I understand that you would not wish a concession to these children to become a precedent for further emigration or nationality concessions for other groups.
From my discussions with OMELCO, I am satisified that they do not know of any further groups awaiting special treatment. Moreover my officials have examined the implications of using s.3(1) in a way that consciously side-steps the policy that the child's future must lie in the UK, in order to comply with the aims of the 1990 Act that the family should remain in Hong Kong. We believe that this can be done (and readily defended), without any necessary knock-on effect for other groups either in Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world.
In need not lead us, for example, to concessions for the spouses of British citizens in Hong Kong. They have an open-ended entitlement to settle in the UK, (at any time and at any age) either accompanying their spouses or if they are widowed. Lacking a comparable assurance, these children need citizenship, the spouses do not.
As for over-aged children of the affected families, it would be entirely consistent with the 1990 Act to draw the line at 18, and I am confident that OMELCO would accept that.
As far as pressure from elsewhere in the world is concerned, as I stated in my letter of 16 December, the use of the Home Secretary's discretion under Section 3(1) in this
can be justified, (as was the 1990 Act), by the special circumstances of Hong Kong; indeed but for those circumstances there would be no case to be made, and so it should be relatively easy to ring-fence the decision.
I hope you will be feel able to recommend this course of action to the Home Secretary. I would be happy to discuss the matter if you think that would be helpful.
Earl of Caithness
TUGABE