TNAG-1382-FCO40-1830-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 112

CODE 18-77

C

B

HKK 04 45 P

CONFIDENTIAL

221AM tue paper 2122/2

we

Reference....H.K· K· · · 04·0/4

should now writet the H.0. about

Tagow Granger's refinements, and follow up r

that

Mr Peirce, HKD

Mr Galsworthy, HKD

M. Perfest 22.3

Every's flexible sounding remarly about

BITS.

Rol21.3

185

Ms. Prely when to tid

We spoke this mummy discon We had better get

HONG KONG (BRITISH NATIONALITY) ORDER 1985

1.

19

on with

We can reserve in

the with Iome Office asap. Pin to

Sending to ITV.

simply have offer while

Mr Galsworthy's minute of March and Mr Burrows' March.

2.

(183

186

The attachment to Mr Grainger's minute of 15 March contains some helpful refinements to Mr Hill's original redraft of Articles 1 5 of the Order. Article 4 is a particular case in point.

-

a

вотка

we argue in

of 21

27/3

3. I suggest that I write to Mr Emery at the Home Office enclosing the latest minuting, and drawing his attention to paras 6(i) and 13 which we would like the Home Office to scrutinise particularly carefully. Meanwhile, I see no reason for not sending copies to Hong Kong and Peking in tomorrow's bag. To do so in Hong Kong's case would help them to realign their comments on Mr Hill's first redraft of Articles 1 180) It will also focus their attention on the "mixed" BDTC

question.

-

5.

BDTCs

4. I agree with Mr Galsworthy on "mixed" BDTC's. The Home Office have also said that it would be harsh to deprive BDTCs 127) whose main connections are not with Hong Kong of BDTC status.

Mr Emery suggested in February that we might ask Parliamentary Counsel to advise as to whether the powers in para 2(1)(a) of the Schedule to the Hong Kong Nationality Bill gave us sufficient powers to exclude from the

" "mixed Order some who would otherwise lose that status as from 1 July 1997. This does not seem to have been followed up and I think it should be. Whatever the outcome, however, I imagine that our Tawyers dilemma will continue to concern persons who on 30 June 1997 are BDTCs "under the law in force in the United Kingdom". Mr Burrows doubts whether UK law could reasonable or safely be amended to suit our requirements vis-à-vis certain 'mixed" BDTCs and thinks that such an amendment could in any case be contrary to the letter and spirit of the UK

Memorandum.

The FCO however, has no departmental interest in being more restrictive than the Home Office and if the latter can suggest some way of getting round the problem within the framework of the BNA (1981) SO much the better.

21 March 1985

nies

SC Priest (Mrs) Hong Kong Department

CONFIDENTIAL