Mr McLaren
CONFIDENTIAL
ник aeoli
Mr Cortazzi
20 SEPIM Figg
OFFICER
INDEX
PA
No
88
HONG KONG AND THE NATIONALITY BILL
1.
The attached note just received from the Home Office is profoundly depressing. I shall take copies to Hong Kong as a basis for a private discussion with the Governor but I see very little prospect of reconciling his views with that of the Home Office because the note is utterly uncompromising.
You may wish to consider with Mr Cortazzi whether there are any comments or lines of argument which I could put to the Governor, in which case perhaps you would telegraph these to me in Singapore by close of play tomorrow, Thursday. If I hear nothing I shall simply pursue a wide-ranging discussion with the Governor and try to get him to specify more precisely, and if possible on paper, what the reaction in Hong Kong would be to a public presentation when the Bill is published, based on the principles set out in the Home Office note.
2. It is for Mr Figg, however, to take up some of the more uncompromising and, I think, totally wrong statements in the note. He may conclude, and it is certainly my opinion, that we must challenge the totally exclusive posture of the Home Office in relation to citizens of our remaining colonies. This arises from remarks in paragraphs 3 and 5 of the note. In the first place, my personal view is that, so long as Britain retains its colonies, we have a duty of responsibility to those who live in the colonies derived from our responsibility in international law for the territories themselves. So far as Abode is concerned, and in its limited context only, we could accept that British citizens of our colonial territories and British overseas citizens are in the same position in not having a right of abode in the United Kingdom. But that is all. I really see no difference between the title "British citizen of Gibraltar" and "British colonial citizen" in this respect: and if the former defines more accurately where the citizen concerned has his abode, then I believe the Home Office should accept it if it is the solution which the FCO ultimately concludes is the best one for the overseas territories.
3. I accept that the note was prepared for a specific purpose: to show that the Home Office and Hong Kong positions are uncompromisingly apart. But I think Mr Figg may agree that we should not now let the wording of the note become enshrined Home Office doctrine.
Дру
19 September 1979
CONFIDENTIAL
D F Murray