Mr
Ме содрата Мой
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
нко 444/1
PA
62
But HMG have spreed to hand
ove records recessam de
admin asshoshm
They would be
copied to Landay.
NATURALISATION FILES: HONG KONG
1.
I feel that in considering whether Hong Kong files on applications for naturalisation are local, or HMG's files, we need to take account of the wider social issues. Not only must we con- sider the political aspects but also the security of the individuals, many of whom have already fled Communist China once before. We would also need to consult the Home Office since they are the final arbiters on naturalisation and nationality matters and only they can say how much of the Hong Kong material is duplicated in their own files.
2. I do not agree that either the acceptance of an application for naturalisation or the local rejection should be regarded as local records rather than central files which should be returned to London. We should differentiate between handing over (retaining in Hong Kong) the records to a former colony attaining independence within the Commonwealth, and one being submerged within the bound- aries of a potentially hostile power. These contain highly per- sonal information about individuals, most of whom left the very country to which it is now proposed their files be made available for inspection. Many will undoubtedly have made anti Chinese state- ments which included their reasons for leaving China. The dis- claimer about China in the declaration (Miss Clay's para. 3) and possible 'embarrassment' to individuals would be the very least of these people's problems. Any possible future local administrative requirement in the Hong Kong SAR must be forfeited because of the damaging consequences of their getting into unsympathetic hands, and for this reason alone I would be in favour of their being re- turned to the UK.
3. There is also the consideration that some 3.5 million Hong Kong Chinese will remain British nationals after 1997, continuing so until well into the twenty first century (BNO). The files of those who acquired that status by way of earlier naturalisation should be available for our consultation, and not held by an authority which could deny us access should we ever need it.
4.
Looking at things from an operational point of view we also need to contemplate exactly what and how much information is con- tained in the Home Office archives. Miss Clay's minute makes the assumption that the Home Office hold authorative records of those people who have been accepted for naturalisation, but this is not necessarily the case. It is important to draw a line between pre and post 1/1/83 naturalisations effected in the dependent territories. Pre 1968 the names of those naturalised are alpha- betically listed in annual registers (divided into UK and overseas) and from 1968 to 1982 index cards and latterly computer records are held containing much the same limited information. As far as I am aware the HO do not have the source material on which the de- cisions to grant the naturalisations were based. We see from Miss Clay's para. 5 that the Colonial Office file on which Miss Wong's naturalisation was approved is no longer available, so we cannot even rely on these as a viable alternative.
5.
Since 1/1/83 the remaining dependent territories have been submitting 6 monthly (annual from 1988) registration and naturalisa- tion returns through NTD to the Home Office. These include a
CODE 18-77
CONFIDENTIAL
/summary
Page 30Page 31
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.