TNAG-1101-FCO40-1351-Legislation-on-homosexuality-in-Hong-Kong-including--Report--1981 — Page 568

7.

6.

SECRET

-16-

Public Reaction:

Obviously, Mr. Beveridge would be opposed to these proposals

and would seek to criticise them if acted upon. However, it is hard

to see how he could complain if no action is taken to restrict or curtail

the scope of the Inquiry and no suggestion is made that the

Commissioner's report will not be published. If the proposals are

adopted it might be politic to include in the public explanation of such action reference to the objectives of trying to get the Inquiry

completed as soon as possible and that such action may assist the Commissioner to expedite the process. An implied suggestion that the

Inquiry should concentrate on matters within the terms of reference

rather than extraneous suspicions of misconduct may not be out of

place.

The Time Limit Proposal:

In the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry no date was

specified for the rendering of the report. There is under Section 3(a) power to abridge the time. Since nobody wants an incomplete report the specification of a time for reporting is really only persuasive in effect. It is less persuasive where the public know that when a tribunal seeks an extension it has been busily working on its case since it

was established. It is more effective where the tribunal's workings are not visible to the public so that an errant tribunal has to contend with the possible suspicion that it has not been doing the job. If the proposal to direct the Inquiry to conduct its hearings in camera is adopted then this action could possibly be coupled with it in that it is suggestive of official impatience with the time (and cost) being taken by the Inquiry.

SECRET