nationals would be able to maintain their passports and the
transmissibility of their nationality after 1997. If this was
not possible we should make the situation clear to the people of
Hong Kong.
(d) Sir Ian Percival (Conservative) asked that the government should make it clear that if everything went wrong we would use our
best efforts to find places for the people of Hong Kong to
settle.
(e) Mr Miller (Conservative) proposed that the people of Hong Kong
should be allowed to maintain their passports.
(f) Sir Philip Goodhart (Conservative) said that the Government
should seek agreements with other countries now to accept immigrants from Hong Kong and that finance should be provided
with money from Hong Kong to aiding resettlement.
9.
ROLE OF UMELCO:
(a) Mr Healey praised UMELCO's sincerity.
(b) Mr Heath said that UMELCO were unrepresentative.
(c) Mr Adley (Conservative) said that the delegations had done a
great deal of harm.
(d) Sir Humphrey Atkins (Conservative), Sir Peter Blaker
(Conservative), Sir Ian Percival (Conservative), Mr
Wrigglesworth (SDP) and Mr Hill (Conservative) defended UMELCO's
right to lobby and express the anxieties of the people of Hong
Kong. Mr Miller (Conservative) added that the leaders of UMELCO
should not resign but should show leadership in the debate on
Hong Kong's future.
10. THE TRANSITIONAL PERIOD:
(a) Mr Healey emphasised the dangers of a long transitional period,
and suggested that the authority of Britian would dwindle before
1997. He proposed that the transfer of sovereignty should take place at an earlier date. This view was echoed by Mr Tam Dalyell (Labour).
(b) Sir Bernard Braine (Conservative) and Sir Paul Bryan
(Conservative) emphasised that we should not be in a hurry to hand over sovereignty to the Chinese.
(c) Mr Ashdown (Liberal) suggested that there should be no formal
Chinese representative in Hong Kong in the period up to 1997.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.