TNAG-1086-FCO40-1336-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 68

CONFIDENTIAL

452

Hrese 34011

RECETVO 24 24

27 OCT1981

DASK OPACIT

Mr cift

INDEX

cc:

Mr Adams

PA

7

раз

Mr Howells

PS/LPS A

PS/Lord Trefgarne

NATIONALITY BILL

2

Pa Mr. Williams 1.0.

I understand from Mr. Arwelle

Mas? That the Home Office have

agreed to deal with all 101 amendments. But pl.check that this is so

Q27.

1. Lord Geddes telephoned me this morning to talk about his

amendment to the Nationality Bill in the House of Lords. He told

me that he found Lord Belstead's answer reported in Hansard far

from satisfactory on the question of whether there would be one

all-embracing amendment to cover all the references to CBDTs (ie

turning them into BDTCs) or 101 separate amendments to put the

whole Bill straight.

NR

2. Lord Geddes told me that he had written to Lord Belstead on

Friday 23 October listing the 101 consequential amendments which

will be necessary to the Bill in the House of Commons to cover

the sense of Lord Geddes' amendment. He put Lord Belstead on

notice that he was not going to accept one single amendment and

that he will seek to re-introduce a further amendment in the Lords

once the Commons have finished with the Bill. According to Lord

Geddes the Bill in its form now before the Commons is the same as

it was when it left them plus a list of the Lords' amendments. The Commons may accept the Lords' amendments but having done that, they have theoretically to return the Bill to the Lords. All

things being equal, this would normally be a rubber stamping exercise before the Royal Assent, but Lord Geddes threatened Lord

Belstead that at that point of time he will table his 101 amend- ments if the Bill is not in a satisfactory form.

3. I said that our preference was to have all the offending sections changed following the acceptance of Lord Geddes' amendment but there might be legal difficulties about this. We had the impression that the Home Office were wriggling but that we hoped to get the right answer. Lord Geddes seemed to think that his threat could put at risk the whole Bill.

26 October 1981

Aktmald

A E Donald

CONFIDENTIAL