TNAG-0902-FCO40-1112-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1979 — Page 108

1.

84

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference.....

340/1

HKK 34

* hu.

Mr A V E Gray (Nationality and Treaty Dept CL 501)

-SK O

NEW NATIONALITY LAW : DEPENDENT TERRITORIE

но

An√2412

214

Thank you for your Minute of 13 September about the likely Home Office reluctance to give Dependent Territories advance notice of the new draft Bill on British Nationality

•

2. I do not think it is necessary to consult Hong Kong before replying, since they have all along sought assurances that they would be given a chance to comment in advance on any Home Office proposals for legislation arising from the Green Paper, and we have told them that we took it for granted that this would be the case. I am sure that it would cause great offence if it turned out that all they were to be given was a few hours advance notice of the draft Bill.

93

3. Certainly I can see the logic of the Home Office argument that, since the Dependent Territories were invited to express their views on the Green Paper, and since these views were taken into account in formulating the draft Bill, and since nothing they can say now is going to change the draft, there is therefore nothing to be gained by consulting them again. But this ignores the fact that the Home Office will almost certainly be going ahead with their proposals in defiance of the passionately held views against them expressed by the Governor of Hong Kong. Putting this decision across to Hong Kong is going to be difficult enough as it is,

it is, without adding the further insult (as they would see it) of not even having the courtesy to consult them on the proposed draft Bill. It is significant that the thing that still rankles most about the 1962 Immigration Act in Hong Kong is not the fact that it took away the right of Hong Kong British citizens to enter Britain, but the fact that it was introduced without prior consultation.

4. I hope therefore that you can persuade the Home Office to allow at least the Governor and his senior advisors to see the draft Bill in advance, and be given a chance to

chance to comment.

5.

It is in any case false to draw the conclusion that, because the Hong Kong Government have so far tended to concentrate mostly on the proposal for creating two types of citizenship, they do not have anything to say about the rest of the Green Paper proposals. Their initial line was that the proposals were so objectionable that they ought to be abandoned. More recently they have been concentrating on the number and nomenclature of the new citizen- ships because that aspect is by far the most important. However, we have asked Mr Murray to put it to the Governor that the time has now come for his officials to focus on the small print.

21 September 1979

CC:

Mr Holmes, WIAD Mr Gordon, SED Mr Perceval, MCD

Mr

W.E. Quantill

W E Quantrill

Hong Kong and General Department K 247 233 4381

Pettitt, SPD Mr Cowling, SAMD

CONFIDENTIAL