CODE 18-77
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference.
Further reports and statements to the HRC, 1988-89
22. No reference was made to the question of New Territories land policies or laws in the Annex on Hong Kong attached to the UK's second report on Dependent Territories which was submitted to the HRC in May 1988. The only reference to Article 26 was in Part III of the Annex ("Supplementary information pursuant to the Committee's consideration of the initial report"). This merely stated, in response to the question whether legislation had ever been passed to deprive anyone of equal protection under the law, that no such legislation was in force in Hong Kong. (Source: UNDoc CCPR/C/32/Add.14, 20 June 1988). Some further information about dependent territories including Hong Kong was submitted in October 1988. But this made no reference to Article 26 nor to the New Territories (CCPR/C/32/Add.15, 5 October 1988). The UK's second report on the dependent territories was considered at the 855-857th meetings of the HRC, held on 3-4 November 1988. According to the summary records of these meetings, there appears to have been no further discussion of Article 26 (CCPR/C/SR.855-7, Nov - Dec 1988).
23. In October 1989 the UK produced the Supplementary Report on the Dependent Territories to its Third Periodic Report to the Human Rights Committee under Article 40 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This included an Annex on Hong Kong, drafted by the Hong Kong Government.
Among comments on Article 2 there was a reference to consideration being given to the application to Hong Kong of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, involving the review of existing policies and legislation relevant to the question of equality between the sexes. But again there was no reference to Article 26 of the ICCPR or to the question of inheritance rights under New Territories land laws.
Conclusions
24.
As you will have seen, I found it necessary to extend my inquiry considerably beyond the scope of your specific questions. I think you will agree on the need to cover this wider range of occasions on which the point you raised could have been considered. Of course, I cannot exclude that it may have been discussed on some different occasion, eg during
a meeting of an FCO Minister with a delegation from the Heung Yee Kuk or some other Hong Kong body. But I have no recollection of ever having seen any reference to such a discussion and think that if the point had been raised in any
SOLAAF
CONFIDENTIAL
Redacted under FOI exemption 27(1)