242
243
ty on made ming
rding hould
ers in horus
ering xiety g the
hopes hould
hoble
day.
close
iness
and
f the
vious ch is
days
y we
thing
from bosal
bosal
ases,
case,
lease
sty's
; but
Kong
t, to their ding
one
s are have the hina, vents
th in
nces bice.
le of
it is y. In
even
I am
e the
t for
efore cives
's of
that
at
Lenk
et as
K
W
Hong
[ 21 JUNE 1989 ]
one closely involved with it. Clearly, every Hong business wants to keep its executive and orce in Hong Kong for as long as possible and, it is to be hoped, well beyond 1997. Our group alone has over 50 Chinese managers who already have right of abode in the United Kingdom. They have had it for years. Not one of them is talking of leaving now. Other firms have a similar experience.
If our other key men go, Hong Kong cannot prosper. Of course, out of self-interest we should not be urging the British Government to give a right of entry to Britain to any of the population if we believed that that would lead to early wholesale emigration. No, the reason that we are so insistent is that we are confronted by a serious situation, not in 1997 but in the immediate future. Many of those most responsible for the success of Hong Kong are looking urgently at whether they should leave now in case they cannot get out later.
Unfortunately, the only insurance policies available today involve moving out of Hong Kong now, for example, to go to Canada to qualify for residence so as to obtain a Canadian passport. That is just what they and we want to avoid. That is why all Hong Kong businessmen urge the Government to provide a safety net now which would allow people to stay. The governor has publicly urged the British Government to take positive steps to restore confidence. Of course it is unreasonable--I wholly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on this point to try to work out a long-term scheme for the whole population within the next few weeks, although that must clearly be the long-term aim, probably in an international context.
I beg my honourable friends to extend a lifeline now as an interim measure to the key people who keep the territory prosperous. In that category I include those with technical,
with technical, financial and managerial skills. If we do not do so, I fully endorse the view of those who say that we risk an economic crisis, in one or perhaps two years' time, possibly followed by civil disorder, and long before 1997. If by 1997 Hong Kong is no longer a prosperous international centre, the Chinese Government will have no incentive to abide by the joint declaration. The goose will no longer be laying the golden eggs.
4.17 p.m.
The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, perhaps I may begin by declaring an interest. I am the managing director of a subsidiary of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation. I am of course proud to be connected with that group, but the views that I express this afternoon are mine and mine alone.
The recent tragic events in China have focused attention on the problems of Hong Kong, but there has always been an inherent weakness in the arrangements that we made with China because of the tightening of our nationality regulations from the 1960s until 1981. It is that which has made it inevitable that at some time we would continue to debate what has now become the Hong Kong question.
I should like to make it clear that I believe that we should grant the right of abode to the Hong Kong
HL 26 J
Kong
244
people who are qualified. The difficulty that we all see and upon which we have touched this afternoon, is how we underwrite that right. Those against have argued on the grounds of practicality: how can we absorb so many over possibly such a short time? But the question is: will they all come, and what are the probabilities of that being a requirement? Is there not some way to combine pragmatism with our obligations, or, as The Times said today, "honour and self-interest, can they not go together?”.
In terms of pragmatism, perhaps I may quote the words of my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary in his evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs earlier this year, when he said:
"Our objective then as now has been to secure for Hong Kong the prospect of prosperity and stability on an expanding scale into the future".
I believe that there is a common acceptance of that objective. The reality of the objective is that in the past few years Hong Kong has experienced a great economic growth. But the reality is also that that economic growth will at some time in the future-we do not know when-possibly be placed in jeopardy.
As noble Lord have heard this afternoon, Hong Kong is losing skilled people. Our own organisation is losing its skilled people to Australia and Canada, and I think that the paradox on which my noble. friend Lord Derwent touched is that it is the people without the security of right to abode elsewhere who seek that security, while those who have it remain behind. That point has been made many times to me by my Chinese friends in Hong Kong, sometimes quite heatedly in conversation over dinner. Hong Kong's success depends on its people. Their motivation, their confidence and their view of the success of Hong Kong is critical in the future. I have already said that this motivation and confidence are in jeopardy. The people of Hong Kong have a legitimate right to look to us. The Chinese Government, at least publicly, have said that the right to abode is a question for our own Government to resolve, difficult though that resolution may well be for us.
Since the signing of the joint declaration, the people of Hong Kong have seen a number of events taking place. They have seen the Portuguese agreement with China on Macao. They have heard about the French and, on a small scale, Italy, issuing the right of citizenship to Hong Kong Chinese people who work for their banks and industrial concerns in Hong Kong. More important, they have seen how within the Community we are moving towards freedom of movement of people within our own economic area. They see all this in stark contrast to our own existing policy. Even though in the last few days we have seen some movement within the Government, they have seen it in stark contrast to the policy which we have had in Hong Kong.
The noble Lord, Lord Willoughby de Broke, in his excellent maiden speech, and other noble Lords have already mentioned that we should not forget that Hong Kong is different from all our other areas in de-colonisation. There is no question of independence for Hong Kong. If one speaks to the Hong Kong Chinese, they do not even contemplate
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.