HONG KONG
DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL
ARGUMENTS FOR AMENDMENT
6.
PROVISIONS FOR REDUCING STATELESSNESS
1.
This relates to Article 6 which is likely to prove the most
controversial, since it is the one which particularly affects
non-ethnic Chinese BDTCs and their descendents. A number of
members may therefore be expected to speak against this Article,
probably as a result of representations made to them by the
Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations.
2.
Their line of argument is likely to be that the offer of
British Overseas citizenship to those who, or whose children or
grandchildren would be stateless after 1997 (and who by definition
will be those who are not regarded as Chinese nationals) is
inadequate, because BOC does not carry with it right of abode in
the parent country. Members may therefore strongly argue that
these people and their descendants should be granted British
citizenship, which carries with it right of abode in the UK.
Line to take
3.
The granting of British citizenship is unnecessary to
provide a citizenship status for people in Hong Kong who would
otherwise be stateless; and it would provide no guarantee of right
of abode in Hong Kong after 1997. But right of abode in Hong
Kong is guaranteed under the Joint Declaration, and a right of
abode elsewhere is not therefore necessary.
4.
The main points are:
a)
the provisions in Article 6 fully reflect the
undertakings given during the passing 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.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.