GVM 6/2

copies to:

19

الحسن

Mr Laird (Hong Kong Dept)

Mr Watt (Atlantic & Indian

Ocean We

Mr Posnett (W I Dept) Miss Emery (Pacific Dependent

Territories Dep

Mr D A Scott

Mr Scott

IMMIGRATION BILL: HONG KONG

1.

Flag.

Flag

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No. 1 11 MAY 1971

लायर

DKR 18/18

Flag

Sir Leslie Monson's Department have completed their study of the Governor of Hong Kong's protest against the proposal to decrease under the new legislation the number of United Kingdom citizens from Hong Kong who are admitted to the United Kingdom for employment from a maximum of 300 to 200 a year, and of Migration and Visa Department's compromise suggestion that the ceiling should be fixed at 240 permits per year. Sir Leslie Monson's minute is at Flag M and the various departmental minutes are below it.

2.

There is general agreement that Hong Kong cannot expect to escape from the general decrease in immigration for. employment that will be imposed on the whole Commonwealth including the dependent territories. However, Sir Leslie Monson says that he has no objection to the proposal to fix the Hong Kong ceiling at 240 permits per year and he agrees that this should be put to the Home Office and the Department of Employment.

there

3. While the Governor may have overstated his case, is some force in the argument that Hong Kong is in a different position from other dependent territories in that the ceiling of 300 employment vouchers has always been over- subscribed whereas none of the other dependent territories have taken up their full quota. Hong Kong will thus be directly affected by the cut in numbers, which is not the case with the other territories.

4. The Governor further argues that it is anomalous that it should be easier for stateless Hong Kong Chinese who are aliens to get into the United Kingdom than it is for United Kingdom citizens. He is of course unaware of the current exercise being carried out by the Department of Employment which is likely to result in a drastic decrease in the number of aliens admitted to this country for employment, but while this, if it eventuates, will destroy his argument on this score, it will also result in a further cut in Hong Kong immigration into this country which will no doubt be equally unpopular.

5.

From Mr Laird's minute of 1 April, it does not appear that the economic grounds for objecting to a cut in Hong Kong immigration to this country are very strong since there is plenty of employment in the Colony. However, it will no doubt cause some resentment and if this can be mitigated without serious repercussions it would seem worthwhile to do so. The proposal to raise the ceiling for Hong Kong to 240 permits per year goes some way to meet the Governor's point and has the attraction of neither requiring an increase in the overall quota

CONFIDENTIAL

Share This Page