TNAG-1333-FCO40-1765-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-1985 — Page 269

HKK 040/53

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

1 50CT 1984

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

CONFIDENTIAL

PA

Action TaKUN

JAK

16

Private Secretary

LEGISLATION ON HONG KONG

1.

2.

fre 1.300 LCA

смана и ж

A word

(14)

Secretary of State

mor colleagues will handen

I agree broadly with Mr Galsworthy's submission.

experty Id

Arran

On the first question, namely the transfer of sovereignty,

I agree it would probably be wiser to go for legislation which provided now for a transfer of sovereignty to take place in 1997, rather than provision for transfer by a later Order in Council. I accept the advice of the Legal Advisers that there could be Parliamentary pressure to make a later Order in Council subject in some way to Parliamentary approval. From a Chinese point of view, provision for the actual transfer of sovereignty to be made by a later Order in Council would arouse suspicion that we were giving ourselves the opportunity for second thoughts at the last moment, perhaps after having seen the colour of the Basic Law. The arguments therefore all point the same way.

3.

My

The second question, namely should we try to deal with nationality questions in the same Bill, is more difficult. instinctive preference is for a Bill confined only to the transfer of sovereignty. This is the essential business and one which can on no account be delayed beyond 30 June 1985. The addition of nationality provisions, whether by enabling clause or otherwise, is bound to complicate and could delay. On the other hand I see force in the arguments in Mr Galsworthy's paragraph 4. I should be prepared to support his recommendation, but only on the clear understanding that if we found ourselves facing any real prospect of difficulty over the nationality aspects we would at once jettison that part of the legislation, leaving it to a later Bill, and confine ourselves to the transfer of sovereignty. It would be necessary to clarify this point beforehand with the Home Secretary.

4. As regards the form of discussion among Ministers, I wonder whether it is necessary to have an OD(K) meeting. The Secretary of State may prefer to write to those colleagues immediately affected.

3 October 1984

Леса

плом

Percy Cradock

CONFIDENTIAL