#
3.
GUARANTEES:
(a) Mr Healey said that a written agreement could not provide an
absolute guarantee against fundamental political change. He
added that the United Kingdom could take no action against China
if the agreement was broken. The best guarantee he said was the
economic benefit that China drew from the territory.
(b) Mr Adley (Conservative) said that absolute guarantees were
impossible. He said that if the Chinese reneged they would earn
the opprobrium of the world.
(c) Sir Humphrey Atkins (Conservative) said that there could be no
guarantee. However the People's Republic of China had honoured
international agreements in the past and had an economic interest in the continued prosperity of Hong Kong. This view was echoed by Sir P Blaker (Conservative) Mr Wrigglesworth
(SDP) Mr Walden (Conservative) and Sir Ian Percival
(Conservative).
4. NEED FOR A DETAILED AGREEMENT:
(a) Mr Healey said that a detailed agreement would increase
confidence in Hong Kong, but China saw policies for the
territory after 1997 as an internal question.
(b) Mr Heath emphasises the need for an internationally registered
agreement.
(c) Sir Paul Bryan (Conservative) pressed for a detailed agreement.
This view was echoed in the debate by Mr Clarke (Labour), Mr
Soames (Conservative), Sir P Blaker (Conservative), Mr Miller
(Conservative), Sir Philip Goodhart (Conservative) and Sir Ian
Percival (Conservative). All of whom pressed for a binding and
detailed agreement. Mr Walden (Conservative) said that the
agreement should be particularly detailed in the financial
sphere.
5.
ACCEPTABILITY:
(a) Mr Healey agreed that a referendum was impossible and that other
means must be used to ascertain the acceptability of any
agreement.
(b) Mr Heath said that it was wrong to suggest that every aspect of
the final agreement should be acceptable to most of the people