ů
CONFIDENTIAL
2544 1
-
(B)
(I)
30 JUNE 1997: THEY CANNOT BE BDTCS, BECAUSE NEITHER PARENT WILL BY THEN BE A BDTC OR SETTLED IN A DEPENDENT TERRITORY (HONG KONG HAVING CEASED TO BE A DEPENDENT TERRITORY ON
1 JULY 1997): AND THEY CANNOT BE BRITISH CITIZENS BECAUSE
NEITHER PARENT WILL BE A BC OR SETTLED IN THE UK.
ARTICLE 4(2).
IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO ADD THE WORDS 'STATING THE
HOLDER'S RIGHT OF ABODE IN HONG KONG' TO ARTICLE 4(2) FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
(I)
THE GRANT OF RIGHT OF ABODE IN HONG KONG PRIOR TO
1997 IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER FOR HONG KONG AND
FLOWS FROM HONG KONG RATHER THAN WESTMINSTER
LEGISLATION. IT WOULD THEREFORE BE WRONG TO MENTION
IT IN WESTMINSTER LEGISLATION:
(II) THE WORDING PROPOSED WOULD IN ANY CASE NOT ACCORD
WITH THE POST-1997 SITUATION. THE CHINESE STRESSED
DURING THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT THE BRITISH WOULD NOT
AFTER 30 JUNE 1997 BE ABLE TO ENDORSE BN(0) PASSPORTS
WITH A STATEMENT THAT THE HOLDER HAD THE RIGHT OF
ABODE IN HONG KONG SINCE THIS WOULD THEN BE A MATTER
FOR THE CHINESE. THUS SECTION (XIV) OF ANNEX I
ALLOWS ONLY THAT HOLDERS OF PERMANENT ID CARDS MAY
HAVE THIS FACT STATED IN THEIR TRAVEL DOCUMENTS
AS EVIDENCE THAT THE HOLDERS HAVE THE RIGHT OF ABODE
IN THE SAR.
DESPITE THESE OBJECTIONS TO INCLUDING SUCH WORDING IN THE
ORDER, YOU MAY CERTAINLY TELL EXCO THAT WE ARE SURE
MINISTERS WOULD NOT SEE DIFFICULTIES DURING THE DEBATE ON
THE ORDER IN REPEATING THE ASSURANCES ON RIGHT OF ABODE
ENDORSEMENTS IN BN(0) PASSPORTS WHICH THEY HAVE ALREADY
GIVEN TO PARLIAMENT.
(II) EXCO HAVE ALSO ASKED THAT ARTICLE 4(2) BE REVISED TO ACCORD
MORE CLOSELY WITH THE WORDING OF THE UK MEMORANDUM. WE DO
NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND EXCO'S CONCERN ON THIS POINT. THE
MEMORANDUM DELIBERATELY AVOIDS ANY MENTION OF NATIONALITY,
ALTHOUGH IT IS CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE STATUS REFERRED
2
CONFIDENTIAL