TNAG-1085-FCO40-1335-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 86

CONFIDENTIAL

Mr. Mada 2013 Mr. Williams J 25. VID

MCK 340/1 RESTAS DE REKSTRY ..... 5.3-cikan and

- 1 OCT 1981

DESK OFF!

1 kein and Von.onwealth Office

NOCK

BLOGSTAY Action Take]

ло

14.60

From the Partamentary. Undőrkakisemaid sell

NATIONALITY BILL: FINAL STAGES

casvilio

Londo SWIA 2AH

i

28 September 1981

374/

зуда

See (388) cc Mr Jonard (397A,

Mr Adams

12916

When we discussed the Gibraltar amendment at the Home Secretary's meeting on 17 September we did not reach the point of considering how opposition and other non-Governmental amendments on Hong Kong might be dealt with in the Lords at Report Stage. Given the unpredictability of how the Gibraltar and Falkland Islands amendments will fare it is important to consider ways of meeting and preferably pre-empting the objections which are likely to arise from other dependent territories, especially if a difficult amendment on Hong Kong is proposed in the Lords. Indeed the Governor has already made clear Hong Kong's preference for a clause declaring that those covered by the Bill should remain British nationals. Hong Kong's concern we are told is not to achieve right of entry to the United Kingdom but to underline their political connection with Britain at a time when maintenance of confidence is of great importance for them.

In the circumstances I wonder whether it might not be prudent to agree a formula for an amendment that we ourselves can deploy in the Lords at need. The aim would be to find something that would meet Hong Kong's anxieties while leaving the principle of CBDT intact, and that would enable the Governor of Hong Kong to assure his Executive and Legislative Councils that we had taken account of their interests.

We believe this could be achieved by a small amendment towards the end of the Bill to provide that a citizen of the British . Dependent Territories could also be described in a passport as

a 'British Dependent Territories citizen' and that at the discretion of the issuing authority the name of the colony might be substituted for the words 'Dependent Territories'. Such an amendment would have to be permissive rather than mandatory so that dependencies could adopt the formula or not as their circumstances dictated. This proposal does not, we think, damage the concept of CBDT, and does seem preferable to having to deal with an amendment not of our choosing, with no certain prospect of success.

I would not propose to come forward with this concession at the outset of the discussion, but rather to keep it up my sleeve as an offer, possibly to Lord Elwyn Jones (the principal Opposition spokesman on this topic), when the time was ripe. I would naturally expect him and his colleagues not to press their rival proposals, and I would then introduce the necessary amendments at Third Reading.

Tim Raison Esq MP Home Office

(Trefgarne)