TNAG-2189-FCO40-3126-Hong-Kong-nationality-package-1990 — Page 162

HOME

SECRETARY

CONFIDENTIA

My Paul, FIRS This is in hande

Me Gillmore

My Melover

Mr Lidington M Yes MP

QUEEN ANNE'S GATE LONDON SWIH 9AT

Head, NTD

31 January 1990

Adnie daag. I

HAP, 34014

RECEIVED IN BEGISTRY

1 0 APR 1990

154

HONG KONG ASSURANCES

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

PA

REGISTRY

Action Takan

As you know, officials from our Departments met a small team from Hong Kong on 18/19 January to discuss the arrangements for allocating British citizenship to 50,000 heads of household in the Colony, and their dependants. This letter considers the main points emerging from the visit, and records further progress on the preparations itemised in my letter of 11 January.

Officials have reported to me that the discussions were generally friendly and constructive, and that progress was made on the shape and operation of the allocation scheme. Both the Hong Kong team and our Own Departments will now be doing further detailed work on various aspects of the arrangements and will meet again in Hong Kong in mid-February, with a view to putting forward fully worked up proposals at about the end of that month.

As you will have heard from your officials, there was a significant divergence of view between the Hong Kong and British teams over numbers. The Hong Kong officials argued that the 50,000 heads of household figure which we have set as the limit of the scheme will, in practice, not give rise to anything like the figure of 225,000 overall beneficiaries which we have cited. Since it is this higher overall total that has received most attention in Hong Kong, rather than the heads of household figure, they predicted disappointment, and an adverse effect on confidence, when people there realised that the ultimate total may be significantly lower. Officials here are looking at the statistical evidence produced by the Hong Kong team in support of their view; but whatever the outcome, I am quite clear that we should retain the 50,000 heads of household limit. Both alternatives suggested by the Hong Kong team - of concentrating on the 225,000 overall limit rather than the 50,000 households, or of regarding specified categories as requiring assurances outside and in addition to the main scheme are simply unacceptable. Although our officials undertook to report Hong Kong's arguments to Ministers, they offered no encouragement to believe that we would find them persuasive, and when officials resume discussions next month it must clearly be on the basis that 50,000 households remains the limit. In the meantime, if the Hong Kong Government raises these issues directly with your Department, we should no doubt stick to this line and our officials co-operate in preparing a suitable further response.

The Rt Hon Douglas Hurd, CBE., MP.

Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs

CONFIDENTIA

/over...