1635
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
19 APRIL 1990
We cannot tow the colony away, nor is it remotely realistic, as some have suggested. to imagine that we can transport the population of some 6 million halfway round the globe and put them in Surrey, Sussex, Somerset or our inner cities. A moment's reflection shows how unbalanced and inappropriate such a proposition is from every point of view.
The essential truth is that the future of Hong Kong cannot possibly be separated from that of China. It is the relationship with China that is all-important, and it is that which we have to get right and on which we should
concentrate.
In December 1984, Britain negotiated the joint declaration with the People's Republic. It was a first-class agreement. It allowed basically for one country but two systems. Hong Kong is to be allowed to keep its social system and economy and considerable autonomy for at least 50 years. Remembering that the alternative to the agreement with China is no agreement, merely the expiry of the lease and the reversion of sovereignty, it was a satisfactory and beneficial agreement.
The joint
declaration is a solemn international agreement registered at the United Nations. The Chinese and British Governments have entered into commitments and obligations under the joint declaration, and the Chinese have recently reaffirmed them. The terms of that agreement should be strictly adhered to by both sides. We should do nothing to damage. threaten or jeopardise the agreement. Its implementation is by far the best prospect for the future.
But then came Tiananmen square, the bloodshed and the brutal suppression of the demonstration a year ago. There was, rightly, worldwide revulsion and condemna- tion, especially in Hong Kong. Everyone was appalled. But are we to say that what happened in Tiananmen square is somehow China's last word for all time? Are we to say that that will be an inevitable regular occurrence; that in all perpetuity the Chinese army will regularly attack its own people; and that in 1997 the Chinese army will march into Hong Kong and massacre everyone? Should we expect that to be the most likely prospect, so that the agreement is now worthless?
In considering that, the events in eastern Europe should encourage us. We ail remember the tanks on the streets of East Berlin, Budapest and Prague. Yet we have now seen genuinely free multi-party elections and the blossoming of freedom and democracy. Why assume, almost as an act of wish fulfilment, a worst-case scenario? Why forecast Armageddon in China?
We know that even last year there were different views in China, even at the highest level, on what to do about the demonstration in the square. It would be mistaken to believe that there are no sane voices. On thing is certain: the geriatrics who ordered the bloodshed will not be around much longer. There have been many upheavals and much turmoil in China over the past 40 years which have baffled outsiders-the great leap forward, the cultural revolution and the changes in leadership. However, I think I am right in saying that throughout that period China has kept to its international agreements. No hon. Member knows what the position will be in seven years' time. Why should we assume that it will be worse rather than better?
British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill
1636
The Basic Law, for the mini-constitution passed on 4 April in Peking, set out the rights for Hong Kong citizens after 1997. It said that, after China resumes sovereignty over Hong Kong, it will nevertheless enjoy "a high degree of autonomy"
as a "special administrative region" of China. It said that Hong Kong's capitalist system and "way of life" will remain unchanged for 50 years. It will have independent finances and its own tax system, keep its currency-the Hong Kong dollar and remain a free port outside the Chinese customs area. While overall responsibility for defence and foreign affairs will rest with Peking, Hong Kong will be authorised to handle "relevant external affairs" on its own. All that was agreed last month. That is obviously the best way forward for Hong Kong. Everyone concerned should strive to see that it works, and not take steps that will jeopardise it.
No one can prophesy what the world will look like in seven years' time. who the personalities in power in Peking will be or, for that matter, who they will be in London; but there is no reason to suppose that the international agreement will not be adhered to. It will be in everyone's interests, including China's, to adhere to it.
At this stage, it is the opposite of helpful for people to talk about Armageddon. Such a nightmare "end of the world" scenario would have to be dealt with not by this Parliament or the next, but by the Parliament after that. It would be the height of irresponsibility to start moving populations round the world now on a permanent, irrevocable basis because of transient factors ог hypothetical future circumstances. I doubt whether those concerned or their offspring would have cause to thank us for that.
What the Government propose in the Bill is a bizarre lottery with 50.000 British passports, catering for some 250.000 people. as prizes to be competed for under a grotesque points system. For example, anyone over the age of 51 would incur negative points: those who have laboured long in the British service would therefore be discriminated against. The majority would be from the private sector. For business men, the points would take account of earnings
"as a measure of success and value to Hong Kong." For ordinary residents there is nothing. Those passports would obviously be highly prized and much sought after in an unseemly scramble in which there would be winners and losers, and many disappointed people.
Donald Tsang, the Hong Kong director of administra- tion, says that 750,000—15 times the number of passports -will apply, and that most will be disappointed. As a neat Thatcherite touch, all applicants will be charged a fee. whether they are successful or not. All that is supposed to bring confidence to Hong Kong. How does it give confidence to those on the lower deck to tell them that it is necessary to give out lifebelts, but only to a few of the chosen on the bridge? This move will encourage everyone to think that they should have a passport; lack of confidence is thereby engendered as a self-fulfilling prophecy.
As for the inane idea that giving passports will stop people leaving or using them, why in that case not give them to everyone? There was no consultation with the Chinese, who have said that they will not recognise them. or dual nationauty. The passports cannot be used to enter
833 CD31/42 Job 11-10