TNAG-1379-FCO40-1827-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-Hong-Kong-Bill-1985 — Page 217

CONFIDENTIAL

12 -

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

may 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 line that the detailed provisions of

the Order in Council have to 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 the Government has undertaken

Order within one year of the passage of this Bill.

to introduce the

ORDER IN COUNCIL PROCEDURE

In the House of Commons

and the Opposition to

an amendment was put down by Mr Enoch Powell

remove the nationality provisions from the

schedule to the Bill in their entirety, on the grounds that it was

not appropriate to create a new form of nationality by subordinate legislation and that

separate Bill should be introduced dealing

with nationality.

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 In light of that debate the draft Order would, if necessary, be withdrawn, amended

debate in the normal way under positive

resolution proceedures. This would follow the precedent of

of the

Dairy Produce Quotas Regulation, 1984.

and reintroduced for

THE NATIONALITY PROVISIONS IN THE UK MEMORANDUM

Another likely area

likely area of difficulty will be the nationality provisions

set out in the UK Memorandum itself. Ministers could face criticism

CONFIDENTIAL