followed up, thereby causing disappointment; it was agreed that it should be made clear to them that no final decision had been taken although it was unavoidable that the process would raise expectations.
4.
The Hong Kong Government and Foreign and Commonwealth Office were anxious that the "diplomatic offensive" be maintained and commented that it would be difficult to keep up the pressure on other governments if the United Kingdom appeared not to be meeting the commitments it had made. It was important to maintain an average of 40 refugees per month coming to the United Kingdom under the SCORRI recommendations. It was agreed that 60 names per month should be submitted by the FRC Office to allow for possible reductions and enable an average of 40 to be maintained. Any urgent cases could continue to be dealt with individually but maintaining the monthly average was the priority.
5. The refugee agencies said that, due to limited resources and the short notice they received of refugee arrivals, they found it difficult to cope with an unpredicatable flow of arrivals. This situation was worsened by problems with housing, which tended to be the primary consideration when deciding who to call forward to the United Kingdom. It was agreed that the aim would be to extend the period of notice from approximately 10 days to two weeks, but resources in B1 Division would not allow for further liaison between the various parties than was already the case. However if the total period from the submission of the approved lists to the arrival of the refugees was likely to exceed 8 weeks then the Home Office would inform the agencies.
The meeting generally acknowledged that, although there were problems inherent in the current procedures, they ought to be maintained more or less as they were, as no viable alternatives had been suggested, but that the refugee agencies would take account of names given on the Hong Kong Government lists when compiling their
6.
own.
7.
The refugee agencies reported that progress had been made in processing family reunion applications from camps in other South East Asian countries, and had identified about 220 names. Mr Rawsthorne pointed out that Ministers had been advised that there were only about 60 cases in camps outside Hong Kong. The Home Office would welcome firmer information about the numbers involved as they would need to inform Ministers of the discrepancy with the original estimate.
UNACCOMPANIED MINORS
8.
Mr Rawsthorne said that, although the Home Office would be prepared to consider individual applications to bring unaccompanied minors to the United Kingdom, in view of the SCORRI recommendations which had just begun to be implemented, he thought that Ministers might regard any further initiative as premature at this stage.
9. It was acknowledged that some of the unaccompanied minors were not in fact orphans, and in those cases account would have to be taken of possible relatives elsewhere who may later claim to be eligible to enter the United Kingdom. Miss Brand emphasised that the minors that the Save the Children Fund had sponsored in the past had been orphans.
10. The backlog of Family Reunion applications was a cause for concern. Ms Hebden remarked that it was often the repeated applications, made despite the fact that there were no changes in circumstances from the previous application, which were adding to the delays. In future, stock letters would be sent explaining that the Home Office were not prepared to reconsider the application. Furthermore, those who qualified under the criteria laid down in the SCORRI report should be put forward on this basis rather than as separate applications.
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.