Sea
Mr Many pa
Ry"
15/3
HKD 340/4
Л. Не водело Rogers
Foreign & Commonwealth
Office
London SW1 2AH
From The Minister of State
14 March 1991
Thank you for your letter of 27 February to Douglas Hurd about the concerns of the Hong Kong Bar Association in relation to the British Nationality Package.
We have consulted the Hong Kong Government who accept that you have raised issues which merit serious consideration. Both we and the Hong Kong Government would certainly include barristers among those persons considered to be essential to the continued stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.
Your concerns have therefore been referred to the Governor's Steering Committee, appointed under Section 3(3) (a) of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act, with a view to ensuring that barristers will be adequately catered for under the Scheme.
You
ficerely Caithness
THE EARL OF CAITHNESS
120
Anthony G Rogers Esq QC Chairman
The Hong Kong Bar Association
LG 3/Floor
The Supreme Court
38 Queensway
HONG KONG
HKD 340/4
18 MANDS
DESK "FICER
INDEX
PA
14 Men 1001
From: R M Marsden
Hong Kong Department
Date: 13 March 1991
Mr Burns
I imme
2. M. Maridan
PS/Lord Caithness
Funkyar
it Tin 14/5
CC:
Ms Barrett, Legal
Advisers
BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG) ACT: LETTER FROM THE
HONG KONG BAR ASSOCIATION
Problem
A 1. Mr Anthony Rogers, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar
Association has written to the Secretary of State asking
that members of the Hong Kong Bar Association, and in
particular those who are members of one of the four London
Inns of Court, be given the same treatment as employees of British companies in Hong Kong ie that they should qualify
for up to an additional 35 points under the nationality
scheme. How to respond?
Recommendation
2. I recommend that Lord Caithness shuld reply on the lines
of the attached draft, which has been cleared with the Hong
Kong Government, the Home Office, and our Legal Advisers.
Background
3. Mr Rogers' proposal is based on the fact that the list
of companies which have been defined as British for the
purposes of the Nationality Act (published on 12 February)
FABAPR/1
VAS
119
includes all English firms of solicitors with branches in
Hong Kong, as well as the two largest local firms of
solicitors; and that solicitors who are partners in, or employed by these firms, represent a significant proportion of practising solicitors eligible to apply under the scheme.
He argues that practising barristers (of whom there are some
450 in Hong Kong and who are all self-employed), are
therefore placed at a disadvantage since they have to
compete with solicitors in the Legal Professionals Group.
4. Mr Rogers claims that the need to remedy this anomaly is
all the greater because the quota of successful applicants in the Legal Professionals Group is limited to only 185. Indeed the Legal Professionals quota was heavily
over-subscribed. The number of applicants under the first
tranche (as at 11 March) was 1,251.
Argument
5.
The Hong Kong Government accept that barristers may be at a disadvantage in comparison with solicitors working for
English firms and have agreed to refer this case to the
Governor's Steering Committee for advice. But the
preliminary advice of Hong Kong
Government and Home Office Legal Advisers is that
Mr Rogers' point cannot be met in the way he has suggested ie by allowing all practising barristers
who are members of the four London Inns of Court, to
qualify for British links points. The main objections to this proposal are:
(a) that an Inn of Court does not come within the
definition of a British undertaking in Article 7, which is limited to "a company or firm" which the Governor is
satisfied has a close connection with the UK;
FABAPR/2