THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
xix
4.9. Right of abode, or, as Sir David Wilson would prefer, right of entry, or, as OMELCO recommend, right of readmission are all in effect very much the same. They would not demand a change of nationality law, but of immigration law. In effect what is being advocated is the removal of immigration controls. British citizenship could then be acquired by right after the completion of the residency requirements (see paragraph 4.5 above). The Minister of State at the Home Office, Mr Renton, told us that any such arrangement “would be contradictory to the fundamental principles of immigration controls". He went on to say that "it would have to be done by primary legislation". We agree that any proposal designed to give a right of abode in Britain to more than 3 million people could only properly be effected by primary legislation. Unlike British citizenship a right of abode in Britain would not allow Hong Kong BDTCs after 1992 to settle in other member states of the European Community.
4.10. It is important to consider the numbers who might be eligible to come to Britain. There are now approximately 1.2 million Hong Kong Chinese holding BDTC passports. A further 2.08 million are registered as British Dependent Territory Citizens and therefore entitled to claim a British passport. Any inhabitant of Hong Kong may after 5 years' residence in Hong Kong apply for naturalisation and registration as a British Dependent Territories Citizen and it is estimated that about 2 million of the present population of Hong Kong are currently eligible to do so. It follows that the number of Hong Kong residents who would be entitled to settle in the United Kingdom, if Hong Kong British Dependent Territory Citizens were given the right of abode or citizenship, would be considerably in excess of the 3.28 million frequently mentioned.
4.11. Earlier in this report, we have described our understanding of Britain's obligation to Hong Kong. That obligation extends to ensuring that the pattern of separation including a high degree of local autonomy is present for 50 years after 1997 (paragraph 2.1). It is through the Joint Declaration that Britain has endeavoured to fulfil that obligation. It is claimed that, although Hong Kong people want to stay in Hong Kong and, indeed, intend to stay in Hong Kong, they want an "insurance policy". It is, we were recently told by OMELCO leaders, more a psychological comfort, and an indication of Britain's continuing commitment to Hong Kong.
4.12. In our view this is a confused argument. The proposed “insurance policy” providing a right of abode to Hong Kong BDTCs exercisable at the individual's discretion at any time and in any situation is not in fact an insurance policy. It does not depend upon any particular catastrophe or event affecting Hong Kong. It would allow one party to that insurance policy to decide when he or she could exercise it to enter Britain. Thus Britain could be vulnerable to large influxes of people which may be provoked by internal events in China itself rather than the situation in Hong Kong or any breach of the Joint Declaration. It is not possible to provide absolute guarantees for Hong Kong's future. We have discussed those measures which we believe will provide the best assurances for Hong Kong's continuing stability and prosperity. What Hong Kong people are seeking in addition are safeguards in case the worst happens. We have seen now what that worst could be; we must therefore consider afresh what the safeguards should be.
4.13. In practice two quite separate forms of assurance are being sought in Hong Kong, as Sir David Wilson explained to us. First there is an immediate need to provide assurances to those people whose presence in Hong Kong is vital for Hong Kong's continuing prosperity because of their skills and qualifications, and who, by the same token, will be in demand by immigrant-receiving countries, such as Australia, Canada and the USA, and are therefore likely to emigrate before 1997 if they lose confidence in the guarantees for Hong Kong's future. Secondly there is the vast majority of Hong Kong citizens who have no intention of leaving and, even if they had, have neither the resources nor the skills to do so. What these people require are assurances, in which they can have faith, that, in the event of a serious breach of the high degree of autonomy agreed in the Joint Declaration after 1997 there would be a home for them of last resort.
4.14. We emphasised in paragraph 4.6 above that we believe that the Joint Declaration met Britain's unique obligation to Hong Kong in the first instance. We have described in the earlier sections of this report what additional action we would like to see taken between now and
'Q815.
2 Ibid. JQ816.