TNAG-0833-FCO40-1041-Colonial-Regulations-in-the-Dependent-Territories-1979 — Page 3

one

Mr Williamson Mr Quantrill

HKG_025/2

1200057

13

nor unsingto

COLONIAL REGULATION 149

1.

LAST PAPE

Original at: HKK 373/3

This Copy for: HKG 025/2 Information only/Action on Para(s)

26

Please refer to folios 4, 5 and the copy of Colonial Regulation 149 (attached). An example of the sort of report which has until now accompanied Hong Kong Legislation is to be found at folio 2, Enclosure No 2. You will note that it satisfies not only the terms of Colonial Regulation 149(2) but includes the statement required from a Law Officer under Colonial Regulation 149(1) to the effect that, in his opinion, the Governor's assent may or may not be properly given. What the Hong Kong Government are here proposing is that this format should be changed. The Attorney General will continue to put his name to the statement but responsibility for

of the Legal

now three divisions

Wthe Law Draftsman, preparing and signing the report will be transferred to taw Officers. of the This post his epartment in Hong Kong. There are now reste aturing Law Officer in the Department, each headed by a Law Officer. He is responsible

directly to the Attorney General and is by the same token allowed to The post of toy the Attorney Gene General's powers of any ed exercise any of the Attorney General's powers or discharge any of his duties if so authorized by the Attorney General. This present proposal is just such a delegation of work and seems thoroughly uncontroversial.

Law Offices

Khow

2. Mr Rushford agrees and has also ruled that the department can sanction the proposal in the Secretary of State's name. His one proviso is that we should be certain that the Law officer is capable of dealing with political as well as legal questions. In view of the man element of supervision still exercised by the Attorney General

Draftsman

x of the

change application

I believe that adequate safeguards exist. It has been my experience too that the Hong Kong Government has invariably consulted us first before enacting legislation that might have political implications. For this and other reasons the system of legal reporting required under Colonial Regulation 149, which gives the Secretary of State the opportunity, where necessary, to exercise his powers of disallowance (the G3 procedure referred to by Mr Rushford), has become little more than a formality. Thus, although the Hong Kong Government proposal would involve a departure from traditional practice, there seems to be no reason to withhold approval.

3.

Finally will the term Law Officer in Colonial Regulation 149 was

not

intended to embrace the Hong Kong office of 'Law Officer' I believe our formal approval obviates the need for any amendment to Colonial Regulation 149(2), which is not in itself made 'wrong' by the change. I attach a draft reply for Mr Quantrill's signature.

30 August 1979

V? thing

N A Ling