TNAG-1383-FCO40-1831-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 94

CONFIDENTIAL

(HIT) WITH REFERENCE TO PARA. 3 OF YOUR THIRD TUR, THE VIEW THAT A

WOMAN WHO HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN HONG KONG ON THE BASIS OF HER MARRIAGE TO A GIBRALTARIAN DOES NOT NECESSARILY DEMONSTRATE A CLOSER CONNECTION WITH GIBRALTAR MAY BE TRUE IN SOME VERY SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT IN ALL OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WOULD BE A

CLOSER CONNECTION WITH GIBRALTAR. THERE IS A VERY EASY WAY OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE VERY SPECIAL CASES FROM THE OTHER CASES, AS WE HAVE RECORDS OF ALL WOMEN REGISTERED UNDER SECTION 6(2) IN HONG KONG, INCLUDING DETAILS OF THEIR HUSBANDS CITIZENSHIP AND RECORDS OF WHETHER THEY ARE STILL LIVING IN HONG KONG.

(IV) ALTHOUGH PERSONS REGISTERED IN HONG KONG WERE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF HONG KONG BELONGERS' IN THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE IMMIGRATION ORDINANCE, WE DO NOT THINK THE PROVISIONS OF THE IMMIGRATION ORDINANCE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS EXERCISE. QUITE DIFFERENT CONSIDERATIONS APPLIED WHEN WE RE-DEFINED

HONG KONG BELONGERS' IN THE LIGHT OF THE 1981 ACT. BECAUSE OF THE WORDING OF SECTION 23 OF THE 1981 ACT, WE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO GRANT HONG KONG BELONGERSHIP TO ALL PERSONS REGISTERED IN HONG KONG. WHILE THE BILL WAS PASSING THROUGH PARLIAMENT, WE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO SERIOUS PROBLEMS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF IMMIGRATION CONTROL. BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINING A CONNECTION WITH HONG KONG UNDER THE ORDER IN COUNCIL, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE UNJUSTLY DEPRIVED OF HIS BDTCSHIP. THE INTERESTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL PREDOMINATE.

(E) ARTICLE 2(1)(B). WE DO NOT (NOT) AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IN PARA. 5 OF YOUR FOURTH TUR FOR LEAVING OUT NATURALISATION

OUTSIDE HONG KONG. PARA. 1 (A) AND (B) OF THE SECOND SCHEDULE TO THE 1948 ACT SUGGESTS THAT, EXCEPT FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS PRIOR TO THE APPLICATION, RESIDENCE MAY TAKE PLACE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM OR ANY COLONY, PROTECTORATE ETC. JUDGING FROM SAVINGRAM 156 OF 23 JANUARY 1961, IT WAS CLEARLY THE HOME OFFICE'S VIEW THAT A PERSON

COULD BE NATURALISED IN HONG KONG BEFORE 1 JANUARY 1983 ALTHOUGH HE

BELONGED TO THE UNITED KINGDOM OR ANOTHER COLONY. ON THE OTHER

HAND, WE SEE NO DIFFICULTY WITH THE 1981 ACT SINCE IN PARAS. 5 TO 3 OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE TO THE ACT THERE ARE REFERENCES TO 'THE RELEVANT TERRITORY' AND 'THAT TERRITORY' WHICH LEAD US TO CONCLUDE THAT ONLY A SINGLE TERRITORY IS INVOLVED. WE DO NOT HOWEVER DISAGREE WITH THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT A PERSON NATURALISED IN ANOTHER

DEPENDENT TERRITORY CANNOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING A CONNECTION WITH HONG KONG, AND THAT A PERSON WHO IS NATURALISED IN HONG KONG SHOULD BE REGARDED AS A HK BDTC. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN IN PARA. 5 OF YOUR FOURTH TUR EE

SUITABLY REWORDED.

(F) ARTICLE 2(1)(B). NO MENTION IS MADE OF CROWN SERVICE UNDER THE HKG ALTHOUGH IT IS POSSIBLE FOR A PERSON TO BE REGISTERED OUTSIDE HONG KONG ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SERVICE UNDER SECTION 6(1) OF THE 1948 ACT. IN ARTICLE 2(1)(B)(11) OF THE REVISED ORDER IN COUNCIL IN MY FIRST IFT, WE HAVE INSERTED A PROVISION TO THIS EFFECT.

CONFIDENTIAL-3-

IG.

མ་་---