We are also concerned that the change could reduce the numbers coming here each month. As you know the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regard it as very important for the success of the diplomatic initiative to demonstrate that we are taking a regular and significant number of refugees from Hong Kong. Accepting refugees in a piecemeal fashion is likely to dilute the effect of the inititative.
As you know, we deferred 15 people from the group due on 25 and 27 February because Refugee Action felt they could not accommodate them. This reduced the intake from 43 to 28, well below the intake of 40 per month which we agreed at our meeting was a desirable and attainable target.
Could I offer an alternative suggestion? The main problem is always likely to be accommodation. It would clearly be irresponsible to call people forward for whom no accommodation had been arranged. In view of the agencies' problems, we wondered whether better use could not be made of the resources available to Ockenden and Refugee Action if vacant accommodation from one agency could be used by the other when it was over-committed.
As you will know Julia Meiklejohn has suggested a further meeting to discuss proposals from Hong Kong to revise the current procedures and we will contact her to arrange a date for the meeting. It would not, I think, be productive to have such a large group as at the last meeting; I would suggest restricting it to one representative from each agency.
I am copying this letter to Ben Tang and David Barton (FCO) for information.
Yours sincerely,
Tony Rawalhorns
AR RAWSTHORNE
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.