TNAG-1333-FCO40-1765-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-1985 — Page 256

CONFIDENTIAL

DSR 11C

Furthermore tax or the

ухать

from ww. They the gast saxayłwanyć (hmmagra medi-may-

band his thicalities,

The

have

of the agrisimul A implementation (May emerged and be mader discussi

in

Mum

in senonin Hong Kong Bill might

now foresee. into greater difficulties than we

"On the other hand there

is no douse that the

awargiquen by nationality pos resulting from the negotian of the agreement are its

most controversial aspect,

and there is

A

dange

That if they vere

included in the B.il

controversy might delay the legislation. We cannot afford this, given The time limit set for ralubicatio

сим

C

legislation, since this should give rise to pressures in

Parliament for wider amendments to the BNA unconnected

with Hong Kong. Moreover, because 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 issued in the new form./Nor, in

on reflection,

wa (ind)

separate frond

our view, would (a separate/Hong Kong consequential

legislation) Bill be very attractive since there would

inbows we deformed except (b) (amendment of the be very little to go into it, Most of the changes to UK British Nationality Act) and possibly (c) (modification of United Kingdom enactments Juntil we approached 1997.

legislation, could not be

Our conclusion is that)

Probably the best compromise, therefore, would be to

include in the Bill an enabling clause allowing an Order

in Council to be made at a later date to state the-

establish

However

regulations for the new form of British nationality

envisaged. There is a precedent for such an Order in

Council, subject only to annulment procedures.

constitutional provisions on nationality may be of such

parliamentary interest that pressure for a further

affirmative procedure, at least on the matter of

nationality, would be difficult to resist. It could be

explained that the nationality provisions would be left

to Orders in Council because they involve detailed draft

in generals ing which would delay the Bill. If however even the

presence of such a clause in the Bill appeared likely to

Point

enabling

ä

delay the Bill's passage to appointment which put

ratification at risk, I believe it would have to be

dropped from the Bill.

CONFIDENTIAL