CONFIDENTIAL
Kong than leave is irrelevant to our argument. I submit a revised
passage.
(c) Page 3 para 2. The assertion that many beneficiaries from
our scheme will be qualified to come here in any case under the
Immigration Rules seems to me to be a serious own goal which will be seized upon by opponents of the Bill. It also contains (no doubt unintentionally) the assumption that beneficiaries will come here, when the intention is the reverse. I submit a revised passage.
(a) Page 3 para 2. The Home Secretary's attribution to the
"Kaufman factor" his conversion from entry clearances to citizenship
sounds a little disingenuous to me. The "Kaufman factor" has been
around since July 1989; whereas it is I suspect widely known that
the Home Office favoured entry clearances right up until OD (K) on
19 December. I submit a possible revised passage.
(e) Page 7 para 3. I see no advantage in seeking to explain
the 225,000 figure. It sounds unnecessarily defensive. I
recommend that it is omitted.
(£) Page 8 para 2. I have submitted separately an alternative paragraph on international support.
(g) Page 12 para 2. This paragraph could be improved upon. submit a possible draft.
(h) Page 12 para 3. More can and should be said about the
Chinese reaction to our proposals and their consistency with the
Joint Declaration. I submit a possible draft.
ARPanc
H
LOPACA
A R Paul
CONFIDENTIAL