TNAG-1911-FCO40-2715-Financial-assistance-from-the-UK-Government-to-Vietnamese-re-1989 — Page 43

I po

Reference..

Miss Marsden

Hong Kong Dept

CONFIDENTIAL

cc. Mr Paul

HKB 243 /\\ 243/11

Mr

Stone

Mr Haswell

,545 .

pl. discuss.

}"

} pr

Roj/1

HONG KONG : VIETNAMESE BOAT PEOPLE

1. Mr Marr in the Treasury has now confirmed that his Expenditure Division sees no need for a meeting with you and SEAD. They have, however, a number of points they will wish to see brought out more clearly in the draft Ministerial letter and annexes:

how may previously? Set

a.

art. Emergency-at

at once

but when Nich?

Propace in Helegram

Tai a

lump sum - emery,

Chan -TIN

quaterly Crear. If swith.

to HCC meed

of

Phoisin

Experate warks.

od

suggest speakl

FB but paina

if Fune review to affect

b.

C.

d.

We should include a timetable for probable spending in the current year and details of exactly how it would be disbursed. Would the sums at paras 3(a) and (b) be handed over as lump sums to the Hong Kong Government or would payments be made in stages as the Hong Kong Government certified that the money had been spent?

[Comment: One way of bringing this out might be to amend Annex B.1 [Mr Marr added that the Chief Secretary would, of course, be able to reply to the requests for additional funds only as regards the current financial year. He could not make commitments for 1990/91. until a Reserve for that year has been established following the Autumn Statement.

We should address the point in the third paragraph of the then Chief Secretary, Mr Major's letter of 29 June about a full review after a year of the mandatory repatriation scheme, to establish its cost effectiveness. Mr Marr said that this review need not be exactly one year after 29 July (the date of the Ministerial letter) but we should commit ourselves to a particular date, eg the end of the current financial year. The provision for a review would mean that the Treasury would not be commited to continue funding unless the cost effectiveness of the scheme could be demonstrated.

We should address also the requirement in paragraph 2 of Mr Major's letter of 29 June about monitoring the working of the scheme and verifying that it is not having perverse effects eg, round tripping. The Treasury would like to see a clear statement of what exactly monitoring will cover so that there is a basis for judging whether the expenditure has met the objectives set for it.

The Treasury note that in para 5 of the draft Ministerial letter we say that the funds sought would be split between the FCO and ODA votes. They would like this spelt out more clearly. I have warned Mr Marr that we may be able to go no further than saying that 3(a) and (b) would be borne on the Diplomatic Wing Vote, 3(d)

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL

170