NATIONALITY BILL STANDING COMMITTEE
EXTRACT FROM MR LUCE'S SPEECH
нки 340/I
ZYMO.
(201
RELEIVED 24 RAMSEY NO. 51
3 APR 1981
ASK OFICER
INDEX
معلق
FA
Acton Teken
815.4
PGO 15/4
"CORE SPEECH"
[Mr Tilley] asked how the new clause related to the represen- tations made by Hong Kong. As [Mr Raison] explained in his openingspeech the dependencies had expressed a strong feeling that this special position should be recognised. They [meaning Hong Kong] drew an unfavourable comparison between
The
[a] the present position of their people, who, as CUKC
automatically acquire the right of abode here on being settled and completing 5 years ordinary residence; and
[b] their position under the Bill as presented where they would
have had to apply for naturalisation as a British Citizen after residence here in the same way as an alien.
They saw this as a significant weakening of their position and their special links with the UK and asked for it to be restored to something close to the present position.
The first part of the new clause is designed to do just that [and as some Committee members Lyons and Whitney have agreed
M
it is very much welcomed by dependencies for that reason.]
Those CUKCS who come here under the Special Voucher Scheme now are in a similar position and it has been similarly represented that they should have a better access to British Citizenship
provided by These people will Decum 50s after coming here than naturalisation. The Government agree and so the clause covers them too. [as some Opposition Members have welcomed]. Also covered are BSWCS and BPPS [for those of them from East Africa may also come here on Special Vouchers] and British Subjects under Section 2 of the 1948 Act [the Irish who elect to remain British Subjects].
The granting f comparable treatment to all these categories living in the UK was foreshadowed in the Green and White Papers.
parus 25+26
para 34
/The
A
The second part of the new clause [affecting people serving the
Crown in dependencies] stems from the feeling in dependencies
[Hong Kong] that since the Bill made provision for discretionary
grant of British Citizenship to someone who served the Crown
overseas under an agency of the UK [eg Diplomatic Service mission
of MOD establishment] - albeit a provision that would be used
only sparingly the total exclusion of Crown Servants of
-
dependency Governments was unjustified. Again they feared this represented a weakening of their links. The second part
of the new clause responds to this representation [and has been
similarly welcomed].
The provision does of course apply to all dependencies.
A
The importance of the clause to the dependencies is, as I have explained, the recognition of their position and particularly
the avoidance of the feeling that the provisions of the Bill
hon. are directed against the dependencies. As one member put it
the effect on morale is considerable. These questions can Lazısı
Govaerei,
under hve assume major proportions when the dependencies are understandably.
however misconceive though quite unnecessarily concerned that the Bill should-not
weakens their links with the UK. For as we have made clear this
Bill in no way alters the relationship between those territories
and the UK nor our obligations and commitments to the dependencies.
B Hon. Members have asked how the Home Secretary will apply the second half
of the clause. And what'sparingly' means. It is impossible to state this in figures. It certainly does not mean that a
certain percentage of Crown Servants or applicants will be
successful. It means that it will not be common for a person in Crown Service overseas whether for a dependency Government or for
the UK Government to be granted British Citizenship. One can only judge individual cases. What the clause does is to recognise
that there can be cases of persons serving the Crown overseas
in dependencies [as elsewhere] who by dint of this particular Crown Service and in other personal ways become so closely connected
with the UK that it is proper that they should be given British
/Citizenship.
GRS 180
CONFIDENTIAL
200
HKR
ра PA d
34011
RECEIVED EYEY MO. 51
2 APR 1981
CONFIDENTIAL
DESK CLACER
INDEX
REGISTRY
PA
Action/st
Pls 214
FM FCO 011230 APR 81
TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG
TELEGRAM NUMBER 333 OF 1 APRIL
FOR CHAN FROM CLIFT
192A) YOUR TELNO 353:
NATIONALITY BILL
1. I AM SORRY THAT BY AN OVERSIGHT THE ANSWER TO HONG KONG TELNO 458 TO HKGO WAS NOT DESPATCHED (THOUGH THE CONTENTS WERE TELEPHONED TO YOU IN LONDON). FOLLOWING IS INFORMATION, 2. ANSWERS TO A AND B OF PARA 3 OF TELNO 458 ARE: 15
A. WE CONFIRM THAT A PERSON WHO IS A CBDT OF ANOTHER TERRITORY AND WHO IS ALSO THE SPOUSE OF A CBDT OF HONG KONG WILL REMAIN A CBDT OF THE OTHER TERRITORY. THE QUESTION OF THAT PERSON HAVING THE RIGHT OF ABODE IN HONG KONG WILL BE A MATTER TO BE DECIDED LOCALLY. HOWEVER IT WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE INTENT OF THE BILL IF SUCH A SPOUSE, WHO WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR NATURAL- ISATION ON GROUNDS OF MARRIAGE AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR PRIOR POSSESSION OF CBDT, WERE TO BE PLACED IN A WORSE POSITION THAT THE NON-CBDT WHO IS NATURALISED UNDER CLAUSE 16(2).
B. WE ALSO CONFIRM THAT THE FORMER SPOUSE OF A CBDT WILL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR NATURALISATION UNDER CLAUSE 16(2) BUT MAY BE
CONFIDENTIAL
NATURALISED UNDER CLAUSE 16(1) IF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ARE SATISFIED.
CARRINGTON
MINIMAL
NTD
HRAD
COPIES TO:
HONG KONG GOV: OFFICE,
LONDON
CONFIDENTIAL