| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: I am not familiar with the detail of some of what the hon. Gentleman described, but I shall ensure that it is explored as soon as possible with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security.
The regulations seem to me to be important to allow for improvements to the service offered to applicants--that is their aim. Any delay in those regulations coming into force would simply delay the point at which those necessary improvements could be made.
14 Nov 1996 : Column 513
Division (Correction)
5.1 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to inform the House that an incorrect vote was announced on the second Division last night. The correct figure for the Noes was 302, not 295.
Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reporting the facts to the House about a discrepancy that I understand came to light after the House rose. I also understand that the figure was informally corrected during the course of the night. The House will be grateful for the formal correction of the numbers declared in the House last night, and of course I shall ensure that the correct figure now appears in the Journal.
Hong Kong
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Anthony Coombs.]
5.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): The opportunity for the House once again to consider Hong Kong and its future is welcome and it is important. It is welcome because the British and Hong Kong Governments can take much pride in what their policies--with support from all parts of the House--have achieved. It is important because we are entering the critical final phase of Hong Kong's 13-year transition.
Much is at stake for Britain, for China, for the wider Asian region, but above all and always for the nearly 6.25 million men, women and children who are proud to call Hong Kong their home. We have been glad to see in London this week their elected representatives--a Legislative Council delegation--who have ably and articulately conveyed their concerns to me, to ministerial colleagues and to many other friends of Hong Kong.
Hong Kong is special because of its geography, as a great maritime and now aeronautical hub on the southern coast of a nation of extraordinary potential and power. It is special because of its history as a British colony which was mercantile in its origins and achievements, but which became, especially in the years since the second world war, a beacon of political and economic hope to hundreds of thousands of immigrants, mostly from mainland China. It is special because of its economy, which bounced back from the dark days of war and, through three decades of uninterrupted growth, moved from making things to providing services. It is now one of the world's strongest and most free economies. And it is special because of its politics, past and present--special as a largely self-governing British dependent territory, and in future as a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China.
In just over 30 weeks from now, sovereignty will pass from the United Kingdom to China--a transition without parallel in modern history. Making a success of the handover is one of the Government's highest foreign policy priorities. In a moment, I will review the progress that we have made towards that goal, and the ground that we have still to cover. First, however, I want to describe two backdrops to our policy.
First, Hong Kong is--and will remain, now and after 30 June next year--central to Britain's relationship with China. Both countries have an overwhelming shared interest in a successful transition for Hong Kong. Hong Kong provides nearly two thirds of all foreign investment in China. About half of China's exports pass through Hong Kong. Much of the trade that does not physically enter the territory is financed or otherwise managed from there. With an economy roughly one fifth the size of China's, Hong Kong truly is China's gateway to the world. Economically now, as politically in future, China and Hong Kong are bound together.
For Britain, there is no realistic choice between our relationship with China and our responsibilities and interests in Hong Kong, now or after 1997. Our duty towards Hong Kong is best discharged--in fact, can only properly be discharged--in the framework of a sensible
14 Nov 1996 : Column 515
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West):
No doubt the Secretary of State will have seen the letter from Martin Lee, chairman of the Democratic party of Hong Kong. When the right hon. and learned Gentleman met various senior Chinese politicians, did he make any mention of the fact that an appointed legislature violates the joint declaration?
Mr. Rifkind:
I will come to question of the Legislative Council and the Chinese proposals on it later and I will deal with the hon. Gentleman's question then.
In May my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister met senior leaders in China, and in Peking this week my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher will also be seeing Chinese leaders. At all those meetings, Hong Kong is at the top of the agenda. The steadily increasing pace and range of exchanges between Britain and China has greatly helped in managing the agenda of the transition. It has also contributed to our wider objective of developing a closer political and commercial relationship with China as it resumes its historical position as one of the world's most important centres of power and civilisation.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the mounting concern felt not least in Hong Kong, but also here, about the way in which China continues to treat its dissidents? Only last week, a prominent dissident was gaoled for 11 years. Why did the Deputy Prime Minister not raise those issues even once when he went to China? Surely the Chinese can only be encouraged by our indifference to human rights.
Mr. Rifkind:
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman makes an incorrect assumption. We raised the particular issue to which he referred with the Chinese Vice Premier when he visited London. I also raised the issue of human rights when I was last in China. The hon. Gentleman must inform himself before he makes inaccurate accusations. I know that it is not the first time that he has done so, but he should try harder in future.
The second backdrop to the past seven and a half months of the transition is what Hong Kong itself has achieved in the past 12 years. Hong Kong continually defies the predictions of the most irredeemable pessimists. Indeed, it often exceeds those of the most incorrigible optimists. Since 1984, Hong Kong's gross domestic product has almost doubled in real terms--to some £100 billion. Per capita GDP is now higher than that of many members of the European Union and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, including the United Kingdom. The trend rate of growth is a healthy 5 per cent., inflation is the lowest for nearly 10 years and unemployment, after soaring to 3.6 per cent. last year, is now back to 2.6 per cent. and falling. The Hang Seng index, which rose from around 1,000 in 1984 to 9,000 in 1995, is now approaching 13,000.
14 Nov 1996 : Column 516
At the same time, the Hong Kong Government have taken giant steps to make social, educational and health provisions the envy of any OECD country. More than a million flats have been built in the past 20 years. Life expectancy is higher only in Japan. Child mortality is lower than in Germany, the United States or here. Crime is down--lower than a decade ago. A quarter of 18-year olds enter tertiary education--up from 3 per cent. in 1986.
Mr. Harry Greenway (Ealing, North):
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that Hong Kong owes its great achievements to a successful education system, to the large numbers who enter higher education and to the Hong Kong people's sheer vitality in educational, intellectual and other spheres?
Mr. Rifkind:
Yes, I pay tribute to what has been achieved at the educational level, which has clearly had a profound impact on Hong Kong's success.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham):
The Foreign Secretary said that 1 million public dwellings have been constructed.
Mr. MacShane:
Yes. Does he believe that there is any connection between that programme and Hong Kong's low crime levels and stability? Could the United Kingdom learn any lessons from that policy?
Mr. Rifkind:
A more likely explanation is the thriving market economy, the removal of trade barriers and the happy adoption of capitalist practice.
Such achievements have not stopped the Hong Kong Government cutting taxes to a swingeing 15 per cent. top rate of salary tax--which, incidentally, is paid by only 2 per cent. of the working population--raising public expenditure, but keeping it below 18 per cent. of gross domestic product, and increasing reserves, which next year will be worth about £25 billion.
We can compare that with the gloom and doom that was peddled at the time that the joint declaration was signed and with the pessimistic nonsense that appears from time to time in the international media. A business magazine's cover story last year forecasting the imminent death of Hong Kong has, to put it mildly, proved greatly exaggerated.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |