TNAG-2168-FCO40-3105-House-of-Commons-Foreign-Affairs-Committee-inquiry-into-Hong-1990 — Page 139

Legislative Council, and the Chief Executive of the Region, as well as two-thirds of the Deputies of the Region to the NPC. There is no provision for consent by ExCo. The requirement that two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Council, together with the Chief Executive, should consent to Bills is a welcome provision as ensuring that a Bill emanating from the SAR must have local approval. An additional element of local approval is implicit in the requirement that the Bill obtains the consent of two-thirds of the Deputies of the Region to the NPC, but that additional requirement could also frustrate the wishes for amendment of the Legislature and the Executive. Bills proposed by the Standing Committee of the NPC and the State Council do not require any local consent.

Article 158: Unlike Article 159, which provides for amendments of the Basic Law, Article 158 contains no express requirement that an interpretation shall not contravene the established basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong. That formula is a way of attracting the reference in the preamble to the Basic Law to the Joint Declaration. [In our confidential discussions with the Chinese we urged them to add a comparable provision to Article 158. The Chinese said that this was unnecessary.] The Chinese doctrine is that no comparable provision is necessary in an article such as Article 158 which deals with interpretation since the preamble to the Basic Law states that the object of enacting the Basic Law is to ensure the implementation of the basic policies of the PRC regarding Hong Kong and no interpretative power can go outside the object of legislation.

of

Paul Fifoot

Legal Advisers

5 July 1990

3 PFAAD