MAXAFH
CONFIDENTIAL
FROM:
A R Paul
DATE:
CC:
HKD 24!
14 MAR 1990
DESK OFFICER
RECEN
PS/Mr Maude
IMIDEA
BILL OF RIGHTS
PA
deli
Hong Kong Department
8 March 1990
Private Secretary
Mr Gillmore
Mr McLaren
Mr Burns, News Dept
Ms Barrett, Legal Advisers
66
A
1. Mr Maude has asked why ExCo decided at their meeting on 6 March
to remove Clause 4 of the Bill (the requirement for the Attorney
General to certify that future legislation does not conflict with
the Bill). (Hong Kong telno 828) ...
2. This Clause was originally inserted by the Hong Kong drafters as
a substitute for full entrenchment. It was recognised that the
provision for certification by the Attorney General would not carry any legal status. It was simply a political device intended to make
it more difficult for LegCo to introduce legislation that might
conflict with the Bill of Rights and thus to confer a special status
on it.
3. Our Legal Advisers took the view, however, that this provision
was both undesirable in itself and was unlikely to be effective in
achieving its objective. Their misgivings were as follows:
(a) It would place a very onerous task on the Attorney General
if he was expected to delve into every ramification of every
Bill and certify whether it was compatible with the Bill of
Rights.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 150Page 151
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.