TNAG-1281-FCO40-1632-Chinese-visa-office-in-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 59

Amos Wather

T419110

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference HKK 349

·Pl.sider & check that these comentar till valittig betin ap

WH 312) 25 CT 1923

Mr Hoare (Hong Kong & General Department

CHINESE VISA OFFICE IN HONG KONG

86

1. Please refer to your minute of 13 October and enclosures.

res

Али

evely

1(1)+1(3)

(74)

2. As it stands, the draft Ordinance set out in Hong Kong Telno 1503 of 11 October does not seem to me to be adequate to implement the draft understanding set out in Peking Telno 791 of 12 August. In particular, it should be noted that paragraphs 2(1) and 2(3) of the draft understanding go beyond the provisions of Articles 31 and 41, respectively, of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), as was explained to Hong Kong in FCO Telno 434 of 12 July, paragraphs 3(1) and 3(3). Rather, paragraph 2(1) of the draft understanding reflects paragraph 3(1) of the Third Schedule to the Hong Kong Consular Relations Ordinance 1970, and paragraph 2(3) of the draft understanding reflects a modified version of the first two sentences of paragraph 1 of the Third Schedule to the Ordinance, the modifications being the addition of the words "pending trial" at the end of the second sentence and the deletion of the words "any form of" in that sentence, as well as the application of the provision as so amended to officers' dependents. The draft Ordinance in Hong Kong Telno 1503 does not seem to take account of these points.

¿ pero

Why China-basd

3. Also, as we explained in paragraphs 3(4) and (5) of FCO Telno 434, Article 50 of VCCR is not to the same effect as paragraphs 2(5)

and 2(6) of the draft understanding. Now, I appreciate that Hong Kong Telno 1084 of 27 July made a number of very apposite comments

on this point, but I am nevertheless not convinced that the draft Ordinance adequately gives effect to this part of the draft understanding.

4.

Furthermore, the penultimate line in the chapeau to section 3(1) of the draft Ordinance refers to "visa office ... employees" a term which is not in fact used in the draft understanding, partly I think as a result of Hong Kong Telno 1084. But, oddly, paragraph 2(7) of the draft understanding, which reflects the first sentence of Hong Kong Telno 1084, does not find any equivalent in the draft Ordinance.

5. This leads me to question somewhat the approach taken by Hong Kong. I would have thought that it might be better to formulate the text of the draft Ordinance in terms of what is to be accorded to the Visa Office, what to its officers, and subject to what conditions. This might then avoid the need to make mention of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the VCCR which, if modified in accordance with section 3(2) of the draft Ordinance, would read in a pretty peculiar way.

However, it is clearly not for me to draft Ordinances for Hong Kong, and so I will say no more on this score.

6. On a few final, more minor points of detail,

(i)

are Articles 15, 48 and 55 of VCCR not relevant?;

(ii) there is clearly an error in section 3(2)(B) of the draft

Ordinance;

CODE 18-77

CONFIDENTIAL

/(iii)