RESTRICTED
COVERING CONFIDENTIAL
MHH 040/4 нин
RECEIVED
SINTRY
2 8 FEB 1986
Miss Veale, NTD
DESK OFFI INDEX
REGISTRY
MA
¬ Taken
Reference...
でく
Mr Hill
ZED....
но
Relpse
(with pres.pps)
2412186
I have asked N.T.D. Per
copy
45/1
BRITISH NATIONALS FOR PURPOSES
1.
+1.279)
Your minute of 17 February sets out the background to this subject very comprehensively. Jeremy Hill advised, in my absence, that we should obtain the opinions of the Home Office and of Gibraltar (23 August 1985) on various aspects of this matter. This has now been done.
2.
345
+191H 040/4 (85) 365 689 525
xT040/4(85) (619)
The Home Office reply (from Mr Weekes, of 10 December 1985) indicates that they agree with our view that the revised defini- tion of UK nationals for EC purposes was intended to include all those who derived that status wholly or partly by virtue of a Gibraltar connection. Having now seen the papers on GNN 340/1
(40) 1982 I would also confirm that view. This definition is therefore wide enough in principle to include a BDTC who was born in Gibraltar after 1 January 1983 and whose parents were at that time settled in another Dependent Territory (such as Hong Kong). The consequences of possessing this status include the right to registration as a British citizen (section 5 of the BNA 1981).
3.
This raises (at least) two issues, namely (i) whether the provisions of the Gibraltar Immigration Ordinance as presently drafted are consistent with this definition and (ii) whether there is a problem in relation to the possible exploitation of this situation by non-Gibraltarian BDTCs.
4.
As to the first of these points, Jeremy Hill has previously commented that the effect of the Gibraltar Immigration Ordinance does appear to be restrictive in the sense that only those BDTCs who have that status wholly by virtue of a connection with Gibraltar appear to be granted "belonger" status. Those who have BDTC status only partly by virtue of a connection with Gibraltar are excluded. This interpretation is also followed in Gibraltar, as has been confirmed by Mr Sindon (his letter of 11 November).
5.
There is clearly a degree of inconsistency in this situation in that not all those persons who are UK nationals for EC purposes through a Gibraltar connection have belonger status there. While the provisions of the Gibraltar Immigration Ordinance do not affect the rights of such persons under the BNA 1981, the position is nevertheless somewhat anomolous. If we wish to rectify this anomoly, the two most obvious possibilities are either the amendment of our declaration, or the amendment of the Gibraltar Ordinance (I do not think that an amendment to the
1981 Act could seriously be contemplated). Of these, the first seems very unattractive in that the declaration in relation to
CODE 18-77 A}A: !
7.84
RESTRICTED
COVERING CONFIDENTIAL
/UK