CODE 18-77
Mr. Powell
Mr Hoare, HKD
CONFIDENTIAL
some good parts.
THE 1212
Blunt
Sp.
Reference....GNN 340/393/1
158
HKK 040/4
8/3
HONG KONG : DRAFT ORDER IN COUNCIL
1. We have received copies of Mr Emery's letters to you of 31 January and 4 February, together with the latest draft Order in Council.
2.
We are still somewhat puzzled as to what categories it is intended should be excepted from loss of BDTC status. Unless there has been some policy decision of which NTD is unaware, our view is that persons who have a claim to BDTC status through a separate connection with another dependent territory or territories as well as a claim through Hong Kong should not be treated less favourably than were CUKCS and BPPs in the past under the various independence arrangements. In our view those to be excepted would be any person who, quite irrespective of any connection with Hong Kong by either birth, parentage or (?) marriage can establish a claim to BDTC status through a separate channel involving another territory or territories. (The implications of a connection by marriage would I think need to be looked into more carefully if some formula on these lines proved acceptable.) Persons having a connection with more than one territory who would thus lose BDTC status in 1997 would be those where the Hong Kong connection formed an essential part of the only claim they had to BDTC status, eg a child born in another dependent territory of Hong Kong BDTC parents who are not settled in that other territory.
3. By dividing the two categories in such a way it should be possible to avoid the numerous anomalies which would otherwise arise, such as:-
4.
(a) A child born before 1.7.97 in Gibraltar to parents settled there for many years who would remain a BDTC if his parents were foreign nationals but might lose that status if his parents were Hong Kong-born BDTCs.
(b) A child born in Hong Kong in June 1997 of Gibraltar- born parents who might lose his status whereas he would become a BDTC by descent if born the following month in Hong Kong SAR.
On first reading paragraph 3(2) of the latest draft Order, I had thought that it was perhaps intended to cover persons who, although having some connection with Hong Kong, could establish a claim to BDTC status irrespective of that connection. However it appears from paragraph 5 of Mr Emery's letter of 4 February that this is not the intention. In that case I am not clear as to the purpose of paragraph 3(2) of the draft Order.
5.
We have a number of other comments on the draft Order, some of which I have mentioned in earlier minuting but which I will
CONFIDENTIAL
/restate