hey come under the British assurance to those of solely British ationality that if they had to leave Hong Kong and had nowhere else to go, they would be considered sympathetically for entrance into Britain. As you know, the British Government still considers this assurance is adequate recognition of this group's less obvious future in China. We know also that you are keen to stay here not go to Britain. We support you however in preferring the more straightforward recognition, similar to that of the 1990 British Nationality Scheme, of full British citizenship. The difference would not seem that great from the British Government's point of view, and we are certainly continuing to push for this extension to a small minority with generally very different outlook on China than the majority of the population.
But internally we are at least happy, if I may conclude on right of abode, that Article 24 of the Basic Law is more straightforward, specific and generous on right of abode in Hong Kong after 1997 than the Immigration Ordinance is before it; 1 commend it to you for full reading as this is the 'bible' from which we should be working and yet which is more often talked about than read; and on this subject, a sovereignty-related one, there are changes, improvements, not just promises of the maintenance of the present successful systems and way of life. And the main clarification that we do need how exactly "taking Hong Kong as place of permanent residence" (provision (4)) should be done, and what it will mean for those with right of abode clsewhere - should not be a difficulty to many here who will presumably have no problem illustrating the extent of their commitment to Hong Kong if that is necessary.
K
Nor is there any special reason to think that the Chinese Government will not honour Article 24 of the Basic Law; Chinese officials have gone out of their way to welcome both "compatriots" and non-Chinese both as permanent and as non-permanent residents in Hong Kong after 1997. Only marginal further confirmation of the different nationality/right of abode options [simplified chart circulated] is needed now. We just need to get back to the more rapid progress on such practical implementations which we had in the Joint Liaison Group in the late 80's. The Governor's attempts to fill in the blanks in the implementation of the Basic Law a little more democratically on the political front has, I am sure some disproportionate support from a community with links to the world's biggest democracy. We do not feel they should hold up lank-filling in other areas. We hope they are not, and will not, in the interests of the Hong Kong SAR and all its people.
BN(0) phased programme
Finally I should I suppose say something about the most generally controversial item in the nationality area here recently, the BN(0) phased programme. First I should say that, contrary to received opinion, the British National (Overseas) passport is a better passport, specially designed for Hong Kong, than the old British Dependent Territories Citizen or BDTC one, which has an increasingly short life, ending on 1 July 1997 as agreed under the Joint Declaration. The JD Memoranda made it clear that the chinese Government was allowing, as a concession to Hong Kong people's history, British travel documents to be continued to be held only if they were taken up before Hong Kong reverted to China. There was a