TNAG-1334-FCO40-1766-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-1984 — Page 114

Reference..

126

RECLI

Mr Powell HKD

DESA OFFICER

CONFIDENTIAL

HKK 040/53

REGISTRY

07 DEC 1984

TREENTRY

INDEX

PA

Action Taken

fic

HONG KONG BILL

1. I met Michael Thomas (AG Hong Kong) yesterday afternoon and we discussed various points. He is coming to see me again this afternoon.

Clause 1(1)

2.

Mr Thomas thought that members of EXCO might see political advantage in a stronger assertion of British sovereignty up to 30 June 1997. He would prefer this paragraph therefore to read "... shall cease to have sovereignty or jurisdiction..." rather than the present wording which is "... shall have no sovereignty or jurisdiction...". As against this, it seems to me difficult on this ground alone to justify departing from the precedent set by Section 1 of the Cyprus Act 1960, which Parliamentary Counsel has followed. There is also the point that the side note to this paragraph reads "ending of British sovereignty and jurisdiction over Hong Kong". You may feel that this is a sufficient indication that we are in no way abandoning our position on sovereignty prior to 1 July 1997.

Schedule, para 1

3.

Mr Thomas questioned the use of the word "enactment". My first reaction too was to question the meaning of this word. The important point is that it should not include any Orders in Council made under the Royal Prerogative or the Letters Patent or Royal Instructions or any local laws adopted in Hong Kong. I spoke to Parliamentary Counsel who assured me that although the word "enactment" is not defined in the Interpretation Act 1978 it is standard practice to use the word in bills in order to cover only Acts of Parliament or parts of them. This explanation is supported by the definition of the word in various judicial dictionaries. I think that we can accept the use of the word in the Bill.

Schedule, para 2(1)(b)

4. Mr Thomas wondered whether the phrase "such citizens" was ambiguous and should be replaced by "British Dependent Territories citizens". My own view is that, as a matter of construction, the phrase in the Bill can only have the meaning attributed to it by Mr Thomas. I would not myself be inclined to criticise Parliamentary Counsel's drafting on this point.

Schedule, para 2(3)

5. Without reaching any firm conclusion, Mr Thomas questioned whether the word "and" in line 2 should be the word "or". My own view is that this is one of those occasions when either word could be used. More important, Mr Thomas questioned the way in which this paragraph proposes to deal with statelessness. He was concerned that the enabling

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL

/provision