CONFIDENTIAL
the categories of designated service should be extended, then not only would an amending order be required under Section 16 (3) of the 1981 Act but the 1985 Order would have to be amended as well.
Paragraph (e) (i) of the Home Office draft begs the question of "circumstances connected with Hong Kong". I have therefore included "father or mother" expressly in the relevant provisions.
The definition of "relevant date$" looks out of place at the end of Article 2 but I consider that it should be specifically defined.
Article 3
The difficulty presented by this provision is the need to produce wording which unambiguously excludes "mixed" and "separate" BDTCS. It is a matter of policy as to how we respond to the question relating to "mixed" BDTCS raised in Emery's letter of 4 February but I have assumed that the basic policy is to exclude "mixed" and "separate" BDTCs as stated in Enery's first letter of 31 January. As to how to achieve this, Parliamentary Counsel was faced with a similar problem in connection with Section 3 of the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, a copy of which I attach. You may consider that we should try something along these lines although the problem under the 1983 Act was one of inclusion rather than exclusion. The wording I have proposed follows your suggestion to incorporate the exclusion into a single provisions of Article 3. I think that the proposed wording answers the question posed in paragraphs 2-4 of Miss Veale's minute of 11 February, in so far as they concern drafting rather than policy.
Article 4
I agree that a decision needs to be taken as to whether or not it is only those who are covered by Article 3 who can apply for the new status or whether "mixed" and "separate" BDTCS can apply as well. Under the Home Office draft, "mixed" and "separate" BDTCS would be able to apply. If one were to align Article 4 with the persons covered by Article 3, it would not be possible to merely say in Article 4- "Any person to whom Article 3 applies
- since the person to whom that Article will apply will only be determinable immediately before the relevant date. I have adopted your other proposals for amendment of paragraph (1) of Article 4. I do not see any need for the separate paragraph (2) and the effect of this can be easily incorporated into paragraph (1).
#1
Paragraph (2) of Article 4 needs to be amended to reflect the point raised in paragraph 5 (a) of Miss Veale's minute, namely that no provision appears to be made for those who become BDTCs by registration or naturalisation in the period immediately before 30 June 1997. If such persons are born after 1st October 1996, then they will be covered by the existing provisions but a new provision will have to be inserted in respect of persons born before 1st October 1996 who are not able to be registered or naturalised as a BDTC until after that date. My suggested provision needs to be looked at closely by NTD since they may feel that my suggestion does not sufficiently cover the few people who may be born after 1st October 1996; or persons who submit
CONFIDENTIAL
/there