CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO IMMEDIATE BTC HONG KONG
TELNO 101
OF 29163OZ APRIL 91
CONFIDENTIAL
HKD 340/4
RECEIVED IN DECISONY
་
30 APR 0
DESK OFFICER
PA
TOP COPY
QDIST?
PERSONAL FOR SBTC FROM PAUL, HKD
165
167
152253
MDHOAN 2518
STEERING COMMITTEE ON BRITISH NATIONALITY SCHE
1.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR LETTER OF 23 APRIL. WE ARE BROADLY CONTENT WITH THE PROPOSALS SET OUT IN THE 4 PAPERS ENCLOSED WITH YOUR LETTER. WE HAVE NO PARTICULAR POINTS THAT WE WOULD WISH YOU TO MAKE BUT YOU MAY WISH TO BE AWARE OF COMMENTS BY OUR LEGAL ADVISERS ON PAPER NO SC10/91, TRANSFER BETWEEN CLASSES.
2. THERE MIGHT BE A CASE WHERE THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT WAS AWARE OF FACTS CONCERNING A GOC APPLICANT (WHO HAD NOT MADE A CLAIM FOR TRANSFER TO THE SSC) WHICH WOULD LEAD HIM TO BE PARTICULARLY VULNERABLE AFTER 1997.
SHOULD HE NOT SUCCEED UNDER THE GOC WE CONSIDER
THERE WOULD BE A CASE FOR HIM BEING CONSIDERED UNDER THE SSC.
3. WITH REFERENCE TO PARAGRAPH 4B) OF PAPER NO SC 10/91, WE NOTE THAT TRANSFER FROM ONE CLASS TO ANOTHER WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED
IF AN APPLICANT HAS ASKED FOR CONSIDERATION TO BE GIVEN IN ANOTHER CLASS BEFORE 1 MARCH 1991. HOWEVER, ARTICLE 6 OF THE ORDER PLACES NO SUCH TWO RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSFER. THERE IS THEREFORE, THE RISK THAT THE PROPOSED PROCEDURE COULD BE CONSIDERED ''ULTRA VIRES''. WE ACCEPT THE POINT IN PARAGRAPH 4C) THAT SUFFICIENT INFORMATION IS NECESSARY BEFORE TRANSFER TO ANOTHER CLASS CAN BE CONSIDERED. WE WONDER WHETHER PARAGRAPH
4C) ON ITS OWN DOES NOT ADEQUATELY COVER THE POINT WITHOUT ANY
NEED FOR PARAGRAPH 4B).
HURD
YYYY