CONFIDENTIAL
[If it i s
that suggested
we should leave
the
rather than dealing
termination
of
sovereignty to a later Order in Council
with it in the Bill]
Some hon Members have suggested that we should leave
termination of soveriegnty to a a later Order in Council rather
than providing for it by a
clause in the Bill. They have
argued that this would leave us with a me ans of deterring the Chinese from failing to fulfil their part of the agreement.
were to
It would theoretically be possible to include a provision in
the Bill enabling a later Order in Council to terminate sovereignty. If, however, this Order we be subject to either negative or positive resolution procedures in this House, (and I can understand that the House might feel reluctan t to
authorise any other procedure in an Order in Council of this
nature) the Government would not be able to ratify the
agreement.
do so would anticipate the views of the House matters and commit them by legally binding
agreement to one particular view.
on
these
international
To
The substitution of such a procedure
considerable
of our suspicion of
that it would give us any
difficulty in imagining such
to
would give rise
intentions. Nor do I believe
effective deterrent.
I have
drastic circumstances that we
would want, when faced with t he imminent expiry of the
the lease
over the New Territories, to repudiate the agreement.
circumstances
arise it would always be
Parliament to repeal this Act before the transfer
sovereignty took place.
effect
If such
to were
open
to
of
failing to make as
This would have precisely the s ame
an Order in Council. In short, the
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 180Page 181