CONFIDENTIAL
MS
3
CONFIDENTIAL
FM FCO
TO PRIORITY HONG KONG
TELNO 22
OF 07160OZ JANUARY 92
+1KB 012/2
161741 MDLOAN 3645
TOP COPYLOAN
Q DIST?
INFO PRIORITY PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG
42612
B
YOUR TELNO 32 AND PEKING TELNO 19: DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY FROM EXCO
1
Π
BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBLE CHINESE REACTION TO
THE PROPOSALS IN PARA 2(C) TUR WE SHALL NEED TO CONSULT MINISTERS. IN VIEW OF LORD CAITHNESS' ABSENCE FROM THE OFFICE, IT WILL NOT BE POSSIBLE TO LET YOU HAVE AN ANSWER UNTIL THE WEEK OF 20 JANUARY.
2.
WE
IN THE MEANTIME WE WOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR SOME CLARIFICATION OF THE MACHINERY FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ROUTINE APPEALS. ARE NOT CLEAR EXACTLY WHAT THE LEGAL/ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS WOULD BE (AND THESE MAY BE RELEVANT TO THE CHINESE REACTION). HOW WOULD THE TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY FROM THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL TO A CENTRALISED APPEAL BOARD BE MADE? UNDER SECTION 64(2) OF CAP 1, THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES AND UNDER THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS RULES OF CAP 1? WOULD ANY SPECIFIC LEGISLATION BE REQUIRED? COULD THIS NEW APPEALS BOARD IN FACT BE PRESENTED AS A SUB COMMITTEE OF EXCO FOR THE PURPOSES OF PERSUADING THE CHINESE THAT THERE IS NO DELEGATION FROM THE EXECUTIVE?
3. YOU MIGHT ALSO WISH TO BE AWARE THAT LORD CAITHNESS' INITIAL REACTION TO YOUR TUR WAS THAT HE WAS SCEPTICAL OF CENTRALISED APPEALS BOARDS. HAS THE ALTERNATIVE OPTION OF A SERIES OF SEPARATE APPEALS PROCEDURES FOR THE DIFFERENT SECTORS BEEN CONSIDERED?
HURD
YYYY
PAGE
1
CONFIDENTIAL