CONFIDENTIAL
4.
The Opposition have now moved a number of amendments to
the Bill, including one which if passed would remove the
nationality provisions from the Schedule to the Bill. We are
clearly therefore in danger of losing the all party support we
have enjoyed so far on the Hong Kong agreement. It is important that we retain this, not least to ensure smooth and
timely passage of the Bill, which as you know has to be on the
statute book by the end of June if we are to meet our
commitment to ratify the Hong Kong Agreement. I am therefore
inclined to meet the sense of the House on this matter.
5. I believe that we should agree that in the special
circumstances of Hong Kong it would be appropriate to put forward
the terms of a draft Order in Council for discussion in Hong Kong
and preliminary debate in the House. In light of the opinions
expressed in Parliament and in Hong Kong, we would then lay before the House a draft Order in Council, revised if necessary, which
would be debated in the normal way under affirmative resolution
procedures. I understand that there is indeed a precedent for
this procedure in the discussion of the draft Dairy Produce Quotas Regulation 1984. The terms of this Order were laid before the House on 29 June 1984 and discussed in a wide-ranging
debate on a motion for adjournment on 3 July. A revised
draft Order was then laid before the House on 16 July and debated
in the normal way on 18 July.
6. I realise that this will require slightly more Parliamentary time. But when we decided to include nationality
in this Bill, we recognised that the House might object and
oblige us to introduce a second Bill. That would have been
very inconvenient, as well as requiring yet more Parliamentary time. If we follow the course I am suggesting, we should avoid that, and ensure the smooth and speedy passage for the -
Bill. I should be grateful for your agreement to this
course, and that of the other addressees of this minute, as
soon as possible.
one
-
17.
CONFIDENTIAL