TNAG-0979-FCO40-1198-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1980 — Page 204

CODE 18-77

SS 8/78

Mr Clift - HKGD

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference

NATIONALITY LAW

HKK 34011

RECZ..

INDE

No

BAY NO. 51

28 JAN1980

R Sock

28/

REGISTRY Action Taken

AW 28

to

1. I have taken the liberty of re-drafting the telegrams/Peking and Hong Kong on the lines of our discussion. The drafts are attached. The principal points which I have sought to introduce into the Peking telegram are -

a) that a collective title in the Act is almost unavoidable;

b)

c)

that there is no obvious alternative to "British Dependent Territories Citizen" or something similar; and

that the White Paper might mention this as a possible title without going firm on it and that administrative variance need not be quoted in the White Paper.

I think it is important to get those concerned to focus on these 3 points when they are thinking about their preference for the administrative title.

24 January 1980

tiones

W Jones

Nationality and Treaty Department

Mr Jones (N&TD)

1. Thank you for these drafts. I have made some suggested amendments in pencil.

2. In paragraph 1 of the telegram to Peking I think that we should avoid making too definite a commitment to a particular category before the question has been put to Ministers; hence the use of the conditional tense.

3. In paragraph 2 of the same telegram I question whether the last sentence need go to Peking. I have suggested a

consequential amendment in the first sentence.

4. I take your point about the likely form of the White Paper, but do we need to put this point to Peking? They will be most concerned about the long-term effect in the Act itself. I would prefer to omit from "Moreover" to the end of the paragraph, but if we are to include this I suggest an amendment on the lines indicated.

CONFIDENTIAL

/5.