П
Our reference: Your reference:
A C Galsworthy Esq
!
Hong Kong Department
HOME OFFICE
243
вод cc
ir Amy MUD Aur Partridge, NTD
Lunar House, Wellesley Road, CROYDON CR9 2BY A Fifoot, gu!
Telephone: 01-6xxxxxxxxx. 760 2414
CAROV 185
31 October 1985
M
W
ww Greeingt.
Advi
Legd divin
h.
Poyfel first - for advice pl. to Me Gabowrilly of
off
Laf 1/1,
Foreign & Commonwealth Office
Whitehall
LONDON
SW1A 2AH
Dear Tony
HKK 040/28
HONG KONG: BN(0) PASSPORTS AND ENTRY CERTIFICATES
My letter of 19 September promised a considered response to the two proposals put forward by the Executive Council of Hong Kong on the use of entry certificates for visitors.
In considering these proposals I think that we have a common starting point in wishing to be as constructive as possible in looking at ways in which confidence in Hong Kong might be supported and by doing anything that we can to demonstrate to the outside world that we have every confidence in the agreement with China and to facilitate the international acceptance of BDTC and BN (0) passports. Equally, I think we have to recognise the sort of argument that the Department of Trade might well advance, that we should be seeking to attract businessmen from Hong Kong with money to invest in creating new jobs in this country and in this regard we are in competition with other countries such as the USA. However, we must not lose sight of the need to maintain an effective immigration control and the implications of any deviation from the principle that we should be consistent in our treatment of all those with a form of British nationality which does not carry with it a right of abode in this country any special treatment for Hong Kong would require very clear justification indeed.
On the first proposal, that we should not provide entry certificates for holders of BN (0) passports visiting the United Kingdom but should give them unrestricted access, as I said in my earlier letter there is little to add to the arguments set out in paragraph 3 of your letter of 17 September. As I mentioned, to withdraw this facility would require amendment to the Immigration Rules and possibly the Act. However, perhaps the more important point is the fact that such a step would not only appear to be to the disadvantage of Hong Kong BN (0)'s but would, in fact, withdraw arrangements which we regard as a facility rather than an imposition. It seems to us that both of the proposals put forward by the Executive Committee appear to stem from a misconception or at any rate a different perception of the existing entry clearance arrangements from our own. The comparison with US visas is misleading because a visa is, of course, mandatory for a visitor from Hong Kong to the USA whereas entry clearance is a service that we offer. We do not have a visa requirement for Hong Kong; in immigration terms we thus give them preferential treatment compared with visa nationals - not with how the US treats them. Any BDTC or BN(0) who qualifies for admission to the
United Kingdom as a visitor needs nothing more than a valid passport. Such a visitor who wishes to be sure that they will be admitted may obtain an entry certificate; but in the case of bona fide businessmen and family visitors who genuinely intend merely a visit to the United Kingdom, this is not necessary. As you point out, the abolition of entry certificates would not give BN (0) passport holders "free and unrestricted entry to the UK" and might have the adverse effect of subjecting both Hong Kong BDTC and BN (0)s to rather greater scrutiny at the port of entry to the United Kingdom. For all these reasons the first of the Executive Council's proposals is misconceived and cannot be accepted.
/ Their