the country illegally and their parents then made applications to join them. In other instances, people arrived from China on a one-way permit. China and Hong Kong had entered into an agreement to facilitate the orderly movement of people to Hong Kong, but how the quota set under that agreement was applied was for the Chinese Government to decide. In Hong Kong, the policy was that wherever blatant use was made of illegal tactics, involving the deliberate splitting of families to gain entry into Hong Kong, the authorities would be unsympathetic to requests for family reunification, on the grounds that illegal manoeuvring should not be encouraged when a perfectly legitimate option was available.
XIII.
Right to participate in the conduct of public affairs (article 25)
77.
Mr. FEARN (United Kingdom) said there were no significant differences in the right to political participation of the peoples of Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Saint Helena and the Turks and Caicos Islands as compared with citizens of the United Kingdom. In all those territories, as in the United Kingdom genuine periodic elections to the legislative bodies were held by secret ballot and by universal adult suffrage. The precise qualifications for voting and for standing for election varied between the territories. The peoples of the territories had free access to public service in the same way as British citizens in the United Kingdom.
78. The 57 inhabitants of Pitcairn had limited opportunities for political participation of the kind known in the United Kingdom but all were entitled to stand for public office, including election to the Island Council. The close-knit nature of the community enhanced the ability of each citizen to make known his or her views.
79.
Regarding the special situation of Hong Kona, he referred to paragraphs 90-115 of annex F to the report (CCPR/C/32/Add.14) and to paragraphs 24-35 of the report's supplement (CCPR/C/32/Add.15). Upon ratifying the Covenant, the United Kingdom had reserved the right not to apply article 25 (b) in so far as it might require the establishment of an elected Executive and Legislative Council in Hong Kong.
80.
Mr. COORAY drew attention to a "Green Paper" issued in July 1984 concerning the development of representative government in Hong Kong and to a "White Paper" on the same subject produced in February 1988, and asked whether there were plans to modify membership of the legislative body so that a majority of representatives would be directly elected by 1997. What measures were being contemplated to enable all the inhabitants of Hong Kong to exercise the rights mentioned in article 25 (a) and (b) of the Covenant, as the "Green" and "White" Papers showed they so ardently desired?
81.
Mr. EL-SHAFEI noted that the United Kingdom had made its reservation on article 25 (b) in 1976, and only in relation to Hong Kong. In view of developments since that date, would the United Kingdom consider reviewing its reservation with a view to withdrawing it? The reservation did not absolve the United Kingdom Government from fulfilling the commitment, expressed in the "Green Paper" of 1984, to hold direct elections in 1988, yet there had apparently been a change of policy since 1984 what was the Government's position now?