CONFIDENTIAL
CP Scott Esq
RECEIVED TI AEGISTRY NO.25 MAY 1991
Cu76/2
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Room 112
Curtis Green Building
London SW1
Dear Scott
IMMIGRATION BILL : HONG KONG
Department of Employment
8 St James's Square, London SWI
Telephone 01-930 6200
12 May 1971
dout nou –
But what alous Brilest `stablis
KAK
Chine ise
Entering this Hoogkong? Spotion to The Pickford. I
Ses maak.
20
You sent me a copy of your letter of 30 April to Fitzgerald at the Home Office proposing that under the new control system Hong Kong should be allowed up to 60% rather than 50% of the 400 work permits available for the dependent territories.
We see some objections to this proposal:-
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
The total number of permits available for Commonwealth citizens under the new scheme will be 2,700 - as compared with the present 8,500 vouchers. Taking into account the removal of doctors and dentists from the scheme (about 700 vouchers issued in 1970) the reduction is of the order of two-thirds. This compares with a reduction of one-third for Hong Kong if we were to adhere to the original intention of allowing them up to 200 permits. Thus, Hong Kong will anyway do relatively well under the new arrangements.
The object of the new scheme is to reduce the numbers of Commonwealth citizens entering the country to work from about 4,000 to about 2,000. The admission of 40 extra permit holders would make it that much harder to achieve this target.
One of the principal purposes of the proposed new control system (for aliens as well as for Commonwealth citizens) is further restriction of the intake of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. The admission of 40 extra permit holders from Hong Kong, most of whom are likely to be unskilled, will conflict with this aim.
We have recently received reports from our North Western Region that they are experiencing particular placing difficulties with concentrations of unemployed Chinese from Malaya, Hong Kong and the Free Territories, who are largely confined to the catering trade, find work within their own communities and generally speak poor English.
For these reasons we would prefer the arrangements already agreed to stand.
1