TNAG-1083-FCO40-1333-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 6

COIDENTIAL

MIRK 34011

RECEIVED

MY NO. 51

13 MAY 1981

DESK OLACER

$1

JISTRY

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY

Ma 2041

Ралоговы

NATIONALITY BILL

24-74

255

Nationality & Treasy Dest

[<?

PS

PS/LPS

Je to

PS/Mr Luce Polis Blaker ps/mus Chuel Clerk

pp

Ruyl

12/v

Sex 258

Legal Adviser 12/5

(259

Mr Adasses

NTD

Thank you for your minute of 4 May (FCS/81/5+).

-

Richard Luce has(SSA)

I am afraid that I see insuperable objections to the new clause for which Hong Kong are now pressing. already made it clear in the Standing Committee that citizens of the British Dependent Territories will be British nationals in the sense that HMG will be entitled to seek to represent their interests on the international plane. But there is no unanimity as to what if any other rights or obligations exist between a state and its nationals. A provision on the lines suggested by 2b) Hong Kong which, as they recognise, would have to embrace British Overseas citizens, British Subjects and British protected persons - would cause enormous confusion and would

266 seriously undermine the Bill's main purpose, which is to split up the existing citizenship of the United Kingdom so as to indicate, roughly, who belongs where. This main aim would be brought very seriously into question if, as the Hong Kong draft proposes, we were to bring all the Bill's statuses under one umbrella. This would imply a close link with the United Kingdom far from justified by the facts of the case.

It would also raise extremely awkward questions of the duties which we felt we owed to our nationals in the event of an emergency involving their expulsion from their country of residence. The introduction of the new clause would be interpreted as a commitment on our part to all the people concerned and seriously tie our hands if such an emergency arose. We have already been asked during the Bill's passage whether those covered by it are our nationals and if so whether we regard ourselves as obliged to take them all in if required. Such questions are awkward enough to handle already: the proposed new clause would make them almost impossible to deal with. To suggest, as Hong Kong have done in the past, that a declaratory provision would do no more than state what everyone knows to be the case shows a complete misunderstanding of the very real difficulties we face in the nationality field.

I do sympathise with your difficulties and those of the Governor. But we have already gone a long way towards meeting the problems with which the Governor is faced by members of UMELCO. In my view there cannot now remain a vestige of a case for their

noted pro 1415

/supposing that they

Bu

in fe noted

1.3.5.

CONFIDENTIAL