TNAG-2333-FCO40-3394-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Hong-Kong-Court-of-Final-Appeal-Hong-Ko-1991 — Page 81

CONFIDENTIAL

C

B

Background and Argument

3.

The Lord President's letter of 18 January and subsequent

discussion in Cabinet foreshadowed a review about now of the Future Legislation Committee's FLG) provisional conclusions on the 1991/92 Legislative Programme (on the assumption that it was to be the Fifth Session of the current Parliament).

The FCO was awarded a provisional place for the European

Communities (Amendment) Bill and good prospects for

Antarctic and Mauritius Bills after the election, but the Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill was rejected.

Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill

4.

Lord Caithness contested the rejection of the Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill, in a letter of 24 January, reinforced by

Mr Garel-Jones before the FLG on 29 January and by the

Foreign Secretary in Cabinet on 28 February. The Lord

President was sympathetic to the argument that the fear that the Bill will be controversial, in the way that the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Bill was in the last session, is

unfounded. As the draft letter to the Lord President makes

clear, there is no comparison: the Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill

is intended to remove the right of appeal to the Privy

Council in order to allow the establishment of an

independent Court of Final Appeal ready in Hong Kong for 1997. This policy objective is set out in the Joint Declaration, enjoys support in Hong Kong and is agreed in principle with the Chinese Government. Although negotiations on the detail of the Court continue with the Chinese, we are aiming to establish the Court in 1992. we cannot get the Bill through Parliament in the 1991/92 programme, we are unlikely to be able to meet that objective. If, following the recent complications of

NITACZ/2

CONFIDENTIAL

If