there were some BDTCs by virtue of a connection with other Dependent Territories
who were serving abroad in Crown Service under the Hong Kong Government. Hong
Kong's argument was accepted, but it was pointed out that if the article was
amended as proposed it would then serve no useful purpose, since the people to
whom it related were covered elsewhere. If, therefore, it were to be amended as
proposed, then it had better be deleted.
Agreed to delete article 2(1)(d).
Women married before 1949: Article 2(1)(f)
10.
Hong Kong wished to amend "1949" to read "1983". They pointed out that
this was in line with section 23(1)(c) of the BNA 1981. They posed the actual
case of a woman who had retained CUKC when her place of birth went independent,
and who was married to a Hong Kong BDTC. By virtue of that section of the 1981 Act
she therefore became a BDTC on 1 January 1983.
Agreed to amend "1949" to read "1983".
Right to register in the new status of BN (0)
Article 4(2): Reference to passports
11. Hong Kong agreed that the Order should specify registration as the method
by which BN(0) status should be acquired, but they wanted a reference to passports
in that article. The Home Office argued that they would prefer not to mention
passports directly in an apparent entitlement context. Their view was that
prerogative matters should not be imported into the Order. Hong Kong appreciated
the argument, but they pointed out that there was a reference to passports in the
UK Memorandum, and that if no such reference appeared in the Order, there was
likely to be considerable unease in Hong Kong. They also argued that the Chinese
might well be disturbed if a reference to the passport was not clearly spelt out
in the legislation. They also pointed out that in any case, EXCO were still not
happy with the reference to registration, and it would be easier to get them to
accept it if a reference to passports was included as proposed.
Agreed to include a reference to passports in article 4(2).
4
-