ER.
2 -
-
You suggest that there is more in their second proposal, that the period of validity of multiple-visit entry certificates for BDTC passport holders should be extended from the present maximum of four years to the period of validity of the passports in which they are placed. You also suggest that it should be extended to BN (0) passport holders. As you recognise, in effect this would mean granting entry certificates for up to ten years in BN (0) passports and, eventually, until 1997 in BDTC passports. I fear that we cannot regard this as consistent with the requirements of the immigration control. Entry certificates are issued on the basis of a careful examination of all the circumstances both personal and international at the time and much can change in a period of ten years. It is essential to ensure that an entry clearance continues to be recognised by immigration officers as prima facie evidence of a person's eligibility for entry to the United Kingdom (paragraph 12 of the Immigration Rules HC 169 - refers). The issue of an entry certificate for up to ten years' validity would devalue its worth and lead immigration officers quite properly to probe more deeply to see whether there has been a change in circumstances which might lead to refusal of leave to enter under paragraph 13 of the Rules. Erosion of the value of the entry certificate in this way would defeat its very purpose. Two years is normally the maximum period for which we can feel content that any individual will continue to meet the requirements of the Rules. We agreed to an extension of these arrangements to four years as a special concession following Lord Belstead's approach in 1982. It is longer than ideal. It is not possible to go further.
―
A BDTC who intends to visit the United Kingdom regularly and who has complied with any conditions attached to his stay in the past should find no difficulty on entering the United Kingdom subsequently. The stamps in his passport will be sufficient indication that he is a genuine visitor. Ironically, this means that those who might claim long validity multiple-entry certificates actually have no real need for them in practice. We have been concerned for some time that long validity entry certificates serve merely as status symbols and the low take up rate tends to support this view. Last year only 14 were issued. So far this year only 10. It is also relevant to note that last year only about a third of BDTC visitors to this country had entry certificates of any sort. There is also the problem that any special treatment for those from Hong Kong would inevitably lead to pressure for the introduction of similar arrangements for others who might be seen to be in a comparable position.
To sum up, in our view this proposal would tend to undermine the control and would lead others to seek similar treatment; but perhaps the more decisive arguments from Hong Kong's point of view are the facts that we do not believe that the extension of the duration of these entry certificates is necessary for those who would seek to obtain them and, indeed, the arrangements proposed by the Executive Council would tend to undervalue the entry certificate in a way that would have the very opposite effect in terms of subjecting visitors from Hong Kong to greater scrutiny at the port of entry to that being sought For all these reasons we are unable to accept this proposal.
Your incel
lichtfriel
R J FRIES