CONFIDENTIAL
Those who consider that the provisions are not detailed enough may argue that HMG's intentions are not sufficiently plain in the Bill,
and that doubts and uncertainty may therefore still remain. They
ma y wish to know the contents of the Order in Council SO as to
satisfy themselves that Hong Kong's interests are properly met.
Ministers will wish to take the
take the line that the detailed provisions of
the Order in Council have to be fully discussed
be fully discussed with Hong Kong, and that there was insufficient time to do this early enough to meet the need for the enabling Bill to be passed in time for ratification of
the agreement in June. The timing of the Order in Council has not yet been decided, but it will probably need to be in place in 1986
in order to fit in with the normal 10-year validity period of passports, and to give Hong Kong as much time as possible to issue passports to all who want them.
ORDER IN COUNCIL PROCEDURE
In the House of Commons an amendment was put down by Mr Eroch Powell
and the Opposition to remove the nationality provisions from the schedule to the Bill in their entirety, on the grounds that it was
not appropriate to create
form of nationality by subordinate legislation and that a separate Bill should be introduced dealing
with nationality.
a
1
The Opposition was particularly concerned about the fact that the
Order in Council containing the detailed nationality provisions would be unamendable and would be debated, so they said, only for one
and a half hours. In face of pressure from all sides of the House
Ministers agreed that a draft Order in Council would be introduced with "green edges" for a preliminary debate. In light of that debate the draft Order would, i f necessary, be withdrawn amended
and reintroduced for debate in the normal way under positive
resolution proceedures. This would follow the precedent of the Dairy Produce Quotas Regulation, 1984.
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.