{
Mr W Ehrman
CONFIDENTIAL
NTY/85 1/387/3
27 August 1985
Paragraph 7 : Tel. Para.2(G))
We do not agree that there is no need to mention arrangements for the issue of BN(0) passports. The Draft Order specifically refers to passports in Article 4(2) concerning acquisition of BN(0) status, and Paragraph 4 of the White Paper refers to the passport matters contained in the UK Memorandum. The absence of any
reference to the passport issuing procedure seems bound to give rise to comment, and may well be cause for unnecessary worry. We have therefore retained this paragraph, and indeed have expanded it to include a reference to the arrangements for registration, which are similarly likely to be of concern to the persons affected.
Paragraph 8: Tel. Para. 2(H)
This revised paragraph includes a better explanation of the "Ten Year Validity Period" provided by Passport Department.
Paragraphs 9 17: Tel. Para. 2(1)
-
I am afraid I cannot quite follow Hong Kong's proposed paragraph renumbering. We prefer the original format of consecutively numbered paragraphs to cover each element of this Article.
Paragraph 10 : Tel. Para. 2(1)9
Your
sim:'n ti net your
Hong Kong's proposed wording seems an unnecessary repetition of their proposed Paragraph 8.
Paragraph 11 : Tel. Para. 2(1)9(A))
tha
The first sentence has been revised as proposed, by Hong Kong. But we shall be glad to know why Hong Kong have objected to our original version. That was designed to explain why Article 2(1)(a) covers birth, naturalisation or registration in Hong Kong (namely that each of these was regarded as a sufficient connection in itself). Hong Kong's version merely says what the Article covers. As regards birth in Hong Kong, Hong Kong have not explained why they have proposed omitting an explanation of the pre-1983 position, while retaining an explanation of the post-1982 position. We suggest both are needed if the explanation of the second is to make sense.
Paragraph 11 : Tel. Para. 2(J))
You indicated that FCO shared Hong Kong's view that it would be preferable not to mention right of abode in Hong Kong in the White Paper, on the grounds that the detailed arrangements for amendment of the Immigration Ordinance had still to be discussed with the Chinese and were not yet known. Also because it introduced questions not addressed in the Order. The revised Paragraph 11 reflects this view, on the understanding that this is one of the points of substance on which we may wish to consult Home Office Ministers when submitting the Draft White Paper for clearance.
Paragraph 12: : Tel. Para. 2(I)9(B))
Hong Kong have not explained why they object to the original version. The original explains the reasoning. Hong Kong's version does not.
Hong Kong's version does not. Hong Kong's version has been adopted at this stage, but we shall be glad to know why they would prefer the
- 2 -
"