CONFIDENTIAL
but it would result in a long and complex list which might not be readily understood. Use of a generalised formula would identify the people concerned in a way that is reasonably easy to digest.
5. We have placed the formula at the beginning of the Order as favoured by your Legal Advisers. We see the advantage of doing it in this way, but an acceptable alternative would be to place it in a schedule if that were to be favoured by Parliament. But as I indicated in my letter of 12 June commenting on Hong Kong's proposal amendments to the Immigration Ordinance, we need to ensure that the Order and the Ordinance are in accord on this point. If Hong Kong are to withdraw right of abode before 1997 from some Hong Kong BDTCs who now have it, this will clearly have to be reflected in the Order in one of the way's proposed in my letter.
6. The next issue is the method by which BN(0) is to be acquired. You will see that the draft Order refers to registration, following the pattern of the British Nationality Act in the context of acquiring other forms of British nationality. This appears to have been agreed by Hong Kong (see serial M of paragraph 2 of their Telno 681 of 4 April) and we therefore assume that you are now content.
7.
Next there is the issue of "mixed" and "separate" BDTCs. Although we are still of the view that it would be virtually impossible to provide a list of all the possible ways in which a person might have become a "mixed" Hong Kong BDTC, we have concluded that some further work needs to be done on this subject. At this stage therefore the draft seeks to except from loss of BDTC only that category of persons which we have already clearly identified, namely the person born in Hong Kong while his BDTC: other dependent territory parents were there temporarily (Article 2(3) of the draft). But you will see that we are proposing to confine this exception to persons born on or after 1 January 1983. This is because, prior to that date, birth alone in Hong Kong was sufficient to confer CUKC status, irrespective of the nationality or immigration status of the parents. In other words it was sufficient in itself to establish an "unmixed" link with Hong Kong. Furthermore since the status of the parents was not an issue, it would be difficult if not impossible in many cases to establish the parents immigration status at the time of birth prior to 1 January 1983, given that we would have to go back in time a number of years (indeed to a time preceding the introduction of the term "settled"). To except persons born before 1 January 1983 to non-settled parents therefore seems to us to open a loophole through which a number of people (possibly including a number of ethnic Chinese Hong Kong BDTCs) might pass. If the concept of exception to loss is to be acceptable to the Chinese we hope you would agree, as a general principle, that it should be confined to as few people as possible. In the meantime we will continue our work on this subject.
8. On the question of cut-off dates for registration, we take Hong Kong's point that they would not be in a position for some years yet to say what these should be. Provision for these can be made later by means of a further Order in Council. We see no need to include anything in the present Order to anticipate cut-off dates (though that would be possible if there is pressure to do so). But it will no doubt be as well for Ministers to mention our intentions in this respect during the Parliamentary debate.
9.
The next point concerns who is to be entitled to registration as BN(0)s (see the words in square brackets in Article 4(2)). I think that we are agreed that it should not embrace those "mixed" BDTCs who are to be excepted from loss of BDTC status. But we see no reason to exclude those persons who are excepted from loss because they also have a "separate" route by a connection with another Dependent Territory. We do not see any conflict here between paragraphs 2(1)(a) and (b) of the Schedule to the Hong Kong Act, but we should be glad to have your views on this. Passport Department would also need to consider the implications if persons who were to retain their BDTC status could also acquire BN(0) status.
-
- 2 -