TNAG-1087-FCO40-1337-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1982 — Page 52

OME

SECRETARY

CC

HKGD

PS

PS/LPS

PS/Mr. Hund

Ps/hard Tiefgame

PS/PUS Chief Clark

Mr. Adains

Mr. Donald

SED

NTD

ente

Ml Williston ur Clift i'm seen

"CANTE LONDON SWIH 9AT

ние 34011

RECEIVED IN REGISTRENO. 51

? NOV 198

QUEEN

(466)

заро

-?

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

PA

REGISTRY Action Taken;

2.

flas 3111

457

In the debate on the British Nationality Bill on 27 October I said that I would write to you on the points which you raised about Hong Kong.

468

May I say that I fully understand the strength of feeling (467 in Hong Kong for the British connection, which you expounded so clearly? I was glad that you said that you realised that any concern in Hong Kong about the Bill was probably based on a mis-1470 understanding of the very real sense of commitment to Hong Kong which this Government feels. As you know, I have myself underlined in Parliament the importance of that commitment to Her Majesty's Government; and other Ministers have frequently done the same. The British Nationality Bill does not affect Her Majesty's Government's relationship with Hong Kong or the strength of the Government's support for that or any other Dependent Territory.

In your speech you mentioned the undertakings given by Timothy Raison during the Report Stage of the Bill in the Commons. It may be helpful to spell these out again and to confirm that British Dependent Territories citizens will remain United Kingdom nationals in the sense that the United Kingdom will afford consular protection and represent their interests internationally.

The Government will continue to do that, and as in the past they will do everything possible to avoid British Dependent Territories citizens encountering difficulties in third countries, particularly over immigration procedures.

You also asked for assurance that the national status of British Dependent Territories citizens and Her Majesty's Government's undertakings towards them would continue whether a particular Dependent Territory remained in Schedule 6 of the Bill or not. I cannot, of course, make any definite forecast about a hypothetical situation, particularly one which, as you yourself pointed out in the debate, is very remote. It is important, however, to point out that a Dependent Territory may only be removed from Schedule 6 by a decision of Parliament.

If there were to be a change in the status of a dependency. the question of the national status in our law of people from that dependency would therefore be for Parliament to decide, taking account of the circumstances. It would, I believe, be wrong to try tol

Sir Paul Bryan, M.P.

/cont