TNAG-2639-FCO40-3831-Future-of-Hong-Kong-British-nationality-dependants-1992 — Page 112

RESTRICTED

to further advice from B4 Division (nationality).

4. The advice B4 Division is likely to take some weeks to

emerge. In normal circumstances we could expect B4 officials firmly to resist this proposal, but in the light of their Minister's change of inclination, I am told that their advice is likely to be more neutral. But they will remain wary of the risk of creating a precedent (eg for families in similar circumstances elsewhere in the world seeking comparable treatment), if Ministers abandon normal practice in the use of Section 3(1). officials suggested to me that a further letter from Lord Caithness would need to reassure Mr Lloyd (and the Home Secretary) that: i) OMELCO have no other groups up their sleeves; and ii) that registration could be done without knock-on effect for other groups either in Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world.

5.

Unfortunately the record of the call contains the idea (suggested by an official from the best of motives, but without being thought through) that the general policy that the child's future should lie in the UK could be met "if the child was being educated here or the parents indicated they were likely to come here after 1997". This conflicts with OMELCO's main argument (and carries other technical disadvantages), so the draft seeks to head off this idea (before B4 seize upon it as a compromise), and instead defends the use of registration in a way that would be consciously contrary to normal practice, but consistent with the aims of the 1990 nationality scheme.

Jthani

J C Morris

JM2AAM/2.

RESTRICTED

***