7
file and they are apparently hoping that this particular issue can form the subject of a sub- mission to Ministers on its own whilst the re- maining outstanding points can be hammered out at official level. But I do not think that it would be possible to deal with the matter in this manner. It will, I suggest, be necessary to submit the Bill as a whole to Ministers drawing particular attention to Clause 10 and to any other points then remaining in dispute.
8. For the above reasons I suggest that our next step should be to telegraph the Governor in terms of the attached draft.
9. There are certain other points which will require some thought:
(a) What recommendation is to be made to Ministers as regards Clause 10?
(b)
Will it be necessary to consult the Law Officers and if so at what stage should this be done?
•
(c) Are any of the other outstanding matters of such fundamental importance that
we should.regard them as sticking points if they are not resolved?
9. It seems to me that the answer to (b) may well depend on the answer to (a). If the reco- mmendation to Ministers is to be that Clause 10 should be deleted (despite arguments advanced by the Governor in (10) on the file) then I doubt if it will be necessary to go to the Law Officers before going to Ministers (see paragraph 4 of Sir Arthur Grattan-Bellew's minute at (7)). Only in the somewhat unlikely event that Ministers declined to accept such a recommendation might it be necessary subsequently to consult the Law Officers. If however any possibility were enter- tained of recommending that Clause 10 should be retained, then I suggest that it would be necessary to seek the views of the Law Officers before going to Ministers. My own view is that the Clause should be retained but this view would certainly not be shared by Legal Advisers; nor would it be likely to receive Ministerial approval. 10. As regards (c) above, the answer must depend very largely on the views of Legal Advisers. Your letter of 21st January to Mr. Roberts men- tions Clause 14 (as well as Clause 10) as being in this category. Clause 15 too, might be simila- rily regarded. However, I doubt if there is much point in referring to Legal Advisers before we know what Hong Kong's proposals are for res- olving the outstanding matters (other than Clause 10) mentioned at (9).
11.
I suggest therefore that action for the moment be confined to that proposed in paragraph 8 above
Gaminara)
HONG KONG DEPARTMENT
27th February, 1970.