CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
20 November 1986
2. You will wish to draw on this in replying to the questions raised by the Dutch authorities.
3. There is one matter arising from Mr Carter's reply which, by copy of this letter, I am asking MVD to consider. Paragraph 2 of Mr Carter's letter says, in effect, that holders of Hong Kong CIs which have reached the limit of their 10 year validity are eligible to apply to Hong Kong for replacements provided they have not taken up permanent residence elsewhere. It seems that the Dutch authorities, and perhaps British consular staff, did not realise this and have been acting as if the person concerned had lost returnability to Hong Kong. This is not surprising since the instructions in Annex 12 to DSP 50 say that CIs "are not renewable" (except for some issued before 1 April 1972, which will no longer be valid anyway), and make no reference to replacement. One can see, therefore, why it may have been thought that once a CI had expired, the Dutch had no alternative but to issue an Aliens Passport. I am asking MVD to consider amending DSP 50 in order to reflect the true position as explained in Mr Carter's letter.
4. We are taking up with Hong Kong the suggestion that the wording in paragraph 1 of the CI should be amended to make it clear that "residence" means permanent residence. This seems very desirable.
5.
Please let me know how the Dutch comment on the questions in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Mr Carter's teleletter.
cc: MVD HKD
WED
Chanceries:
Dum ever,
DFB Le Breton
Brussels Luxembourg
Paris
Bonn
Deputy Political Adviser, Hong Kong
HMCG, Amsterdam
CONFIDENTIAL