TNAG-2171-FCO40-3108-Special-quota-of-work-permits-for-the-Dependent-Territories-1990 — Page 6

CONFIDENTIAL

He

4. The Home Secretary, however, believes that the decision to end the quota for Hong Kong needs some explanation. has proposed that we say that a quota for Hong Kong would be "inconsistent with our objective of encouraging people to

remain in the territory".

5. This is simply not correct. As the Secretary of State

made clear in his statement on 20 December 1989, the

objective of the nationality package is targetted at "key people and their dependents". people and their dependeries. The beneficiaries of the quota (cooks etc) are not "key people" in the sense used in the context of the nationality

package.

6.

Without our being consulted, the inspired PQ was tabled on 18 December. Department of Employment officials will now

recommend to Mr Howard that a holding reply be tabled and a

substantive response postponed until the New Year. This will give us time to reconcile our differences with the Home Office and consider how best to explain the abolition of the

quota for Hong Kong.

7. It is quite possible that the Department of Employment may propose that if a reasonable explanation cannot be agreed, the quota for Hong Kong should after all be

retained. That, of course, would cause us no problem.

ARPawe

A R Paul

тидже

Andand many

TELAFO/2

CONFIDENTIAL