B, C
D
(b) Prior entry clearance, including by non-visa nationals: this would mainly affect Australians, New Zealanders and
Canadians. MVD are strongly opposed. There would be resource implications (depending in part on how many non-visa WHMS currently choose to obtain prior entry clearance voluntarily. We know that some do). We do not accept the Home Office view that it would not be practical to introduce a ban on switching without also making prior entry clearance compulsory even for those who do not at present need it. SEAD are also strongly opposed, because this would be taken badly by the Malaysians, with a risk to bilateral relations, including substantial UK
exports;
(c) with the exceptions of Australia and Hong Kong, described in paras 8 and 9 below, the other proposed changes have been greeted without enthusiasm, but not seen as posing any particular difficulties.
8.
Australia provides about 60% of those admitted as WHMS. Canberra have objected strongly (Canberra telnos 440, 443 and 446) to the reduction from two years to one year, and to the restrictions on those eligible for the scheme. SPD strongly support the Australian case as, I understand, does Sir J Coles. It is however worth noting that two of the Home Office's proposed changes would result in UK practice becoming the same as current Australian practice towards British WHMS: one year only, and single or childless married couples only. I suspect that the Home Office would take a good deal of convincing that the damage to Australian/UK relations in changing from two years to one and reducing the age limits would be so severe as to justify abandoning changes which they see as necessary on immigration grounds, and which must of course be non-discriminatory. However, there is no need to adopt a
Page 60Page 61