TNAG-2373-FCO40-3448-Hong-Kong-nationality-UK-passport-scheme-British-Nationalit-1991 — Page 8

Sea

Mr Many pa

Ry"

15/3

HKD 340/4

Л. Не водело Rogers

Foreign & Commonwealth

Office

London SW1 2AH

From The Minister of State

14 March 1991

Thank you for your letter of 27 February to Douglas Hurd about the concerns of the Hong Kong Bar Association in relation to the British Nationality Package.

We have consulted the Hong Kong Government who accept that you have raised issues which merit serious consideration. Both we and the Hong Kong Government would certainly include barristers among those persons considered to be essential to the continued stability and prosperity of Hong Kong.

Your concerns have therefore been referred to the Governor's Steering Committee, appointed under Section 3(3) (a) of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act, with a view to ensuring that barristers will be adequately catered for under the Scheme.

You

ficerely Caithness

THE EARL OF CAITHNESS

120

Anthony G Rogers Esq QC Chairman

The Hong Kong Bar Association

LG 3/Floor

The Supreme Court

38 Queensway

HONG KONG

HKD 340/4

18 MANDS

DESK "FICER

INDEX

PA

14 Men 1001

From: R M Marsden

Hong Kong Department

Date: 13 March 1991

Mr Burns

I imme

2. M. Maridan

PS/Lord Caithness

Funkyar

it Tin 14/5

CC:

Ms Barrett, Legal

Advisers

BRITISH NATIONALITY (HONG KONG) ACT: LETTER FROM THE

HONG KONG BAR ASSOCIATION

Problem

A 1. Mr Anthony Rogers, Chairman of the Hong Kong Bar

Association has written to the Secretary of State asking

that members of the Hong Kong Bar Association, and in

particular those who are members of one of the four London

Inns of Court, be given the same treatment as employees of British companies in Hong Kong ie that they should qualify

for up to an additional 35 points under the nationality

scheme. How to respond?

Recommendation

2. I recommend that Lord Caithness shuld reply on the lines

of the attached draft, which has been cleared with the Hong

Kong Government, the Home Office, and our Legal Advisers.

Background

3. Mr Rogers' proposal is based on the fact that the list

of companies which have been defined as British for the

purposes of the Nationality Act (published on 12 February)

FABAPR/1

VAS

119

includes all English firms of solicitors with branches in

Hong Kong, as well as the two largest local firms of

solicitors; and that solicitors who are partners in, or employed by these firms, represent a significant proportion of practising solicitors eligible to apply under the scheme.

He argues that practising barristers (of whom there are some

450 in Hong Kong and who are all self-employed), are

therefore placed at a disadvantage since they have to

compete with solicitors in the Legal Professionals Group.

4. Mr Rogers claims that the need to remedy this anomaly is

all the greater because the quota of successful applicants in the Legal Professionals Group is limited to only 185. Indeed the Legal Professionals quota was heavily

over-subscribed. The number of applicants under the first

tranche (as at 11 March) was 1,251.

Argument

5.

The Hong Kong Government accept that barristers may be at a disadvantage in comparison with solicitors working for

English firms and have agreed to refer this case to the

Governor's Steering Committee for advice. But the

preliminary advice of Hong Kong

Government and Home Office Legal Advisers is that

Mr Rogers' point cannot be met in the way he has suggested ie by allowing all practising barristers

who are members of the four London Inns of Court, to

qualify for British links points. The main objections to this proposal are:

(a) that an Inn of Court does not come within the

definition of a British undertaking in Article 7, which is limited to "a company or firm" which the Governor is

satisfied has a close connection with the UK;

FABAPR/2