has been demolished. I am not sure what will happen in future China. I imagine that the collectivist system and the dominance of the Communist party will continue longer but will allow the development of civic and political freedoms that we cherish--but in the Chinese way, and more strongly in cities than in rural areas for evident reasons. We will applaud whatever freedoms emerge in the People's Republic. Meanwhile, we must make sure of a good future for Hong Kong and that, as the outgoing colonial power, we leave it in a good state.

I conclude by quoting the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State--before he does so himself--from his article in London's excellent newspaper, the Evening Standard :

"But the choice for Hong Kong is not, and never has been, for Britain alone to make. As the hand-over approaches, the spotlight will inevitably shift to the future sovereign power. More and more it will be to China that the people of Hong Kong and its overseas friends and investors look for reassurances about the future. The British and Hong Kong governments will do all they can to help maintain the confidence on which Hong Kong depends.

I am neither over-optimistic nor a pessimist about the future. I know only that if China and Britain work together, in their own interests and that of Hong Kong, the right choices will be made." I also rest on that proposition, which is a reasonable one for the House, this debate and the population of Hong Kong.

8.9 pm

Mr. William Powell (Corby): It is not surprising that there has been, this afternoon and this evening, a celebration in the House of how successful Hong Kong is as a British colony and dependent territory, but I hope that, as British people, we will not be too self-satisfied or complacent about that, because the reality is that the success of Hong Kong is above all else the success of the Chinese people who live there and the Chinese people from outside Hong Kong who have traded with it and contributed to building up its remarkable economy.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) called it a golden nugget. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that it was the most exciting city that he knew of this age. Those are two judgments with which I concur. But the reality is that it is the Hong Kong Chinese themselves who have made by far and away the greatest contribution to the success of Hong Kong. It is not merely a commercial success, but a success in the public service. Some of the finest public servants I have ever met anywhere in the world are Chinese Hong Kong people. I have found that they have served Great Britain and Hong Kong with a distinction unrivalled in any other country I have ever seen.

Column 1051

I shall try to illuminate aspects of the Chinese relationship by referring to the People's Republic of China and to China within a wider Chinese context. The success of Hong Kong is mirrored in Singapore and in the Republic of China, on Taiwan. I declare an interest as chairman of the British-Taiwan parliamentary group, which, I am glad to say, is now one of the largest single friendship inter-parliamentary groups in our Parliament and it goes from strength to strength. The 3 million Chinese people of Singapore, the 6 million Chinese people of Hong Kong and the 21 million Chinese people of Taiwan have created economic tigers with a massive and awesome potential. They are, of course, precisely the same people as those who live in the People's Republic of China. Most of those who live on Taiwan are brothers, sisters and cousins of people who live just over the straits of Taiwan, in the province of Fukien/Fujian. All of us should be aware that as economic liberation--perhaps political liberation, but let us concentrate on the former--grows in the People's Republic of China, so we must expect to find more and more of its residents becoming as successful, as enterprising and as important to the world as their brothers, sisters and cousins in Singapore, Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Only one matter disappointed me in the speech of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook): he did not mention Taiwan at all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) referred to the fact that the media will not be interested in what we say in the House. It will not be reported. They are not really interested in what is happening in east Asia itself. The ignorance, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, about what is going on in east Asia is quite terrifying. The media-- television, radio and newspapers--are failing to convey to the people of our country what is happening in east Asia.

Let me give one insight, which to me is of the greatest significance for the future. The time of the United States' peak influence in the world's economy was 1950, when the United States was responsible for 40 per cent. of the world's economic activity. But it was predictable that that would be the peak, because it was predictable that Germany and Japan would recover from world war two, and that although the United States would continue to grow, its relative influence in the world economy would in fact decline from that peak. The estimates now being made are that in 2000--54 months away, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell) said-- the whole of the Asian Pacific rim, from South Korea to Singapore and Malaysia, will account for 40 per cent. of the world's economic activity. But anybody who imagines that that will be a peak year for east Asia's influence in the world economy is simply living in cloud cuckoo land. It will grow and grow. Of course, the biggest growth will be in the People's Republic of China.

Let me consider for a moment our relationship with Taiwan and how it fits into the whole pattern, because our relations today, I believe, are as close and as warm as they have been at any time. I pay tribute to Mr. Philip Morrice, our trade representative in Taipei, for all the excellent work that he has done in building up that relationship. I also pay tribute to Taiwan's representatives in this

Column 1052

country, who have also worked extremely hard. They are Dr. Eugene Chien and his staff, Mr. David Liu in the cultural office, and their predecessors, not least Mr. Ray Tai, who is now the equivalent of the presidential spokesman for President Li, in Taipei. A lot of people have worked hard to build up the relationship. But the trading relationship, important though it is to both countries, is still on a low plane. Total trade involving the Republic of China on Taiwan and Great Britain is in the region of $US3 billion a year. It is still at a relatively low level. There is potential for a massive expansion, if we want it to take place.

In considering what our relations, as regards the People's Republic of China and Hong Kong, will be post-1997, we must also consider what our relations with Taiwan will be at that time. That must be reviewed. My main plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister this evening is to urge that there now be a fundamental review, conducted in the Foreign Office, the Department of Trade and Industry, in all aspects of the British Government, as to our total relationship with the People's Republic of China. I find, wherever I look, ignorance about the true events on Taiwan. That is not helpful to the interests of this country and to our understanding what is really happening in China itself.

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made an interesting and correct point, when he referred to the fact that Hong Kong is now the world's largest container port. The second largest container port is Singapore and the third largest is Kao Shiung on Taiwan. Rotterdam is only number four. If one goes to Hong Kong--as so many hon. Members have done--one will see that the containers have come from Singapore and Kao Shiung. Of the six largest container lines in the world, two are based in Taiwan. The world's largest shipping line is Evergreen. We see its containers on our motorways every single day. We see their distinctive green and white colours. The sixth largest shipping line in the world is YM--Yang Ming, from Taiwan.

Taiwan is the size of the Netherlands, with a population of 21 million. It is the world's 12th largest trading power, with the world's second largest foreign currency reserves--an important matter, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford underlined. It has two of the largest shipping lines in the world. Its potential for the economy of Asia is of the most profound importance. The British empire was based on shipping and our ability to ship goods across oceans. Today, the Chinese--whether they are in Taiwan or Singapore, because one of those six container lines is Genstar from Singapore--are enjoying economic activity on a huge scale. The container vessels in Hong Kong have come from Kao Shiung and Singapore--and, of course, from the rest of the world, but those are the two largest ports.

I ask the hon. Member for Livingston to prepare for the office he seeks by going to see, with his own eyes, not merely what is happening in Hong Kong- -that is easy for British people--but what is happening in Taiwan. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) should go too. They should go to Kao Shiung, with its modern industrial economy and awesome power--the steel works; immediately next door the shipyard; and immediately next door to that the port, with 17 km of berths. Every day of the week, every week of the year those berths are being used. They are constantly being expanded. We have no

Column 1053

port like it--17 km with ocean-going container vessels in full activity and being turned around in under 24 hours, again and again and again.

China Shipping in Taiwan is not even the most efficient shipbuilding company in the world, although it can make a 149,000 deadweight-tonne, ocean-going container ship in just nine months. We could not begin to do that, but it can be done even faster in South Korea. We must see, think about and understand what is happening in the Taiwan economy and realise that it is dominated by Chinese people.

We should go not just to Kao Shiung; we should go to the other end of the island to Shinschu university, near the Chiang Kai Shek international airport. It is a modern science university and next door to it is the Shinschu science park. Of course, it is associated with the university. It has 140 acres--only a small site--but it is the original one-stop shop. It is fascinating that the one-stop shop was invented in Taiwan. The science park now has an annual turnover in excess of $US 6 billion and soon it will be $US 10 billion. Companies such as Acer, one of the world's largest computer companies, dominate the park. It has 140 companies, but when I visited it I found that only four came from Europe and none from Great Britain.

If we want to know what is happening in the world economy of the future, we must visit places such as Taiwan. Of course, we have no diplomatic relations with that country. Almost no British public officials have been there. I am glad to say that a number of Ministers have been there in a semi-private, semi-public capacity, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), the Secretary of State for Wales. I hope that he has told the Cabinet about what he saw there on his short visit.

When I was last in Taiwan, as I was leaving I saw something that almost made me cry. I had taken with me a number of my colleagues from the British -Taiwan parliamentary group to see for themselves what was happening there. As we were leaving the airport, Francois Fillon--a young man of great importance to the future of France, its Minister for higher education--was arriving on a visit to Taipei. He had brought with him 40 members of the national assembly. It would be a good thing if 40 Members of this House were to go to Taiwan to see what was happening--at once and with a Cabinet Minister.

The relationship with Taiwan matters enormously and I want to underline a few of the really important factors. First, we should celebrate and give all credit for the transformation from a society under martial law to an exuberant and increasingly democratic society in Taiwan. We could not say about many places in this world that a country is undergoing a genuine transformation from a totalitarian to a democratic regime, where the people do not vote just once, but repeatedly. We might feel rather superior about many of the exuberant and exciting practices in the Taiwan democracy, which may have their origins more in American society than in ours. However, the fact that Taiwan is making such a transformation is something that we should recognise publicly and at the highest level.

Secondly, we should recognise the contribution that Taiwan makes to Britain. It is not just the fact that 90 per cent. of its inward investment into Europe comes to

Column 1054

Britain--and there is enormous potential for more Taiwanese companies to invest in this country. We need to go out and get it. There is also the investment Taiwan makes in our education system with 8,000 Taiwanese students. Ten years ago, the number of Taiwanese students who came to this country for their education was comfortably under 100. It is massive business and a massive vote of confidence in our colleges and universities. It is not just students; it is endowments, such as those at the London School of Economics, at Oxford university and at other universities. I hope that more universities will sign agreements with Taiwan's universities--21 of them. Some 15 per cent. of Taiwan's gross national product is, under a requirement of the constitution, invested annually in education. What is happening in Taiwan is happening in Hong Kong and in Singapore. It is a feature of the Chinese people themselves. We have absolutely nothing about which to feel superior or complacent when we look at their achievements in the last generation. Liberate those in the PRC and we will find that the entire centre of the world will shift to Asia, exactly as my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford underlined in his powerful, overarching analysis of the total position.

The time has come for British Cabinet Ministers to go to Taiwan. The time has come for us to enhance the political and diplomatic recognition between our countries. The time has come for us to say that whatever may have been the potential difficulties in a relationship with Taiwan because of Hong Kong, in 1997 that will have passed. We have only 26 months to start planning for the post-1997 British-Taiwan relationship.

There is another important matter, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). We are concerned whether the agreement between Beijing and Hong Kong will stick. However, I do not believe that in Beijing, Hong Kong is the most important horizon. Far from it, in the inter -Chinese relationships it is the Beijing-Taipei relationship that is of more importance to Beijing than the Beijing-Hong Kong relationship. There is a desperate desire for the Chinas to be reunited. Nothing would cause a collapse of potential confidence between Beijing and Taipei more than for Beijing to misbehave and renege on its agreement with Hong Kong. Indeed, Hong Kong will play a central part in building the confidence that is essential for the future relationship between Beijing and Taipei. But Taipei is more important to Beijing than Hong Kong. Reunification is an essential goal for Chinese people. Although they may growl at each other in public, the reality is that unofficial relations between those countries are considerable.

In improving, upgrading and reviewing our relations with Taipei, we need to consider the protection of intellectual property--a vitally important matter for this country. If we leave Taipei and Taiwan out in the cold even though she is a first division country--we must now call her a premier division country--in the world economic leagues, and unless she is tied in with the international relationships governing trade, intellectual property and so on, a barrier will always exist.

We should be taking the lead in the International Atomic Energy Agency, another important matter. It is not just a matter of what Taipei contributes to this country. Trade is taking place in the other direction. Two

Next Section

Home Page