Examination of witnesses (Questions 60
- 85)
TUESDAY 28 APRIL 1998
MR DEREK
FATCHETT, MP,
MR GRAHAM
FRY and MR
STEPHEN LILLIE
Mr Wilshire
60. Could I just ask a supplementary question.
You said that you had some reservations. Could you tell us what
they are, please?
(Mr Fatchett) Well, David, the reservations would
be that you have probably given greater powers to the executive
and therefore the question then becomes as to the extent and the
way in which those powers of the executive are used and held accountable.
Chairman: Mr Heath.
Sir John, is your question to do with the question of demonstrations?
Sir John Stanley: It
is, but I do not want to interrupt David.
Mr Heath
61. I had three examples which I wanted
to put to the Minister.
(Mr Fatchett) The sense of comradeship in the
Select Committee is wonderful.
Chairman
62. I think it makes sense to cover and
exhaust the examples.
(Mr Fatchett) So you are never treated with disrespect
by your colleagues.
Mr Heath
63. I am most grateful, Chairman. The second
point I want to put to you is the Societies Ordinance, which I
think has given us equal cause for concern. Would you agree that
the nature of that Ordinance is one that would never be acceptable,
for instance, in this country or indeed in any of the liberal
democracies? Do you have any concern that there was no reference
to the Societies Ordinance in the Six-Monthly Report? Does that
give any cause for concern in terms of the level of monitoring
which is available to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in Hong
Kong?
(Mr Fatchett) I think it might almost sound a
tedious answer but it is not meant to be. On the Societies Ordinance
it is almost the same response as the previous one, the concerns
which I set out in greater detail in my response to David. The
fact is that there is no sign as yet that this is acting in a
way that is transgressing in practice, but again it is an area
of concern. May I just say to you that we did feel in the report
by inference, maybe not explicitly enough, at paragraphs 13.10
and 13.11 we did make reference to this. If we have not done it
explicitly enough we will make sure that we do so in the future.
It was an area that we thought we had covered under the last report.
64. Let me put those two items together
with the discussion we have already had on Article 23 of the Treaty
on Sedition and Subversion item. There are other examples but
those are the three most glaring examples. When we put those together
do we not see a drift, a consistent drift, towards a more repressive
framework? The question I put to you, Minister, is there is a
clear statement in the Basic Law, Article 27, and it may be helpful
to read that into the record: "Hong Kong residents will have
freedom of speech, of the press and of publication, freedom of
association, of assembly, of procession and of demonstration and
the right and freedom to form and join trade unions and to strike".
At what point does the corpus of new legislation actually find
itself at variance with that article? If that is the case, at
what point can the British Government have any recourse, or perhaps
it has no locus in this at all, to actually put that fairly and
squarely to the Government of Hong Kong and to the People's Republic
that we have arrived at a point where human rights in Hong Kong
have been seriously failed?
(Mr Fatchett) The sense of my answer to your first
question is technical in making the judgment at where that point
comes because that is a question for the Hong Kong courts. Before
anybody then criticises me for saying it is a technical matter,
the technicality of that has important political implications
for freedom. The actual judgment in terms of your question, David,
at what point is there a transgression of the Basic Law in the
Joint Declaration, is a function for the courts to decide. As
you have quite rightly said, Article 27 of the Basic Law sets
out certain basic freedoms that exist. The judgment that the court
would have to make is whether legislation was ultra vires
in relation to those basic freedoms and the provisions of the
Basic Law and of a particular article within that. That is the
technical answer. The political answer, which is the one that
I suspect you as a practising politician are much more interested
in, is the point at which the judgment is made for us to say that
there has been a violation of these basic freedoms which is unacceptable,
unacceptable in our definition of the Joint Declaration but also
unacceptable in terms of our own values. My argument hitherto
is that we have not reached that point and so far, so good. Your
approach is to say that there is a chipping away there, that there
is, if I can mix the metaphors, potentially a loaded gun that
has not yet been fired.
65. Yes.
(Mr Fatchett) Our response to that would be to
say that we would always be vigilant about these freedoms, the
freedoms that we see as enshrined under the Joint Declaration,
and that we would have an opportunity of exercising our concerns
through the Joint Liaison Group but also through international
public opinion. I do come back to a point that I made to the Chairman
right at the very beginning. I think Hong Kong is unique in the
extent to which it attracts public international interest. These
elections that will take place next month are going to attract
an enormous media interest. I have no doubt that the continuing
protection of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong will continue to
attract international interest from the media. Those are the areas
of leverage that we have. It is not a technical question from
the point of when are you in violation of the Basic Law or the
Joint Declaration, it is a political judgment, and we will make
that political judgment and that is why we have established the
Six-Monthly report and that is why, in a sense, we are accountable
to this Select Committee but that is also why there is an international
interest in what goes on.
66. You are satisfied at the moment that
there is a sort of exponential movement towards a point you are
not convinced will yet be reached where Article 27 is breached?
(Mr Fatchett) I am satisfied at the moment that
basic rights are being respected in practice.
Sir John Stanley
67. Minister, as you are well aware, in
this country it is commonplace practice to allow representatives
of the media to accompany demonstrations for their duty of reporting
it accurately. We were told in Hong Kong that the practice now
being followed there is to corral press reporters into specific
places and they are then told if they move away from the specific
place they are allocated they will be treated as demonstrators,
with the implication that they might find themselves under arrest.
We were also told that there had apparently been five demonstrators
arrested after a demonstration that took place at the time of
the IMF meeting in Hong Kong. Do you have any comments on those
representations that were made to us?
(Mr Fatchett) I would always be very keen to maintain
the basic right to demonstrate. I think we have to be a little
cautious in arguing that our own practices here in the UK are
as you suggest. If I can just inject a sense of autobiographical
detail into the Committee.
Mr Mackinlay
68. 1968.
(Mr Fatchett) Not 1968, Andrew, I dare not go
back that far in my personal history. In 1984, along with Paul
Routledge, who was then at The Times and the Independent
on Sunday, trying to observe the picket line on the miners'
strike, I was arrested. I am delighted to tell the Committee I
was not charged. May I say that the Independent on Sunday
is represented by a man in the lobby with a totally clean record
as far as I know and certainly not unclean as a result of that
experience. We probably were doing exactly the same as you have
pointed out in the Hong Kong case. I would say that it was wrong
to detain us in Mansfield on the occasion, whenever it was, 1984,
and it would be equally wrong to do so in Hong Kong.
Sir John Stanley
69. Just one other point raised in relation
to the new provisions that are being applied on the registration
of organisations. Concern was put to us that under the terms of
the registration requirements the government authorities are now
allowed to obtain personal information on individuals in the organisations
concerned, information that the government deems to be reasonably
necessary. Do you have any concern about the ambit of that legislation
and the clear implication that people feel fearful that as a condition
of being able to register a particular organisation they may be
obliged to disclose a great deal of personal detail to a government
which the government might ultimately use politically, indeed
legally, against them?
(Mr Fatchett) We would certainly not wish to see
any government interfering with that degree of personal detail.
Those examples, I have to be truthful, have not been brought to
the attention of our own consulate in Hong Kong in that sort of
detail.
70. I have to say they were represented
at this particular meeting.
(Mr Fatchett) We will certainly look at that and
make sure that we do follow that through. I wonder whether there
is some danger in extrapolating from one situation to another
and that is those who have foreign citizenship will not be allowed
to stand in the election process, which we knew, and there may
well be a ciphering process of their personal details there. Otherwise
we certainly would not wish to see any intrusion into privacy.
We will look at those and I will make sure that the consulate
is briefed fully on that.
Sir Peter Emery
71. Can I just follow up what Sir John said.
Some of us saw the Chief of Police in Hong Kong who of course
was appointed by the British Government with Mr Patten. He assured
the Members of the Committee who were with him that there had
been no alteration of the orders given to the police about demonstrations
as they existed before the takeover and since the takeover. He
suggested that perhaps this was certain information that had been
given to us by lobbyists. He said as far as he was concerned he
could give us absolute assurance that there had been no alteration
in police treatment either of the press or of demonstrators since
the handover.
(Mr Fatchett) I welcome the comments from the
Chief of Police. As I was saying to David in my earlier remarks,
I think the robust nature of the system in Hong Kong is well protected
by people of high personal integrity who have a commitment to
freedom. Maybe it would be worthwhile and necessary for me at
this stage to congratulate Anson Chan and her colleagues for the
way in which they have managed the Civil Service and maintained
the values of the Civil Service. That is an important guarantee
of the continuing freedoms of Hong Kong. We used the metaphor
a few moments ago about the gun being loaded but not fired. I
think when there are people like Anson Chan around we have every
confidence to believe what we consider to be important will remain
in Hong Kong. It is that degree of personal integrity and commitment
that we should applaud and see as a very positive characteristic
of Hong Kong society.
Ms Abbott
72. Before we leave the issue of basic rights
and freedoms, can I ask you specifically—I know you do not
really like specifics—whether any of the legislation passed
at the Provisional Legislature specifically contravenes the Human
Rights Convention? In particular I am thinking about the legislation
on rights of abode and the repeal of trade union legislation.
(Mr Fatchett) As far as we understand the position
there is no contravention of the ILO Conventions. That is the
view taken by the ILO and the advice that has been given to us.
Therefore, the specific answer to your specific question is no.
Let me also say that we should take this opportunity of encouraging
the process to which China is now committed and that is to report
on international human rights covenants directly from Hong Kong
to international bodies. That is an area of leverage that we have
because there is going to be an open reporting process on Hong
Kong, very much stressing and emphasising the nature of the one
country, two systems approach. Hong Kong will be reported on separately
on its human rights provisions and its practices.
73. Just to end this section on a point
that the Chairman opened with. If it were the case that Beijing,
via its people in Hong Kong, were contravening basic rights and
freedoms, if you leave to one side the court of public opinion,
if you leave to one side the role of the media, if you leave to
one side those things about which you have spoken at length, the
truth is that if the Chinese were to contravene basic rights and
freedoms in Hong Kong in practice Her Majesty's Government has
no practical sanctions.
(Mr Fatchett) It is also a tempting headline to
say "United Kingdom distances itself from Hong Kong"
but that is not the case and that is not what we are aiming to
do. That is why we have the Joint Declaration, that is why we
have the Sino-British Treaty, and that is why we report regularly
to Parliament. For all of those reasons there is no distancing
ourselves from the people of Hong Kong.
74. I did not ask you whether you were distancing
yourself, I was asking you to confirm what is my perception of
your evidence, that if you leave to one side the court of public
opinion and the media and so on, Her Majesty's Government has
no practical sanctions against Beijing.
(Mr Fatchett) If I can say to you with respect,
as the lawyers say, your argument is a little bit of the sort
of what did the Romans ever do for us.
75. No.
(Mr Fatchett) If you remember the scene, once
the roads and drainage had been taken out there was still the
person in the audience saying "well, what did the Romans
ever do for us?"
76. Let me try again.
(Mr Fatchett) Let me just finish my answer. I
think if you strip down all the asides and say let us take those
out of the argument and what are you left with, we may actually
get back to the point where we have got right to the heart of
the nut in that case. The reality is that international public
opinion, the use of the media, the openness of reporting on Hong
Kong through the United Nations, the Joint Declaration, the Joint
Liaison Group, are very, very important elements and it is impossible
to answer any question with any meaning to say push all of those
to one side and what are you left with. It is really like saying
in a military situation if you get rid of your Army, your Navy
and your Air Force what are you left with to defend this country?
I am not sure that is a logical argument.
Chairman: We will
have to leave it at that. I would now like to turn on to another
topic, the right of abode, travel and immigration.
Sir John Stanley
77. Minister, the question that I would
like to put to you is one that was of concern to this Committee
in the last Parliament and again it is of concern to us in this
one, which is whether the British Government has been successful
or not in helping to try to secure visa free access to holders
of Hong Kong SAR passports on the same basis that visa free access
to other countries was obtained for passport holders of British
overseas territories' passports previously?
(Mr Fatchett) The answer to your question, John,
is that we have not been as universally successful as we would
wish to be but we will continue to lobby on visa free access for
SAR citizens.
78. Minister, could you provide the Committee
with a paper which sets out the countries which had visa free
access agreements for previous holders in Hong Kong or British
overseas territories' passports and the list of countries that
now have been willing to grant the same visa free access to holders
of Hong Kong SAR passports?
(Mr Fatchett) I am very happy to do that, John[1].
Let me say to you that we have visa free access with 45 countries.
Our objective and the objective of the previous government was
to get wider access than that. You will see from the list of 45
that these will be important countries. We will provide you with
that information. We will continue to work on making sure that
we can gain visa free access because that is important for the
people of Hong Kong.
79. The other question I would like to ask
you is, given the critical importance for confidence, financial
viability, etc., of a very carefully controlled level of immigration
from the rest of mainland China into Hong Kong, does the British
Government have any concerns about any change of immigration policy
that is now being pursued by mainland China in relation to Hong
Kong? We do understand that there have been some different arrangements,
for example in relation to giving children who have at least one
parent in Hong Kong rights of abode in Hong Kong and there may
be other changes. Is this an area of concern to you?
(Mr Fatchett) It is an area that we do discuss
with the Immigration Department in Hong Kong, you would be surprised
if the answer were otherwise. We are on the whole satisfied with
the current arrangements. The arrangements for settlement are
in the hands of the Immigration Department and there is no significant
change in the rules and practices there. The arrangements for
visitor's visas coming from mainland China, permits to come into
Hong Kong, are very similar to the arrangements that existed prior
to 1 July last year. At the moment we are confident that policy
and practice are working in the direction we would wish to see
them go but it is an area that we will clearly wish to be reassured
on on a continuous basis and we will continue to ask for information
about that.
Chairman: I am obliged.
We did visit the Police Commissioner during the time we were in
Hong Kong and Sir Peter has a question that arises from that.
Sir Peter Emery
80. I indicated this in my earlier question.
Certainly the Members of the Committee were much impressed by
the authority both of the Commissioner and his deputies. They
did, however, indicate that they were having no interference from
anybody, but they did say, and they did not put it quite as a
complaint although I think I might suggest it was a complaint,
they were not getting the back-up from the British Government
in the training that was going on between the Hong Kong Police
and whether it is the Home Office or other police forces in Britain
in training courses in the United Kingdom. I wonder, therefore,
is there any change of policy on this matter? I did raise it with
the Commissioner for Foreign Affairs in Hong Kong and he said
there had been no objection from him or from Beijing for this
continuing as it has been in the past and I believe there is absolutely
no special service training between the two bodies any longer.
Ought this not to be rectified? Could you perhaps see if that
is possible?
(Mr Fatchett) I cannot do, Peter, what I did earlier
and pull a rabbit out of the hat and tell you that we have just
come up with an agreement.
81. Well, try!
(Mr Fatchett) What I can say to you positively
is that we are looking at ways in which we can continue to provide
assistance. There is no principled objection on our part. We have
to work out the details. You and the Commissioner may criticise
us for being slow in doing this work, and if you make that criticism
I probably will have to take it on the chin and accept that, but
I can assure you that we are working in the same principled direction
and if we can offer the assistance we will aim to do so.
82. Not wishing to give you a knock-out
blow, would you be able to say to the Committee that you are doing
your best to ensure that what existed in the past can continue
in the future?
(Mr Fatchett) We will certainly do our best to
provide what is appropriate and relevant in the future. That is
not trying to be in any sense a process of moving the targets
because we do move on. We are now in a different situation and
the policing requirements are different. We will try to provide
assistance for what is relevant and appropriate in 1998 and beyond.
83. Perhaps you would like to let us know
how soon you could bring that about.
(Mr Fatchett) We will tell you when we come to
fruition on this matter.
Sir Peter Emery: That
is very kind of you.
Chairman
84. Minister, one final matter. As you know
the Six-Monthly Reports have been of considerable help to this
Committee and to Parliament. What is the current state of thinking
in the Foreign office about how long these Six-Monthly Reports
will continue? Will they be ending when the Joint Liaison Group
winds up or will they continue as a service to Parliament thereafter?
(Mr Fatchett) Our current thinking is that they
will finish with the Joint Liaison Group. We do not see the Joint
Liaison Group finishing that quickly. There is life in the Six-Monthly
Report and we would wish to continue during the existence of the
Joint Liaison Group. If there is continued pressure from Parliament
for us to maintain some process of reporting, and if that is considered
to be appropriate, we will certainly be open to ideas and discussion
about that. Let me just say, if I can through you, Chairman, I
would love to see you and other parliamentary colleagues take
more opportunity of taking the scrutiny on Hong Kong to the floor
of the House of Commons. I have to say to you that we have only
been asked seven parliamentary questions since August of last
year. It would be very useful if colleagues were to take a greater
interest in the affairs of Hong Kong and our scrutiny and our
responsibilities.
85. May I say on that that during our visit
it was made clear that since the handover it is now much more
difficult for Members of Parliament to find public means of going
to Hong Kong. The interest is still there. Prior to the handover
the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association had a very close link
with Hong Kong. It was made clear to us by our own Consulate General
and indeed by a number of senior Hong Kong officials that a continuing
interest from this Parliament would be appropriate and perhaps
the Government could consider ways and means of encouraging visits.
(Mr Fatchett) Let me respond to that by saying
in not a wholly facetious way that it does not take an air ticket
to go into the Table Office. There is an approach whereby you
can make ministers accountable by putting down written or oral
parliamentary questions and we would be delighted to see more.
Chairman: Minister,
again you have been most helpful. The debate will continue. Thank
you very much.
1 See supplementary memorandum, p. 26. Back
| 
