TNAG-1425-FCO40-1908-Vietnamese-refugees-in-Hong-Kong-general-1985 — Page 195

B 388109/2

From: SC Handley

B1 Division

8 May 1985

Mr Storr

pa 24315.

ра

HKK 243/5

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

10 MAY 1985

DESK OLFIOTM INDEX

•

✓

REGISTRY

sction Taken

сс Mr Hyde

Mr Phillips

Mr Rawsthorne

Mr Mower

Mrs S Newton

CLIVE SOLEY'S ADJOURNMENT DEBATE: THURSDAY 9 MAY

I attach a draft speech and background material for the Adjournment Debate on Thursday 9 May when Mr Soley will raise the subject of "the reunion of Miss Minh Thi Bui and her family currently living in a closed camp in Hong Kong". I propose to attend the debate.

The case is relatively straightforward. Miss Bui is seeking a reunion with her parents, 3 brothers and one sister. Applications from the British Refugee Council were received in 1982 and 1983 and were refused as the relatives did not meet the present family reunion criteria. Mr Soley wrote on their behalf in January 1984. Mr Waddington replied in April 1984 maintaining the decision to refuse the application. We are not aware of any changes in the relatives' circumstances which Mr Soley would be likely to raise, and it is quite likely that his main aim in raising the case is to seek publicity on the camps in Hong Kong.

The "open" and "closed" camps in Hong Kong are covered in the draft speech. respect of the case of Miss Bui there are 2 relevant developments.

In

First, the plight of the Vietnamese refugees in the "closed" camps was highlighted in SCORRI's report. It was recommended that the family reunion criteria in respect of Vietnamese should be relaxed. If this were to be accepted then Miss Bui's relatives, and most of the others in the camps with relatives here, would be entitled to come to the United Kingdom. The recommendations are being considered with Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but if we are to relax the family reunion criteria or make a gesture towards those in the camps with relatives in this country, there would be little point in refusing applications at this stage.

Secondly, in advance of SCORRI reporting Mr Waddington gave an undertaking to the BRC that we would review cases previously refused in which BRC considered there to exist exceptionally compelling and compasssionate circumstances. The first batch of cases has been received and included the case of Miss Bui's relatives.

Although the BRC have provided no evidence that the family circumstances have changed since Mr Waddington's reply to Mr Soley in April 1984, it is increasingly difficult to maintain refusal of his family when in 2 years' time the parents will come close to qualifying under the normal provisions of the Rules for elderly dependants. (The father will then be 65). We are therefore likely to recommend conceding this case, but it needs to be looked at against the other cases resubmitted by BRC, and in the light of SCORRI's recommendation. It is therefore proposed that Mr Waddington should take a holding line in the debate.

Dandiy

S C HANDLEY

Page 195Page 196

F.R.

ADJOURNMENT