TNAG-2192-FCO40-3129-Hong-Kong-nationality-package-1990 — Page 100

THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

xxi

the presence of a large group of disaffected and unsettled professionals and managers who have always at least half an eye on emigration opportunities.

4.19. Most of those working in the private sector, whom we met in Hong Kong, had direct experience of the problems caused by emigration. It has been reported that French citizenship has been offered to some Hong Kong citizens working in French companies in the Territory; although Mr Renton told us that he had received no confirmation of these reports.' We also heard, for example, of American companies transferring key Hong Kong employees to the USA so that they could acquire American passports. These examples show how seriously the problem is being taken by companies in Hong Kong. We believe that the prosperity of Hong Kong could be seriously jeopardised by a continuing high rate of emigration of skilled professionals and managers from the private sector. We appreciate the difficulties of defining coherent categories of suitable people apart from public servants (for whom see below) to whom a right of abode or an assurance of a right of entry for settlement might be offered. However, on this point, Sir David Wilson told us, “What is needed, first of all, is an act of political will to decide what can be done".? Lord MacLehose addressing the same point said, "There are people in the Home Office who are frightfully ingenious at keeping people out and I think they are perfectly capable of thinking of a formula for letting them in". We believe such assurances could be provided to a significant number of Hong Kong BDTCs in key positions.

4.20. In the period to 1997 it is also particularly important to maintain the morale of the Hong Kong civil service. Hong Kong has been well served by its civil service, as Sir David Ford, the Chief Secretary, told us and it is essential that the high standards of the service are maintained in the period to 1997 and beyond. Hong Kong civil servants have been deeply disappointed at the very low level of acceptances of applications for full British citizenship under Section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act of 1981. The Home Office memorandum shows that of 499 applications under this section, only eight have been accepted, and only four of them were members of the Crown Service. We welcomed Sir Geoffrey Howe's statement in evidence on 14 June that this was an area in which more generosity should be shown in the future. Sir David Ford emphasised to us the important role of the civil service in implementing the Joint Declaration and, since the Joint Declaration is an agreement between the PRC and the British Government, their service in ensuring that it is implemented in the period to 1997 in accordance with Britain's undertakings in that Declaration is undoubtedly service to the Crown. We believe that their's is a special case and that far greater flexibility should be used in granting them full British citizenship.

4.21. We recognise that section 4(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 was intended to be used "sparingly" but this should give ample scope for it to be used far more generously in the future than it has been hitherto, and the Home Office should make a clear policy statement that this is what they intend to do. We believe, however, that a larger number of key people, in the civil service, in the police or, indeed, in any area of public life, should be given assurances before 1997 that they will be able to come to Britain, should they so wish, to settle, free of immigration controls. These assurances would be of a right of entry to the United Kingdom and thus would not involve any amendment of the British Nationality Act 1981 since they would not automatically bestow full British citizenship, but those BDTCs who took them up would be entitled to register as British citizens after five years residence in the UK. Neither would it contradict the terms of the British memorandum attached to—but not part of-the Joint Declaration. The purpose of these assurances would be to keep key personnel in post up to the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, and give them the confidence to stay thereafter. Therefore the assurances under such a scheme could be taken up either at 1997, or at any point thereafter, before, at or after retirement. There should be no secrecy surrounding such a scheme. We believe that confidence would be increased by the sight of people, who are able to go, deciding to stay. Furthermore, a secret scheme would lay itself open to accusations of, for example, blackmail, such as that made in an article in the Guardian on 13 May 1989. It is also unlikely, in our view, that a scheme could be kept secret up to 1997. We do not have precise figures for the numbers to whom a scheme such as we have advocated should be available, but it would be thousands not hundreds or tens.

IQ 801.

2 Q915.

'Q 654.

• Evidence, p 306.