RESTRICTED
PRIORITY
people's court proposal for dialogue on this subject with the
Hong Kong Supreme Court or the Attorney General's chambers. A minute from DPA dated 21 August rejected this recommendation on three grounds: that dialogue could escalate into pressure for formal negotiations: that ExCo would need to be consulted in line with their directive following the 1988 agreement with Guangdong: and that the Guangdong agreement is under-utilised and it would therefore be pointless to seek a wider agreement.
On
3. We wonder whether it is now time to think again about the usefulness of pursuing a dialogue as recommended by Keller. the DPA's three points above, we believe Keller has already addressed the first: he made clear that a dialogue would be restricted to civil matters and could continue for a very long time before it was necessary to arrange formal talks on the content of any agreement. On the second point, we appreciate that there were difficulties proceding the 1988 exchange of letters with Guangdong, but do not see why this should prevent us from tackling the subject again in a more ordered way and putting a case for this to ExCo. On the third point, the Guangdong arrangement covers only service of court documents, not enforcement of judgements. We believe there is evidence that a wider agreement (both in subject matter and geographical scope) would benefit Hong Kong in practical terms.
4. We have noted, for example, a South China Morning Post report of 12 October about Hong Kong Bank's difficulties in taking legal action in China to recover
in China to recover some of its mainland
debts. And an exchange of correspondence earlier this year, resting with Pigott's letter to Major (copied to Wong, CAB) of 21 June, would seem to indicate a need for clear and effective practical arrangements. The status quo in fact gives Chinese
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.