CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
London SW1A 2AH
1
HKK 340/1
Sir Murray MacLehose GBE KCMG KCVO Governor and Commander-in-Chief HONG KONG
Dear Murray,
NEW NATIONALITY LAW
20 June 1980
1. I am very conscious that we have owed you a report on the current position on this for a long time. We have been waiting while Ministers considered very carefully the points made in recent months on behalf of Hong Kong by yourself and Unofficial Members both in the Executive Council and independently. They fully understand the strength of feeling in Hong Kong and have made every effort to meet this.
•
2. You will, I am sure, understand that it has not been possible to satisfy Hong Kong's maximum position: the retention of the status quo and specifically of the title 'Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies' Ministers' purpose in the new legislation is to distinguish between different types of citizenship, bringing them into line with rights of entry and abode under the Immigration Acts. In these circumstances, to apply citizenship of the United Kingdom to persons resident in the Dependent Territories would be inconsistent (the use of 'Citizen of the United Kingdom Colonies' would not be acceptable because it could be confused with the earlier formula).
3. The Lord Privy Seal, at the Secretary of State's request, had a special meeting with the Home Secretary on 9 June. Mr Whitelaw confirmed the Home Office's agreement to the use of 3 categories of citizenship rather than 2, thus making clear the special status of the Dependent Territories as opposed to British Overseas Citizens. The Lord Privy Seal then argued Hong Kong's case strongly. He pointed out the depth of concern in Hong Kong and the inter- relation of this issue with others in United Kingdom/Hong Kong relations. He suggested that, in order to emphasise the continuing link with Britain, the prefix 'British Subject' should be retained to precede each of the 3 separate citizenship titles.
4.
The Home Office were not prepared to agree to the retention of 'British Subject' in this way. Their view, supported by legal advice, was that this would blur the distinction between the categories and could cause many problems. It was agreed, however, to adopt the Lord Privy Seal's further suggestion that the relevant sections of the White Paper should be worded so as to make clear that final decisions had not been reached on the nomenclature for the Dependent Territories.
CONFIDENTIAL AND PERSONAL
/5.