CONFIDENTIAL
The main points to be alwanted in explaining the Government's
position are:
a)
the provisions in Article 6 fully reflect the
undertakings given during the passge of the Hong Kong
Bill. These were that no former BDTC, nor any
children born after 30 June 1997 to such a person,
will become stateless as a result of the agreement.
This was extended to cover the grandchildren of
former Hong Kong BDTCs, if they were born stateless.
b)
Right of abode in Hong Kong can only be provided
by the Government until 30 June 1997. After that date,
it will be a matter for the Chinese Government. But the
agreement with the Chinese guarantees rights of abode in
Hong Kong after 1997. The Government believe that these
provisions will cover all non-ethnic Chinese BDTCs in
Hong Kong, unless they have left Hong Kong permanently
to settle elsewhere and have right of abode somewhere else.
c)
Nationality without right of abode in the parent
BDTCs do not
country is not a form of statelessness.
now have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. The
Council's proposals would undermine the principles of the
British Nationality Act 1981, which was to confer on all
former citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies a
status which would accurately reflect their links with
or former bepenbering the United Kingdom or with a dependent territory as the
case may be.
d)
BDTCS of Indian origin in Hong Kong have made it
plain through their Council that they wish to continue to live in Hong Kong. Granting them British citizenship, and thus right of abode in the UK, will not help to do
this. Their future is safeguarded by the agreement.
e)
There is no substance in the suggestion (made by the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations) that the Agreement with the Chinese, or the provisions of Article 6, are racially based. The Government recognise an obligation