TNAG-2635-FCO40-3826-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-British-undertakings-1992 — Page 120

Mr Woodrow

HKD

HKP 346/3

10 JUL 1992

R+R

65

FROM:

Miss S Brooks

Legal Counsellor

DATE:

19 May 1992

DB

нко 34613

&

BRITISH UNDERTAKINGS

1.

You ask me for advice on some of the 150 remaining bodies which DTI tell us are not registered at Companies House.

2. Your first query concerns the Royal Mint. You say that this is not a body corporate but a Government department. But even if it wE IE a Government department, it would not qualify as a British undertaking under Crown service. The de finition of a 'British undertaking' (Article 7 of the British Nationality (Hong Kong) (Selection Scheme) Order 1990) and the de finition of 'Crown service under the Government of the UK or Hong Kong' (Article 16(a) of the 1990 Order) are not intended to be read in conjunction (see Article 16(2)). However, a person who has worked for the Royal Mint would have been in Crown service for the purpose S of the Order, provided that the Royal Mint is indeed a Governmment department.

3. I confirm that hospitals which are run by area Health Authorities would appear to qualify as British undertakings since they are bodies corporate under the National Health Act 1977.

4.

I agree that the National Institute of Agricultural Botany which was established under a deed of trust and is regulated by a scheme made by the Secretary of State for Education and Science under Section 18 of the Charities Act 1960 does not qualify as a 'British undertaking'.

5. I agree that of the remaining bodies, the fact that they are registered either with a professional association (a UK association, I presume) or are listed in a British telephone directory indicates that they appear to have a connection with the UK, but whether or not it is a close connection would depend on further facts. I also do not think it would be safe to regard them as companies or firms ('partnerships' do not fall within the definition of

AE3AAJ

Page 120Page 121