14 May 1991
CONFIDENTIAL
Foreign & Commonwealth
Office
29 FICE (Cover)
London SW1 2AH
Russell Yates Esq
B2 Division
Home Office
Lunar House, 40 Wellesley Road
Croydon CR9 2BY
Immigration & Nationality Dept
RECEIVER
HKD 213/1
ཀ 1ཊཀ་ཡ
1 5 MAY 1991
DESK OFF:CEF
47
INDEX
PA
Action Ag
Dear Russell,
DEPENDENT TERRITORIES WORK PERMIT QUOTA
I wrote to John Gilbert on 19 March and John Morris discussed this matter with you by telephone on 8 April.
1.
2.
I believe we are all agreed that there is no credible or defensible reason for abolishing just the Hong Kong part of the quota. If we used the argument of immigration policy, it would seem illogical and inconsistent to abolish the Hong Kong part of the quota and not that part of it reserved for the other Dependent Territories. Against this background, we agreed to consider whether it would be better to accept abolition of the whole quota, phased over several years. This would:
(a) be consistent with the Government's immigration policy;
(b) not discriminate against any Dependent Territory;
(c) enable the individuals and organisations concerned to adapt to the change; and for Hong Kong put the terminal date closer to 1997.
In his telephone discussions with you and the Department of Employment, John Morris made the point that it would be easier to present the abolition of the whole quota if there was a generous phase-out period to the end of 1995.
3
The Governors of the 6 Carribbean dependent territories, (Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat and Turks and Caicos Islands) could accept this approach. They believe there are unlikely to be any political repercussions, provided that any publicity given to the decision is so phrased not to give grounds for assertions that it reflects a lessening in the relationship between the UK and its dependent territories. We believe that we could meet this need with a carefully worded line to take, (see below).
POPAIR VAS
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.