as giving the CBDT of Hong Kong more claim to abode in the United Kingdom than CBDT status allows. We therefore cannot give Hong Kong at any stage a concession on nationality at variance with CBDT status. But equally we should avoid placing the Government in a position of opposing Hong Kong at a time when there are already a number of irritants in our relations, particularly if the result might be a defeat in Parliament on ground not of our choosing, Even if Lord Elwyn-Jones does not revive the amendment he withdrew on 22 July it seems very possible that the Hong Kong lobby will inspire some form of amendment at Report Stage. Given the restiveness that can be expected in the Lords over the Bill in general and the Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands amendments in particular it cannot be ruled out that a Hong Kong amendment would succeed.
Problem
4. If the subject of Hong Kong is likely to arise in the Lords irrespective of how we deal with Gibraltar, and if
the outcome is unpredictable, would there be advantage in seeking a formula for an amendment that would satisfy the Hong Kong lobby while being acceptable to the Government in leaving the category of CBDT undamaged?
Recommendation
5. A form of words should if possible be agreed with Home Office Ministers that can be deployed in the Lords as circumstances demand. A draft letter to Mr Raison is attached.
Argument
6. There appear to be two courses open in the Lords at Report Stage, The first would be to wait for a Hong Kong amendment to be advanced, and then to attack it with all the arguments at our disposal. This, in effect, means the immigration argument which proponents of an amendment would seek to counter by claiming that their proposal would have no immigration effect. In the nature of the case this could not be disproved in debate.. And whether or not the Government defeated the amendment unnecessary and unprofitable offence would have been given to Hong Kong.
If the amendment succeeded the Government would face the prospect of repeating the same arguments in the Commons.
7. An alternative course would be to identify an amendment which was not damaging to the purpose of the Bill, which would satisfy and defuse the Hong Kong lobby in the Lords, and which would enable the Governor to assure the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils that their interest had been taken into account by the Government.
8. This would be covered by a concession which would allow a description in passports more British' than the formula 'CBDT' allows, provided that the form of words chosen did not damage
/the