Fence
121
Mr Morrice, HK&GD Mr Smith, SAmD
Mr Hope, WIAD
Mr Raftery, EAD
Mr Martin,
SED
HKCK 340 İ! RECHIVED IN RECORTRY NO. 59 thit
INDEX
مير
1 1 MAR 1981
cc for information APS/Mr Luce
OLCER
PA
51
REGISTRY onlit dut are Action Taken
Taka-chis,
8303. Pas 3013
cal at
viel
dual cxxplaining t
Hey Kary.
кар
see(
132
1. Morice 9/2
Yes
CODE 18-77
SS 8/78
NATIONALITY BILL:
CITIZENSHIPS FOR THE DEPENDENCIES
1. You will be aware that FCO Ministers have ruled out the possibility of separate citizenships for the dependencies being enacted in the current Nationality Bill; but the possibility of a later change to separate citizenships for the dependencies with or without an enabling clause in the Bill to allow this to happen one at a time is still being considered. At a meeting yesterday between Mr Luce and Mr Raison Mr Raison had some doubts about an enabling clause, and Mr Luce undertook to let him have FCO views on this subject,
2. I attach a draft submission which is self-explanatory. Attached to it is a draft to Mr Raison from Mr Luce and an outline of a speaking note for Ministers in defence of the collective CBDT. I should be grateful for your urgent comments on these papers since Ministers wish to reach a speedy conclusion.
3.
are
I think the only real issues for consideration by departments
-
a) whether, as I believe, it is likely once dependencies have become used to having a different citizenship from that of the UK more of them will see more attraction in an individual citizen- ship for themselves than in the anonymous CBDT, and so whether we should ask the Home Office to think seriously about the inclusion of an enabling clause (I think that separate citizenship is a natural trend anyway); and (b) to develop the speaking note for use by Ministers.
4.
I do not think that an enabling clause in the Bill, which would only be used if a dependency wanted it, need cause any difficulty vis-à-vis other countries if the clause were never in fact used in relation to the dependencies in which they were interested. I hope therefore that no department will see objection on that score.
5. On the outline speaking note in defence of a collective CBDT, I do not think it is vital to finalise the speaking note before the submission goes forward. It may be necessary to consult some dependencies. I hope you will have time to do that if necessary by telegram: what we should do now is to make any alterations or inclusions that departments regard as essential. But please bear in mind that Ministers in Committee will probably not be able to get away with vague explanations. There is advantage in letting Ministers see the general picture
Page 90Page 91