TNAG-0902-FCO40-1112-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1979 — Page 187

no?

Please let me see again on fill 17/8

Quartrill

Mr Quantrill

1.

I am glad to have had a chance of going over these papers again. They are very worrying because there is no prospect, on present form, of agreement between the two most important opinions: the Home Office, who wish for understandable reasons to make a redefinition of nationality titles commensurate with the rights of abode, and the Governor of our biggest Colony who argues on political grounds that there should be a change of nomenclature for his Colonial citizens. Sir M MacLehose's argument is twofold: political, vis-à-vis China and terms of confidence in Hong Kong, and practical (a new aspect which NTD may have to investigate) that a change of nomenclature might cause other countries to revise their present entry regulations for Hong Kong belongers.

2. NTD have suggested that Mr Figg should call a meeting next week of all the "Colonial" Departments in the FCO to thrash out an agreed line to take with the Home Office. At this meeting we shall have to consider whether our first line with the Home Office should be to advance the Governor's arguments strongly (on the assumption that the other Colonial territories would be thoroughly content if the Home Office were to give in and leave the nomenclature on CUKC unchanged). You might help by having some draft paragraphs ready. But we will have to have a fallback position if the Home Office reject the views eg in Hong Kong telegram No 1161. As I said on Gibraltar telegram No 42, I favour "British citizens of Gibraltar" or "British citizens of Hong Kong" as the title which should give the least impression of change. I know it is the

change itself which worries Sir M MacLehose but, subject to Mr Figg's views, I think we may have to press the Home Office to consider this as an alternative to the extent of offering at least to put it to Sir M MacLehose as a reasonable alternative. This will mean, of course, that we must ask the Home Office for reasons why they do not like this particular title.

3.

It will be for Mr Figg to decide whether there is any value in a further official round with the Home Office. If there is not, then I see no alternative to submitting to our Ministers.

17 August 1979

ifles.

DF Murray

cc Mr Figg

NTD