TNAG-1381-FCO40-1829-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 48

X

CONFIDENTIAL

ship

acquisition by them of British Overseas citizen/will therefore be conditional on hem meeting the appropriate requirements. We accept, too, that this provision

aces the children of BN (O)s and "Hong Kong" British Overseas citizens in a more lavourable position then those of other British Overseas citizens. But in our view the proper comparison is not with other British Overseas citizens, who do not derive their status through the route of BDTC, but with former Hong Kong British Dependent Territories citizens. The Hong Kong situation is unique, and our proposals for dealing with it are also unique. The numbers involved are very small, not only in terms of the Hong Kong British Dependent Territories citizen population but also in terms of the worldwide British Overseas citizen population. The provisions will apply only to the stateless among the 6-10,000 non-Chinese British Dependent Territories citizens and their children.

Finally, it has never been the Home Office intention that these provisions should extend to the children of non-British nationals. This was, as I recall, a Hong Kong suggestion on which our views were set out in my letter to you of 4 January 1985.

BDTCS CONNECTED BOTH WITH HONG KONG AND WITH ANOTHER DEPENDENT TERRITORY

It has been agreed in principle that persons who derive their BDTC status not only from a connection with Hong Kong but also from a connection with another Dependent Territory should not cease to be BDTCs on 1 July 1997. We have now to decide how to put this principle into practice in a way which is consistent with the wording (and the spirit?) of the UK Memorandum.

Your Legal Advisers have divided the persons concerned into two categories, namely "separate" and "mixed". "Separate" BDTCs are those who can be said to have derived their status through a route quite unconnected with Hong Kong. "Mixed" BDTCs are those who derive their status through a route which depends on a combination of a connection with Hong Kong and with one or more other dependent territories.

I think there is probably no dispute between us as to the sort of person we have in mind when we speak of a "separate" BDTC. But we need to be quite clear as to how precisely such persons should be defined. In this connection I am afraid we do not agree with Mr Grainger that in formulating a definition we should consider the effects if Hong Kong had never been a dependent territory. In our view we should take into account only the real situation, not what it might hypothetically be if other factors were different. But assuming we can agree a precise definition, I hope we can agree that a "separate" BDTC should not cease to be a BDTC on 1 July 1977.

We need also to consider whether this "exception to loss" should extend in any circumstances to a "mixed" BDTC. Our view is that, in principle, it should not. "Mixed" BDTCs would appear by definition to come within the terms of the UK Memorandum as being BDTCs "by virtue of a connection with Hong Kong". The fact that the connection may be partial, rather than whole, does not, in our view, make any difference. In other words, where it is necessary to establish a link with Hong Kong in order to establish the status of BDTC, there should be no exception to loss.

We are still considering the detailed points made by Mr Grainger about the application of the Hong Kong Immigration Ordinance on different examples of "mixed" BDTCs, and we shall be replying separately to these. In the meantime it would be helpful to know whether or not you agree, in principle, with our views as to who should or should not be excepted from loss of BDTC in 1997.

We should be grateful for your comments on these two matters. I am copying this letter to Alan Kaye (NTD) and to colleagues in this Department.

Yours sincerely

B&Sugita

P.P. J.P. EMERY

Nationality Division.

CONFIDENTIAL