TNAG-2176-FCO40-3113-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 171

CONFIDENTIAL

242

152037

MDHOAN 2517

CONFIDENTIAL

FM FCO

HKD241

KP

2 JUL 1990

Q DIST?

TOP COPY

да вигора

f41717

TO DESKBY 17010OZ HONG KONG

TELNO 1354

OF 16170OZ JULY 90

INFO IMMEDIATE PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG

YOUR TELNO 2219: BILL OF RIGHTS

WE WELCOME THE DECISION REPORTED IN PARAGRAPH 2(A) OF TUR

AND NOTE YOUR INTENTIONS IN PARAS 2(B) AND (C).

1.

2. ON PARA 2 (D), WE SYMPATHISE WITH YOUR APPROACH BUT IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMMENT WITHOUT SEEING THE EXCO MEMORANDUM (YOUR FAX HAD NOT REACHED DESKS BY 1800 LOCAL TIME).

3.

ON PARA 2(E), OUR USUAL PROCEDURE WHEN EXTENDING INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS TO DEPENDENT TERRITORIES IS, AS YOU KNOW, TO ASK THE DT CONCERNED WHETHER LOCAL LEGISLATION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONVENTION. WE WOULD RARELY CHECK THE LEGISLATION OURSELVES. WE WOULD NEED TO CHECK OUR 1976 FILES TO BE SURE, BUT WE IMAGINE THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN 1976. SIMILARLY, WE WOULD NEED TO CHECK OUR 1984 FILES TO SEE HOW FAR THIS ASPECT WAS CONSIDERED AT THE TIME. WE DO NOT EXPECT THAT WE GAVE IT DETAILED CONSIDERATION. YOUR LINE TO TAKE WITH EXCO WILL THEREFORE HAVE TO BE LIMITED TO STATING HKG'S POSITION. WE ASSUME YOUR EXCO MEMORANDUM ADDRESSES EXCO'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE

BILL OF RIGHTS AND THE JD AND FOR A DRAFT PUBLIC STATEMENT.

4. IN FUTURE, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU COULD SEND FAXES CONCERNING THE BILL OF RIGHTS MARKED URGENT (IF APPROPRIATE) TO MAJOR, HKD.

KURD

YYYY

PAGE 1 CONFIDENTIAL