time new legislation enshrining this situation is passed. The relevant provisions of the British Nationality Act of 1981 (which were of course enacted partly in response to deep domestic concern about the prospect of very large numbers of people coming to the UK from Hong Kong) nevertheless created particularly strong resentment in the territory. Groups such as civil servants have strong feelings about what they perceive as the UK's obligations towards its nationals in Hong Kong. The fact that Portuguese Nationality Law as applied to Macao means that henceforth some Macao residents will be able to enter the UK more easily than Hong Kong British passport holders has provoked bitterness, although it is well understood that the numbers involved in Macao are small (a maximum of 100,000) compared with the 3.5 million in Hong Kong.
It is clear that we cannot afford the spectacular gestures towards Hong Kong British passport holders advocated by some press commentators. That would undermine the British Nationality Act. It would also be impossible to reconcile with our responsibilities towards Hong Kong and the need to sustain confidence in the territory. But while taking full account of these considerations, there is no reason why we need ignore the opportunities presented by entrepreneurs and other talented or deserving individuals who have decided to leave Hong Kong and who wish to invest and/or make their lives overseas. People in this category could make a signficiant contribution to Britain and Hong Kong after 1997. We need to ensure that such individuals understand that they would be welcome in Britain and that our rules on settlement and nationality can be operated flexibly. Provided we proceed discreetly and with our
responsibility towards Hong Kong clearly in mind, it should be possible to ensure that Britain secures a