wording as it is, I would suggest that the last sentence of each paragraph be rephrased, omitting the word "meanwhile" and instead indicating that these papers are complementary to the earlier IRO ones.
7. The paper on liner conferences states that the PRC became a party to the code (para 6), but the one on carriage of goods by sea does not indicate whether the PRC is a party to any of the treaties referred to. Obviously the PRC should have this information, but if it is the normal practice to set it out in order to be helpful (to our side as well as to the Chinese!) I would suggest that the same be done here.
8. In Mr Chin's covering letter on carriage of goods by sea, he says that HKG legal advisers now doubt that the Brussels Convention does still apply to Hong Kong. I have looked up the reference in the UK Treaty Series which he cites, and agree that it records the UK as having denounced the Convention in respect of Hong Kong on 20 October 1984. (I attach a copy of the relevant page for your reference). I do not quite follow the last sentence of that paragraph, in which he appears to be saying that they do not intend to correct the mistake in the paper previously handed to the Chinese. This would mean that the IRO discussion would proceed on an incorrect factual basis, and might result in agreement to continue applying to Hong Kong a Convention which does not in fact apply to it. The strange thing is that in your 1992 file at folio 2, the page in the IRO paper which deals with this item has been crossed through and marked "to be deleted". I would suggest you ask HKD to clarify the position and their intentions.
9. My inclination is that it would be better to correct the error in the earlier IRO paper (if this has not already been done), and to insert a paragraph into the localisation paper to explain that although the Convention was denounced, the legislation has continued in force and requires to be localised. (Incidentally, I do not know why this Convention has been denounced. It may well be that it has been replaced by a new one on the same subject. If so, I wonder whether there is any prospect of the new one being applied to Hong Kong, in which case the new legislation would need to be tailored accordingly. You might wish to ask the lead Dept if they have any useful comments to pass on presumably it would be DTI or DTp.)
-
10. Should you require amplification of the above or any further advice, please let me know.
Will Batt
Jill Barrett