2.
We are
CONFIDENTIAL
aware of the following particular interests:
(a)
Lord Grindley:
(b)
Lord Geddes:
(c) Lord Tan law:
(d)
Lord Kennet:
Pensions.
Nationality.
Constitutional development.
Assessment Office.
(e) Lord Shawcross: Drafting of the Basic Law and nationality.
3. I also submit a full list of supplementaries. This is too long
for the Minister's convenient use in the debate, but gives an idea
of the sort of subjects that might be raised. The full list will be
held by officials in the box.
4.
There is one particular point which I should like to draw to
the Minister's attention. In the Commons debate Mr Healey asked
that the Government should be ready to guarantee the future and personal security of those in Hong Kong who had served the colonial
government in fields that could render them liable to victimisation
in the future. The Secretary of State and the Home Secretary had
agreed a series of formulae to deal with this question: the Government have in fact agreed to admit to this Country a number of people who could be at risk and their families, and informed them of
the decision. But we
are very reluctant to be explicit about this because of the extremely divisive effect which this would have in
Hong Kong. Mr Luce had intended to use the first of the formulae agreed with the Home Secretary in answer to Mr Healey in winding up,
but unfortunately did not have time. The Home Secretary has
therefore asked that the formula should be used in replying in
Lords debate. We have inserted it in the winding up material
section (f).
the
as
7 December 1984
དང་
A C Galsworthy
Hong Kong Department
CONFIDENTIAL