SECRET
2.
5
already deals
with
6.
-0
had reservations over the concept 'belonging' being equated to ownership' in deciding application of the Act but noted that a formal determination of status could be sought from the Lord Chancellor under Section 7(2) (FCO's letter ref. HKD 444/1 dated 15 April 1987).
Whilst the legal position outlined above touches all bases
not provide clear guidance
does
If
HKG
for
it administrative action. The practical realities must be addressed.
records do not become UK public records under the Act until 1997, would FCO be able to make and the Lord Chancellor approve applications for retention, extended closure and transfer to the PRO before that date (ie. before they legally become public records)? On the other hand, if HKG records acquire the status of UK public records immediately they pass into custody of the FCO, irrespective of the date of transfer, would HKG
be able to secure their custody, closure that the conditions be transfer of records to
satisfactory arrangements
still for
and release? It is essential known and agreed prior to the the UK.
2
This question of status is evidently fundamental but should a formal determination be sought? The divergence of legal opinions and the underlying significance of this issue suggests an answer in the affirmative. Also, I should like clarification as to whether HKG records could be held in the custody of FCO prior to 1997 without altering their status (ie. without No. becoming UK public records). If we pursue it must be remembered that under Section 7(2) of the First Schedule the Lord Chancellor is include
the decision
in his
this course
required to annual report to publicity would be The PRC is unlikely to let comment. Their reaction may with other aspects of the HKG
Parliament. This and the resultant politically undesirable. such action pass without cause US difficulties records strategy.
SECRET
17....