TNAG-2190-FCO40-3127-Hong-Kong-nationality-package-1990 — Page 229

CONFIDENTIAL

pa

مل

FROM:

David Lidington

DATE: 16 February 1990

нко 340/4

c.c.

PS

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

1 1 APR 1990

PS/Mr Maude

PS/Lord Brabazon Mr Gillmore

Mr McLaren

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

REGISTRY

Mr Fraser

PA

Action Taken

Mr Yeo MP

Mr Davis MP Mr Carlisle MP Mr Godfrey, Home

Office

ast

Mr Paul, Hong Kong Department

HONG KONG ASSURANCES

1.

I am concerned about the suggestion in your minute of 12 February and attached draft letter to the Home Secretary that the 50,000 household limit might not accommodate all deserving public servants and that you therefore might consider recommending some change to the proposed 2:1 split in favour of the private sector.

2. The briefing material distributed through the Whips Office to government supporters in both Houses asked on 20 December, the day of the Foreign Secretary's statement to the Commons, included the statement that "about two-thirds of the beneficiaries will be from the private sector; one-third from the public service". The same point was made in the Foreign Secretary's article in the Daily Telegraph on 10 January 1990.

3.

A key element of the argument for our proposed course is that the private sector cannot be helped under existing legislation. If the bulk of places under the scheme were in fact to go to public servants, then I could foresee many Members of Parliament asking why we could not make do with a flexible interpretation of the relevant section of the British Nationality Act.

4.

I believe that a minor adjustment to the proposed 2:1 ratio could be defended on the grounds that detailed work in Hong Kong had revealed extra information which had required reconsideration on our part. But any major retreat from our existing public position might cause critics to say that the whole scheme was based on flimsy evidence and could therefore not be relied on to work in practice.

David Lidington Special Adviser

CONFIDENTIAL