Reference
Mr Streeton (Migration & Visa CL 635)
Mr Rushford (Legal Adviser K 188)
69
1. At 58 is Hong Kong's reply to our query at 54. To my mind 58 is a thoroughly "tongue-in-cheek" reply. I do not see how the Hong Kong telegram at 46 can possibly be interpreted as in any way relating to paragraph 4 of 27 and paragraph 3 of 37. Hong Kong are either guilty of trying to do a fiddle or of a thoroughly bad piece of drafting.
2. Having said that, the question arises of whether we should attempt to hold Hong Kong to their undertaking at paragraph 3 of 37. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the submission at 26 refer. Since that submission went to Ministers, then any deviation from its proposals which may be made would presumably likewise need to go to Ministers.
3. My own feeling is that we should not insist on Hong Kong's undertaking at paragraph 3 of 37. I can see no logical reason why Hong Kong's treatment of all citizens of the UK and Colonies should be the same as the UK's treatment of such persons. Hong Kong circumstances are very different from those of the UK. However, Migration and Visa Department may not share this view.
4. I am marking these files to Mr Rushford although I do not think that there is any immediate legal point at issue. We have yet to convey notification of non-disallowance of the Ordinance forwarded with 53. Since the Ordinance was not enacted until after consultation with us, then presumably the question of non-disallowance is a matter of policy which will depend on the attitude that we are to adopt over 57.
22 November 1971
Zagree in para
I above.
ARE.
A W Gaminara
Hong Kong Department
On reflection, Jaque with the conclusion
12.
that
whe
Hould not insist on
the undertaking
to a
Hong Kong Lomouting
to provide for reference
deportation tribunal in cases
involving lette
DD 896639 140609 500M 7/71 GM 3643/2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.