plajk
Mr Leeks
Mr Ehrman
CONFIDENTIAL
HKK 243/2.
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
Mr Galsworthy o.r.
INDEX
09 MAY 1985
DESK-OFFICER
✓
REGISTRY
Action Takan
ок
SCORRI REPORT : MEETING WITH MR KAWS THORNE,
el
(78)
float. ₤3
pa SCORRI
APRIL 1985
The main points made at the meeting were as follows:
1.
already two
Mr Rawsthorne confirmed that the Home Office expected their 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 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,
time, given that a number
of
Ministerial decisions have to be made on recommendations before drafting can begin.]
2.
Mr Galsworthy outlined our current recommendations, and explained how
the three-pronged approach recommended in
Minsiters.
the
thinking on the report's
these
in
with Our recent submission to
tied
He made it clear that we did not think a single UK
to persuade other countries
intake of 500 refugees would be enough
take more. A continuing commitment to accept say 500 a year over
years would be
to
several
3.
Mr Raws thorne
needed.
said that the Home Office were to some extent tied by 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 по 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 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
Page 105Page 106
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.