CONFIDENTIAL
HOME OFFICE
Lunar House Wellesley Road Croydon CR9 2BY
Telephone
A C Galsworthy Esq
01 760 2829
Hong Kong Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
LONDON
SW1A 2AA
ник ото
سم
phone
250
Jay's com
Pa
Nat
Indian Moore mil He 2014
Jonathon abejatimir
Jonatha showed the i fen
messve. Fifect o
place for the meriyan (OW)
Please reply to The Under Secretary of State Granger
Your reference
Ota reference
Mies
NTY/85 1/387/1 reale
17
June 1985
MD'
REGISTRY 11 JUL 1985
REGISTRY
Action Taken
Dear Tony,
HONG KONG AGREEMENT: ORDER IN COUNCIL
1.
In Wilfred Hyde's and Julian Moore's absences on leave I am writing in response to your letter of 23 May.
1.
2.
208
I attach a fresh draft of the Order, together with:
a)
a commentary on its provisions
3.
b)
a further slightly revised list of persons who may be regarded as BDTCs by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong
c)
a note on those of your and Hong Kong's proposals which we have not included.
The draft raises some major issues, and a number of minor ones. The first concerns the identification and definition of persons affected. We are committed to recording in BN (0) passports the holder's right of abode in Hong Kong. But there are, of course, some differences between the pre and post 1 July 1997 provisions. As Hong Kong have indicated in Telno 1100, some BDTCs who are at present Hong Kong belongers, and may therefore be regarded as BDTCs by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong, may not have the right of abode there after 1997. We imagine these will be very
few
in terms of numbers, and are likely to be restricted to those non-Chinese BDTCs who have permanently left Hong Kong, and their children born outside Hong Kong, who have not acquired right of abode elsewhere (however that may be defined in terms of the other countrie's law). At the same time we need to be satisfied that we have included all those BDTCs whom the UK Memorandum (and the Hong Kong Act) is intended to cover.
4.
We have therefore considered how best to balance these two requirements in the definition of those affected by the Order. You will recall that our original. proposal was for a direct reference in the Order to the Hong Kong Immigration Ordinance. In the light of your and Hong Kong's objections to this, and in view of the way in which Hong Kong propose to amend their Ordinance so as to meet the requirements of Section XIV of the Agreement we can now agree that this would not be appropriate. This leaves us with two options. First, to define those affected in a generalised formula, with a full list attached for information purposes only. Second, to publish the full list as a Schedule to the Order, and simply include in the Order itself a reference to that list. Your Legal Advisers and ours favour the first course, and the draft Order proceeds on this basis. The second course would necessitate converting the full list into legal terms. This would not be impossible