TNAG-1333-FCO40-1765-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-1985 — Page 241

SECRET

Council to bring into effect the termination of

sovereignty which would not be made until nearer to 1997.

This would be of little practical use; if we did not make the

Order to bring the termination of sovereignty into force,

there is little doubt that the Chinese would seek to resume

sovereignty over all of Hong Kong anyway, and, as to the

leased territories, our rights disappear then. But option

(ii) might have presentational advantages, since the

legislation is so far in the future. But there must be no

risk that an affirmative or negative procedure would be

attached to it. The Law Officers have advised that, in order

to make it possible to ratify the agreement, an Order in

Council, if option (ii) is followed, must not be subject to

either affirmative or negative Parliamentary procedure. Option (i) might expose Ministers less to unacceptable demands

for further Parliamentary procedures. The choice between

these options can be deferred until the shape of the Bill and

the Parliamentary prospects are clearer.

(b)

(i)

Amendments on nationality (para 4(b) above),

(ii)

Modifications of UK Statutes on termination of

sovereignty (para 4 (c)),

(iii) Modifications to allow transitional measures

before 1997 (para 4(e)),

would be dealt with in the Bill by enabling clauses allowing

the necessary detailed provisions to be made by Order in

Council, or, in certain cases, by Hong Kong legislation.

Such Orders in Council for the modifications of UK Statutes

consequent upon termination of sovereignty, in accordance with

precedent, could be subject only to negative procedure, ie.

SECRET