TNAG-1069-FCO40-1319-Resettlement-of-Vietnamese-refugees-from-Hong-Kong-in-the-UK-1981 — Page 102

10 Mr Barber said that a sub-committee of SCOR was looking at the approach of resettlement countries throughtout the world to the resettlement of Indo-Chinese refugees. As far as family reunion cases were concerned, there was a distinct difference between those in countries of first asylum and those in Vietnam. The former were generally accepted as being refugees (although there was some debate over whether that classification was always appropriate); the latter were part of the orderley departure programme and there was a need to define the policy on the criteria for admission for both categories. The agencies, however, felt there was some advantage in not having the criteria clearly defined but rather that the exercise of discretion should continue.

1

The United The difference

11 Mr Spence explained that very wide criteria has intially been possible as there had then been a very small Vietnamese community in the United Kingdom. However as there were now some 15,000 Vietnamese in the country it was the Home Office view that the Vietnamese could now be treated in the same manner as all other refugees and still allow the United Kingdom to play some part in the resettlement programme. There was also some indications that the preferential treatment previously accorded to the Vietnamese had aroused resentment in other refugees. Kingdom was not a country of primary immigration. between an immigrant and a refugee was recognised by the Home Office however and the present criteria was still considerably more generous than those of the Immigration Rules. Discretion was also being exercised relatively freely but some applications on behalf of the

Mr Barber asked if it Vietnamese were still lacking in detail. would be helpful if all applications were forwarded by a central point. BCAR and Ockenden Venture said that their applications were forwarded centrally. Mr Spence said that some SCF appli- cations from field workers did not include guarantees of accomdodation and he emphasised that when an agency did not guarantee accommodation then enquiries had to be made to ensure that the sponsor in this country had sufficent accommodation available for his relatives. The Home Office would continue to honour all assurances for entry previously given but could not agree to consider an application according to the criteria in force at the date of application. There were many factors against such a course of action including the fact that some refugees had not submitted applications because the Home Office had announced that it could process no more for the time being.

12 Miss Pearce mentioned that Ockenden had been considering the possibility of operating a sponsorship scheme which would enable further refugees to be brought from Hong Kong without any commit- ment on the Government. Now, when the quota was nearing completion, might be an appropriate point to discuss the matter formally. The Chairman advised that some assurance would need to be sought from the Home Secretary that he would not veto the entry of additional refugees under a sponsorship scheme since there would be immigration and resettlement implications for the Government to consider.

Action