6.
(b)
Paragraph 2. As I have suggested above, there appear to be a number of grounds in favour of relying on the general power to reserve a Bill rather than amending the Letters Patent. You may wish to reconsider the first sentence of the Recommendation.
(c) Paragraph 3, line 8. I suggest the word 'Validity' is deleted.
(a) Paragraph 9 (ii). If you decide in favour of relying on the general power to reserve, there would be no need to amend the Letters Patent. This also affects paragraphs 10-14.
(e) Paragraph 10. I see the main advantage of the reservation option as being that it would postpone the issue, allowing tempers in LEGCO to cool, while preserving the faint hope that assent might be given within two years.
(f) Paragraph 14. The instrument would normally have to be published in the London Gazette. It would only be by means of a special 'under the table' arrangement with the Crown Office if the Letters Patent were not so published.
(g) Paragraph 14. Fourth line from the bottom. I suggest replacing the words 'the enactment process' by the words the making of the Order'.
(h) Paragraph 17 and 18. The references to the amendment of the Letters Patent may need to be changed if the variation of relying on the general power of reservation is preferred instead.
If my minute of 7 January is to be attached to the submission, I would like this minute to be attached too.
AELABV
Shelagh Brooks.
S Brooks