Alternative I
HK.
Lot 2+16
PA .#
CONFIDENTIAL
c Mr Bickford
Mr Leeks, HKD
FROM:
Paul Fifoot
DATE:
24 June 1985
THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) BILL
1. The justification for a clause such as Clause 14 (2) is two-fold. First, where there is no Ministerial or other tradition which protects state's secrets in the legislature, it is necessary to make some provision which enables the Executive to control the kind of
answers that can be given to fishing questions on security matters. The control is achieved in the current draft by ensuring that evidence can only be given by officers who have the confidence of
the Governor. Secondly, so far as a Colonial legislature is concerned, although it has a legitimate interest in the administration
of the territory, the possibility cannot be ignored that there are serving in the territory (not necessarily in the public service of the territory concerned, but in HMG's service), persons with an intimate knowledge of HMG's affairs which go beyond the concerns of the territory. The first of these matters is adequately dealt with in the present draft, and though I think that it was the intention to restrict the ambit of the second concern, the drafting is obviously open to misconstruction.
2. I therefore think one needs to try, by a redraft, to improve
the presentation. In alternative 1, I have taken the current clause and divided military and security matters on the one hand from HMG's responsibility on the other. With regard to HMG's responsibilities I have made it clear that what would be excluded
would be those responsibilities which HMG has otherwise than in
the administration, through the Government of Hong Kong, of that territory. This would be my preferred approach as it maintains the object of controlling the persons who can give evidence on these topics rather than disallowing the question.
011/2
HKK 011
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
2 5 JUN1985
ICEM
RECISTAY
alou Taken
JJH
1
CONFIDENTIAL
/3.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.