TNAG-1381-FCO40-1829-Future-of-Hong-Kong-nationality-and-citizenship-1985 — Page 144

DI

MINISTER

OF

STATE

R...

No

НКК 04014

V KEQSTAY

21 JAN 1985

Dragt

the than PA ZAN

герит To dr reply for

fun 18

HOME OFFICE

QUEEN ANNE'S GATE

LONDON SWIH 9AT

53

M. Galcupring, Has.

PS

ps/thr. Lure fir w. Harding

Dr. Wilson

Parly hníľ

I think we should be concerned about the parliamentary position over the nationality provisions in the Hong Kong Bill and the risk of Enoch Powell's motion getting support. I am anxious therefore that you should consider the following points.

We should not in any speech say that the Order has to be agreed with Hong Kong before it is published. This will simply fuel parliamentary criticism on the lines that Parliament is being given no opportunity to influence its content. We can of course say that there has to be consultation with Hong Kong as the draft speech for the Foreign Secretary now does. I firmly believe however that he should go on to say, in the speech, that we will place the draft order in the library of the House

Jus

by Committee Stage on the understanding that technical amendments may have to be made before the final Order is formally introduced.

This will enable members to raise detailed amendments to the schedule limiting or extending the scope of the Order.

%

I understand that UMELCO representatives here have concluded that it is in Hong Kong's interest to see the Order settled as soon as possible and would therefore like the Foreign Secretary or yourself to say that there will be a limit of a year from now for its passage. I would readily support this.

This approach seems to me both to safeguard Hong Kong interests in being consulted on the detail without denying an effective role to Parliament. If we appear to be denying that role to Parliament we risk losing the schedule.

You we

Richard Luce Esq MP

(DAVID WADDINGTON)