1
This was Ruch fast's view
4.
If we
On the proposal in paragraph 7(a) of P.A. 's minute (with which I fully agree), I have only one comment. delete "for so long as Her Majesty may administer those territories", we shall have to substitute "indefinitely" in .” order to achieve the necessary precision.
5. As to the saving clause, my view is that clause 4 in draft B is to be preferred to P.A's revision, which gives the existing Order greater authority than we intend, and might even be construed as maintaining the 1997 terminal date. I cannot really think that Deng is going to see much difference between the two versions, but others might.
}
•
6. I would make one general point. I have always felt that the "first step" should be to deal only with the lease question (as in the Rushford/Hobley draft at (C). We can validly provide for a new date of lease (and for the conversion of existing leases) without tackling the post-1997 administration question. The only drawback was that "indefinitely" in that version might have been read by interested persons as meaning both more and possibly. less than 1997. That small drawback is, it seems to me, obviated by Deng's "hearts at ease" formula. It respectfully seems to. me that this "first step" accords most with Deng's attitude. I realise that further provision would eventually be necessary on the administration question if we were to take this limited "first step", but as we do not know what the "political solution" to be reached by 1997 (paragraph 9 of (691) ) might be further legislation might be necessary anyway. I am aware that in putting this view forward I am running counter to the Governor's clear view that we should try to tackle the post-1997 administration question, but I do feel that the alternative limited "first step" is viable and it avoids any problems about
the status meanwhile of the 1898 Order..
7.
If this matter is to be discussed on Monday, I should
like to be present.
دنبر
(J. W. D. Hobley)
Attorney General
27. 4. 79.