TNAG-2635-FCO40-3826-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-British-undertakings-1992 — Page 47

COVERING HONG KONG SECRET

RESTRICTED

(80

Dece

Nigel Cox Esq HKD

FCO

Dew Nijd

HKD 340/3

BRITISH NATIONALITY SCHEME

1.

BRITISH TRADE COMMISSION

HONG KONG.

9 June 1992

In Woodrow

For advice PH,

1

Consulting Mr. Morris

I have just attended my first meeting of the Governor': Steering Committee on the British Nationality Scheme and, in accordance with past practice, am enclosing on a personal basis the papers circulated for the meeting and a summary of what transpired today.

2.

Peter Heap left a note of his responsibilities under the scheme, but I am not entirely clear on certain points and would welcome guidance. In particular :-

(a) The hand-over notes state that I am the "British Government representative" on the Commmittee. That is surely incorrect, in that the legislation states it is an advisory committee to the Governor. Is not my role to speak, in particular, on issues affecting the definition of British companies, business connections with Britain etc? I am not empowered, for example, to speak on behalf of the Home Secretary or, in any formal sense, to voice the Secretary of State's powers under the 1990 Act.

(b)

1876

My predecessor set up a committee of British businessmen to judge which companies should be defined as British under the definition of the 1990 Act. That committee has now been disbanded but it seems to me we should keep it in existence because (i) there have already been two referrals back to the Committee for re-consideration (both successful) and (ii) there will be a further tranche of applicants in 18 months or so.

(c)

In the hand-over notes I am told that this British sub-committee "worked to a set of agreed guidelines" yet at the last meeting of the main Steering Committee, as you will see from the minutes of the discussion on 22 April, a very different explanation was given on the way the group did its work. If we have guidelines - and I should be grateful for confirmation that you are content that these do indeed exist - then I would suggest that we stick with the overall handling of the scheme in Hong Kong, namely that judgements were made on the basis of the best information available at the time and cannot be reopened or subject to public enquiry. I should have thought it

-

COVERING HONG KONG secrET

12