TNAG-1418-FCO40-1901-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-Sub-Committee-on-Race-Relations-and--1985 — Page 102

CONFIDENTIAL

80

cplajk

Mr Leek 2/5 1

bok2/5

Mr Ehren

Mr Galsworthy o.r.

Galsworthy

Ta.

bectes. RA

6

the 1075 1

MKK 243/2

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

DESK

INDEX

13 MAY 1985

✓

SCORRI REPORT : MEETING WITH MR RAWS THORNE, 30 APRIL 1985

The main points made at the meeting were as follows:

REGISTRY

ching taken

Le

their

1.

Mr Rawsthorne confirmed that the Home Office expected reply to Parliament to take the form of a White Paper, to which the FCO would contribute. He said they intended to reply within the two-month deadline. [ This seems rather unlikely: it is already two weeks since the report was published, and it is hard to believe that the White Paper will be ready for printing in six weeks time, given that a number of Ministerial decisions have to be made on the recommendations before drafting can begin.]

2.

Mr Galsworthy outlined Our current recommendations,

and explained how the three-pronged approach recommended

Minsiters.

thinking on the report's

these

tied

in

with

in our recent submission to

Не made it clear that we did not think a single UK intake of 500 refugees

refugees would be enough to persuade other countries to take more. A continuing commitment to accept say 500 a year over

several

years would be

3. Mr

by

needed.

Rawsthorne said that the Home Office were to some extent tied the report's recommendations, and it would be difficult for them to go much beyond these. A further problem was that it would be awkward for them to be seen to relax family reunion criteria for

refugees from Hong Kong and not for those from elsewhere.

Mr Galsworthy suggested that such a policy could be justified on the grounds of HMG's special constitutional responsibility for Hong

Kong.

4.

Mr Rawsthorne's view was that Home Office Ministers were likely to agree to accept the 500 family reunion cases, but that they would be reluctant to make a continuing commitment unless there was tangible evidence that other countries would respond by taking more themselves. Mr Galsworthy pointed out that we had no basis on which to "bargain" with other countries, since they owed us and Hong Kong nothing. It was impossible to guarantee that they would respond to Our action and an "act of faith" would be required on the part of the Home Office. Mr Rawsthorne

suggested that a compromise might be possible whereby the Home Office would initially accept the 500 family

family reunion cases. We would then inform other countries of this and say that in principle we might be willing to take further groups of this size, depending on how other countries responded.

CONFIDENTIAL