TNAG-1417-FCO40-1900-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-Sub-Committee-on-Race-Relations-and--1985 — Page 37

}

THE HOME AFFAIRS SUB-COMMITTEE ON RACE RELATIONS AND IMMIGRATION 147

4 February 1985]

[Mr Hanley Contd.]

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

international conventions and protocols is desirable, or whether it is not? In particular, in your answer I would be grateful if you could say why we have withdrawn from full membership of the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration on which we have now simply an associate membership.

[Continued

worthy, if I may, to highlight the main conventions and protocol. Then I will, if I may, add a comment or two on that.

239. I wonder if you might be able to comment on the international effects of not joining an international convention or ad- hering to a protocol; how does it place us in

the international world?

(Mr Luce.) It seems to me, Mr Hanley, that there are two parts to this. You are asking first of all about three particular

(Mr Galsworthy.) There are three main international bodies; and in addition you

international agreements involved in this, are asking about various conventions and

one of which extends to Hong Kong and protocols. Perhaps I could try to answer

two of which do not. The international them in two parts. If I may, I am going to ask Mr Galsworthy if he could also help inconvention on civil liberties and rights does extend to Hong Kong. The 1951 convention answering this. Obviously the UNHCR is the lead body in terms of helping to deal with the problem of the Vietnamese refu- gees on an international basis. Indeed, they co-operate with us in Hong Kong, as you know, and contribute to the finances of the running of these camps. They are a very important body, as are the Red Cross. Perhaps I could ask Mr Galsworthy if he would like to comment on the position with regard to the Intergovernmental Committee for Migration, and then come back.

(Mr Galsworthy.) The position is that we withdrew from full membership of the Intergovernmental Committee for Migra- tion in 1969, because we felt at the time that the work of the organisation had departed from the activities for which it was origi- nally set up. It had become involved in technical co-operation and recruitment. This is something that we have always regarded as the province of other UN international organisations. We took up observer status in 1976, as I think you said a moment ago, and we still retain this. We also contribute indirectly to the Inter- governmental Committee through contri- butions to the United Nations High Com- missioner for Refugees. These are for refu- gee relief. That includes reimbursement for the refugee transfer and resettlement ser- vices provided by the Intergovernmental Committee. We have reconsidered our posi- tion recently, but we continue to feel that the original reasons for withdrawing from full membership are valid.

(Mr Luce.) I do not have anything to add on the ICM. I do not know whether you wanted to put any more questions on that, otherwise I would go on with the protocol point.

238. I would prefer you to continue.

(Mr Luce.) In terms of getting my facts straight, I am also going to ask Mr Gals-

relating to the status of refugees and the 1967 protocol were never applied to Hong Kong, because we considered that in Hong Kong's particular circumstances they were unworkable there. This was primarily on the basis that the definition of refugees could have an impact on migration from China into Hong Kong. Of course, if you are dealing with large numbers of people from Vietnam I think the same considera- tions would apply.

(Mr Luce.) Could I emphasise that the two that we are not party to are the 1951 status of refugees convention and the 1967 protocol. I think it is worth making the point (and Mr Galsworthy will correct me if I am wrong) that there is virtually no other country in the region that is a party to this convention or to this protocol, so it is not said, we do not believe there is a probate to peculiar to Hong Kong. As Mr Galsworthy Hong Kong at the present time.

Mr Hunt

240. Mr Luce, you have referred in your evidence today to the mildly encouraging words of Mr Waddington, as far as far as compassionate cases are concerned. Does that apply to the handicapped and disabled, for example, whose plight was brought to our attention by UNHCR, and who do represent, I think, a very special compas- sionate case? Do you have any particular views on that? Should we make a special effort to accommodate these people who are deprived in that way?

(Mr Luce.) Perhaps I could say to Mr Hunt that the UNHCR has a special programme for disabled cases. I believe it is known as the 10-or-more scheme. On the whole, resettlement countries are fairly sympathetic towards unaccompanied mi- nors, but the Hong Kong Government do not see this as a particular problem. What

Covenant on and Portical

Rights

#ase

are

Civil

appropriate to