TNAG-1326-FCO40-1738-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-debates-1984 — Page 34

2.

We are

CONFIDENTIAL

aware of the following particular interests:

(a)

Lord Grindley:

(b)

Lord Geddes:

(c) Lord Tan law:

(d)

Lord Kennet:

Pensions.

Nationality.

Constitutional development.

Assessment Office.

(e) Lord Shawcross: Drafting of the Basic Law and nationality.

3. I also submit a full list of supplementaries. This is too long

for the Minister's convenient use in the debate, but gives an idea

of the sort of subjects that might be raised. The full list will be

held by officials in the box.

4.

There is one particular point which I should like to draw to

the Minister's attention. In the Commons debate Mr Healey asked

that the Government should be ready to guarantee the future and personal security of those in Hong Kong who had served the colonial

government in fields that could render them liable to victimisation

in the future. The Secretary of State and the Home Secretary had

agreed a series of formulae to deal with this question: the Government have in fact agreed to admit to this Country a number of people who could be at risk and their families, and informed them of

the decision. But we

are very reluctant to be explicit about this because of the extremely divisive effect which this would have in

Hong Kong. Mr Luce had intended to use the first of the formulae agreed with the Home Secretary in answer to Mr Healey in winding up,

but unfortunately did not have time. The Home Secretary has

therefore asked that the formula should be used in replying in

Lords debate. We have inserted it in the winding up material

section (f).

the

as

7 December 1984

དང་

A C Galsworthy

Hong Kong Department

CONFIDENTIAL