TNAG-1417-FCO40-1900-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-Sub-Committee-on-Race-Relations-and--1985 — Page 34

い

144

4 February 1985]

[Mr Hanley Contd.]

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE TAKEN BEFORE

MR R LUCE, MP, MR A C Galsworthy, DR D C WILSON and MR D Carter

think that this 1,000 a year is a figure which is not often considered. However, if we are taking 1,000 a year in total, then, funnily enough, an extra 100 or 200 to open the logjam of international effort is a smaller excess than perhaps it sounds when taken in isolation from the figure of 1,000 a year which we are actually absorbing at the moment. I wonder if you could give us any further help? We have evidence of both America and Australia, as Mr Hunt so rightly said, giving a rather indistinct sug- gestion that they would help if we started the initiative. Considering that we take 1,000 a year, I wonder whether maybe 100 or 200 would clearly seem to be an inspira- tion to help an international programme; whether that might not be too difficult?

(Mr Luce.) Mr Hanley, before I answer the main part of your question, perhaps we could get the facts right. You mentioned figures on boat rescue people we have taken into this country and on the Orderly Depar- ture Progamme. Perhaps, Mr Wheeler, I could ask Mr Galsworthy or Mr Carter to give us the figures here, so that we know what we are talking about.

Chairman

230. If Mr Carter could kindly assist us here, the Sub-Committee would be most grateful.

(Mr Carter.) Mr Chairman, last year we took between 500 and 600 under the Or- derly Departure Programme. As far as ship rescues are concerned, that is a figure under 100.

(Mr Luce.) That is for 1984. If I could pursue it from there, Mr Wheeler, we have these important obligations which Mr Han- ley is highlighting. Under the Orderly Departure Programme we have already taken into this country 2,000 people, I believe. We still have in the pipeline people whom we are committed to take--some- thing like another 2,000. We then have the boat rescue scheme which now, under the new RASRO arrangements, would lead to a quota for us of 150. Although the figure of 100 has been given, I think we may well find that under that scheme we take less in the future, looking over a timespan, than we have in the past. We come then to your specific question, and that is the question of whether, if we could put a figure on it, taking a further number from Hong Kong, it would lead to a stronger response from the other resettlement countries. I find it very difficult to put a precise figure on that.

[Continued

I cannot, in my own mind, say to you, “If we take 100, or if we take 200 or if we take 300, I can tell you precisely that we will get a response from other governments”. It is very difficult to judge. Indeed, when you have private meetings now, they will obvi- ously not want to commit themselves in advance. That having been said, I do believe that a clear commitment for a modest resettlement programme is the an- swer. Indeed, Mr Waddington has already indicated that with compassionate cases on a family reunion basis, this perhaps is the basis on which we could consider it. I believe that if other governments see us clearly committed to this, then we have a good chance of a reasonable response, and a good reason to expect it.

Mr Hanley

231. I am grateful for that response, Mr Luce. My last question is perhaps more of a statement than a question. There are chil- dren who have been born in the closed camps, who have lived all their lives there. From what you said earlier on, whilst 1997 is a date in the future by which time we must have solved this problem, although I can understand that I am grateful for the hope that you have held out that with 1997 coming, the status of these individuals will not be worse, nevertheless it will mean that some of these children, if the prospect of leaving the camps is not solved by then, could be, shall we say, 17, 18, 19 years in a closed camp. They could be 19 years old by then, having lived all their lives there, because their parents chose to escape from a country undergoing horrible turmoil. That is a sentence which is longer than most people in this country serve after the most hideous crimes. I wonder whether it is not possible to try to accelerate some sort of hope for these people, maybe even by halving the Orderly Departure Programme numbers from Vietnam and adding maybe another 300 to 400 a year, to try to get the camps down in numbers, having particular preference for those young people and allowing their parents (who, after all, chose to leave Vietnam) to join them at perhaps a time that is suitable for absorption? I am very, very worried about those children and about their prospects. I wonder if you could comment on that?

(Mr Luce.) First of all, you have de- scribed in a very vivid fashion the very real anxieties that exist.