Reference....
status in 1997, and that it is therefore necessary that he be included in Article 3(1). Hard cases may result, but they flow as a natural consequence of the Memorandum.
11.
Article 4
1
First,
Mr Hill's original draft has been amended in three ways. the square brackets around the words
and who, but for his having a connection with Hong Kong, would not be such a citizen
have been deleted. The effect of this is to make it clear that it is only those persons who, under Article 3, would lose BDTC status on 1 July 1997, who are eligible to apply for the new status. If the words in brackets were omitted, then
'separate' BDTCS, who do not lose that status on 1 July 1997, could also apply for the new status. We are however of the view that those words are necessary if the UK is to be seen clearly to be complying with the Memorandum. In particular, it seems to us that the categories of those who are to lose BDTC status, and those who may retain the new status, are intended to be co-extensive.
12. Secondly, Article 4 has been substantially amended to provide for the acquisition of the new status by an application for a passport recording that status, rather than by an application for registration. The reasons for this amendment are as follows
Na
(i)
Paragraph (a) of the UK Memorandum only permits acquisition of the new status by British passport holders, yet many people in Hong Kong will only get a passport for the first time when they are given the newstyle passport recording BN(0) status. The acquisition of a passport is thus inseparably linked to the acquisition of BN(0) status.
(ii) We understand that there are strong
political arguments in Hong Kong in favour of the acquisition of that status not being seen to depend upon an application for registration.
-
13.
From a legal point of view it seems to us that the effect of Article 4(1) is to lay down the conditions which must be fulfilled if the new status is to be acquired. There is no reason in law as far as we are aware whereby those conditions should not be those that we have now included, rather than that of an application being made for registration. We would of course welcome the views of the Home Office as to whether they can see any compelling legal reasons why this wording is unacceptable.
14.
Thirdly, Article 4(2)(c) has been amended by substituting '1st January 1997' for '1st October 1996' in the first line. This is to cover the case of a person born in the period 1 October 1996 31 December 1996 inclusive, and who is registered in the period 1 April 1997 - 30 June 1997 inclusive.
15.
Article 5
We have now omitted all the words after 'the words Hong Kong were omitted'. On reflection, it seems to us that the words now
/omitted