CONFIDENTIAL
1. The purpose of these proposed amendments is to close existing loopholes in the law in Hong Kong and so ensure that no further legal challenges can open up the prospect of a further unmanageable influx of Vietnamese migrants. The reasons of public policy are set out in paragraph 11 of Mr Paul's submission. The time pressures are explained in paragraphs 9 and 10.
2.
The preparation of this advice has given rise to a great deal of discussion between London and Hong Kong. Although various drafting disagreements have been resolved, I note that the Legal Advisers consider that while some of the amendments would be a slight improvement on the present position, others make it slightly more likely that HMG could be found to be in breach of the ICCPR.
3.
I am persuaded that there is in fact no alternative to proceeding with the amendments, since to do so otherwise is seriously to risk public order in Hong Kong and thus lead to fresh demands for the abandonment of first asylum altogether. The Attorney General was consulted after the first decisions were taken in 1983 and put down a warning of the need to bring Hong Kong practice into close conformity with the ICCPR as circumstances permitted. The introduction of screening in 1988 has considerably improved matters. And, of course, those who have been determined not to be refugees have an easy way of avoiding further detentions by returning home. So, unless the Legal Advisers think otherwise, I do not believe that a further reference to the Attorney General is required.
4. Mr Paul makes sensible recommendations for ways to reduce the risk of damaging publicity. Although the UN Human Rights Committee hearings in New York will coincide with the Secretary of State's visit to Hong Kong and China, the public promulgation of the amendments to the Immigration Ordinance will not happen until after he has left Hong Kong.
25 March 1991
CONFIDENTIAL
R A Burns
/Cc: