TNAG-0901-FCO40-1111-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1979 — Page 188

BY BAG

布政司署

港下亞畢道

COA

See 25

24

GOVERNMENT SECRETARTAT

LOWER ALBERT ROAD

HONG KONG

*** OUR Ref.:

SCR 39/2091/72

HKK

* YOur Ref.:

340/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 144

16 NOV 1978

RJ T McLaren Esq

Hong Kong & General Department OFFICER

REGI! TRY

INDEX

PA

FCO

Dear Ralin

•

Action

6th November, 1978

be grateful for a donke confum $2

we

can

Jeron i mot Quayrim

GREEN PAPER ON BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW

lu

14/10

Plence let me see with the paper: NTS

N

Discussed with Gray in 177 Draft reply W. Chantill

When I called on you in the office in September to discuss the Green Paper on British Nationality Law, you expressed the view that you thought it unlikely that Ministers would wish to drop the proposals for British Overseas Citizenship. I pointed out that with the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu having obtained independence in 1978 and with the Gilbert Islands likely to be independent in 1979, the proposed BOC status would have the appearance of being even more obviously aimed primarily at Hong Kong than when the Green Paper was published last year.

2.

You said that you would, of course, continue to present our case and that there might be two alternatives, the first of which would be to seek to devise some sort of special nationality status for Hong Kong. You said that you did not think that this would be easy, nor that it would provide much of an answer. An alternative might be that when a White Paper is published it should include a statement that the proposals in it made no change whatsoever in HMG's commitment to Hong Kong: if such a proposal did not find favour then you thought that at least it would be possible to give such an assurance in the course of the debate on the White Paper.

3.

In the meantime you said that you would either send a brief acknow- ledgement to Sir Denys Roberts despatch of the 7th July or send a more substantial reply explaining that the BOC proposal was central to the scheme, was not specifically directed at Hong Kong and answering the points which were made in the despatch. I understood that you were going to defer a decision about this until after your visit to Hong Kong.

4.

I now see that in fact an acknowledgement to the despatch was sent on the 10th October whilst you were still here. I wonder if you could let me know what were the reasons which decided the office to take this action rather than wait for you to consider the position following your visit to Hong Kong, and in the light of our discussions in September. Could you also confirm that it is still the intention to include some reference to HMG's commitment to Hong Kong in the White Paper in due course.

Yours worl чимо

(L M Davies)

Secretary for Security

I

4