TNAG-0979-FCO40-1198-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1980 — Page 150

IN CONFIDENCE

Reference

HKK 340/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 51 - 3 MAR 1980

для

REGISTRY Action Taken

AW 26

Mr W E Quantrill

HKGD, K247

DESK OFFICER INDEX

PA

20

NATIONALITY LAW

1.

(IKA)

I have minuted separately on the misunderstanding about the possible timing of a White Paper. Mr Williamson's letter of 27 February to Mr Davies in Hong Kong reveals that our recent exchange of minutes on Hong Kong's 'belonger' ordinance resulted from the need to reply to Mr Davies' letter of 12 February, а letter of which we were in ignorance. Although, in the event, my minute did not say anything we would not wish Hong Kong to be told, it would have been preferable, and less likely to lead to misinterpretation, if we had been shown the letter and asked to prepare a draft reply. We would probably have wished to word our minute differently if we had known it was to be copied to the Government Secretariat in Hong Kong. I have been asked to point out our uneasiness about the way this was handled and to say that we would not expect our minutes to FCO geographic departments to be passed to dependent territories without our knowledge.

CODE 18-77

SS 8/78

28 February 1980

Nohavice 229/2 N Williamson J29.

PA.

Agray

A VE Gray NTD

му

9 telephonal No Gray and apologized for having sent his mimmute to Hong Kong without first clearing it with him. But I made the pout that tiny mirate of 21 Felinary made it quite clear that we were

on comments and queries from Hong Kong, and passing we therefore had no reason to suspect that thy he would have any objection to his replies being relayed back to Hong Kong. I assued him that we world not pass papers to Hong Kong in future without first checking with them,

IN CONFIDENCE

W.E. Chantill 29/2

Page 150Page 151