CO129-614-5 Protected Places (Safety) Ordinance 1946- proposed revision 26-9-1946 - 15-1-1948 — Page 5

ما

Lumenes

M. Mayle

Pl. have 575 put up for conson à

The kiss you propose

Mr. Roberts-Wray

Mr. Lloyd

involved.

I send on in view of the principle

In my view this measure carries such great risks that it should not be continued a moment longer than is necessitated by the exceptional circumstances in Hong Kong.

I propose, therefore, that when non- disallowance of the Ordinance is signified, a separate confidential despatch should be sent, asking that the necessity for the continuance of this measure may be reviewed in, say, six months' time and that the Secretary of State may then be furnished with a report on the matter which should include a review of the working of the Ordinance since it was passed if it is recommended that it should continue. The despatch should then go on to raise Mr. MacPetrie's points on Section 2, subject to my marginal note, and Section 4(1)(b)(i), saying, however, that this amendment might be considered if necessary when the continuance of the Ordinance is reviewed. Mr. MacPetrie's further point on Section 5(a) and (c) should then be mentioned, and in this connection I would say that in the case of Singapore the authorised guard or sentry is required to challenge three times and we consider that this should be laid down in Hong Kong unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary. I would then make the following two points in the despatch:

(a) suggest that as in the case of Singapore protected places should be clearly marked with signboards and warning notices, unless this is already done:

(b) that the Secretary of State assumes that in the selection of persons to act as authorised guards under this Ordinance, greatest care will be taken to ensure that the persons appointed are capable of exercising/the exceptional powers which they are granted under the Ordinance.

A confidential despatch on the above lines would, I think, meet the case. I have suggested the inclusion of the last point because of the statement in the Acting Attorney-General's report that the guards will normally have no police experience and will often be persons of no great intelligence. To my mind this statement is very disturbing and if it is in any way confirmed by the Governor as the result of the point being raised in the despatch, as proposed above, I think we should seriously consider the repeal of the Ordinance. In the circumstances, it might be well to ask the Governor for an assurance on the point.

Jagne

agne.

8.11.46.

One further pout shines with quand le required to challenge at least once Where under 5.5.4)? aage 9/11