Mr Champion
Mr Rushford
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
Lance. I also don't like using persim lyulak
enfarce vekiemus for what one really disciplinarny
Separate copies
(195)
42119
THE BLAIR-KERR REPORT: POSSIBLE CHANGES TO THE LAW AND REGULATIONS APPLYING TO PUBLIC OFFICERS IN HONG KONG
1. At the meeting with Sir Murray MacLehose on 13 September we undertook to send a commentary on the Blair-Kerr proposals within the next few days. The Governor would then consider with Sir Alastair Blair- Kerr the possibility of amendments to his report before it issues.
2. I attach a copy of the report, but would be grateful for its return. I also attach a copy of a useful note by Miss Kelly suggesting the line we should take.
3. Of the proposals in the Blair-Kerr report, the question of the Fugitive Offenders Act is being considered separately and need not concern us here. I have no particular views on the proposals relating to contract officers and officers on probation, which were not discussed with Sir Murray MacLehose. I see no objection to accepting the Blair-Kerr proposals.
But, as Miss Kelly notes, Gibraltar and General Department may have views.
4. Of the other proposals, given that the Governor wants to go as far as possible to adopt the line in the report, I think we could agree to the deletion of Regulation 61. R.62 is, however, another matter. Sir Alastair Blair-Kerr argues at length that it should be possible to get rid of an unsatisfactory officer who has been acquitted on a technicality. But he can in fact be quietly disposed of, which is what the Governor wants, under R.59. What R.62 prevents is "punishment" after an acquittal. I think Sir A. Blair-Kerr is misled by his Scottish analogy into thinking we could agree that an officer should twice be put at risk of "punishment" for the same offence. Nor, as Mr Scott pointed out, is it likely that the Staff Associations in Hong Kong would agree. I therefore think that R.62 must stay.
5. The Governor also wants to be able to retire an officer without having to let him know all the evidence against him. This would presumably be met by Sir A. Blair-Kerr's suggestion that R.59 should be deleted in toto and section 8 (2) of the Pensions Ordinance amended to remove the lower age limit. Mr Rushford suggested at our meeting that the same result could be achieved by the use of R.55, for which no formalities are required. But it appears that this regulation is only for use in extreme cases, and I still wonder whether it might not be considered to be a "punishment" in the terms of R.62. The fact that in drafting R.59
/we have
DD 145177 219242 500M 4,73 GM 3643/2
CONFIDENTIAL