TNAG-0984-FCO40-1203-Immigration-from-China-to-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 2

On 8th July 1980, the Council advised and the Governor ordered that the Chief Secretary should consult the Senior Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils on the establishment of a Legislative Council Working Group to examine, under conditions of secrecy, the draft legislation in preparation for its passage in a single Legislative Council sitting. The draft legislation has been so examined and revised, taking into account suggestions made by the Legislative A-H Council Working Group. It is now at Annexes A-H for Members'

consideration.

3

Two matters remain unresolved however. The Working Group took the view that appeals should be considered by Adjudicators sitting in pairs on the grounds that the decisions would be final and of the greatest importance to appellants. Hence it was highly desirable both in principle and to reassure the public that the cases should be fairly and thoroughly dealt with. In the Group's opinion, consideration and decision by two persons rather than one would provide greater safeguards. On the other hand, officials were concerned over the extension of the proposed system of appeals (which is itself an innovation in immigration procedure), the problem of the already limited accommodation at the Victoria Immigration Centre, the need to increase the panel of Adjudi- cators from fifty to one hundred, and the additional delays likely if two Adjudicators were required to consider each case. The questions that Adjudicators would have to resolve are, under new section 53A, strictly limited and should be relatively simple. Moreover Adjudicators would be given comprehensive general guidance before embarking upon their duties and could at any time turn to the Chief Adjudicator and his supporting Crown Counsel for advice. In these circumstances, two instead of one, would not necessarily provide a greater safeguard. It is therefore proposed that appeals (at least for the time being) should be considered by one Adjudicator only who will be able to consult the Chief Adjudicator should he wish to do so.

4

The Working Group also felt it was essential that every person arrested under new section 17D should be afforded an early opportunity to telephone or otherwise communicate with a legal adviser or other person, and that provision for this should be made in the Ordinance itself, where it was both fundamental and visible. However, the view of officials is that normal subsidiary legislation regulating the treatment of persons detained under the Ordinance, Police Force Standing Orders relating to persons arrested by the Police, and administrative directions to Immigration Officers would as effectively provide for such opportunity, and do so without the complications that would ensue from the isolated introduction of a statutory right of this sort. Accordingly, while appro- priate provision has been drafted and is available to meet the Working Group's wishes, it has not been inserted in the Bill at Annex A.

The Draft Legislation

5

Details of the legislation are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill and the Explanatory Notes to the amending Regulations. The following paragraphs summarise the proposals.

SECRET