CONFIDENTIAL
Moreover, as I said in my minute of 22 March, I think it unlikely
that the Chinese would object to such an approach provided that the persons concerned clearly had connections with another dependent
territory. It seems to me however that Hong Kong's proposals would be in breach of the terms of the UK Memorandum, since they do not involve a change in the law before 1997 and would consequently not affect the position of such BDTCs "immediately before" 1 July 1997. If this is so and the solution to the problem which I suggested in
my minute of 19 March would indeed be ultra vires. The Hong Kong Act (which I still find difficult to understand: Mr Burrows' minute
of 21 March), I should be grateful to know if you can think of any other way of resolving this problem. Whatever the immediately obvious legal constraints it would be equitable to find a satisfactory way. of doing so.
5. On para 3(b) above I cannot see any obvious drawbacks to Hong Kong's various proposals. However, I should welcome your views
particularly on:
(i) Hong Kong's suggested redraft of Article 2 (I) (A)(III) and
2(I) (B); (para 1 (D) of Hong Kong telno 681)
(ii)
an appropriate amendment to Article 6(2) to provide for the
stateless grandchildren of Hong Kong BDTC's to be registered
as BOC's. I believe the Home Office have the drafting of this in hand; (Para 2(Q) of Hong Kong telno 681).
(iii) The need for the schedule to the order to refer specifically
to the Hijacking Act 1971 (Overseas Territories) Order 1971
and the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973 (Overseas Territories)
Order 1973. (Para 3 of Hong Kong telno 681).
6.
I have looked at Hong Kong's suggestions in the light of Mr
Grainger's further redraft of Articles 1 - 5 of the order. The only
additional points which I should like to draw to your attention as
result are that:
(a)
Somewhat suprisingly Hong Kong have not objected in their
telegram to the reference in Article 4(i) to the acquisition of
CONFIDENTIAL