CONFIDENTIAL COVERING SECRET
Akk 340
34011
232) 680
A
B, C
D
E
Sir E Youde
HONG KONG: NATIONALITY BILL
1.
RECEIVED IN ALMISTRY NO. 51
As you know, the Hong Kong Unofficials made a strong piten during the Secretary of State's visit for the incorporation of the term 'British (or UK)National' in the citizenship title for CBDTS. The exchanges are summarised in Hong Kong Telegram No, 351, FCO Telegram No 314 and Hong Kong Telegram No 360.
Hong Kong Telegram No 390 reports a follow-up discussion with Unofficials and asks for an explanation of why the term 'national' cannot be used.
2.
3. Mr Jones has prepared the attached draft telegrams which explain the objections. I am sure that, subject to Legal Advisers' views, these should be sent as soon as possible.
There are, however, two complications.
4.
The first is that the Secretary of State himself was not fully convinced by the briefing with which he was provided on this subject in Hong Dong. We need to consider whether the Secretary of State's personal endorsement of the arguments we are making is necessary. Unfortunately Mr Lyne who was with the Secretary of State in Hong Kong is away with Lord Carrington. My own view is that it would be reasonable to send the telegrams right away, but since you were with Lord Carrington in Hong Kong, you may have other views.
5. The second is that the pressure from Unofficials on the nomenclature question has revived. Hong Kong Telegram No 433 makes this clear. Mr Ford and Sir J Cater (at present in London) have underlined the pressure for a concession which would at least permit the use of the term 'national' or 'British national' inside passports of CBDTs even if the term were not included in legislation.
6. While the draft telegrams provide very sound arguments against the use of 'national' it is true, as the second telegram concedes, that there are inevitably inconsistencies in the Bill's treatment
There is thus almost unlimited scope for the Unofficials to keep on coming back on points of nomenclature. As has been the case throughout the arguments over the Nationality Bill, the real problem is the political one that the limit to which the Government are prepared to go on nomenclature has been reached. Added to this is the strong feeling that enough concessions have been made to Hong Kong. I think that it would be worthwhile spelling the situation out in a strictly personal telegram to the Governor. I attach a draft. If you agree with this it should not issue until the other telegrams are cleared.
23 April 1981
Бир
R D Clift
Bu lwk to
Me FRIAR
2414
Hong Kong and General Department
сс
Mr Adams
Mr Donald (on return) Mr Jones, NTD
CONFIDENTIAL COVERING SECRET