TNAG-2565-FCO40-3750-Hong-Kong-(Appeals)-Bill-1992 — Page 8

FROM: Private Secretary

TO:

Mrs J M Bailey

Cabinet Office

CONFIDENTIAL'

B

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME 1992/93: BIDS FOR LEGISLATION

I refer to your letter of 10 April 1992 to PS/Lord Chancellor in which you asked us to let you have a definitive list of the Bills which our Secretary of State wished to propose for the 1992/93 Legislative Programme.

I confirm that the FCO would wish to maintain those bids for the 1992/93 Legislative Programme which were agreed by the FLG Committee prior to the election, namely, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill and the Mauritius Republic Bill as candidates for early introduction in the new session and the Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill as a candidate for introduction in the autumn.

C

With regard to the Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill, the

Foreign Secretary would like to renew his bid for this Bill to be accommodated in the 1992/93 Programme but in the contingent rather than programme category. I enclose a completed pro forma for this Bill. The current position is that the Court of Final Appeal remains a controversial issue in Hong Kong. The Court will only come into being if the Hong Kong Legislature (LEGCO) can be persuaded to enact legislation. We cannot be sure that they will, especially given the rapidly changing character of LEGCO. Our present policy is to keep the matter out of the headlines and hope that in time our arguments will make the necessary impression on LEGCO. If this were to happen in the course of the 1992/93 Programme it would be essential for the Hong Kong (Appeals) Bill to be enacted as soon as possible

thereafter. It therefore seems to us that this Bill is a

strong candidate for the contingent category. If LEGCO were

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

to pass the necessary legislation, the sting would be drawn from the issue; potential opposition to the Bill would be correspondingly reduced.

We would also like to put down a marker regarding the

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill which FLG decided

could not be a candidate for inclusion in the 1992/93

Programme. It is likely that the Bill will need to be

passed in the latter half of 1993 when the CDC is expected

to exceed its current borrowing limits. However the Bill

could be introduced in the first quarter of 1993 rather than this autumn without causing undue financial problems for the

CDC. This would also enable the Bill to take account of the

CDC's quinquennial review which will be completed in the

autumn.

In your letter of 10 April you also asked us to give

you up-to-date information on the state of preparation of

each Bill on the candidate lists. The position with regard

to those Bills is as follows:

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Policy clearance has been obtained for a Bill amending the European Communities Act 1972, to incorporate into UK law the relevant provisions of the Maastricht

Treaty. Ministers have also agreed in principle to

amend Section 1(3) of the 1972 Act to head off the

threat of infraction proceedings against the UK. Ministers have not yet agreed to the proposal to use the opportunity provided by the Bill to amend Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act to enable the Government

to give effect to a wider range of Community obligations by statutory instrument. The Foreign Secretary will be writing to his colleagues requesting them not to agree to this proposal. A first draft of

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

the Bill (but not including the Section 2 (2) point) has

been prepared by Parliamentary Counsel and is now under

discussion by officials.

The Mauritius Republic Bill

Mauritius was proclaimed a Republic on 12 March 1992.

Policy clearance has been secured for the Bill and a

draft has been prepared by Parliamentary Counsel. This is being circulated around interested Whitehall

Departments.

The Foreign Compensation (Amendment) Bill

Policy clearance not yet secured and Parliamentary

Counsel have not yet been instructed.

None of the above bids would be appropriate as hand-out

Bills for Private Members. I note that you shall be writing

separately about bids for Private Members Bills and as we

have already indicated that the Overseas Development and Co-operation Bill would be suitable for a Private Members

Bill.

I am copying this letter to the recipients of your letter of 10 April.

CONFIDENTIAL

PO1AAL