TNAG-1387-FCO40-1835-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1986 — Page 199

CONFIDENTIAL

The main points to be alwanted in explaining the Government's

position are:

a)

the provisions in Article 6 fully reflect the

undertakings given during the passge 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.

b)

Right of abode in Hong Kong can only be provided

by the Government until 30 June 1997. After that date,

it will be a matter for the Chinese Government. But the

agreement with the Chinese guarantees rights of abode in

Hong Kong after 1997. The Government believe that these

provisions will cover all non-ethnic Chinese BDTCs in

Hong Kong, unless they have left Hong Kong permanently

to settle elsewhere and have right of abode somewhere else.

c)

Nationality without right of abode in the parent

BDTCs do not

country is not a form of statelessness.

now have the right of abode in the United Kingdom. The

Council's proposals would undermine the principles of the

British Nationality Act 1981, which was to confer on all

former citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies a

status which would accurately reflect their links with

or former bepenbering the United Kingdom or with a dependent territory as the

case may be.

d)

BDTCS of Indian origin in Hong Kong have made it

plain through their Council that they wish to continue to live in Hong Kong. Granting them British citizenship, and thus right of abode in the UK, will not help to do

this. Their future is safeguarded by the agreement.

e)

There is no substance in the suggestion (made by the Council of Hong Kong Indian Associations) that the Agreement with the Chinese, or the provisions of Article 6, are racially based. The Government recognise an obligation