interests internationally.
The Government will continue to do that, and as
in the past they will do everything possible to avoid British Dependent
citizens encountering difficulties in third countries, particularly
Territories
over immigration procedures.
You also asked for assurance that the national status of British Dependent Territories citizens and Her Majesty's Government's undertakings towards them would continue whether a particular Dependent Territory remained in Schedule 6 of the Bill or not. I cannot, of course, make any definite forecast about a hypothetical situation, particularly one which, as you yourself pointed out in the debate, is very remote. It is important, however, to point out that a Dependent Territory may only be removed from Schedule 6 by a decision of Parliament.
If there were to be a change in the status of a dependency, the question of the national status in our law of people from that dependency would therefore be for Parliament to decide, taking account of the circumstances. It would, I believe, be wrong to try to be more precise on how British Dependent Territories citizens from Hong Kong might be affected, particularly, as no clear analogy can be drawn between that Territory and others which in the past have ceased to be dependencies. What I believe matters most from Hong Kong's point of view is that the stability of the Territory rests on the twin bases of our excellent relations with China and of Britain's commitment to support the interests of Hong Kong's people. That is not altered by the Nationality Bill.
2