NOTHING TO BE Written IN THIS MARGIN
or the merits of the respective positions.
Our purpose is to examine how such conflicts
of interest can and should be resolved.
9.
-
as
The constitutional position, and the doctrine that flows from it, lays down that the
power of final decision rests with HMG stated in paragraph 4 of the despatch to the Bahamas (Annex B). It does not of course follow that in any and every conflict of interest the UK interest should be regarded as paramount; equally there is no firm basis for asserting that Hong Kong's interest must
always carry the day. Unfortunately no satisfactory criteria or guide rules can be formulated for deciding whose interest should be regarded as deserving paramount considera- tion in any situation; often in assessing the damage that a particular course of action
might do to Hong Kong or UK interests political
factors must be taken into account and there
is plenty of room for differing views on the
strength and relevance of these.
Who should decide?
at
10. Given that the power of final decision
must rest with HMG the question arises
what level and by whom is a decision on paramountcy of interest to be taken where it
has not been possible to resolve the conflict by agreement (bearing in mind that if and when
an impasse has been reached a decision against
the Hong Kong interest is tantamount to overruling the Governor)?
11.
Within the Government, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is responsible (to Parliament) for the administration and
good government of Hong Kong. His is the
ultimate responsibility to decide whether it is in Hong Kong's best interests (taking all
other considerations, including political, into account) that the Colony should pursue a
particular commercial policy or course of
action. If the Governor is to be overruled
and directed to pursue a course he has advised
to be contrary to Hong Kong's interests, such
direction/ean constitutionally only be given by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
/ 12.