File
(82)
Mr Jones
CL 537
SECRET
Nationality & Treaty Department
BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL:
1.
Sea (SSA
HKCK 340/1 ник
RECEIVED DA
18 FEB 1981
DESK OFFIEN INDEX
PA
DEPENDENT TERRITORIES"
RECISTRY Actas Taken
£305 PGD 3013
WP.
✅ I have read with interest Sir William Jackson's letter of
10 February to Mr Daunt and your minute of 13 February to Mr Adams 76 on granting British Citizenship to Gibraltarians (and others).
2.
The Gibraltarian case for British citizenship cuts right across the problems Hong Kong are facing, and, as you have pointed out (draft attached to your minute of 13 February), could lead to(76 greater demands from Hong Kong. Nonetheless, the Governor's letter and his Attorney-General's minute contain some interesting ideas.
3.
The Gibraltar Attorney-General points out the dangers of citizenship which is not based on a sovereign state. The 'political' dependencies have one concern in common. The concept of citizenship in the Billis based on the right of abode whether in the UK or in the Dependencies. This assumes an identifiable, separate territorial base. But what happens if this base ceases to have a separate existence, eg Hong Kong is taken over by China? What would then be the basis of the citizenship of the CBDTs who refused to accept Chinese (or Spanish or Argentinian) nationality?
4.
The Bill, as drafted, implies that there will be no change in the status of these Dependencies. But we cannot assume that this is to be the case. We are to examine with the Home Office how to meet Hong Kong's concerns. At present we are concentrating on the process of naturalisation as British Citizens. We may or may not get anywhere on that track. If not, I suggest that we examine other possibilities. Would it be possible, for instance, to write into the Bill a statutory requirement for the provisions for CBDTS to be reviewed every 5 years? This could be justified on the grounds that, whilst the circumstances of the UK will not change significantly, those of the Dependencies may well do so. This would only go some way towards meeting the concerns of Dependencies and would not be enough in respect of Hong Kong. But it would be something.
5.
If such a review were not to be made statutory, could an undertaking to have such a review be given by Ministers during the next major parliamentary debate on the Bill?
6.
Another possibility I think we should look at is a statutory provision in the Act that no CBDT 'should without his consent be deprived of his citizenship and the rights etc which these confer on him. This may in fact be the position already under international law and I should be grateful for Mr Rushford's comments on this point.
SECRET
17.
Page 225Page 226
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.