CONFIDENTIAL
DSR 11C
Furthermore tax or the
ухать
from ww. They the gast saxayłwanyć (hmmagra medi-may-
band his thicalities,
The
have
of the agrisimul A implementation (May emerged and be mader discussi
in
Mum
in senonin Hong Kong Bill might
now foresee. into greater difficulties than we
"On the other hand there
is no douse that the
awargiquen by nationality pos resulting from the negotian of the agreement are its
most controversial aspect,
and there is
A
dange
That if they vere
included in the B.il
controversy might delay the legislation. We cannot afford this, given The time limit set for ralubicatio
сим
C
legislation, since this should give rise to pressures in
Parliament for wider amendments to the BNA unconnected
with Hong Kong. Moreover, because of the 10 year period
of validity of passports, legislation may well be
necessary before 1987, to allow passports that will
extend beyond 1997 to be issued in the new form./Nor, in
on reflection,
wa (ind)
separate frond
our view, would (a separate/Hong Kong consequential
legislation) Bill be very attractive since there would
inbows we deformed except (b) (amendment of the be very little to go into it, Most of the changes to UK British Nationality Act) and possibly (c) (modification of United Kingdom enactments Juntil we approached 1997.
legislation, could not be
Our conclusion is that)
Probably the best compromise, therefore, would be to
include in the Bill an enabling clause allowing an Order
in Council to be made at a later date to state the-
establish
However
regulations for the new form of British nationality
envisaged. There is a precedent for such an Order in
Council, subject only to annulment procedures.
constitutional provisions on nationality may be of such
parliamentary interest that pressure for a further
affirmative procedure, at least on the matter of
nationality, would be difficult to resist. It could be
explained that the nationality provisions would be left
to Orders in Council because they involve detailed draft
in generals ing which would delay the Bill. If however even the
presence of such a clause in the Bill appeared likely to
Point
enabling
ä
delay the Bill's passage to appointment which put
ratification at risk, I believe it would have to be
dropped from the Bill.
CONFIDENTIAL