Reference..
TELAFQ/VAS
RESTRICTED
3
Flag A
Flag B
Miss Marsden Mr Paul
We greed that the first stup
expressing
M. Down' ICHU
suggested public link.
išʼnot must be Hap.
was for you
to reply
doubts about the Home office's Mr NibicH's suggested line in paraby bed ow
DEPENDENT TERRITORIES WORK PERMIT QUOTA
рань
Rayane'"",
1. I had a meeting with Bob Niblett, Principal at the Department of Employment, about how we should respond to Miss Dews' letter of 8 January.
2.
Mr Niblett explained that the DE were broadly neutral on whether the quota scheme should be continued or abolished for Hong Kong. He suspected that for immigration policy reasons, their ministers would be inclined to take the view that officials should "pull their fingers out and find a good reason for stopping it" but if a defensible line to take could not be found, then the quota should continue.
3.
We agreed that we appear to have four options as follows:
(i) Reverse the decision and retain the quota until 1996 (as agreed in Mr Renton's letter of 19 December 1988), or at least until closer to 1997;
(ii) Retain the scheme for one more year making an announcement later in the year;
(iii) Retain the scheme for one more year but announce its ending now;
(iv) Announce the abolition of the scheme now.
Options (i) and (ii) both depend upon not finding a defensible line to take; (i) would be preferable from our point of view, (ii) would simply give us more time to think of an excuse. Options (iii) and (iv) depend upon finding a sensible line to take. The D would prefer option (iii) because continuation for one more year would lessen the blow and probably concentrate rather less attention and anxiety on the line to take than an outright abolition as in (iv).
4. Mr Niblett thought that it might be possible to devise a defensive line to take based on the part of Miss Dews' suggested line which deals with the inconsistency of the quota with immigration policy. It should however, exclude any reference to the BNHKA and instead might incorporate something on the lines that time had moved on since the DT WP was set up in 1982; there was now a substantial Hong Kong community from which the catering trade could recruit and that with 1997 approaching, the reason for having the quota became less strong. (He acknowledged that some in Hong Kong would argue that the approach of 1997 Makes the case for the quota stronger if anything.)
The scheme is, as the Home Office say, entirely anomalous and exists principally to assist Hong Kong (and the Hong Kong
5.
RESTRICTED
CODE 18-77