(17865) Dd.145178 400m 5/73 G.W.B.Ltd. Gp.863
NOTHING TO BE written IN THIS MARGIN
avoid.
CONFIDENTIAL
6.
If you were to ask HMG to abolish, the
possibility of trouble here might depend on how
publicly, categorically and irrevocably ExCo made this
request. We have already asked Governors to consider
abolishing the death sentence. If ExCo were now to
agree without qualification, then there should be no
problem. But the logical thing then would be for you
to change the law in Hong Kong, which could be the
most straightforward solution of all. The
considerations in your para. 5 perhaps bear more on
this possibility than on the likelihood of trouble in
Parliament if HMG changed the law. If on the other hand
ExCo still felt bound to oppose publicly what they
had recommended to HMG in private, we would be little
if anything further forward in terms of UK/Hong Kong
relations, or of the attitude of Ministers to Hong Kong,
or of the possibility of avoiding an issue in
Parliament.
7.
To sum up I believe that, for Ministers in
the UK there would be little to choose between a
decision by ExCo to commute, permanently or
temporarily, or a decision to change the law within
Hong Kong. A public request to HMG to change the law
would have fewer attractions, but might be acceptable,
depending on its terms.
8.
I realise that this is written from the point
of view of the UK alone; but that is what you have
asked of me. I could however be wrong, and Ministers
might be quite prepared to support a return to the
Creech Jones formula of support for your decisions
except in a case of miscarriage of justice.
Presumably
/this would