TNAG-1333-FCO40-1765-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-1985 — Page 247

MO

CONFIDENTIAL

legislation on a transfer of sovereignty not to be subject

to further Parliamentary consideration. But these might not

be sufficient to persuade Parliament to allow the same power

in this case. If Parliament insisted that the Order should be

subject to Parliamentary procedures, this would prevent us from ratifying the agreement until after the Order had been made and would therefore call into question the possibility of ratifying before 30 June 1985, as we have undertaken in the

agreement.

7.

For that reason we should have to resist an attempt to

make Orders in Council subject to further Parliamentary

procedures. That is in itself a good reason to prefer option

(i). Another is the likely Chinese suspicion if we leave the opening of a later Order in Council. The Government might of course be criticised for legislating definitively so far in

advance. But we could argue in my view convincingly that since

the date is now clearly defined, there is no reason not to

legislate. On balance, I therefore prefer option (i).

8.

On point (b) above (amendment of the BNA), my officials

have held further talks with Home Office officials since the

first discussions in OD(K), and on this point too our thinking

has developed.

9.

It is not necessary to include (b) in the legislation as

a preliminary to ratification, and there are arguments for and

against doing so. To deal with this aspect in this Act would

avoid the need for a future independent act to amend the BNA.

I understand that the Home Secretary would not favour such

separate legislation, since this could give rise to pressures

in Parliament for wider amendments to the BNA unconnected with

Hong Kong. Moreover, becuase of the 10 year period of validity

of passports, legislation may well be necessary before 1987, to

allow passports that will extend beyond 1997 to be issues in the

new form.

CONFIDENTIAL

/10.