CONFIDENTIAL
su ary and copies of the index slips and oaths of allegiance forms. From this year we have agreed with the Home Office that the figures only should be returned (see GNN 346/12 (1987) folios 33 and 42). We also agreed in the middle of this year (GNN 346/12 folios 35 and 36) that the 1983-87 oaths and index slips could be destroyed. This means that post 1987 we will not even have the names of those persons naturalised in the dependent territories (in Hong Kong 1988 to mid 1997). I am waiting for confirmation from the Home Office that the names of the 1983-87 applicants have been retained.
6.
Turning now to the local rejection category we should invite comments from Hong Kong Immigration Department about the frequency of their usage. They are effectively a local warning list and would not need to be referred to regularly past 1997. However, it would be extremely useful to be able to reply authoratively to enquiries about naturalisation applications and whether they were successful. Long after 1997 we will be receiving applications and enquiries from people who missed the 'BNO boat' and I think we should know exactly where we stand. From my own experiences of con- sulting NTD historical files, and from current practice at the Home Office, 25 years would not be too long to hold such files and 50 years might prove a better alternative. Certainly after 25 years the policy could be reviewed, but if they are destroyed or handed over in 1997 it would be too late to revise our thinking. Micro- fiching would appear to be a sensible option. It could also, of course, be considered for the applications that were accepted.
Bar
1 November 1988
I A Barras NTD
270 4067
Miss Way
As you will see from Mr Barras' minute, this is a complex subject which needs careful consideration, not only of the practical aspects of storage and access to the naturalisation records but also the social and political implications for the individuals named in the files. Subject to any further comments from Hong Kong and the Home Office, I agree with Mr Barras recommendations that both sets of files should be returned to the UK. I recognise, however, the considerable practical problems which this might involve and agree with "r Barras that micro- fiching would be a sensible solution for both sets of files. For the reasons given above, the originals should of course be destroyed and no copies of either sets of records should be made available to the post-1997 local administration. (There could well be a case for the Consulate-General to hold a copy of the micro-fiche records, but presumably this would present no great difficulty)
•
依
1 November 1988
Copied Is The forkman HKD
A D Conyard NTD
CL 527 270 4070
1/1
CONFIDENTIAL