acerbated when estimates of voluntary staff in Britain are simply based on the abers employed during the height of the reception programme. Most were short rm temporary workers who dispersed as centres closed.
ally, the review wrongly suggests that I (as I interpret the reference to ritish representatives at international conferences") have argued against fugee resettlement as 'a viable alternative'. What I have argued, and still lieve to be true, is that if Britain were to accept a further substantial fugee quota in addition to the boat rescue refugees it still 'receives, gigicant modifications would need to be made to the reception-resettlement ogramme adopted during 1979-83.
ternational comparisons of refugee programmes can be of great use in assessing > effectiveness of various policy decisions. However, if such comparisons are sed on simplistic abstractions from particular aspects of a programme they offer ttle of value. It is hoped that the points raised above go some way to removing e misleading impressions of the British refugee programme created by the review.
Yours sincerely
Peter R Jones.
2.
PETER R JONES
Senior Research Officer