TNAG-1188-FCO40-1490-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1982 — Page 115

CONFIDENTIAL

1. די-

Reference

還

Hkk 340/1

See 35

Miss Brooks, Legal Advisers, W 44/6A

BRITISH NATIONALITY ACT 1981: CITIZENSHIP IN PASSPORTS

No ૮૧૯

29/4

Af2114

19

1. It seems to me that there are really two separate issues raised by the Governor of Hong Kong's letter of 16 March. The first concerns the proper designation of national status to be written into a passport, and the second concerns the way in which the national status is reflected in an immigration form which one often has to complete on entering another country.

see (300)

2. So far as concerns the designation of national status in a passport, I think we must keep strictly to the terms of the British Nationality Act 1981. In the present context, this involves using the term "British Dependent Territories citizen" I think it would be wrong to add to that term, either in brackets or following a colon or a dash, a reference to a particular Dependent Territory in such a way as to suggest that the name of that Territory was part of the strict title of the citizenship possessed by the holder of the passport.

3. I would ideally even prefer not to see the name of the relevant Dependent Territory written on a separate line below the nationality description. But if that is appropriate in particular personal circumstances, and if importance is attached on general policy grounds to having some such indication, I do not think that the legal objections to it are so strong as to require us to exclude this option.

}

4. The point about entries in immigration forms is, I think, quite different, and perhaps something of a red herring. The point made at the end of paragraph 2 of the Governor's letter, about the length of the title, "British Dependent Territories citizen", is considerably weakened by the consideration that that title is shorter than the existing title which he quotes earlier in the paragraph, ie "British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". In any event, however, the essential point seems to me to be that immigration forms are filled in by the passport holder, not by a is government authority. If there (not enough space to fill in the

formal title, the passport holder has to do the best he can in the circumstances. If he wishes to fill in his immigration, form with the short form "British (Hong Kong)" that seems to me to be primarily a matter for him, and between him and the immigration authorities of the country he is visiting: those authorities are in any event likely to base their attitude to the person concerned on the description given in the passport rather than the term used by the person himself in his immigration form. I wonder, in fact, how many people at present bother to fill in their immigration forms by recording their national status as "British Subject: Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". I suspect that many simply write "British" - I certainly do, and have never experienced any problems. In short, I do not think we need be too exercised. about how an individual passport holder describes himself on the immigration form which he fills in on entry into another country; but I do think we

CODE 18-77

SS 8/78

CONFIDENTIAL

/must