TNAG-1069-FCO40-1319-Resettlement-of-Vietnamese-refugees-from-Hong-Kong-in-the-UK-1981 — Page 103

}

17

Vi

Hodgetts questioned the Government's position on

departures. Two persons from Vietnam who had

ns with SCF had been granted exit visas by the ese authorities but the Home Office were not keen to grant entry visas. Mr Spence said that there were some indications that the Vietnamese authorities had at last recognised that the United Kingdom was not a country of primary immigration and that there was no point in their production of a list of people wishing to go the United Kingdom. There was some hope that more holders of visa promise letters would now succeed in obtaining passports and exit permits from the Vietnamese authorities.

14

It was suggested that a Foreign Office representative should attend the next meeting to provide further information on the matter.

15 Concluding the discussions it was agreed:

Action

Secretary Agencies

(i)

to raise with the Home Secretary at the forthcoming autumn meeting,

a)

the question of orderly departures;

b)

(ii)

the preferance of the voluntary agencies for family reunion criteria not to be clrealy defined publicly but for the, exercise of discretion in appropriate cases to continue; and

c)

the possibility of a further limited intake of refugees from Hong Kong under an independently financed sponsorship scheme.

to invite a representative from the FCO to attend the next JCRV meeting.

Secretary

V CLOSURE PROGRAMME

16 Mr Nicholson circulated a schedule showing the revised programme for the closure of reception centres which took account of the need to provide additional places for expected boat rescue cases and allowed for the recent reduction in the rate of resettlement which meant that refugees were remaining longer in reception centres. A number of the proposed extensions anticipated the availability of additional funds from the Home Office and a final decision would be communicated to the agencies involved once the money had been provided. A total of £4 million had been requested to finance the extensions which had been discussed and agreed with the voluntary agencies and it was most unlikely that further funds would be forthcoming. A high -proportion of the expenditure was needed to provide reception

centre education. It was suggested that attempts might be made at a local level to persuade local authority staff to cut their costs, thereby allowing centres to remain open longer since it was thought that in some centres teaching provision was generous. Mr Hodgetts referred to the poor quality of education provided in the Scottish reception centres and suggested that it might be more cost effective for SCF/RA to recruit their own teachers.

Mr Nicholson