TNAG-1083-FCO40-1333-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 55

COVERING SECRET

Mr Clift, HK&GD

cc Miss Evans, Home Office

Mr Rushford, Legal Adviser

Reference......

HKK 34011

ROASTED IN LAATRY NG. 51 2 8 APR 1981

DEK OFFICER

INDEX

REGISTRY Action Takom

PA

No £28.5.

the 316

236

NATIONALITY BILL: HONG KONG AND NOMENCLATURE

I have revised the two draft telegrams to Hong Kong about which we spoke to take account of points you have raised as well as others made by Mr Rushford and Miss Evans, Home Office Legal Adviser.

1.

2.

The only significant change in the 'general' telegram is an expansion of paragraph 1. This may duplicate or overlap with what is being said in the other telegram which you are drafting; in that case I leave it to you to adapt one or the other accordingly. The point I want to make is that our principal objections to the use of the term UK national or British national is that they will confuse citizenship statuses, and that is precisely the attraction of them to the unofficials. So they will not be convinced by the arguments.

3. On the 'reasons' telegram point a. in para 1 has been completely rewritten on the advice of Mr Rushford. It is still my wiew that there is a separate point to make along the lines that internationally a person would not necessarily be regarded as a UK national in all circumstances even if we describe them as one, and it is therefore wrong to imply that that status exists for an individual by putting it in the description of his national status and in his passport. It could serve no other purpose, and if it cannot be guaranteed that it will serve its limited international law purpose it is wrong to use it particularly since it is impossible to set out clearly just what if anything are the consequences of being described as a 'UK national'. Mr Rushford said that there was a related point in the telegram which you had drafted. If may be possible to use that wording, if it is suitable, in wthe reasons' telegram. Certainly if there is such a point it should be included in the

'reasons' telegram whether of not it is said elsewhere.

4. On reflection all of us have had doubts about the wisdom of taking the line as I did in the first draft of paragraph 3 of the reasons telegram that CBDT (and other categories) are in a sense 'British'. I have therefore rewritten the paragraph omitting that line but taking the view that 'British nationality' is not even now a satisfactory or adequate dscription of one's nationality status and will be even less so under the Bill. The paragraph really responds to comments made in a variety of ways by the unofficials. The lines of the paragraph are agreed in broad terms by Miss Evans and Mr Rushford (though they have not seen the precise wording). If however it were still thought

CODE 18-77

/preferable

COVERING SECRET

NOTED)

Miks

зи

one week

لأم