TNAG-2177-FCO40-3114-Hong-Kong-Bill-of-Rights-1990 — Page 124

RESTRICTED

Bill of Rights

3.

Mr Fifoot said that we were still interested in the HKG

response to two of our proposals: the "Bermuda" proviso on remedies and improvements to the rules of court. We were

also interested in whether and how Articles 16 and 22 would

apply to individuals. Ms Barrett commented that, when she had left Hong Kong, the view was that both Articles should remain as at present. Mr Chen said that there was pressure from the business sectors to drop application of the Bill to private individuals. It was possible that LegCo would support this. We therefore needed to consider compromises.

One would be the "Bermuda" proviso. Another, put forward by Martin Lee, was to have a human rights commission in Hong

Kong which would undertake conciliation between private individuals, in an attempt to avoid litigation. We agreed

that this latter proposal was unlikely to satisfy the business sector about the possibility of eventual litigation and would be regarded with suspicion by the Chinese.

4.

Ms Barrett said that a HKG meeting had agreed an

amendment to the Bill of Rights to make it "subject to the

Letters Patent" which under midnight adaptation legislation

would become "subject to the Basic Law".

We asked Mr Chen to issue a

telegram on his return to this effect, to enable us to

comment. We also pointed out that, until we have decided on

this amendment, we were reluctant to comment on the proposed

amendment to the Letters Patent itself (Hong Kong telno

3066).

5. Mr Chen said that enactment of the Bill of Rights was

now unlikely until early 1991. Mr Fifoot reminded him of

the need to bear in mind Privy Council meeting dates:

TOMAYX/2

RESTRICTED

Redacted under FOI exemption 27(1)|