TNAG-2175-FCO40-3112-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 43

Ms Major,

HKD

CONFIDENTIAL

€ HKD 241/1

STRY

12 JUL 1990

Tel out, discussed with Mr Rifact.

выз

From:

Paul Fifoot

Legal Advisers

Date: 9 July 1990

CC Mr McLaren

Mr Burns

Mr Paul, HKD Ms Barrett, o/r

215

HONG KONG TELNO 2125; BILL OF RIGHTS

210

1. I do not think any of us underestimate the possible reaction indicated in telegram number 2084. That is a matter which has to be considered in deciding whether to proceed. However, even if the political reasons for going ahead must prevail, that is no reason for either of us to close our eyes to the serious inadequacies of the present draft.

2. Paragraph 3 of the telegram is hardly an adequate response to the material we sent to Hong Kong over the weekend:-

(a) it ignores the fact that the problem of "deferred

commencement" relates both to "third party" rights in relation to privacy etc (Clause 7(3)) and the wholesale freeze (Clause 14). The latter, and the cumulative effect of Clauses 7 (3) and 14, are not mentioned in TUR;

(b) it fails to come to terms with the Administration's

responsibilities over the NT issue.

It

3. Paragraph 2(a) above is in no way a drafting point. addresses both what is manifestly the appearance and intent of the Bill, even more so in the text of Hong Kong telegram number 2097 (amended to take account of a point I raised), and the lack of effect of the Bill, not the way particular provisions of the Bill are drafted. (And, incidentally, nothing we have proposed affects Hong Kong's "local drafting conventions" or "local legal system" beyond having to take into account the fact that the drafting of the Bill of Rights Bill is itself a departure from Hong Kong's usual drafting practices.)

4.

As regards the New Territories issue, I repeat my view that it is irresponsible for an Administration to legislate in such a manner that they are unprepared to say what they believe the consequences are. It is a negation of

2 PFABT

CONFIDENTIAL