CONFIDENTIAL
in the autumn. However, the Committee did not consider that the Antarctic Environmental Protection Bill, the Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill, the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill and the Chemical Weapons Bill could be accommodated in the 1992/93 Legislative Programme.
5. With regard to the Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill, we do need to make a strong bid for this to be included in the 1992/93 Programme but within the contingent rather than programme category. The Court of Final Appeal remains a controversial matter in Hong Kong. It will only come into being if LEGCO can be persuaded to enact legislation. We cannot be sure that they will, especially given the rapidly changing character of LEGCO. Our present policy is to keep the matter out of the headlines and hope that in time our arguments will make the necessary impression on LEGCO. There is therefore no question of our introducing the Bill before LEGCO have enacted the necessary local legislation. If, however, we were successful in persuading LEGCO to enact this legislation it would be essential that the Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill be enacted as soon as possible thereafter. There is therefore a strong case for bidding once more for this Bill but in the contingent category. If we fail to bid now, we risk losing a place for this Bill altogether.
6. FCG did not agree to the inclusion of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill in the 1992/93 Programme. The Bill is likely to need to be enacted in the later part of 1993 when the CDC is expected to reach its current borrowing limit. However, ODA would be content for the Bill to be
introduced in the first quarter of 1993 rather than Autumn 1992 as this would enable the Bill to take account as
necessary of the result of the CDC's Quinquennial review which will be completed this Autumn.
CONFIDENTIAL