XM (85)3
FA
SECRET
25 -
provisions had had to be
Bill. They had replied
included in the Hong
Hong Kong
that leaving the
matter of
nationality until later would lead to doubts in
Parliament and in Hong Kong as to whether HMG intended
to carry out the
Memorandum.
undertakings set out in the UK
UMELCO members had then asked why the
nationality provisions were couched in terms of 'may',
compared with 'shall' used in the provisions ending
British sovereignty. This seemed to imply that HMG were
not committed on the nationality provisions.
2.
The Governor explained that this was the normal
language used in all enabling Acts. Constitutionally,
it was
not anyway possible to say that Her Majesty the
Queen 'shall'. The Attorney General added that there
difference in function in the two sets of
was a
provisions.
Section 1 was intended to change the law:
Section 2 (1) of the Schedule was a conferment of
authority to amend the law by a special route, i.e. by
Order-in-Council which would not come into effect until
Paliament voted on it. The Governor pointed out that
HMG had signed the UK Memorandum and was committed by
its own declaration of policy. It was now seeking
enabling powers to put
put that policy into effect.
stressed that Members were not questioning
the commitment of HMG now but, rather,
that there might not be a commitment
Redacted under FOI
Redacted Under FOI
Exemptions Sec 40 and 41 Exemption Sec 27(1)(a)(c)(d)
SECRET
were concerned
on the part of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.