00 F C O
PP PEKING
HKK
RECINOJ RA
MAT NO. 51
2 8 AUG 1980
GARS 252
DESK OFF INDEX
PA
REGISTRY Action T
Helf
A
HKEGS
SECRET
FM HONG KONG 281030Z AUGUST 80
TO IMMEDIATE F C O
TELEGRAM NUMBER 1982 OF 28 AUGUST
INFO PRIORITY PEKING
FOR HEAD OF H K AND G D
Original at: KOHO!
This Copy for:
Никоно
Information only / Action on Para(s)
MIPT: RECORD OF MEETING ON 8 AUGUST
1. I SUGGEST THE FOLLOWING REDRAFT OF PARA 2 (B) TO (D):
QUOTE
(B) UNILATERAL ACTION ON LEASES IN THE NEW TERRITORIES TAKEN BY THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT WHICH PURPORTED TO IGNORE 1997 WOULD
BE UNACCEPTABLE TO CHINA.
(C) IF A LEASE GOING BEYOND 1997 WERE REQUESTED BY A CHINESE COVERNMENT AGENCY OR OFFICIAL CRGANISATION, THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE TOLD THAT THE HONG KONG GOVERNMENT WERE READY TO GRANT THE LEASE, BUT THAT IT WAS POSSIBLE ITS IMMEDIATE (LET ALONE LONG TERM) VALIDITY COULD BE CHALLENGED UNDER BRITISH LAW. IF THIS HAPPENED - AND THE CONTINGENCY WAS THEORETICAL THE VALIDITY OF THIS AND ANY OTHER SIMILAR LEASE COULD BE ESTABLISHED VERY QUICKLY BY A UK ORDER-IN-COUNCIL. HAVING PUT THE MATTER TO PEKING ONCE, CHINA WOULD NOT NEED TO BE APPROACHED ABOUT SUBSEQUENT REQUESTS FOR LONG LEASES.
(D) IN THE CASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AT (C), WE SHOULD EXPLAIN TO BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE CHINESE GOVERNMENT THE ALTERNATIVE POSSIBILITY OF A PERIODIC LEASE WITHOUT TERMINATION TIME BAR. SUCH A LEASE WOULD BE TERMINABLE IF THE LAND WAS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES. THIS ALTERNATIVE INVOLVED NO MENTION OF A FUTURE DATE, ITS VALIDITY WAS NOT OPEN TO CHALLENGE, AND IT REQUIRED NO LEGISLATION.
UNQUOTE
2. IN DRAFT PARA (E) INSERT ''AT LEAST'' BEFORE THE AUTUMN CF 1981' INSERT ''PROBABLY AFTER **WOULD IN THIRD
SENTENCE.
MACLEHOSE