From The Minister of State
The Hon Francis Maude MP
Nicholas R Winterton Esq MP House of Commons
London SW1A OAA
Dear Mr Winterton,
MATCH
шты
LETTER
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
London SW1A 2AH
11 April 1990
HID FILE
Thank you for your letter of 22 January to Tim Sainsbury enclosing one from your constituent, Mr C St Leger, of 111 Earlsway, Macclesfield. I apologise for the delay in replying.
Our last major responsibility of empire is to secure the best possible future for Hong Kong. We have a clear duty to maintain good government and prosperity in Hong Kong up to 1997 and, we hope, beyond. This is a matter of honour for Britain.
It is also in our interest to keep Hong Kong prosperous. Many jobs in this country depend upon it. Britain's total trade with the territory amounts to over £4 billion a year. Our investments there including equity investment, banking interests and so on amount to many billions of Pounds a massive stake by any measure. About 1,000 British companies operate in Hong Kong. There is thus no contradiction between the interests of the British people and those of the Queen's subjects in Hong Kong. A collapse in Hong Kong would be a bad blow
to us all.
-
Our scheme is designed to encourage people to stay in Hong Kong, not to come to Britain. Talented and enterprising people are leaving Hong Kong in growing numbers. Countries like Canada and Australia which have selective immigration policies welcome the doctors, teachers, managers and engineers. This exodus of professional skill threatens both Hong Kong's prosperity and her good government during the last seven years of British rule.
Most of these emigrants would prefer to stay in Hong Kong. Almost all of them are ethnic Chinese. Their families, their careers and their businesses are based in the territory. But because of events in mainland China they also want the assurance of a foreign passport which would enable them to settle abroad if they became convinced that they had no future in Hong Kong. At present, they can normally gain such an assurance only by emigrating and settling in the country where they hope to acquire citizenship.
The British Government's scheme will give 50,000 of these key people the assurance which they want without any need for them to live in Britain before they qualify for our citizenship. We are also asking our allies in Europe and elsewhere in the world to consider similar schemes which could help sustain confidence in Hong Kong.
It is of course theoretically possible that every one of the 50,000 families who benefit from our scheme will decide to come and live in Britain. We think this extremely unlikely, given their strong cultural, personal and professional ties with Hong Kong. But even if they did all come here, they would certainly not be a burden to this country. They would be some of the most enterprising and talented people from one of the most successful economies seen this century, who could start immediately to make a contribution.
Arrangements are being made for all applications under the scheme to be processed by 30 June 1997 when the scheme will end. The Government's scheme will be strictly limited in numbers, scope and duration. The legislation will be ring fenced to ensure that it cannot be used as a vehicle to bring about wider changes in the Government's immigration policy.
If we had offered no assurances on nationality, we would certainly have damaged this country's economic interests. We should also have made more likely a major challenge to our policy of restricting immigration. If confidence within Hong Kong were to collapse completely, then we could expect very large numbers of people to arrive at our airports seeking admission as refugees. The numbers involved might make the 50,000 families included in the Government's scheme look small.
Faced with such a situation, the British Government would naturally try to coordinate an international response to the problem, but we can be certain that other countries would expect us, as the former colonial power, to accept the lion's share. It would be far preferable to avoid such an outcome by doing everything in our power to maintain the prosperity and confidence of Hong Kong during the remaining years of British administration.
Mr St Leger also raised the issue of Hong Kong and the ivory trade and the Government's decision to allow Hong Kong a further six months to trade its stocks of legally-acquired ivory.
Both the British Government and Hong Kong are fully committed to the conservation of endangered species and to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). We would not have entered the Reservation if we believed that by doing so we were putting at risk the future of the African elephant.
Hong Kong will comply in full with the ban on all international commercial trade in ivory introduced by the Convention on 18 January. Hong Kong has traditionally been a major ivory trading centre and has large stocks of legally-acquired ivory. The Reservation, which we entered on 18 January, is designed to give the territory a reasonable period in which to adjust to the ban by allowing traders to dispose of these stocks in an orderly fashion and enabling the 3,000 carvers and workers to find alternative employment. The Reservation is for six months only and will not be reviewed. Hong Kong has already imposed a ban on all imports of ivory, which will ensure that there is no loophole for the entry of illegal ivory on to the market.
The Hong Kong Government are enacting legislation to ensure that the CITES ban is in force when we withdraw the Reservation on 18 July 1990. The legislative process is well on schedule. A draft enacting bill was approved by the Executive Council on 20 March and was introduced into the Legislative Council on 4 April. The legislation will come into force when our Reservation expires.
The Hong Kong Government have taken various measures to deter illegal trading and to enhance controls over existing stocks. A special Customs task force has been