- 10 -
Governor: I have had reason, perhaps too frequently, in the past to point out in the Council that I find governing Hong Kong quite challenging enough dealing with real questions rather than dealing with hypothetical questions and I think that it is probably the case that my colleagues in the Administration share that view. But let me, without making life more difficult for myself, address some of the issues which the Honourable Member raised and about which he has considerable knowledge.
This Council will, over the course of the next months, have to consider legislation on the Court of Final Appeal. That is necessary if we are to stand any chance at all of establishing a court before the middle of 1996 so that it can take over the role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We don't make up the deadlines. We need to legislate during this session. The Council, with the advice of lawyers both inside and outside the Council ringing in its ears, will have quite a simple, in my judgment, decision to make. Either Hong Kong gets a Court of Final Appeal before 1997 - indeed before the middle of 1996 - or it doesn't. I don't think anybody should kid themselves. It is not an argument between principle on the one hand and expediency on the other. This isn't Thomas Moore country. It's quite clearly an argument about whether we have a Court of Final Appeal which is set up in accordance with the JLG Agreement and with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law or whether we don't have a Court of Final Appeal.
I simply don't understand the arguments of those who seem to suggest that they would get a better Court of Final Appeal if they waited until after 30th June 1997. I can't understand that reasoning at all. Nor do I understand the arguments of those who say: Well it doesn't really matter if we don't get a Court of Final Appeal because the Privy Council only deals with a handful of cases every year. Anybody who says that sort of thing and still argues about principle, really should consider, I think, their position rather carefully.
The proposals which the Government will translate into legislative form will be wholly in line with the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law and the JLG Agreement. They will be wholly acceptable in principle and they will make great sense in practice as well. We've looked at all the legal arguments. We've considered the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and we believe our position is absolutely sound. And I repeat, the question is whether this community gets a Court of Final Appeal before 1997 or not. That is the simple issue and nobody should kid themselves that it is something else. There are consequences of individual actions and I hope that the legal profession in Hong Kong will recognise that.