E.R.
Mr Emery
B4 Division
CONFIDENTIAL
cc. Mr Hyde (o/r)
Mr Phillips
Mr Holmes Mr Moore
Mr Seymour
DRAFT HONG KONG (BRITISH NATIONALITY) ORDER 1985
I have been considering further the point made in paragraph 3 of
Hong Kong telegram no.681 of 4 April. They draw attention there to extension orders made under the Hijacking Act 1971 and the Protection of Aircraft Act 1973, the point being as I understand it
that it is at least questionable whether an order extending an Act
to overseas territories carries with it amendments made later to
the Act. While it is not unarguable that it does I think we should
try to put the matter beyond doubt, though I am not in favour of
operating directly on the extension orders. There may be any number of these, besides those which Hong Kong mentions, and I think it would be preferable to include a catch-all provision for this purpose. I should mention that the Hijacking Act and the Protection of Aircraft
Act have been replaced by the Aviation Security Act 1982 and there
is also the Civil Aviation Act 1971 (Overseas Territories) Order 1976
made under the Civil Aviation Act 1971 (see the last two items in the
Schedule to the draft Order), but the same point arises in connection
with those Acts.
2.
Extension orders of this kind were not specifically dealt with in the BNA 1981. That Act proceeded on the basis that the
consequential amendments made by Schedule 7 extended where appropriate
to the dependent territories (and also incidentally to Northern
Ireland, the Islands and the Associated States) by virtue of
section 53(4)-(6). You may remember that Parliamentary Counsel
expressed the view during the preparation of the Hong Kong Bill that
there was no need to include provisions about extent in the Bill (see the last paragraph of his letter dated 10 December 1984 to
the FCO), but it seems to me that there may be a good case for
doing so in our Order, bearing in mind that the 1981 Act and also the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983 did so.
CONFIDENTIAL
1