TNAG-1366-FCO40-1812-Hong-Kong-Legislative-Council-(Powers-and-Privileges)-Bill-1-1985 — Page 57

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

London SW1A 2AH

4 July 1985

His Excellency

Sir Edward Youde GCMG MBE Governor and Commander-in-Chief HONG KONG

LIKK

011/12

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY

-

5 JUL 1985

GISTPY

134

4

Teddy,

LEGCO POWERS AND PRIVILEGES BILL:

L

ை

POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

1. You might find it useful to have some advance warning of a subject which is likely to come up while you are back on leave. It will have been apparent from our telegram number 814 that the Secretary of State was concerned about the public attacks on the LEGCO Powers and Privileges Bill and on the way in which the matter had been handled. He has asked that we should see what lessons can be learnt from this episode. I think that, having seen this row following so closely on the heels of that on the Commercial Crimes Bill, he is generally a little concerned about how best to achieve the right degree of 'political feel' in a

He will rapidly changing political environment in Hong Kong. probably raise the general subject with you when you stay at Chevening.

2. The main cause for concern arising specifically out of the Powers and Privileges Bill seems to us to be that we all failed to anticipate the public reaction to the Bill. The wisdom of hindsight is all too easy but, în retrospect, I imagine we would all agree that the reaction could and should have been anticipated. We here take our full share of the blame. We had ample opportunity to comment on the draft Bill and failed to do so on the aspects that attracted criticism. The reality is that we contented our- selves with having the Legal Advisers check the draft and failed to carry out the close political scrutiny which the subject matter of the Bill merited. Not surprisingly, the Legal Advisers found nothing to criticise in the draft, since it was based on ample precedents.

3. This is perhaps one lesson, that the constitutional develop- ment of other territories towards independence does not necessarily provide useful precedents for Hong Kong. You have often made the point but, on this occasion, none of us seems to have applied the rule! We accept the criticism of the Bill was excessively one- sided, and failed to take proper account of the need to provide

/protection

PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL