CONFIDENTIAL
HOME OFFICE
Lunar House Wellesley Road Croydon CR9 2BY
Telephone 01 760 2829
358
30/8
Mr W Ehrman
Hong Kong Department
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
LONDON SW1A 2AH
Dear Wilkain
HONG KONG :
DRAFT WHITE PAPER
HKK
RECEIVER AN
Please reply to The Under Secretary of State Your reference
Our reference NTY/85 1/387/3
Date 27 August 1985
070/4
- 2 SEP 1985
DESK OFFI INDEX
¡
7 dt. !का
I attach a fresh draft of the White Paper. It has been revised to take account of comments from FCO, from other Home Office colleagues (including Passport Department) and, as far as possible, Hong Kong.
I should say straight away that the revised draft has not yet been considered by other Home Office officials (nor, of course, by NTD or FCO Legal Advisers). It may be sent forward to Hong Kong only on the understanding that further revision or amendment may be suggested, and that it may not therefore be put to EXCO until clearance to do so has been given.
To save time, I propose to confine the comments in this letter to areas of substance raised either by Hong Kong or by others. May I make three general comments to start with.
First, the commentary on the Draft Order is intended to explain its provisions. Some of Hong Kong's proposed recasts simply repeat in slightly different words what is said in the Order, which seems a little pointless. I comment below on some examples of this. Second, it seems a little cumbersome to refer throughout to "Her Majesty's Government". Would it be possible for the Hong Kong edition to refer to Her Majesty's Government, while the UK one simply refers as now to "the Government"? Third, regarding references to the Official Report: there is already to be a footnote on the first page to explain briefly the affirmative resolution
proceed a procedure. If we do as Hong Kong propose, there will be three footnotes on that page, which I suggest will be rather offputting to the reader. It is therefore proposed to leave the Official Report references where they are.
B.
As to the textual revisions:
pana 2 (B) Naised, The
de
.
Paragraph 2/includes a footnote of the affirmative resolution procedure, as requested. The revised version of the last sentence has been proposed by Mr Hyde.
Paragraph 4 : Tel. Para. 2(D))
We do not see the need for a reference to the second section of sub-paragraph (b) of the UK Memorandum. No other para or sub-para of the Memorandum is so identified.
f
Paragraph 6: Tel. Para. 2(F))
you
Agreed, As Hong-Kong say, the Draft Order does not mention cut-off dates. We agreed some time ago. that these would be specified in a later Order, when Hong Kong are better able to judge demand for BN (0) passports.
- 1