TNAG-2630-FCO40-3821-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-British-National-(Overseas)-1992 — Page 55

GVM 213/1

15 September 1992

RG Yates Esq

B2 Division

Home Office

Lunar House

RESTRICTED

Foreign & Commonwealth

Office

London SWIA 2AH

85

HKD 340/1

M

Morris'

16/9

M

16/9

Woodrow

Ден Винни

WORKING HOLIDAYMAKERS

1.

I promised to write following the IND Board meeting on 9 September, to describe in more detail our difficulties with some of the changes to the WHM scheme proposed in INB (92) 40.

2.

But

Before dealing with the proposed changes, I should like to address two issues of presentation. First, I am very concerned by the suggestion at the meeting that abuse of the scheme should not be cited as a significant, let alone the main, reason for our reforms, for want of hard evidence. if we say that reform is necessary because the numbers entering as visitors, but being granted leave to remain as WHMS, has increased xfold, it is very difficult to rebut convincingly the argument "The scheme was all right so long as it was being used by whites. Now that blacks are doing so, you want to change the rules, for racist reasons". We can only defend ourselves against this charge by stressing abuse: that the overwhelming majority of applications from nationals of countries which had not previously figured significantly or even measurably in the WHM statistics, (and where the idea of a working holiday overseas before settling down at home is neither part of the culture, nor economically possible for more than a handful of people) were not from genuine WHMS but from people for whom it would be all work and no holiday. Otherwise I cannot see our Ministers or our Posts being able to rebut charges of racism when explaining the changes to overseas Governments.

3. I was naturally glad to hear Anthony Langdon say that we would have time to inform Commonwealth Governments of the proposed changes before they were announced here, particularly because our second presentational problem relates to Hong

RESTRICTED