TNAG-2639-FCO40-3831-Future-of-Hong-Kong-British-nationality-dependants-1992 — Page 116

23/01 '92 17:30

081 760 1111

HOME OFFICE

forward but any immigration concession would oblige parents to leave Hong Kong and settle (or pretend to do so) in the UK in order to obtain citizenship for their children. Some families might have to split up if only one parent accompanied the child.

5. Mr Lloyd said that he recognised that the children of parents who already had citizenship were at a disadvantage compared to those whose parents were able to register under the 1990 Act. However, any concession for this group might encourage other groups to plead that they had a case for special treatment eg, the over-age children of the same parents. When the 1990 Act was going through, the Secretary of State had said that the 50,000 beneficiaries under the Act were the sum total of the concession which Parliament was being asked to approve.

6. Dr Leong acknowledged the problem but felt that the special circumstances of Hong Kong nationals and the anomalous position created by the 1990 Act merited further consideration of the position of this group of children. He could not guarantee tha OMELCO would never seek another concession but felt that th limits of a concession on this issue would be recognised. He felt that OMELCO would accept that there had to be a cut-o££ point, and that we could not reasonably be expected to grant citizenship to children over the age of 18.

7. Mr Lloyd undertook to consider the issue further. Dr Leong said that on his return to Hong Kong later this week he would seek a clearer picture of the numbers of children likely to be involved in an concession and the numbers of those involved who were already in the UK. He would write to Mr Lloyd after doing

So.

8. Mr Lloyd indicated. after the meeting: that. he felt that Dr Leong had made quite a good case for the registration of these 200 children under s.3(1), if this could be

could be done without seriously undermining our general policy that the child's future should lie in the UK. In view of the reversion of Hong Kong to China, we might reasonably take the view that the child's future was likely to lie here if the child was being educated here or if the parents indicated that they were likely to come here in 1997. He was inclined to feel that registration would be a better way of proceeding than a limited and not particularly well received immigration concession.

9. It was agreed that the Nationality Division would put forward further advice following the receipt of the information promised by Dr Leong,

Private Office 20 January 1992

DIGBY GRIFFITH Assistant Private Secretary

KA VOD