TNAG-1334-FCO40-1766-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-1984 — Page 18

CONFIDENTIAL

FINANCIAL AND MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS

8.

The Bill has no financial or manpower implications, nor any implications for the EEC. The EEC treaty does not extend to Hong

Kong, and it is not one of the Overseas countries and territories

associated with the EEC under Part IV of the treaty.

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY

The House of Commons debated the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong on 5 December 1984, and the House of Lords

on 10

9.

December 1984. Both Houses approved without a division the

Government S decision to sign the agreement. Opposition parties and Government back benchers generally welcomed the agreement, while appreciating that the people of Hong Kong still had reservations about certain aspects of it. In both Houses particular interest was expressed in the nationality provisions that the subsequent Bill

would contain. Parliament has thus had a full opportunity to

discuss the

agreement and we do not expect undue controversy over

the main thrust of the Bill. The agreement was signed in Peking by

the Prime Minister on 19 December.

10. The Bill has been considered by the Executive Council of Hong

Kong. Reservations were expressed in the Council on two points,

namely the proposed method of dealing with the termination of

sovereignty and the inclusion in the Bill of provisions relating to nationality. On the first point members of the Council suggested that to make provision for termination of sovereignty by a subsequent Order in Council would allow HMG to withhold their

agreement if the Chinese Government failed to implement the Joint

Declaration. They accepted only with reluctance the view of Ministers that such an enabling provision could not be contemplated, as it might lead Parliament to insist that the subsequent Order in

Council should be subject to affirmative procedures: HMG would

then be unable to ratify the Joint Declaration.

11. On the second point Members of the Council argued that the

nationality provisions were unnecessary for ratification and should

not be included

in

the Bill. At a meeting with the Council on 20

CONFIDENTIAL