TNAG-0902-FCO40-1112-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1979 — Page 132

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL

ر فيي

i

not

frue,

Separate copies

Mr Quant 111- HKGD ntill

Mr Gordon SED

Mr Cowling

SAMD

Mr Holmes WIAD

-

Mr Perceval M&CD

Mr Pettit SPD

HKK 340

Reference.

เ

NO. 51

N Williamson

мо

24/9

Hồng

84A)

a

Me llaw have we not, in fact, giver

Hong Kong a categorical assurance that they would be given chance to comment on any bill draft?

NEW NATIONALITY LAW: DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

1.

2214/9

see

In our exchanges with your departments and with Governors over the last few months, references have been made to the matter of "consultations" with the local Governments in dependent territories. The Home Office have, as you know, resisted requests that Governors should discuss with local officials the details of specific proposals which have been referred to them for their views. It is the Home Secretary's intention to present a draft bill to Parliament before the end of the year and he is anxious to avoid any publicity on what will no doubt be controversial legislation in advance of this. It seems likely therefore that he will be prepared to agree only to informing dependent territory Governments a few hours in advance of the draft bill, perhaps adding that they are welcome to comment during the (probably lengthy) Parliamentary process which the bill must undergo.

2. If requested to agree that consulations with dependent territory Governments should take place, the Home Office will no doubt argue, reasonably, that the Green Paper provided the opportunity for views to be stated and that the views of the dependent territories have been taken into account. They might also add that the only views of substance which have been received from the dependent territories relate to the proposal for two types of citizenship and that this indicates it is their only objection: consequently there is no need for further consulations, particularly since the Governors have been consulted on other points of concern. They will no doubt further argue that consultation, as opposed to notification, would be impractical and would jeopardise the proposed timetable for the draft bill.

3. I shall be grateful for your department's views on this subject. You may wish to consider that Governors should be informed that the Home Office are likely to agree only to short advance notice and invite their comments.

13 September 1979

Agray

A V E Gray NTD

Mr Quantur.

Pio.

CONFIDENTIAL