TNAG-1275-FCO40-1625-Resettlement-of-Vietnamese-refugees-from-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 152

DMB

GVV VIET/243/2

Mr Clift

HKGD

CONFIDENTIAL

35.

pa 4kk 243/2 See 3

HKK243/2

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 51

-

8 MAR 1983

DESK OFFICEA

INDEX

REGISTRY

Action †:

See (37

15

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES IN HONG KONG

1.

PA

CH 8/3

The Private Office copied to MVD Mr Whitelaw's minute of 20 27 February to the Secretary of State: and this led me to ask for a

copy of the outgoing minute of 31 January which I had not previously

seen.

HKK 24313

1982011

2.

I am sorry that MVD were not consulted about the original sub- mission. I think we could have given some helpful advice, particularly on the point of admitting refugees from Hong Kong who could be regarded as the 'extended family' of refugees already here. I deeply sympathise with the decision taken by the Home Office that dependent relatives should be limited in general to the nuclear family. It was an absurd position 2 or 3 years ago when we were prepared to admit numerous distant relatives (who were themselves still in Vietnam) of refugees in this country. This was in stark contrast to the very strict Immigration Rules by which it is not easy even for parents in the Indian Sub-Continent to join children who are settled here, many of whom have become our citizens. The draft might, therefore, have been more acceptable to the Home Office had it made clear that we do not wish to go back on this principle and had put forward more plainly the argument that for elderly relatives, who are already themselves refugees in Hong Kong, the United Kingdom is in fact the natural country of refuge because this is where their relatives are.

3.

I am not suggesting, however, that the answer of the Home Office would necessarily have been any different. We could hardly have chosen a worse time to raise this issue with the Home Secretary. The minute issued at the very time that he was seeking a means of placating his own right-wing, who had been responsible for the defeat of the Immigration Rules in December, in order to secure agreement to replacement rules that had to be laid by 16 February. In order to secure the passing of these Rules not only he but the Prime Minister had to give assurances of a strict maintenance of Immigration control. MVD would therefore, had we been consulted, have advised that no approach should be made to Mr Whitelaw until after 15 February, when the revised Rules were approved by the House of Commons. -The timing of the arrival of Mr Pym's minute of 31 January on Mr

Whitelaw's desk could hardly have been more insensitive.

Had we, as the responsible Department been consulted, we should have so advised.

25 February 1983

сс

PS

PS/Mr Rifkind

Lord N Gordon Lennox

UND

SEAD

ilyll.

D W Partridge

Migration and Visa Department

CONFIDENTIAL