୮
COPY
G
Haw
I (139 NCK azda
1979
CONFIDENTIAL -2-
38
6. This means that we must be able to demonstrate and to enable the Governor to assure EXCO that the FCO has done every- thing possible to put their case. It is very probably true that the cause of the retention of CUKC is already a lost one. But I do not think that we have enough evidence to demonstrate to Hong Kong absolutely convincingly that Ministers will not accept it. It is true that Mr Woodfield told Mr McLaren in August 1979 that Mr Whitelaw was "adamant" that CUKC could not be used. (FCO telegram No 635. to Hong Kong).
On the other hand we
have an indication indirectly from Mr Whitelaw's PPS that the Home Secretary would be prepared to give way to Lord Carrington on the question of nomenclature. (folio 94). Nor is it entirely clear how our own Ministers feel on the subject. They have expressed sympathy for the Hong Kong position; the Secretary of State told
that he sympathised with the desire for the nomenclature that emphasised the UK connection. Whether our Ministers would be prepared to tackle the Home Office on the 'CUKC issue is unsure but we cannot know until we try.
7. Another argument for putting our Ministers into action, preferably at Cabinet level, is that this could clear up another unknown- the real strength of feeling in the Cabinet about the need to pursue legislation at all at this stage. I suspect that the pass has already been sold and that, despite the latest postponement, the Government are committed.
} It is however possible that if it were represented sufficiently strongly in Cabinet that a measure aimed primarily at tidying up anomalies was likely to lead to a major row, it would be found convenient to abandon the bill to make way for other legislation.
8.
I am not very optimistic that a fundamental approach of this sort would succeed, although I think it should be tried. But we must consider alternatives. If CUKC is out we are left with two types of designation:
a)
b)
Something which mentions the name of each territory;
A more general category referring to colonies or dependencies.
Peking's and the Governor's earlier reservations rule out the idea of "British Hong Kong Citizen" or "British Citizen of Hong Kong". The idea of bracketting the name of the territory, as in "British (Hong Kong) Citizen"+ would be marginally less likely to bring objection from the Chinese. It would certainly be worth discussing. At the same time it is open to the Home Office objection that a title mentioning a dependency by name cannot be used as a category for the purpose of legislation ( it would be impracticable to list all the territories). Some kind of general designation is required.
+ on which Mr Cradock has not specifically pronounced
CONFIDENTIAL
19.