TNAG-0800-FCO40-1004-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-Nationality-1978 — Page 17

pr/8021/96 N Thompson

Mr Quantrill

Reference

HKK 340/1

please monitor the rephes from NTD, MUD and the Home

CONFIDENTIAL Office, and prepare"

draft in due

a

course.

121414.

GREEN PAPER ON BRITISH NATIONALITY: HONG KONG VIEWS

19

1. Mr Davies, the Hong Kong Secretary for Security called on me yesterday to discuss, among other things, the Green Paper and the Acting Governor's Despatch of 7 July sting out the Hong Kong Government's objections to the proposal to introduce a two-tier citizenship.

2.

I explained that the timing of the next stages in the process started by the publication of the Green Paper was not yet clear; Ministers had yet to take decisions. But the Home Office thought that legislation might be introduced in 1979 or 1980. In the meantime officials had been considering whether there was any way in which the objections raised by Hong Kong might be met. Unfortunately the creation of a new catagory of British Overseas Citizens lay at the heart of the Green Paper proposals, so Hong Kong were asking in effect that the whole scheme should be dropped. It seemed unlikely that Ministers would be prepared to do this.

(

3.

I asked Mr Davies how strong the Hong Kong objections really were. In the present climate of relations between Britain and China, confidence in the future of Hong Kong had probably never been greater. Would it really be seriously disturbed if the UK were to introduce changes in Nationality Law which would have little or no practical effect as far as citizens of the UK and colonies resident in Hong Kong were concerned? Mr Davies said that the feeling in Hong Kong, rightly or wrongly, was that the Green Paper proposals were primarily directed at Hong Kong and there was great resentment as a result. It would be a mistake to underestimate the strength of feeling on this issue. I said that it had been suggested that it might be possible to amend the proposals to create a special category for Hong Kong British citizens but it seemed unlikely that this would do much to meet Hong Kong's concerns. Mr Davies agreed. I also said that we had considered the possibility ofincluding assurances about HMG's commitment to Hong Kong in the White Paper and/or in Ministerial speeches when it was debated. Mr Davies said that if Ministers decided to go ahead it would certainly be necessary to do this, particularly in the White Paper.

4.

We then discussed what form the reply to the Hong Kong Despatch might take. There seemed to be two alternatives: an acknowledgement which would say little more than that Ministers had not yet taken decisions but that Hong Kong's views had been noted and would be taken into account; or a more substantive reply which would warn of the difficulties which Ministers were likely to face in trying to meet Hong Kong's objections. Mr Davies said he was in no hurry to receive a reply but thought, in view of what I had said, that a simple acknowledge- ment might be best. This would enable the Hong Kong Government to hold the position whereas a more substantive reply would risk reviving the controversy stirred up by the Green Paper.

HKK 340/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY O. 51

CODE 18-77

14 SEP 1978

OFFICER

PA

REGISTRY

Action T

en

CONFIDENTIAL

/5.

CLE

1