TNAG-1377-FCO40-1825-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-Hong-Kong-Bill-1985 — Page 113

that

I must emphasise

these powers to alter the

nationality laws by way of an Order in Council could

only be used in connection with the purposes I have

described. They would not permit alterations to be made

for any other purpose or in respect of any other group of people not connected with Hong Kong.

at

to

We intend to make

to make this Order at an early date, and

the latest within a year of the passage of this Bill.

The Bill provides that such Orders

such Orders will be subject

affirmative resolution procedures. Let me emphasise

this point. Members of both Houses wilI have a full opportunity to consider and debate the proposals in this

Order-in-Council.

Down that

Member for South

I do not agree with the rt hon

this procedure will give inadequate opportunity for consideration of the measures

measures proposed.

I t was precisely because we knew that the House would want to give detailed consideration to the Orders that

we propose to make them subject to affirmative

procedure. As the House knows, it is not possible to

put down specific amendments to

the Orders-in-Council.

But the Government would clearly take careful account of

points which enjoyed widespread support among hon

Members.

The Bill does not in itself include the full and

final provisions on this subject. Let me explain why.

The

set agreement

a time limit for ratification,

which must take place before 30 June 1985. The Bill must have passed through both Houses and received Royal

Assent in time for that to

to take place. That is why it has been introduced so soon after signature.

Although the UK Memorandum lays down the main lines