TNAG-0980-FCO40-1199-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1980 — Page 88

Origin... at: HKK 040/1

This Copy Cor:

Information only / Acti&ONFIDENTIAL

Para(s)

Parliamentary Unit

PQS HONG KONG : CHINA'S ATTITUDE

HICK

34071

Fee

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 51

2 8 OCT 1980

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

REGISTRY

PA

Action Taken

мо

$28.10 AW 281

I submit draft written replies to four PQs by

1.

Mr Frank Hooley MP (Sheffield

―

Labour). The drafts have

been agreed with the Hong Kong Government and HMA, Peking.

FED and Legal Adviser concur.

2.

Mr Hooley has taken a keen interest in the past in

Hong Kong. It is, however, more than a year since he put a

Question on the subject to the FCO.

3. The first Question is hypothetical but it is preferable

to say that there are no plans to change the status of Hong

Kong than to decline toanswer it.

4.

The second Question deals with the intentions of the

Chinese Government as well as of HMG. We do not know the

former. I have therefore suggested that the reply should

simply state that we have not discussed this with the Chinese

this is better than a straight 'No'.

5. The third Question is similar to one Mr Hooley asked on

15 November 1976. The letter referred to in that and the draft

reply was HMG's response to the Chinese Government's request

that Hong Kong (and Macao) be removed from the UN list of

dependent territories. In his letter, Sir Colin Crowe, then

Ambassador to the UN, stated that the decision to delete

Hong Kong from the list 'in no way affects the legal status

of Hong Kong' and that differing views expressed by other

Governments were unacceptable to the UK.

CONFIDENTIAL

/6.