economy to prevent employers from recruiting staff from overseas who have high level skills which are in short supply here, provided they satisfy the Department of Employment that no resident labour is available to fill the post. Furthermore, the government has always accepted a commitment to those with the right of abode, certain British Overseas citizens, genuine close dependants of those already living and refugrees with a well-founded fear of returning to their own country. Our approach to immigration control, therefore, seeks to balance firmness in restricting severely the numbers who can come here to work and settle with fairness in our <dealing with all those who seek to enter or remain here,
and in continuing to honour the commitments to which I have referred.
The fact is that this country has become, and will remain, a multi-racial society. The Government is convinced that people of different races and cultures can live and work together successfully and has an unquestionable commitment to the development of a society which enables them to so. I hope that, on reflection, Mr Hulley will be able to share this view.
It is also worth remembering that nearly three-quarters of our ethnic populations are British citizens; nearly half were born in this country and know no other They therefore have as much right to be here as you or I.
Regarding the Hong Kong Bill itself, I should like to make the following comments:
We have a clear duty to maintain good government and prosperity in Hong Kong up to 1997 and, we hope, beyond. This is a matter of honour for Britain.
It is also in our interest to keep Hong Kong prosperous. Many jobs in this country depend upon it. Britain's total trade with the territory amounts to over £4 billion a year. About 1,000 British companies operate in Hong Kong. There is thus no contradiction between the interests of the British people in those of the Queen's subjects in Hong Kong. A collapse in Hong Kong would be a bad blow to us all.
The scheme embodied in the Bill is designed to encourage people to stay in Hong Kong, not to come to Britain. Talented and enterprising people are leaving Hong Kong in growing numbers. Countries like Canada and Australia which have selective immigration policies welcome the doctors, teachers, managers and engineers. This exodus
of professional skill threatens both Hong Kong's prosperity and her good government during the last seven years of British rule.
Most of these emigrants would prefer to stay in Hong Kong. Almost all of them are ethnic Chinese. Their families, their careers and their businesses are based in the territory. But because of events in mainland China they also want the assurance of a foreign passport which would enable them to settle abroad if they became convinced that they had no future in Hong Kong. At present, they can normally gain such an assurance only by emigrating and settling in the country where they hope to acquire citizenship.
The Government's scheme will give 50,000 of these key people the assurance which they want without any need for them to live in Britain before they qualify for our citizenship. We are also asking our allies in Europe and elsewhere in the world to consider similar schemes which could help sustain confidence in Hong Kong.
It is of course theoretically possible that every one of the 50,000 families who benefit from our scheme will decide to come and live in Britain. We think this extremely unlikely, given their strong cultural, personal and professional ties with Hong Kong. But even if they did all come here, they would certainly not be a burden to this country. They would be some of the most enterprising and talented people from one of the most successful economies seen this century, who could start immediately to make a contribution.
Arrangements are being made for all applications under the scheme to be processed by 30 June 1997 when the scheme will end. The scheme is strictly limited in numbers, scope and duration. The legislation will be ring fenced to ensure that it cannot be used as a vehicle to bring about wider changes in the Government's immigration policy.
If we had offered no assurances on nationality, we would certainly have damaged this country's economic interests. We should also have made more likely a major challenge to our policy of restricting immigration. If confidence within Hong Kong were to collapse completely, then we could expect very large numbers of people to arrive at our airports seeking admission as refugees. The numbers involved might make the 50,000 families included in the Government's scheme look small.
I hope that this will enable you to reply to Mr Hulley.
Francis Maude
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.