TNAG-1753-FCO40-2473-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Parliamentary-debates-1988 — Page 39

A:

AIDAFI

BASIC LAW

RESTRICTED

1.

Consistency with the Joint Declaration?

Much of the draft reproduces provisions of the Joint Declaration, often word for word. But some parts of the Joint Declaration are in very general terms and it would be possible to

give effect to them in more than one way. Here the question of

consistency is a much more complex one: more than one assessment may be possible. We do not wish to come to premature conclusions: we shall be listening carefully to all the views expressed, in the

House and in Hong Kong. So I am sure will the Chinese authorities.

2.

Comments on specific articles of the draft

Some of the noble Lords have raised points of detail on

specific articles of the draft. not respond in similar detail. text are highly complex ones. At this early stage we do not think

it would be right to express a particular view. We wish first to be able to take into account the whole range of views expressed both in

Hong Kng and on occasions such as this debate. But the comments which have been made today will be carefully noted by Her Majesty's

Government. We shall ensure that they are also brought to the

attention of the Chinese Government.

I hope they will understand if I do

Some of the issues raised by the

3. Human rights provisions in Basic Law?

We welcome the provision in Article 38 of the draft Basic Law which stipulates that the provisions of the two International Covenants on Human Rights shall be implemented in the Hong Kong SAR. We are aware of criticisms in Hong Kong that other parts of the draft are be inconsistent with Article 38. It is by no means clear

at this stage whether this is a matter of substance or a matter of drafting. We think it should be possible to devise drafting improvements which would bring these parts in line with Article 38. But we shall continue to consider the point carefully in the light

of the views expressed.

RESTRICTED