CONFIDENTIAL
draft instructions dealing with the Order.
(h) Para 1 of Schedule: (i)
I suggested to Mr Burrows that this should refer to Annex II rather than paragraph 5 of the Joint Declaration, and should specify that there will be 5 members of the Joint Liaison Group. Mr Burrows pointed out that this would limit our freedom to introduce changes in the group at a later stage. I still think that there is a case to be made for drafting this paragraph tightly to reassure opinion in Hong Kong.
too open.
I f
return
(ii) I agree with the para one of Mr Wood's minute (attached). however we omit the phrase "while in the United Kingdom" we are
likely to attract parliamentary criticism for having the paragraph
What if a member of the Joint Liaison Group was to to London on holiday and commit an offence? Mr Wood is preparing further instructions to Parliamentary Counsel on this paragraph. need to decide whether we want to give the Chinese the widest possible privileges and immunities to be sure we meet obligations under Annex II or whether we want to limit their privileges and immunities to reduce the chance of parliamentary criticism.
our
N
We
aller
that
(iii) I agree with the para 2 of Mr Wood's minute, but will the inclusion "in respect of" have the effect of giving supporting staff privileges and immunities?
(iv) Para 3 of Mr Wood's minute is important. He refers to the need to ensure that the Secretary of State can issue certificates to members of the Joint Liaison Group so that they can prove their diplomatic status. There may be other ancillary provisions of the 1964 Act we need to consider. We should submit on this.
(v)
Para 5 of Mr Wood's minute: I think we should opt for "designated" unless the draftsman has a good reason for using "nominated".
(i) Para 2 of Schedule: We should chase up the Home Office for their comments on this passage. We might concentrate their minds by inviting them to a meeting next week.
(i) Para 3 of Schedule:
(i)
I agree with Mr Burrows (para 8) that we should seek the deletion of "existing" which is a hangover from colonial independence legislation.
If we
(ii) The point in mr Burrows' para 9 is a debatable one. make it clear that we can amend this Act through an Order in Council we run the risk of offending the Chinese and provoking Parliament
into insisting on affirmative procedures for all Orders in Council amending Acts. On the other hand it would please Sir S Y Chung and the Unofficials by giving them the sort of trigger mechanism we have just taken away from them by including termination of sovereignty in the body of the Bill. I think we should submit on this point, although I recommend that we should opt for the exclusion of the