n Poyett.
Mms Pr
Я
Mrs. De
I Krink a
It is betting up
einter
meeting
Sun wins Mr. Grainger;
a
inty with HD for 26 or 29 April, can we
meer Mon Commingen & agree Reference... BEST
урий
chochent of pain
I will need
HONG KONG (BRITISH NATIONALITY) ORDER 1985
x
лиги
1. Mr Burrows has shown to me a copy of your minute to him of 15 April 1985, which appears to have crossed with my minute to you of the same date. I see that you have also included most of Hong Kong's proposals in a new draft Order.
2.
25
Amit t
To summarise the points which I made in my minute of 15 April, I believe that the amendments suggested to Article 2 are largely of a technical nature, and are in general either unnecessary on incorrect. I would suggest that (subject to my comments later on registration outside Hong Kong) the only two amendments suggested by Hong Kong which from a technical point of view need to be incorporated in our previous draft of this Order without adding further confusion would be the removal of the words "wholly or mainly" from Article 2(1)(b)(ii), and the substitution of the words "Hong Kong Trade Development Council" in Article 2(1)(d)(iv).
3.
199
The proposed amendment to Articles 2(1)(a)(ii) and 2(1)(b) (to which you refer in paragraph 5(1) of your minute), however, does raise a point of policy over and above the drafting technicalities. In particular, it raises the point as to whether a "mixed" BDTC who is registered outside Hong Kong on the basis of a connection with Hong Kong should tese BDTC status. As Mr Burrows has remarked in his minute of 18 April, the question of the treatment of mixed BDTCs generally is one upon which a policy steer is needed. The point also clearly arises in relation to Hong Kong's proposed amendment to Article 3, though the words in paragraph 3(b) of our original draft do operate to exclude "separate" BDTCs, such as those covered by Hong Kong's revised Article 3(2)(a) and (b). Any amendments to Article 3 are therefore dependent on these matter of policy being decided.
4.
As regards Article 4, our reactions to Hong Kong's use of the word "registration" appear to have been very similar.
Perhaps the method of acquisition of the new status could be considered again. I have already commented on this suggested redraft in my minute of 15 April.
5. As regards Article 6, I think it is for the Home Office to come up with a first draft. Incidentally, I think that, in your latest draft, Article 6 has been misprinted. Articles 6(1) and (2) should form one paragraph, and 6(3) and 6(4) should be re-numbered 6(2) and 6(3).
6.
Article 7 of the draft is less controversial and would seem to cause fewer problems. The suggested inclusion of the words "or a British Overseas citizen" in section 37(1) (Article 7(4)(b)) and in section 51(3) (Article 7(4)(e)) is
CONFIDENTIAL
•
26
24/4
CODE 18-77 AWO Ltd. 7/84
/however