simply be deferring the problem.
5.
Line to take
The BN(0) Order seems to be too controversial new simply to listen to LegCo's complaints on 9 June and proceed to lay the Order a few days later, as we would have to do if we
were going to have it debated in both Houses, approved and
presented to the Privy Council before the recess.
Although the arguments against simultaneous holding of BDTC
and BN(0) passports are reasonable they are not of the
strongest and, given the controversy, my advice would be to
say that the Government is convinced that there is no other sensible option but to introduce the phased programme, but is willing to defer briefly the laying of the Order to
examine further the possibility of allowing BDTC and BN(0)
passports to be held concurrently up to June 1997. This would mean that the Order would be introduced in a few weeks time, before the Recess, instead of now. It would be uncoupled from the Selection Scheme Order, which has to be
passed before the Recess in order
Recess in order to allow the second tranche of the Scheme to proceed next January.
it muin't ose hoo
It is not essential that the BN (0) Order be introduced now.
a few weeks' time and having the
debates on it in the autumn would mean that the cut-off
dates would need to be adjusted and the timetable re- arranged slightly to accommodate the few months we would
lose between now and the autumn. The BN (0) application periods would be made somewhat shorter but they would still
be of reasonable length. It would also mean that there would be two separate parliamentary debates on Hong Kong matters within a matter of months. We wished to avoid this
much rink Laying the Order in
but did not count on the opposition to the BN (0) Orders
which has now arisen.
∞
8