TNAG-1384-FCO40-1832-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 87

CONFIDENTIAL

HOME OFFICE

Lunar House Wellesley Road Croydon CR9 2BY

Telephone 01 760 2829

358

30/8

Mr W Ehrman

Hong Kong Department

Foreign & Commonwealth Office

LONDON SW1A 2AH

Dear Wilkain

HONG KONG :

DRAFT WHITE PAPER

HKK

RECEIVER AN

Please reply to The Under Secretary of State Your reference

Our reference NTY/85 1/387/3

Date 27 August 1985

070/4

- 2 SEP 1985

DESK OFFI INDEX

¡

7 dt. !का

I attach a fresh draft of the White Paper. It has been revised to take account of comments from FCO, from other Home Office colleagues (including Passport Department) and, as far as possible, Hong Kong.

I should say straight away that the revised draft has not yet been considered by other Home Office officials (nor, of course, by NTD or FCO Legal Advisers). It may be sent forward to Hong Kong only on the understanding that further revision or amendment may be suggested, and that it may not therefore be put to EXCO until clearance to do so has been given.

To save time, I propose to confine the comments in this letter to areas of substance raised either by Hong Kong or by others. May I make three general comments to start with.

First, the commentary on the Draft Order is intended to explain its provisions. Some of Hong Kong's proposed recasts simply repeat in slightly different words what is said in the Order, which seems a little pointless. I comment below on some examples of this. Second, it seems a little cumbersome to refer throughout to "Her Majesty's Government". Would it be possible for the Hong Kong edition to refer to Her Majesty's Government, while the UK one simply refers as now to "the Government"? Third, regarding references to the Official Report: there is already to be a footnote on the first page to explain briefly the affirmative resolution

proceed a procedure. If we do as Hong Kong propose, there will be three footnotes on that page, which I suggest will be rather offputting to the reader. It is therefore proposed to leave the Official Report references where they are.

B.

As to the textual revisions:

pana 2 (B) Naised, The

de

.

Paragraph 2/includes a footnote of the affirmative resolution procedure, as requested. The revised version of the last sentence has been proposed by Mr Hyde.

Paragraph 4 : Tel. Para. 2(D))

We do not see the need for a reference to the second section of sub-paragraph (b) of the UK Memorandum. No other para or sub-para of the Memorandum is so identified.

f

Paragraph 6: Tel. Para. 2(F))

you

Agreed, As Hong-Kong say, the Draft Order does not mention cut-off dates. We agreed some time ago. that these would be specified in a later Order, when Hong Kong are better able to judge demand for BN (0) passports.

- 1