TNAG-2222-FCO40-3193-Hong-Kong-Civil-Service-general-policy-1991 — Page 29

Miss Brooks

Legal Advisers

RESTRICTED

01611 HKB 2331 M

Reference

REFERRALS OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE: AMENDMENTS TO HONG KONG CIVIL SERVICE REGULATIONS

Ele

34

I need to seek your advice on some follow up to the decisions taken on this subject.

1.

2. It is about two years since we and the Hong Kong Government first looked into the question of streamlining procedures for Hong Kong civil service appointments, transfers, promotions, disciplinary action etc, so that the Secretary of State's approval is needed for only the most senior posts. I attach all the relevant correspondence on this subject to put you in the picture.

3.

HKG put forward some proposals in January 1990 which included the wish to remove all references to the Secretary of State in the following Civil Service Regulations: 103(1), 332(1), 366 (3) and 367(3), even though his approval would be sought in practice for a prescribed list of posts, which is set out in the Secretary of State's letter of 3 June 1991 to the Governor. In his minute to Ms Coglin of 3 October 1990, Mr Fifoot advised that "what Hong Kong propose to do in their CSRS is a matter for them, though one would have thought that they would at least wish their regulations to be consistent with what is the practice and, if there is to be a practice, it should be prescribed administratively for the purpose of Regulation 19 of the Colonial Regulations".

CODE 18-77

4.

HKG have recently sent us their draft amendments to the Civil Service Regulations, together with a gazette notice which seems to have already been gazetted. I should be grateful for your advice on and clarification of a number of points in connection with this matter so that we can comment on HKG's draft amendments. The prevailing regulations and HKG's draft amendments are set out in Annex II to the attached letter of 24 September from Ms Tse, Civil Service Branch, to Mr Ricketts.

5.

Firstly, are we correctly interpreting Mr Fifoot's advice of 3 October 1990 if we assume that it is not essential for the CSRS to reflect what actually happens in practice? Does CSR 4 mean that we need not concern ourselves with what the CSRS say? What is the legal status of the CSRS and of the Colonial Regulations?

6.

If we have correctly interpreted Mr Fifoot's advice, I should be grateful for your views on whether the wording in HKG's draft amendments is satisfactory. The draft amendment to CSR 103 shows that the Chief Secretary has the authority

LESABO

RESTRICTED