TNAG-1083-FCO40-1333-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 32

240A

CONFIDENTIAL

Hick 34011

RECEIVED IN RETRY NO. 51 2 6 MAY 1981

BACK ORICER

INDEX

من

NTD COMMENTS ON HONG KONG'S PROPOSALS FOR A COLLECTIVE NATIONALITY TITLE 'BRITISH (OR UK) NATIONAL'

1.

PA

428-5

REGISTRY

Action Takan

flas 416 See 2246

NTD see compelling political and policy grounds for resisting the Hong Kong proposal. They believe that the Hong Kong case is based on sentiment but not on substance.

2.

Politically, the Government have with considerable difficulty put through some amendments to satisfy Hong Kong's points put forward by the Governor and have claimed that they achieved their object. This was against much scepticism and criticism that Ministers were merely serving elitist elements in Hong Kong. Ministers' credibility would be seriously at risk if they were now to introduce the proposed amendment because as would emerge - there was said to be a crisis of confidence in Hong Kong. This is particularly embarrassing because the amendment would not actually do anything in practical terms for Hong Kong and is claimed to be necessary because Unofficials, stirred up by visiting Opposition MPs, are unwilling to believe the Government's assertions in the White Paper, statements by Ministers and what should be in any event self-evident that the UK will protect CBDTs (and others) in third countries.

-

Vi

3. On policy and practical grounds it is too glib for Hong Kong to assert that use of the prefix 'British (or UK) National' would carry no immigration risks for the UK. For the title, as Hong Kong acknowledge, would equally apply to BOC, British Protected Persons and British Subjects without citizenship. Presumably Hong Kong suggest that our Immigration Acts are defence against that. But it is largely because our domestic legislation is not adequate defence that we need to change from CUKC. What is equally important is what others the people themselves and other countries - think are the rights created by the status. It must be the UK's policy objective to do nothing to foster any suggestion that other than British citizens have any rights - particularly of entry in the UK.

in the UK. To retain a collective title of a British (or UK) national or British Subject must encourage those groups (eg the UKPH in India) and their supporters to claim a collective status and rights in international law for entry into the UK; and it increases the risk that the UK will inevitably be regarded as their proper destination if they are expelled or unwanted elsewhere. For this reason the Bill has aimed at separate and distinctive titles for the separate categories with no common titles.

4.

There is a major problem in using the term 'National' in passports in its restricted international law sense. We can readily acknowledge that this means that the UK may claim to represent them in international relations, but the Government are not prepared to go further and express an opinion whether there is, as a number of legal authorities argue, an obligation to receive nationals into the UK if they are under pressure to leave elsewhere. The UK wishes to resist that

CONFIDENTIAL

/obligation.