TNAG-0979-FCO40-1198-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1980 — Page 92

CODE 18-77

SS 8/78

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference

ميا

Mr Clift HKGD

HKCK 34011

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 51

0 8 APR 1980

DISK OFFICER

DRAFT WHITE PAPER ON NEW NATIONALNEY LAW

Мо

1.

We have received the first draft

PA

78.4

REGISTRY Action Taken

AW 8

See

42

43

White Paper from the Home Office. It is too long to circulate in full. However, it is so arranged that geographical departments should be able to comment on the draft of sections which particularly concern them without seeing the bulk of the Paper.

2.

I attach a copy of Sections A and B of the Paper, which describe the new citizenship arrangements in general, and a copy of Section E which deals particularly with the nationality provi- sions of the separate citizenship for colonial belongers. The manuscript changes shown on these copies are amendments suggested by NTD. In making them we had in mind 2 impressions in particular the Home Office draft appeared unecessarily to maintain that colonial belongers had no connection with the UK, and it could be read as implying that the UK was anxious to free itself of its colonial responsibilities as soon as possible. The other suggested changes are minor presentational ones as they affect the colonies (though some more significant ones have been made about East African UKPH about which I am consulting other depart- ments).

3.

-

A major omission is any statement of reassurance to the dependencies that their changed nationality status does not signify any weakening of HMG's commitment to and support for the colonies. Since Hong Kong is the major colony affected perhaps you would care to provide a draft paragraph which might serve this purpose.

4. The Home Office have stressed that in using the title 'Citizen of the British Colonies' in this draft they are continuing an earlier style without prejudice to the outcome of the nomenclature questions. Subject to that is it necessary to replace 'Colony' by 'Dependency' wherever it appears in the draft?

5.

I should be grateful for any other comments that you and those to whom I am copying this minute would care to make. We are, of course, here concerned mainly with presentation: the policy (subject to Ministerial decision on nomenclature) is not at issue.

6. We have been asked to let the Home Office have FCO comments by 11 April. I must therefore ask you to let me have your comments by close of play on Tuesday 8 April.

A nil return where appropriate would be appreciated.

1 April 1980

kuones

W Jones NTD

Cc:

M&CD SAm SPD WIAD

SED

CONFIDENTIAL