CONFIDENTIAL
First
"nearer to 1997" We are inclined to agree with you that it would
defeat the object of the scheme for it to be much later.
though we would like to be clear that this timing would not be
any.
time me to 1997.
prejudicial to "people taking up sensitive posts near the end of
Our understanding is
that invitations to such people can go out at the period". [Presumably invitations to such people could go out
later than April 1994 if need be. We agree incidentally that the
Home Office team could if necessary operate on skeleton basis
during the first few months of 1994.
4. I am happy with the timing of your proposed visit but I
think we would need to meet in London rather than Liverpool. FCO
officials and lawyers are based in London as are Home Office
lawyers and my Assistant Under-Secretary. They may wish, or
need, to take part and the numbers involved would suggest that
London would be a more economical venue. Please let me know what
sort of dates you have in mind and whether you would like us to
make arrangements for your accommodation.
5. You raised while I was in Hong Kong, as did Ian Strachan on
his visit here, the likely shortfall in registrations. You
wondered whether we should attempt to do anything about this, for
instance by increasing the number of Principal Beneficiaries to
75,000 to allow for all 225,000 places to be taken up. Having
now researched the matter I conclude that we should not. I
attach for your own and Ian Strachan's benefit (he asked for
these while he was here) a number of extracts from Hansard
IB.2/JM
CONFIDENTIAL