TNAG-1353-FCO40-1794-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1985 — Page 85

Mr Galsworthy, HKD

CONFIDENTIAL

IN REGISTR

1 MAR 1985

ра

64

FROM:

Paul Fifoot

DATE: 28 February 1985

HONG KONG LETTERS PATENT AND ROYAL INSTRUCTIONS

1. Mr O'Grady who is, I believe, the acting law draftsman in

Hong Kong, telephoned me today about the drafts in our

telno 327 of 27 February. He accepts the proposed amendment

to the Letters Patent but had a lot to say about the proposals,

consequent on Ministers' decisions on dissolution, to amend the

Royal Instructions. His main point was that, although the

Hong Kong authorities accepted the decision of Ministers that

there should be provision for dissolution, presentationally the

drafting should indicate that the three year cycle was the norm

and dissolution, within the three year cycle, an exception.

(Incidentally he did not seem to take on board the fact that,

in order to bring/ordinary legislative cycle to an end there

would be a dissolution as well as it was necessary to bring that

сус 1 е to a premature end.) He also had a great deal to

say about sessions and he dictated to me new draft clauses

XIIA and XIIB; XIIC would be the same as in XIIB of the Hong

Kong draft of 12 February 1985.

an

when

2. I have no sympathy whatsoever with any of Mr O'Grady's

proposals for his clause XXIA. Paragraph (3) of that clause

is thoroughly misconceived and could, indeed, involve there

being no session of the legislature for six months.

1

CONFIDENTIAL

/Apart