TNAG-1334-FCO40-1766-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-1984 — Page 23

CONFIDENTIAL

FINANCIAL AND MANPOWER IMPLICATIONS

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.

8.

PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY

9.

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

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

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.

was

४

to

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