TIMEDIATE
CYPHER/CAT A
GRES 900
CONFIDENTIAL
TC COPY
248
FM HONG KONG 150815Z
16 UCTOS
CONFIDENTIAL
233)
TO IMMEDIATE FCO TELNO 1180 OF 15 OCTOBER. 1973
lakk14/0
UCT
ROT
(234)
N***
REF.
234
(254
YOUR TELEGRAMS NUMBERS 1000 AND 1001: BLAIR-KERR REPORT.
I AM GRATEFUL FOR THE SPEED OF YOUR REPLY.
2. PARA 1 OF YOUR TELNO 1000: A DECISION THAT THE LAW COULD NOT BE
AMENDED TO CATCH GODDER WOULD BE RECEIVED WITH DISAPPOINTMENT AND
ANGER HERE. IF ANNOUNCED IN ISOLATION I WOULD BE BOUND, AS I THINK YOU WILL APPRECIATE, TO EXPRESS THIS DISAPPOINTMENT ON BEHALF OF MY PARISHIONERS. I DO TRUST THIS CAN BE AVOIDED. COULD YOU NOT,
IN THE FIRST PLACE, POSTPONE A FINAL DECISION IN CASE THERE TURNS
OUT TO BE A SUBSTANTIAL BODY OF OPINION IN THE HOUSE IN FAVOUR OF
FINDING A MEANS TO SEND GODBER BACK?
3. BUT, EVEN IF THE LATTER EVENTUALITY IS INCONCEIVABLE, I DO HOPE
YOU WILL AGREE NOT TO ANNOUNCE A DECISION AGAINST RETROSPECTIVE
LEGISLATION UNTIL YOU ARE ABLE TO COUPLE IT WITH A DECISION TO
AMEND THE ACT FOR THE FUTURE. THIS AT LEAST WOULD PREVENT THE
APPALLING ROW THAT WOULD RESULT FROM A REPETITION, AND WOULD END
THE PRESENT ANOMALOUS AND ILLOGICAL SITUATION WHICH AS I SEE IT
AND I BELIEVE MANY M.P.'S DO TOO - IS QUITE INDEFENSIBLE. IF
THIS PROCEDURE WERE FOLLOWED IT WOULD ALLOW US TO POINT OUT THAT
THE INTRODUCTION OF RETROSPECTIVE LEGISLATION WOULD ONLY HAVE ALERTED
GODBER TO LEAVE BRITISH JURISDICTION, AND THAT THE ACTION TAKEN
BY H.M.G. WAS THE MOST PRACTICAL AND HELPFUL IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
4. PARAGRAPH 3 OF TELNO 1000.
I ACCEPT WHAT YOU SAY.
CONFIDENTIAL
15. PARAGRAPH 4