TNAG-1326-FCO40-1738-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-debates-1984 — Page 163

1

CONFIDENTIAL

advances out the night before in order to catch MPs who would go to their constituencies on the Friday morning, but I am not sure whether this will be physically possible. Either way there would clearly be some advantage, if the debate were a one-day debate, in having it on 6 December to allow one extra day for consideration of the report.

I understand however that 5 December is more convenient for the Whips. I understand that the Whips have also told Mr Luce that they think it would be valuable if the Secretary of State could find time to have a word with Mr Healey, perhaps in a week or two's time, about the handling of the debate.

a

3. We also need to consider the form of the motion for the debate. The three options appear to be a motion of approval, "take note" motion, or a motion on adjournment. The nearest precedent is probably the Commons debate on the agreement on accession to the European Communities in October 1971. The motion

in this case was:

"That this House approves Her Majesty's Government's decision of principle to join the European Communities on the basis of the arrangements which have been negotiated".

I think that the form of this motion was partly designed to take account of the constitutional position, which is that Ministers do not need to consult Parliament in order to authorise the signature of the draft Treaty of Accession, but were doing so because they saw a political requirement. The position on the Hong Kong agreement is identical.

4.

I

It will be important both in terms of Hong Kong, and in terms of subsequent handling of the legislation, to be able to demonstrate that Parliament have indeed expressed approval for the agreement. therefore think that a motion of approval would be appropriate. This was also Mr McLean's view. A "take note" motion would be less convincing. I understand that a motion on adjournment would not require a formal expression of opinion on the agreement at all, except as contained in the views of those who spoke in the debate. I should record however that Sir Anthony Kershaw told me that he thought a motion on adjournment would be the appropriate form.

CONFIDENTIAL