CONFIDENTIAL
GM orr Esq
CAB
3rd floor
Central Government offices
Office of the
British Senior Representative
Nino Briush foiu Liaison Group
2 January 1992
Dear Geoffrey,
BILL OF RIGHTS: REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
Thank you for your letter of 27 December about plans to introduce amendments to six Ordinances to bring them in line with the Bill of Rights (BOR). You ask in particular about two of these Ordinances, the ICAC ordinance and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.
I think you may have underestimated the potential difficulty with the Chinese over these amendments. The need for them arises from the Bill of Rights, to which the Chinese have been implacably opposed (notwithstanding their relatively low key reaction to the enactment of the BOR Ordinance).
In their eyes, anything associated with the BOR is by definition bad. And, as you point out, anything that diminishes the ICAC's powers will cause them concern. I suggest that the paper should bring this out more clearly.
Nor do I think that the solution you proposed telling Guo about the amendments over lunch, before the amendment bills were gazetted would necessarily prevent a Chinese demand for consultation and a suspension of action until consultation has been completed. How would we respond to such a demand? The paper needs to address this possibility and discuss the consequences of a refusal to consult (if that would be the preferred course). Redacted under FOI exemption sections 27 (1)(a), (c), (d)
In this context, it is certainly relevant to recall the exchanges
in which we indicated a readiness to inform the Chinese in advance of any legislative amendments necessitated by the BOR and to discuss such amendments with them if they wished. Is this not consultation as we understand the term? (As you know, we always reserve the right to proceed as we see fit if consultation fails to achieve consensus,)
CONFIDENTIAL
/ I