Mr
Quantrill
Mr McLaren
CONFIDENTIAL
HKK 340/1.
5
Reference..
Hkk 340/1
RESSIVE
GREEN PAPER ON BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW
1.
Flag A Flag B
Flag D
Flag E 氏
Flag F
Flag G HKK 34oli (1978)
INDEX
M
1 дом
५
As instructed at folio 2, I sought NTD's views on Mr Davies letter at folio l. These are at folio 3. Unfortunately, the wrong letter was attached to this minute, an earlier one of Mr Davies' having been sent. Although this does not affect the advice given, I have sent NTD a copy of the more recent letter. I have also discussed the activities of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration with MVD and have been advised that the Committee has not focussed on the Green Paper, it not being really within their terms of reference.
2. In their minutes, Mr Paterson and Mr Gray offer conflicting advice on the future of the Green Paper and this is compounded by the advice in folio 4 from Mr Smedley. The only conclusion I can draw from this is that what will happen is as yet uncertain. This makes replying to Mr Davies even more difficult because we simply do not have anything useful to say, even on further consultation, which he can pass on to UMELCO.
3. In folio 4, Mr Smedley proposes a meeting with those con- cerned with Dependent Territories to discuss the first draft of a paper prepared by the Home Office on British Overseas Citizen- ship. Such a meeting would, I believe, be useful, particularly in constructing a reply for UMELCO eyes. It would seem wise, however, to wait until after the General Election, particularly since there appears to be significant differences between the main parties on this issue, in respect of Hong Kong at least.
4. Page 4 of the draft behind folio 4 sets out to summarise the representations made by Hong Kong on the Green Paper. It needs some amendments:
(i) The first sentence states: "Similarly in Hong Kong some
influential Chinese members of the Governor's Advisory Council have urged, with some support from the Hong Kong Government, that to alter the citizenship of people con- nected with Hong Kong in any way which would be seen as further weakening their ties with the UK will have a serious effect on business confidence in the Colony. This is not accurate. In his despatch of 7 July 1978, the Acting Governor said that both Officials and Unofficials of both Councils saw risk to confidence (and it is not simply business confidence) and stability which would be seriously damaging in Hong Kong and harm Hong Kong's relations with the UK if a two-tier citizen- ship were introduced. The Acting Governor also stressed that UMELCO's views were unanimous a clear reference to the views of the expatriates.
-
(ii) The third sentence reads: "It is however to be noted
that these people are of the wealthy business and prof- essional classes and perhaps represent only a small portion of Hong Kong opinion." This again is not accurate. One should not dismiss UMELCO simply as
CODE 18-77
CONFIDENTIAL
"people