TNAG-2462-FCO40-3583-Application-of-Colonial-Laws-Validity-Act-in-Hong-Kong-1992 — Page 22

24KB c25/1

Submissio

Ps

416/10

Сори

Cox

Coon Male Sander

Mr Ricketts HKD

& ketts

Ms

P

tock to

ме

FROM:

DATE:

CC:

Miss S Brooks

Legal Counsellor

16 January 1991

Mr Cox, HKD

Mr Stone, HKD

Ms Saunders, HKD

Mr Bunten, HKD

Mr Morris, HKD

Mr Wye, RAD Mr Chamberlain,

Deputy Legal Adviser

16%

APPLICATION OF COLONIAL LAWS VALIDITY ACT 1865 TO HONG KONG

1. I refer to Ms Saunders's draft submission of 15 January on this subject. I have a number of points which I would like to make concerning the draft submission.

2. My reading of Hong Kong telno 95 of 10 January is that the Governor is not in favour of 'reservation' as the chosen option since it would still be necessary to decide whether to disallow the Bill. However, a reserved Bill does not require disallowance. It simply exists in limbo unless assent is given to it within two years. My preference for

reservation' as the option is because it would allow for a Bill amending LEGCO's constitution to be reserved indefinitely.

3.

The reservation option, Option B, in Hong Kong telno 3931 is to amend the Letters Patent so as to require any Bill purporting to alter the constitution and procedures of LEGCO to be reserved. This option was based on advice given by Mr Fifoot in his minute of 27 January 1987. At present, the Governor has a discretion to reserve Bills. A Letters Patent amendment which would remove that discretion in the case of Bills to amend LEGCO's constitution so as to make the reservation of such Bills mandatory has the advantage of drawing some fire from the Governor. But I see more advantage at this stage in relying on the exisiting general power to reserve legislation without further amendment. The existing general power to reserve legislation in Article XI of the Letters Patent would enable the Governor to reserve Bills of the Legislative Council which purported to alter or amend its constitution without further amendment of the

AELABV