TNAG-2175-FCO40-3112-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 228

+

CONFIDENTIAL

whether in the circumstances of Hong Kong the present law of inheritance in the New Territories is defensible, and, if so, should be preserved as an exception if such it is (and that is doubtful) to the ICCPR.)

Specific Points

8.

In paragraph 3 of our telno 1246 to Hong Kong we make the point that we were not going to pursue issues relating to language consistency between the text of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the ICCPR, though maintaining our view that greater precision in language would help an understanding of the Bill. I do not think we need labour this point further. In the comments that follow, I do touch on a number of subsequent points we made in that telegram, and particularly make proposals as regards (E), "Remedies", which should be considered as replacing the relevant part of that telegram.

9.

I have the following comments:-

Clause 1(2): In addition to the points made under "Freeze period" in our telno 1246, I think this Clause gives rise to the question as to why Clause 3(1) should not come into force on commencement. All it says is

that, if legislation enacted or made before the commencement of the Ordinance admits of a construction consistent with the Ordinance, it shall be given that construction. That seems to be a sensible provision which is not really affected by Clause 14 (1), and it seems to me that the latter subsection could be advantageously modified by inserting the words "other than section 3(1)".

The

Clause 2(2): This provides the Bill of Rights is subject to certain exceptions set out in Part III. provision is rather tucked away as subsection (2) of section 2; it would be clearer if it were a separate section which would have the additional advantage of it being separately set out in the "Arrangements of Clauses".

Clause 2(3): We commented on this in Item C in telno 1246. I note from the revised text of the Memorandum for ExCo that it is being left to ExCo whether to delete Clause 2 (3). As you know, I consider Clause 2 (3) (b) unnecessary and positively undesirable (paragraph 8 of my minute of 10 May). For "Chinese" reasons, ExCo should be encouraged to delete it.

3 PFAAC

CONFIDENTIAL