- 5 -
"Why then is there so much factional opposition to the bill? Surely not to save the face of those politicians who went out on a limb in 1991? Surely not to thwart perversely the wishes of both the present and future sovereigns who have reached agreement? Surely no-one argues that the people of Hong Kong would be better off in 1997 if there were still uncertainty over the Court of Final Appeal?"
The Administration therefore urges all members to oppose these amendments. Each of them threatens to jeopardise the rule of law and create renewed uncertainty. Let me elaborate.
The commencement provision
First, the commencement provision. The Administration has made no secret of the fact that it originally wanted to establish the Court of Final Appeal well before the transfer of sovereignty. For reasons that are well known, this has not been possible. More recently we had hoped to establish the court by the summer of 1996. However, the Chinese side of the Joint Liaison Group was only prepared to support the Bill we had prepared on the basis that the court is established on 1 July 1997. Although this is not ideal, it is an acceptable approach because it meets our important aim of avoiding a judicial vacuum in 1997, bearing in mind that the Joint Liaison Group agreement provides a mechanism which will avoid any judicial vacuum. The British Government will ensure that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council will continue to hear appeals up to 30 June 1997, and will fast-track Hong Kong appeals in the months leading to the transfer of sovereignty.
What would the amendment to clause 1(2) achieve, assuming it were passed? First and foremost, this would mean a clear breach of the agreement between Britain and China for the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal., with all the consequences so graphically set out by other Members of this Council in this debate, including the Hon Mrs Elsie Tu. The amendment, Mr President, is also unacceptable for legal policy reasons which I shall set out at the committee stage.
Acts of state
I turn now to "acts of state", and to the proposed amendments of clause 4, which I will call the "red-herring amendments". As I hope all members of this Council are now aware, clause 4 does no more in respect of acts of state than restate what is in Article 19 of the Basic Law. It would be a serious mistake to think that the amendment of clause 4 will in any way affect the application of Article 19 as from 1 July 1997. Mr president, we must be very clear about what it is we are debating and what it is we will be enacting. We are not debating the passage of the Basic Law, we are not enacting the Basic Law. We are not debating the merits of the Basic Law. We are debating the Court of Final Appeal Bill, and it is that that is before the Council.