THE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
xxxix
4.16 Once the above decision is made the next question is whether there are any other practical options for blanket guarantees as distinct from assurances that can be given to specific categories of people. The only option put to us here is to create some sort of "Refuge of Last Resort" for Hong Kong people and in advance of any situation that might make such Refuge necessary. Put another way, an Inchoate Right would be created to enter Britain and such a right could be activated in the the future in certain circumstances.
4.17 "The Refuge of Last Resort" or conditional Right of Abode was principally put forward to us by Mr Henry Keswick and the Hong Kong Association. The proposal is as follows:
"To amend the Nationality Act in the most diplomatic possible way so as to achieve the following: If during the life of the Joint Declaration (i.e., for 50 years after 1997), both Houses of a British Parliament were to decide by majority vote that a Chinese Government had not adhered to the letter and the spirit of the Joint Declaration, then all holders of British Hong Kong passports would have the right of abode in the UK."
We feel that this proposal and the understandable sentiments that go with it represent more a desire to do something now, whatever that something may be, than a well considered and practical course of action. Who in Hong Kong now is going to feel secure because the British Parliament in some year in the possibly distant future might declare a breach of the Joint Declaration and activate a right of entry. In this context such a proposal will do little to inspire confidence in Hong Kong and to encourage people to stay there. Whilst such a proposal could well be backed by international offers of co-operation it is extremely doubtful that such offers can, at the present time, amount to anything more than somewhat vague and well-meaning offers to help. It is very difficult for Britain as well as other members of the international community to positively react to a situation that has to be hypothetical. In Hong Kong such a proposal will be attacked as grossly inadequate and an effort to avoid facing up to the mainline question of Right of Abode now. In the United Kingdom it will also be attacked as possibly opening the door to massive immigration when the public cannot focus on an emergency that makes such immigration necessary. We consider that these matters are far better dealt with by the British Government and Parliament of the day dealing practically and sympathetically with a current situation.
4.18 There remains what Sir David Wilson referred to as the “Armageddon Scenario” and the resulting refugee situation. Whilst Britain would clearly have the primary responsibility Sir David continued that there "quite rightly could be... a wider international responsibility". Sir Geoffrey Howe, giving evidence on 14 June, said, “in the... last resort situation of events overwhelming the people of Hong Kong, then in those circumstances it is, I think, inescapable that the UK with its special responsibility for the territory would be the country to which they would look for treatment as refugees, and we have to try and discharge that responsibility with the help of others”. We are obviously dealing here with a major refugee situation which would be the responsibility both of Britain and indeed the entire international community. From Hong Kong's point of view we would not, in this situation, be potentially looking after British Hong Kong citizens but rather the entire population of Hong Kong, namely, 5.7 million people. It really is extremely difficult for Britain or the international community to deal with these matters in advance. Assurances at this stage will be vague, if well intentioned, and there is a serious danger of arousing false expectations within Hong Kong. Britain should certainly seek declarations of willingness to help from the international community and be prepared at any time to take the lead in assisting Hong Kong. We should make this clear to Hong Kong. But we believe that actions in response to circumstances of emergency and/or Treaty Breach are far better dealt with by the British Government and Parliament of the day.
Question put, That the paragraphs be read a second time.
The Committee divided.
Ayes, 2
Noes, 6
Mr Peter Temple-Morris Mr Bowen Wells
Mr Dennis Canavan Mr Michael Jopling Mr Ted Rowlands
Mr Peter Shore
Mr Ian Taylor Mr Michael Welsh
Motion made, to leave out paragraph 4.15 and insert the following paragraph—(Mr_ Ivan Lawrence.)
4.15 How can such assurances be given? One suggestion has been to offer the population of Hong Kong who are immediately eligible for BDTC passports the right of abode exercisable only if the British Government of the day decides that the Joint Declaration has been fundamentally breached or abrogated. This would limit the numbers likely to come to Britain to 3.28 million and would postpone any decision until the eventuality arose. We reject that suggestion on the grounds that there is no reason for believing that the British people of the future would be more likely to accept over 3 million for settlement than they are today. They would be likely either to construe very
Page 210Page 211
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.