CONFIDENTIAL
It is clear that nothing less than an endorse-
ment in the passport will be sufficient to prevent a
confrontation between the Legislative Council and HMG.
There may be some room for adjustment of the formula of this endorsement, but I am bound to say that it
will not do any good in Hong Kong unless it makes clear
that prior entry clearance is not necessary for bona
fide visitors.
I understand that the main argument which has
been advanced against this kind of endorsement is
that, because it could not be removed from the passport,
it would commit future governments not to introduce a
visa or entry certificate requirement for visitors
from Hong Kong. I do not find this argument convincing.
The logical conclusion would be that no government could ever put any endorsement in a passport in case
it made it more difficult for a future government to
change the law or practice: this would apply equally
for instance to right of abode endorsements.
The imposition of a visa or entry certificate requirement for visitors from Hong Kong would be difficult enough at any time as you know, in response to enquiries from MPs about whether visas would be required, we have told them firmly that BN(O)s would be subject to the same rules as BDTCs are subject to now. But if there ever were a crisis, such as occurred
with the Tamils last year, I do not think that the use of the endorsement I propose would make it significantly more difficult for a future government to introduce a visa requirement for BN(0)s from Hong Kong. It would be necessary to announce that in view of the crisis the rules were being changed and that notwithstanding the endorsement visas would be required.
/To sum up
CONFIDENTIAL