---

Mr. Tony Banks: I cannot believe what the Foreign Secretary is saying. He cannot be surprised that an authoritarian Government such as Peking are acting as they are. The joint declaration is an internationally recognised agreement. We were told that in the House in the debate on 5 December 1984, and an elected legislative chamber was part of that international agreement. What is the Foreign Secretary saying? Is he saying that we should not say anything more? On 11 December this year, the Chinese will set up an appointed body. He must protest about that now, and if they set it up, go to the United Nations and register a complaint. There is an international agreement, and it is about to be breached.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is getting terribly excited, because he appears to agree with what I have just been saying to the House. I am not quite sure what he is trying to convey. If it is genuine frustration and anger at what might happen, that is shared by the Government and the people of Hong Kong. He must not get overexcited. The legislature has not yet been set up. The time to come to a view about what will happen will be in the event that China acts in a way that could be inconsistent with its commitments under the joint declaration. I know that the hon. Gentleman's views and concerns are widely shared on both sides of the House. That is a point about which I should not have had to remind him.

Sir Colin Shepherd (Hereford): My right hon. and learned Friend knows full well the high regard in which the Legislative Council is held in Hong Kong and, indeed, far wider, not least throughout the Commonwealth. Do his Chinese counterparts accept that if they go along the line of this appointed council, they will in effect have repudiated the Basic Law that they agreed, which quite clearly sets out that there shall be a Legislative Council in Hong Kong elected by universal suffrage?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Neither the joint declaration nor the Basic Law provides for a provisional legislature, if that is the right word--it is not--elected by a pre-appointed committee of some 400 people. It clearly does not represent a genuine

14 Nov 1996 : Column 524

Parliament and it can in no way be compared with the genuine democratic expression of Hong Kong opinion as represented by the present Legislative Council.

Mr. Peter Shore (Bethnal Green and Stepney): I do not think that there is much use in appealing to the good nature of the Chinese authorities, but it should be pointed out to them--I am sure that it has been already--that the appointment of a provisional legislature with the power to pass laws in Hong Kong would be very damaging indeed to the rule of law in the territory and to the confidence of investors in Hong Kong. Chinese commercial and economic interests will be damaged if they pursue that course. Surely the Chinese understand that, if they start mucking about with elected government in the Special Administrative Region of Hong Kong, the possibility and prospect of their ever enticing Taiwan into some different and closer relationship will be gone.

Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman makes two very powerful points that I entirely endorse. The Chinese have tried to reassure public opinion by saying that, if they set up a provisional legislature, it will not seek to compete with the existing LegCo but simply prepare for what might happen after 30 June. I find that a very unconvincing response because if two bodies exist simultaneously--one a properly elected Legislative Council, the other purporting to be a provisional legislature--at the very least that will be a recipe for confusion, and it will damage confidence and in no way benefit the people of Hong Kong either directly or indirectly.

Mr. Dykes: Bearing in mind the fact that there is an interesting comparison between the monarch--one person--appointing the Governor on the advice of Ministers, and 400 names, selected on a wide basis one hopes, choosing the chief executive, does my right hon. and learned Friend expect there to be an enormous amount of comfort if the People's Republic of China authorities, with the new Special Administrative Region system, ensure that the provisional legislature comprises a large number of LegCo Members?

Mr. Rifkind: If that is what they are going to do, the much better solution would be to continue with the existing LegCo, because that is the body that has the democratic legitimacy. It has been properly elected. We urge the Chinese authorities to involve those who have the support of the people of Hong Kong, such as the Democratic party of Hong Kong and others--all the parties. We hope that anyone who has been elected by the people of Hong Kong will be fully involved in the public affairs of Hong Kong after the transition. That would make a major contribution to the confidence of the territory.

Mr. Rowlands: What hope does the Foreign Secretary have of our partners in Europe joining us in conveying the strength of feeling that he has expressed from the Dispatch Box?

Mr. Rifkind: That is an important point. As one would expect, we have been speaking to many countries. I am delighted that a large number of countries are making it clear to China that the welfare, freedom and way of life

14 Nov 1996 : Column 525

of the people of Hong Kong is of importance not just to the people of Hong Kong or to the people of the United Kingdom, but to the international community as a whole. The United States, France, Japan, Australia and many other countries have recently made that point clearly and unambiguously to the Chinese authorities, and we hope that China will recognise that the world will be watching what is happening in Hong Kong after 30 June 1997.

Any action that denies to the people of Hong Kong the best opportunity to maintain their freedom and way of life will gravely damage not only Hong Kong, but China's reputation. I believe that China has much to lose if Hong Kong's interests and welfare are damaged, and that there are good reasons for China to reflect on what may be its current intentions.

Mr. Tim Renton (Mid-Sussex): I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way again. I wish to ask about a very important subject: the other so-called election--the election of the chief executive. The choice of chief executive will be extremely important to the people of Hong Kong, and the Chinese have made a great deal of fuss about the fact that he or she will be elected rather than chosen by a Government in London. The committee composed of the 400 people who have been chosen so far--although 5,700 Hong Kong people put forward names--is dominated by representatives of the pro-Peking parties. There are only two mild critics of Chinese policy on it. Does my right hon. and learned Friend share that opinion?

Mr. Rifkind: I should make two points in response to my right hon. Friend's intervention. First, like him, I am not hugely impressed by the suggestion that the chief executive will be elected. I think that we can confidently assume that the chief executive will be selected by the Chinese Government, even if the choice is formally endorsed in the manner that he mentioned.

Secondly, I am slightly more optimistic about the likelihood of an appropriate person being chosen. I have been impressed by the extent to which the Chinese Government have emphasised that they recognise that the choice of chief executive will be crucial to the continuing confidence of the civil service and people of Hong Kong. I believe that there is an extremely good prospect of the Chinese Government being sensitive to that matter, and that--although we may have doubts about the procedure being used--there is at least a good chance that a person will be chosen on the basis of the need to ensure confidence in Hong Kong and how best to achieve it. We must wait to see, but that is my judgment now.

Mr. Andrew Faulds (Warley, East): Perhaps the Foreign Secretary would care to explain to the House why the through-train arrangement was aborted, and, of course, who aborted it.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is right to imply, as I think he is implying, that the Chinese Government declined to continue with the through-train approach.

Mr. Faulds: Why?

Mr. Rifkind: It is quite clear why: because we had insisted on the introduction of proper democratic and

14 Nov 1996 : Column 526

representative institutions. The Chinese Government have acknowledged that that is why they believe it is no longer possible to continue with that approach.

Mr. Faulds: The Foreign Secretary really cannot get away with that. That was part of the Basic Law and the joint agreement, and to pretend that that was not so is somewhat dishonest. He knows perfectly well, as we all do who know about these matters--apparently very few do--that the one who aborted the through-train arrangement was Governor Patten.

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his point of view, but I do not think that it is shared by the vast majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, or by the people of Hong Kong.

The second sphere in which agreement has proved elusive is that of future human rights safeguards in Hong Kong. Hong Kong people are anxious--understandably--about whether the guarantees given in the joint declaration and the Basic Law will be honoured, in letter and spirit, after the handover. They need reassurance, and only China can provide that reassurance.

Sadly, such reassurance has not always been forthcoming. I have referred in the House to our concern at remarks that the Chinese Foreign Minister was reported to have made to The Asian Wall Street Journal last month--remarks which suggested that the guarantees of freedom of the press and of assembly, given by China in the joint declaration and the Basic Law, might somehow be constrained in ways not prescribed by law. We have urged the Chinese Government at the highest level to offer reassurance on that front. More is needed if the Hong Kong people's anxieties are to be allayed.

---