TNAG-1382-FCO40-1830-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 191

A

7

CONFIDENTIAL

A C Galsworthy Esq

Hong Kong Department

Foreign & Commonwealth Office

Whitehall

London SW1

(48

HOME OFFICE

QUEEN ANNE'S GATE

LONDON SWIH 9AT

13 February 1985

HKK 040/4

2 FEB 1985

Dear Tony,

HONG KONG:

NATIONALITY AND PASSPORTS

IN

The period between Third Reading of the Hong Kong Bill in the Commons and its Second Reading in the Lords gives us an opportunity to take stock. It happens also to coincide with my release from recent preoccupations with quite different Home Office subjects. The purpose of this letter therefore is partly to summarise the present position and partly to register an important question of timing.

So far as the nationality issues are concerned, the relevant provisions in the Bill now include the term British nationals (Overseas) and, subject to correction, I do not think any further Government amendments are in contemplation. Your colleagues and mine have been discussing the terms of the draft Order in Council. There are points both of policy and draft- ing still to resolve, including the Government's response to representations on behalf of the children or grand children of those in Hong Kong not of Chinese race (Hansard, 6 February, col. 1071). There seems no reason, however, why we should not meet the declared objective of laying the final version of the Order in Council within 12 months. The Order in Council will have to include a commencement date for its provisions.

On passport issues, my colleagues have also been in touch with yours. As I understand it we are awaiting Hong Kong's comments on the questions set out in Jim Nicholson's letter of 11 January to Richard Hoare. We shall have therefore to recommend to Ministers that they give temporising answers to any questions that may be raised in the House of Lords on passport matters. See, for example, Mr Marshall's comment during the Commons debates recorded at the top of col. 1061.

The argument that these detailed questions require further careful consideration may well suffice for the present. We must however, as I see it, settle the main questions raised in Jim Nicholson's letter on the same time scale as we settle the terms of the Order in Council. This is because once the provi- sions of the Order in Council are brought into force those who

/wish to

CONFIDENTIAL