CONFIDENTIAL
that any list, however comprehensive, could conceivably have a few omissions. That is a point with which I would
agree.
13.
I consider that neither the "list" approach, nor the "Hong Kong Ordinance" approach is satisfactory. In particular, it seems to me to be inappropriate to use an immigration ordinance to do important work in a nationality context.
My own preference would be for a simplified statement, along the lines of that proposed by Mr Hill in paragraph 7 of his minute to you (the correct date of which is, I think, 31 December 1984). This solution seems to me to have the advantages of being (i) potentially water-tight; (ii) easier to understand both from the point of view of those administering the envisaged regime, and that of those who have to make applications for the new status; (iii) it avoids complex references to provisions of our legislation; and (iv) it is also, broadly speaking, based on our previous practice in independence legislation.
14.
This minute is not intended to cover all my comments on the draft order-in-council. In particular I intend to draft a second minute shortly to deal with the problem of stateless- ness, and also (if necessary) to discuss other technical matters related to the order such as those arising from Miss Veale (NTD)'s minute of 16 January.
21 January 1985
Legal Advisein
cc
Mr Burrow
Miss Veate
NTD
John Grange
John Grainger Legal Advisers WH 221 233 4816
Mr Haye
CONFIDENTIAL
A
Page 135Page 136