(ii)
CONFIDENTIAL
members of the supporting staff for the Joint Liaison Group were in London, circumstances could arise when an individual claimed immunity and the courts
courts might subsequently rule that he did not possess this. We could however reasonably argue to the Chinese that we had fulfilled to the letter the
obligations spelt out
in
the agreement, and that the legal point at issue was a general matter relating to the interpretation of an obscure
of international law.
area of
a more explicit granting of
the Chinese might press for
privileges and immunities to their personnel, particularly in Hong Kong. (See para 10 (ii) below).
OPTION B
8. When our supporting personnel are in China for meetings of the group or sub-groups, we could notify the Chinese MFA that they were temporarily attached to the Embassy. We would need to consider
whether and how this might be done for Hong Kong personnel. We would probably need to concede a similar procedure (or a similar degree of immunity) for Chinese personnel in London and Hong Kong.
9. The advantages of this option are that:
(i)
once again any extension of the Bill would be avoided.
(ii)
we believe that this is already the procedure which we follow in respect of official British visitors to in Peking.
(iii)
10.
(i)
there would be greater certainty about the degree of protection enjoyed by our personnel in Peking.
The disadvantages of this option are that:
if a Chinese covered by such arrangements in London was to
commit an offence and to claim immunity as a member of the Embassy on temporary attachment, there could conceivably be criticism in Parliament that immunity had been extended to him in that way rather than by way of legislation subject to
CONFIDENTIAL