TNAG-1184-FCO40-1486-Resettlement-of-Vietnamese-refugees-from-Hong-Kong-into-the--1982 — Page 27

(282

OSING

Treasury Chambers

Parliament Street London SW1P 3AG

Telex 262405

R D Clift Esq

dos Af

Ender Mr Hoare Picmouder

Telephone Direct Line 01-2337160

GTN 233 S

Foreign and Commonwealth Office Hong Kong and General Department King Charles Street

LONDON SW1

CONFIDENTIAL

Dem Clipp

279) VIETNAMESE REFUGEES

Why

and

have written?

Switchboard 01-233 3000

Your reference

НКК 243/1

Our reference

HLAJ/M/4

Date

Copy SEAD

Jone Aptly

See (290

November 1982

* W. ST

+KK 243/

RAWE

ぶ

No

좋기

Kingsley Jones is away at the moment and Eric Soden's letter of 29 October has come to me. I am not clear whether the proposals in your draft are a serious starter for inclusion in the package you are working up for No 10. If it is, I very much take Soden's point about the absence of any reference to costs.

B

2. No doubt Home Office will be able to give you chapter and verse on the details of costs. I should like to suggest that it would be central to any policy decision especially one as controversial as this that the costs should be exposed. I think that, so far as another tranche of refugees is concerned, your draft would need to say something like:

"The UK has taken in about 15,000 Vietnamese refugees since 1979. These are expected to cost nearly £16m for reception, and probably another £14m or so on social security benefits by the end of 1982-83. The bill continues to grow; this is not because of additional receipts eg sea rescues. The main ongoing cost arises from the inability of these refugees to find work, and to fit into our society. Over 4/5ths of those here are unemployed and rely on social security benefits. Many are unemployable eg no skills or the wrong skills."

You may also like to write into the submission the estimate that 10,000 people on unemployment benefit costs £16.5m at 1982-83 rates.

3.

I note what you say about the alternative package. It has its difficulties too. I suggest that you should draw attention to the difficulties which could flow in future from a decision to accept the notion of treating Hong Kong registered ships as if they were sailing under our flag.* As for the rest, it could be helpful - at least for Treasury consideration - if there were assurances that the reception etc costs attached to the other ideas eg re-unions would be met from within existing PES provisions for refugees. It will not have escaped you that re-unions and even orphans carry additional public expenditure costs eg on resettlement, or in the longer term for schooling etc.

1

*Could an "opportunist" in Hong Kong empty the camps onto boats and

"rescue" the refugees,

transferring the burden to us!

11