TNAG-2320-FCO40-3364-Human-rights-in-Hong-Kong-1991 — Page 200

RESTRICTED

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

London SW1A 2AH

Telephone 01-

Peter Honour Esq

Constitutional Division 'A'

Home Office

Queen Anne's Gate

BY FAX

Your reference

Our reference

Date

Dear Peter,

HKC241/2

12 FEB 1991

12 February 1991

Ms Garrett Legal Adviser

8

Ժ

human rights: gevert.

for 12/2.

CHR ITEM 10: WORKING/RAPPORTEUR ON DETENTION

1.

Thank you for your letter of 8 February concerning the domestic ramifications if the French proposal for a working group/rapporteur were to gain headway at the CHR.

Notwithstanding our 1988 initiative on political prisoners, the broader question of administrative detention at the moment is a politically knotty problem which it is unlikely that we would be able to unravel in London before Item 10 is taken.

2. However, the main question is not whether we feel there are areas of domestic legislation which may or may not come under scrutiny in the long term through the activation of the Working Group/Special Rapporteur. but whether this is an area of human rights activity which we should be able to support in an international forum. Foreign Office Legal Advisers have argued forcefully that the UK does defend the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and thue Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE). and that we have strong grounds for so doing. This is a view which we endorse: respect for human rights and transparency of government dealings in this area are important elements in our human rights policy, and we should continue to be prepared in an international context to defend our domestic legislation.

3. An important subsidiary question is just how far can we influence this initiative anyway? We can use our influence with the French to try and steer them off taking the initiative at this stage. However, as they have already publicly announced it, they would be unlikely to change their views. As observers at the CHR, we are not able to vote, but can co-sponsor. In this instance co-sponsorship, as you have argued, is out of the question because it would imply our wholehearted support. But without a vote we cannot easily influence the adoption (or otherwise) of the resolution.

The consequences of signalling an

RESTRICTED