SECRET.
HKB 025/1 hote
1 |
©
FROM: P Ricketts HKD DATE: 2 January 1992
cc: Mr Cox
Mr Stone
Ms Saunders
Mr Wye, RAD
Ms Brooks
Legal Advisers
COLONIAL LAWS VALIDITY ACT
1. I attach a copy of Hong Kong Telno 3931, together with some comments from Mr Burns.
2. I. would be grateful for your thoughts on the points raised in these papers. The Hong Kong telegram asks one specific point about the procedures for Orders in Council (para 13), and I would welcome your views on that. I think it would also be worth making our own assessment of the Act and considering whether we agree with the Governor's preferred option. You will see that Mr Burns asks (his para 2) how far LegCo could in practice go in voting through constitutional change on the basis of this Act. To take an extreme example, could they vote to abolish EXCO? or to make: the Governor accountable to LegCo? He also asks (his para 4) whether it would be possible to interpret the Act to mean that it only came into force when LegCo had a majority of directly elected seats. I imagine Hong Kong would have thought of that if it was a real option, but again your views. would be welcome.
3.
My first
I. would be grateful if Ms Saunders could lead on this subject in HKD, given its constitutional implications. But if Mr Cox or Mr Stone can recall papers either in the context: of deciding the number of directly elected seats, or of. other amendments to the Letters Patent, or if they have views, perhaps they could feed them to. Ms Saunders. reaction is that the approach in para 12 is probably the best: there seems little point in: incurring the political cost of putting an Order in Council through the House of Commons unless we are clear that there is a real threat of the Act being invoked in Hong Kong. But it would obviously be crucial to be sure that we could if necessary get an Order. in Council through quickly.. Could it be done in a. Parliamentary recess?
Pelchion
PRicketts
Hong Kong: Department
NFJABG:
SECRET
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.