SECRET
Council to bring into effect the termination of
sovereignty which would not be made until nearer to 1997.
This would be of little practical use; if we did not make the
Order to bring the termination of sovereignty into force,
there is little doubt that the Chinese would seek to resume
sovereignty over all of Hong Kong anyway, and, as to the
leased territories, our rights disappear then. But option
(ii) might have presentational advantages, since the
legislation is so far in the future. But there must be no
risk that an affirmative or negative procedure would be
attached to it. The Law Officers have advised that, in order
to make it possible to ratify the agreement, an Order in
Council, if option (ii) is followed, must not be subject to
either affirmative or negative Parliamentary procedure. Option (i) might expose Ministers less to unacceptable demands
for further Parliamentary procedures. The choice between
these options can be deferred until the shape of the Bill and
the Parliamentary prospects are clearer.
(b)
(i)
Amendments on nationality (para 4(b) above),
(ii)
Modifications of UK Statutes on termination of
sovereignty (para 4 (c)),
(iii) Modifications to allow transitional measures
before 1997 (para 4(e)),
would be dealt with in the Bill by enabling clauses allowing
the necessary detailed provisions to be made by Order in
Council, or, in certain cases, by Hong Kong legislation.
Such Orders in Council for the modifications of UK Statutes
consequent upon termination of sovereignty, in accordance with
precedent, could be subject only to negative procedure, ie.
SECRET