TNAG-0663-FCO40-812-Immigration-from-China-to-Hong-Kong-1977 — Page 89

CONFIDENTIAL

2

3. (contd)

think these comments betray unjustified suspicion, but I hope you will at least spare a thought for the possibility that the writer of the letter had a more malicious intent in mind than merely to plead the cause of "refugees".

4.

As regards the first half of the question posed to you, I enclose a copy of a letter which Lord Goronwy- Roberts sent to Amnesty in January 1975, shortly after ve re-introduced the policy of repatriating illegal immigrants to China, together with a copy of Amnesty's own complaint. This will, I hope, give you sufficient material to explain the background to our policy, although we would prefer you not to go into the problem of finding alternative countries of residence, if it has not in fact been raised. The second half of the question posed by your correspondent is more delicate. We have long tried to avoid giving in public any information about the criteria ve use in deciding whether to repatriate illegal immigrants to China or not. If you have time, you may like to see from the following Hansard references, what has been said on this subject in Parliament :

Commons

2 March 1977

written Ansver

Lords

1 April 1976

Cols. 1391-2

Commons

Commons

Commons

Commons

28 January 1976

21 January 1975

12 February 1976 Col. 311

10 December 1975 Col. 278

Cols. 232-3

Col. 314

(Sir John Rodgers)

(Lord Segal)

(Mr Robin Cook)

(Mr Robin Cook)

(Sir Anthony Royle)

(ir Biggs-Davison)

5.

The reasons for our taking this elusive stand are set out in our telegram No. 184 of 22 February 1977 to the F C O dealing with the P Q from Sir John Rodgers and in our telegrams Nos. 107 and 115 of 6 and 9 February 1976 to the F C O dealing with the P s by Mr Robin Cook (copies of both telegrams enclosed). I also enclose a copy of a letter which the Governor sent to Sir John Langford- Holt in February 1976. I hope these will help you in drafting your reply on this point, but we would not wish to see all the information contained in these documents (particularly the numbers of those caught, but not returned) to be repeated to an unknown correspondent. In any case, you would probably not wish to write at such length more surface you expose, the more danger there is of your receiving a second letter - and the simplest way to deal with the problem would, I think, be to stick to the line that every case of an illegal immigrant apprehended on entry from China is considered on its individual merits. also happens to be true.

CONFIDENTIAL

the

This

-/3.