Could be dealt with
Ly meg whatin
ly
Clause in
indgrina natrulijad
Miss Veale
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
HONG KONG ORDER IN COUNCIL
1. The new draft Order in Council mainly differs from the earlier draft in spelling out in greater detail (broadening in fact) those categories of persons who have a connection with Hong Kong.
It still uses the same formula for loss of BDTC in Article 3 which as I pointed out in my recent letter to Mr Emery, will create problems for overseas posts faced with the task of trying to determine who is to remain a BDTC after 30.6.97. The list of persons who stand to lose BDTC is therefore very useful and will be an invaluable guide to us and to overseas posts when it can be drawn up in final form.
2. The list also illustrates the problem the Home Office has in deciding who should be exempt from loss and the difficulty of separating 'mixed' and 'separate' BDTCs and of deciding what the qualifying connection with another dependent territory should be to save a person from loss of BDTC. This is no better illustrated than by examples Al and A13. In the first case birth in Hong Kong deprives a person of BDTC, no matter where his parents were born, in the second case birth outside Hong Kong (no matter where) results in loss of citizenship if one parent was born naturalised or registered in Hong Kong. Yet in both cases there may be a separate claim to BDTC either by birth in another dependent territory or by descent from a person born registered or naturalised there. It seems to me very inconsistent to say on the one hand that birth in Hong Kong establishes a connection which is so close as to deprive a person of BDTC whereas birth in another dependent territory takes second place to Hong Kong parentage and does not permit exception to loss of BDTC.
3. There is also uncertainty as to who should be eligible for BN(0) registration. In paragraph 9 of his letter, Mr Emery says entitlement to registration should not embrace those 'mixed' BDTCs who are to be excepted from loss of BDTC status but suggests that 'separate' BDTCs who are excepted from loss should. I foresee problems in trying to decide who is 'mixed' or 'separate' for this purpose. In any case, is it necessary? Surely no one who retains BDTC will want to register as a BN(O) unless there is some practical reason for doing so. As I suggested when I wrote to Mr Emery on 14 June, a BDTC passport could be an embarrassment to the holder if it is used for travel to HKSAR after 30.6.97. I would be in favour of allowing anyone defined as having a connection with Hong Kong to register as a BN(O), provided they qualify as belongers, even if they have retained BDTC.
4. There is also the possibility of independence arrangements in other dependent territories to be considered. If some 'mixed' BDTCS who are not excepted from loss of BDTC are deprived of their opportunity of acquiring citizenship (eg through a grandparental connection with the other dependent territory) because they are not BDTCS on the appointed day some special arrangement will have to be made for them unless the Home Office is prepared to take a hard line and insist that loss of BDTC deprives them of the chance to acquire citizenship of a dependent territory which gains its independence after 30.6.97.
CODE 18 77
21 June 1985
CONFIDENTIAT
A R Kaye
Nationality & Treaty Department