CONFIDENTIAL
HKK
Reference..
040/2
1173
Mr Galsworthy, HKD
HONG KONG BILL: HOUSE OF LORDS SECOND READING
1.
кла
As you know I am doubtful about the wisdom of inviting the Minister to put into her opening speech an example of the likely use of paragraph 3 of the Schedule. This is because any such example would be cited without adequate prior consultation with other departments in London or with Hong Kong, and could unnecessarily provoke questions on highly technical matters. An alternative would be to provide the Minister with background briefing and an example to insert, if necessary, in her winding up speech.
2.
As for choice of any example, the two major areas in which it might be appropriate to use these powers are civil aviation and merchant shipping. Unfortunately these fields are particularly complex and fluid. Thus I am informed that a major overhaul of the Merchant Shipping Acts is due in the next session. In aviation I am informed that the picture has changed recently as a result of subordinate legislation which came into operation on 1 February 1985, so that the example of a non-UK licensed aircraft landing at Heathrow is no longer appropriate. I would therefore hesitate to speculate at this stage about what use may be made of these powers in those fields.
Other areas present presentational problems, so that e.g. it may be unnecessarily provocative to focus the attention of some parts of the House on the Colonial Bishops Act 1853.
3.
The best example which occurs to me, whether for inclusion in the opening or closing speech or as background, is the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. It could be described on the following lines
4.
"The Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 is part of the law of Hong Kong. It will almost certainly be necessary at some stage to remove it from that law, because after 1997 it would be wrong to prosecute a person in Hong Kong e.g. for enlisting without a licence from Her Majesty in the military service of any foreign state at war with any foreign state with which Her Majesty is at peace. If the Act is not to be replaced by other provisions in the law of Hong Kong it may be appropriate for this purpose to use the powers conferred by paragraph 3(1)(a) of the Schedule. If however, after consulting the Government of the People's Republic of China, it were thought desirable to have some alternative provisions as part of the law of Hong Kong, action under paragraph 3(1)(b) might be more appropriate. In either case it will also probably be necessary to use the powers conferred by paragraph 3(2) to ensure that a person from Hong Kong is not prosecuted in the United Kingdom in respect of actions which no longer constitute offences under the law of Hong Kong."
7. Bunows
F Burrows Legal Counsellor
CODE 18-77
18 February 1985
cc:
Mr Powell, HKD
CONFIDENTIAL