TNAG-1366-FCO40-1812-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 41

- 2

Our unanimous conclusion is that whilst such

In the

postulations may provide some interesting food for thought, the

conclusions seems to have been based on false premises.

emotive spirit under which this Bill has been discussed in the

past month, we feel duty bound for the common good of Hong

Kong, to try our best to explain first how we perceive the

intention of this clause and secondly to sound a note of

caution against the blind acceptance of unfounded misgivings

and erroneous assumptions as grounds for reflecting the clause.

Clause 14 (2) is indeed in a format that has been used

traditionally in territories where the responsibility for

defence and foreign policy lies with the sovereign state. The

aim is to spell out clearly to LegCo Members where the limit

lies in exercising their future duties. We LegCo Members

cannot unilaterally command access to files containing written

communications (for example, in the form of minutes, memoranda,

and letters) on the armed forces, on matters affecting the

security of Hong Kong and on matters such as foreign policy

that fall directly under the responsibility of HMG as regards

Hong Kong up to 1997 and under the PRC for the years beyond.

It must also be emphasized that the dominant word is

'correspondence', which must be treated in a more cautious way

than other evidence, oral or documentary.

To give an example

in language a layman may understand. Imagine that there were

rumours about submarines being built in a dockyard in H.K.