TNAG-1377-FCO40-1825-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-Hong-Kong-Bill-1985 — Page 180

CONFIDENTIAL

[If it i s

that suggested

we should leave

the

rather than dealing

termination

of

sovereignty to a later Order in Council

with it in the Bill]

Some hon Members have suggested that we should leave

termination of soveriegnty to a a later Order in Council rather

than providing for it by a

clause in the Bill. They have

argued that this would leave us with a me ans of deterring the Chinese from failing to fulfil their part of the agreement.

were to

It would theoretically be possible to include a provision in

the Bill enabling a later Order in Council to terminate sovereignty. If, however, this Order we be subject to either negative or positive resolution procedures in this House, (and I can understand that the House might feel reluctan t to

authorise any other procedure in an Order in Council of this

nature) the Government would not be able to ratify the

agreement.

do so would anticipate the views of the House matters and commit them by legally binding

agreement to one particular view.

on

these

international

To

The substitution of such a procedure

considerable

of our suspicion of

that it would give us any

difficulty in imagining such

to

would give rise

intentions. Nor do I believe

effective deterrent.

I have

drastic circumstances that we

would want, when faced with t he imminent expiry of the

the lease

over the New Territories, to repudiate the agreement.

circumstances

arise it would always be

Parliament to repeal this Act before the transfer

sovereignty took place.

effect

If such

to were

open

to

of

failing to make as

This would have precisely the s ame

an Order in Council. In short, the

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 180Page 181