CONFIDENTIAL
80
cplajk
Mr Leek 2/5 1
bok2/5
Mr Ehren
Mr Galsworthy o.r.
Galsworthy
Ta.
bectes. RA
6
the 1075 1
MKK 243/2
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
DESK
INDEX
13 MAY 1985
✓
SCORRI REPORT : MEETING WITH MR RAWS THORNE, 30 APRIL 1985
The main points made at the meeting were as follows:
REGISTRY
ching taken
Le
their
1.
Mr Rawsthorne confirmed that the Home Office expected reply to Parliament to take the form of a White Paper, to which the FCO would contribute. He said they intended to reply within the two-month deadline. [ This seems rather unlikely: it is already two weeks since the report was published, and it is hard to believe that the White Paper will be ready for printing in six weeks time, given that a number of Ministerial decisions have to be made on the recommendations before drafting can begin.]
2.
Mr Galsworthy outlined Our current recommendations,
and explained how the three-pronged approach recommended
Minsiters.
thinking on the report's
these
tied
in
with
in our recent submission to
Не made it clear that we did not think a single UK intake of 500 refugees
refugees would be enough to persuade other countries to take more. A continuing commitment to accept say 500 a year over
several
years would be
3. Mr
by
needed.
Rawsthorne said that the Home Office were to some extent tied the report's recommendations, and it would be difficult for them to go much beyond these. A further problem was that it would be awkward for them to be seen to relax family reunion criteria for
refugees from Hong Kong and not for those from elsewhere.
Mr Galsworthy suggested that such a policy could be justified on the grounds of HMG's special constitutional responsibility for Hong
Kong.
4.
Mr Rawsthorne's view was that Home Office Ministers were likely to agree to accept the 500 family reunion cases, but that they would be reluctant to make a continuing commitment unless there was tangible evidence that other countries would respond by taking more themselves. Mr Galsworthy pointed out that we had no basis on which to "bargain" with other countries, since they owed us and Hong Kong nothing. It was impossible to guarantee that they would respond to Our action and an "act of faith" would be required on the part of the Home Office. Mr Rawsthorne
suggested that a compromise might be possible whereby the Home Office would initially accept the 500 family
family reunion cases. We would then inform other countries of this and say that in principle we might be willing to take further groups of this size, depending on how other countries responded.
CONFIDENTIAL