CONFIDENTIAL
THE NATIONALITY PROVISIONS IN THE UK MEMORANDUM
Another likely area of difficulty will be the nationality provisions
set out in the UK Memorandum itself. Ministers could face criticism
both from those who believe we are doing too much for the people of Hong Kong and from those who feel that HMG have done too little.
HMG is doing too much
The arguments of those who think we are doing too much
too much are likely to
centre on the retention of British nationality, and the
benefits
that nationality carries with it. Some could argue that it is wrong to perpetuate a situation in which persons who do not have the right
of abode in the UK nevertheless hold a form of British nationality. Others could argue that i t is wrong
for persons who derive their British nationality from a connection with a Dependent Territory to continue to hold such nationality when that territory itself ceases to be British. Still others might argue that the benefits to be enjoyed by those who hold the new form of nationality should be far less than those enjoyed by BDTCs.
Ministers will wish to rebut these arguments forcefully. They may
refer to the very great importance attached by Hong Kong people to
the retention of their nationality status and to the clear
reassurance on this point already provided in the UK Memorandum.
That Memorandum represents a political commitment which HMG are
bound to uphold. Moreover it has been made clear to the Executive
Council of Hong Kong that the benefits of the new status will be the
same in all major respects as those now enjoyed by BDTCs, except for the loss of transmissibility. There can be no going back on these commitments.
Some Lords wh o think we are doing too much for the people of Hong Kong may also try to write into the Bill an explicit provision that the new form of nationality will not carry the right of abode in the
UK.
This is quite unnecessary. The UK Memorandum makes it clear that the new form will not carry with it the right of abode in the UK. There is no need to legislate on the point; to do so might be taken
as a gratuitous insult in Hong Kong. Moreover Ministers may also
CONFIDENTIAL