་
5. Would it not be necessary to make the same 2 points to the leaders of the Asian communities in East Africa and, this being so, would it not be necessary for the Government here to state these 2 points publicly when announcing the establishment of the review body? Would you see harm in such a public statement? It does not seem to me to go further than existing commitments. I do not think that any undertaking of this kind could go further than existing holders of United Kingdom passports. If the question of children yet to be born were raised, we would have to say that this was a matter for the review body.
6. So much for the UKPH in East Africa. There are an unknown number in India, many of whom are no doubt well settled there. We do not wish to encourage them to start thinking of settlement in the United Kingdom. Do you think it would be necessary, both in relation to the Indian Government and in relation to the UKPH community in India, to make the same kind of public statement as is suggested above for the UKPH in East Africa? Do you think that it would be sufficient to say this in confidence to the Indian Government, but to say nothing in public? If so, would we be likely to get away with it, in answer to supplementaries about the appointment of the review body, by saying that these were questions for the review body?
7. The third group of UKPH are those in Malaysia and Singapore. I would propose to say nothing at all about them. If questions were asked, we would say that they were a matter for the review body. The review body would certainly have to consider this group. As you know, when we looked at the position last year it seemed that there might either be a provision for deprivation after the fixed period from Royal Assent if, but only if, there was an entitlement to local citizenship (of Malaysia or Singapore). Or, if an entitlement to local citizenship were not granted (as seemed to be the case) that the only solution would be to leave these people in their present position of being citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies subject to immigration control.
8. Turning now to people living in the Colonies, it does not seem from your letter that reactions would be very serious. I see no difficulty about reassuring people in Hong Kong about their present rights, and no doubt something soothing would be said to China. The Chief Minister in Gibraltar could be advised that it would be open to him to give evidence to the review body. The Associated States could be advised that their existing power to establish their own citizen- ship at any time would not be affected by the proposed nationality legislation in the United Kingdom.
9. As to the other British communities, in Latin America and else- where, the right course seems to be to make it clear to them also that it will be open to them to give evidence to the review body. I envisage that the Home Office/FCO evidence to that body on such points as the transmission of citizenship by registration at the consulate would take the form of explaining the situation and indicating the need for consideration, rather than proposing a solution. Incidentally, Lee has made the interesting suggestion that we might placate the British communities overseas by providing that, while citizenship should no longer be transmissible by registration at the consulate,
SPARET
/perhaps