TNAG-1080-FCO40-1330-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 107

L

CODE 18-77

SS 8/78

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference

HKK

340/1

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 51

30A

Separate copies to:

Mr Clift, HK&GD

Mr McLaren, FED Mr Coles, SAD Mr Daunt, SED Mr Deare, WIAD

Mr Robson, EAD Mr Paterson

my.

M. Drills

-9 FEB 1981

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

Pl. dr a

REGISTRY

PA tion Taken we ca

"Separate citizenship for HK would

り

ti weaken the

be inappropicale in the special mumstances be leviting. It would

lichs betweus

appear

•peration

between Hung Kory and the UK. It would complicate our relations with China and impede co.

& Hery Kerry

NATIONALITY BILL: CITIZENSHIPS FOR THE DEPENDENT TERRITORIES

1.

Dod

As expected a number of speakers in the debate argued for a separate citizenship for each dependency. The Home Secretary asked us during the course of the debate for more information to use to refute this suggestion and wondered whether he could suggest that we might look into the possibility. In his winding-up speech, which I have not yet been able to compare with Hansard, Mr Raison answered the point by reference to the wide differences in sizes and organisation between different dependencies and added (quoting from a prepared text which had been cleared in the FCO some time ago) that he doubted whether many dependencies would wish to have their own separate status. He said that to enact that in nationality terms might be misunderstood both within certain dependencies and elsewhere. The proposed citizenship emphasises the British connection, which is basically what the dependencies want.

a

2. This is as near as we have been able to come publicly to the principal FCO argument against separate citizenships. When this was discussed in the context of citizenship categories and nomenclature a year ago the principal opposition to separate citizenships within the FCO came from HK&GD and FED in relation to Hong Kong and China. So firmly was it believed that the idea of

separate citizenship might cause the PRC to think that a change in the status of Hong Kong was imminent that they ruled out any citizenship titles which could give the impresssion of a separate citizenship even if in fact it was a collective one shared with other dependencies. Similar arguments were held to apply to the Falkland Islands/Argentina and Gibraltar/Spain, but opposition to the possibility was total in relation to Hong Kong/China. I think

of it we this opinion still holds good: it is the public defence need.

3. The Home Office have themselves always been opposed to separate citizenships. But they have never been particularly clear in the statements of their reasons and I have never found them convincing from a nationality point of view. I certainly do not find that size/organisation argument a convincing one. A stronger argument is that it could be the thin end of a wedge. By this I mean that the simple way of enacting separate citizenships for each dependency would be to do it through one Nationality Bill in Westminster, with the citizenship provisions for each territory being identical. This would be a comparatively simply drafting exercise, and should be possible to be incorporated in a

E

F

CONFIDENTIAL

/Nationality Bill