Mr Daviest FED
38
CONFIDENTIAL
Enter
CHUK 340.
ник
340 T1
that for P. Cradock should be brought in. I
agree have made some
suggested
amendments to the draft,
(459)
BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW: FUTURE OF HONG KONG
mix
مثلي
/ 1.
Please see my minute of 27 October to Mr Donald which described the move by Hong Kong to get the Government to give precise answers on the future status of British Dependent Territories' citizens from that Territory if it ceased to be British,
/
see 460
2.. In the event, Mr Whitelaw did not make the statement attached to my minute but undertook to write to Sir Paul Bryan. We understand from Mr Ford in the Hong Kong Government Office that the Governor, after fairly wide consultation and careful consideration, believes that it would be helpful for the Government to return a straight answer to the questions of future status, even if they are not the answers which people in Hong Kong would like. Sir Murray MacLehose argues that the combination of the Nationality Bill and worries over the future have made it necessary to give people in Hong Kong some information on which they can make their personal plans.
3.
He
I do not believe that it would be helpful to return precise answers. I have discussed briefly with Mr Donald who agrees. thinks that a message to the Governor will be necessary to explain why. This might be done in a telegram from the LPS in answer to Hong Kong telegram No 973. Alternatively, Mr Atkins might send a shorter reply and the longer argumentation go from from Mr Donald.
4.
(450
HMA Peking has not yet been brought in on this subject but I think he probably should be now. I attach a first shot of a telegram and should be grateful for your comments. The draft will certainly require some alteration depending on the terms of the reply which Mr Whitelaw eventually sends to Sir Paul Bryan.
Вир
R D Clift
Hong Kong and General Department
28 October 1981
cc Mr Howells, NTD (Personal)
Brink
£20.10 noted pas
2/11
CONFIDENTIAL