to apply a discretion under section 3(1) to Hong Kong minors al
We should have to consider the position of other children in other parts of the world. Thus the consequences of any concession, in terms of entitlement to settle in this country, would need to be assessed.
Furthermore a concession to mitigate the 'anomaly' in respect of the application of the 1981 Act in these cases could have repercussions to our position in respect of other
'anomalies'.
So far as the special circumstances of Hong Kong are concerned the relevance of the 1990 concession, with its particular terms of eligibility, to the position of minors is not immediately obvious to me. (Nor does Dr Leong cite it as a consideration.) The 1990 scheme has its own particular rationale; that is quite different to the case which has to be considered for minor children in the circumstances raised by OMELCO.
I am afraid that it is not possible to do this to consider the case which Dr Leong has put to Lord Caithness and consult our Ministers before the Prime Minister's visit next week. But it should I hope suffice for the Prime Minister to be briefed to acknowledge, if the issue is raised with him, that the case has been put to Lord Caithness and is being considered.
I understand that Lord Caithness would like to send an interim reply before the Prime Minister's visit. I suggest that this should be no more than a courteous acknowledgement to Dr Leong for setting out in writing the case OMELCO made to him personally and assuring him that the case is being considered in consultation with the Home Office. The best way to proceed then might be for Lord Caithness to refer the representations to Mr Lloyd if, despite the considerations I have outlined above, you think that the case should be considered further.
I am sending a copy of this correspondence to Rosemary Spencer.
л
You
Richd
R J FRIES
Page 30Page 31