CONFIDENTIAL
He
4. The Home Secretary, however, believes that the decision to end the quota for Hong Kong needs some explanation. has proposed that we say that a quota for Hong Kong would be "inconsistent with our objective of encouraging people to
remain in the territory".
5. This is simply not correct. As the Secretary of State
made clear in his statement on 20 December 1989, the
objective of the nationality package is targetted at "key people and their dependents". people and their dependeries. The beneficiaries of the quota (cooks etc) are not "key people" in the sense used in the context of the nationality
package.
6.
Without our being consulted, the inspired PQ was tabled on 18 December. Department of Employment officials will now
recommend to Mr Howard that a holding reply be tabled and a
substantive response postponed until the New Year. This will give us time to reconcile our differences with the Home Office and consider how best to explain the abolition of the
quota for Hong Kong.
7. It is quite possible that the Department of Employment may propose that if a reasonable explanation cannot be agreed, the quota for Hong Kong should after all be
retained. That, of course, would cause us no problem.
ARPawe
A R Paul
тидже
Andand many
TELAFO/2
CONFIDENTIAL