CONFIDENTIAL
argue that
missing;
the
lack of a name indicates that the
substance is also
are
(b) argue that the provisions to guard against statelessness
not sufficiently spelt out and that
and that the Bill should show the status
to be acquired by those who would otherwise be stateless.
Ministers will wish to take the line that the detailed provisions of
the Order in Council have to be fully discussed with Hong Kong, and
that there was insufficient time to do this early enough to meet the
need for the enabling Bill to be passed in time for ratification of the agreement in June. The timing of the Order in Council has not yet been decided, but it will probably need to be in place in 1986 in order to fit in with the normal 10-validity period of passports,
and to give Hong Kong as much time as possible to issue passports to
all who want them.
to use the title
they will wish to
Ministers may be able to announce our intention
"British National (Overseas)". If they are not, they will
refer to
the sensitivity of this and the care with which a title
must be chosen. But the lack of an agreed title does not me an that
the substance is missing. The new status will equate in all major respects to BDTC, except for transmissibility.
[To be updated in the light of Chinese reactions].
On the question of statelessness, Ministers will wish to take the line that the safeguards are quite explicit. No former Hong Kong
BDTC, nor any
child born after June 1997 to such a person, will be
left without a form of British nationality if he or she would
otherwise be stateless. It is intended that such persons should
acquire British Overseas citizenship.
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.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 60Page 61