We think this might be achieved by a small
amendment towards the end of the Bill to provide that a citizen of the British Dependent Territories
could also be described in a passport as a 'British Dependent Territories citizen' and that at the discretion of the issuing authority the name of
the colony might be substituted for the words
'Dependent Territories'. Such an amendment would
have to be permissive rather than mandatory so that dependencies could adopt the formula or not as their
circumstances dictated. This proposal does not,
we think, damage, the category of CBDT, and it does
to seem worth serious consideration because the
1
alternative of. having to deal with an amendment not of our choosing, with no certain prospect of success, is inelegant and would diminish the very limited time available in parliament for other
important aspects in the final stages of the
Bill.
The quid pro quo would be that Hong Kong and the Hong Kong lobby would refrain from promoting rival amendments, particularly ány which had
nationality implications. The means for introducing
our own amendment into the Lords could be
}
considered nearer the time, perhaps after soundings with Lord Geddes and other relatively sympathetic champions of Hong Kong. The aim, as I have said, would be to avoid unnecessary friction over the Hong Kong issue which could hold up the final
stages of the Bill.
mas bur