Our onclusion is, therefore, that the specific scheme put forward by the British Council is
limited in time and too likely to be held in the wrong sort of circumstances to affect the resettlement here in any way or even to have any significant educational value. On a 'value for money' basis, we think that the resettlement rate would be much more likely to be affected if for example, the resources in question were concentrated on strengthening the resettlement staff of the voluntary bodies in this country.
We have also considered, however, whether a scheme to give general "socialising instruction" in their mother tongue to refugees in the transit camps before they come to this country would be worthwhile. A simple and relatively inexpensive educational programme covering information about such topics as housing, education, employment, medical care and personal hygiene might to some extent reduce the immediate cultural shock of their arrival in this country and ease some of the operating difficulties in the reception centres. If such a programme could be devised we could then discuss how it might be funded. If you think that it would be worthwhile exploring this idea we should be prepared to arrange a meeting in order to do so. It would probably be helpful if, in additional to our Departments, DES, JCRV and, if you thought it appropriate, the Hong Kong Government Office, were represented. Perhaps you would let us have your reaction to this idea.
Yours sincerely,
John Goodard