Dr Wilson
CONFIDENTIAL
From:
PJ Westmacott
Date: 24 July 1986
CC: Mr Hum, HKD
Mr Roberts, News Dept FED
EMILY LAU
1.
Emily Lau spent 45 minutes with Mr Renton this morning, on the understanding that his remarks were unattributable (ie "the London view is ...") unless otherwise stated.
2. On the JLG, Mr Renton said that he expected less fanfare this time around, but that good progress had been made so far. You would no doubt fill in some of the details when you saw Ms Lau on Saturday. Asked whether HMG were now finding the Chinese more co-operative, Mr Renton said that Chinese officials seemed to become more understanding of our difficulties as their knowledge of the detail increased. They seemed now to appreciate that we were not trying to pull the wool over their eyes. Ms Lau looked sceptical.
3. Ms Lau asked whether HMG would explain publicly its interpretation of "accountability”. Mr Renton said he thought it more useful to develop an informal dialogue with the Chinese, during which we could explore with them the options in the area of constitutional development, than to reach for the dictionary and issue principled statements in vacuo.
4.
Ms Lau asked what options we had put to the Chinese. The people of Hong Kong were, as Mr Renton would know, sensitive to the idea that HMG would allow Peking a veto. Mr Renton said that there was no question of offering the Chinese a list of options to choose from. He could say, for Ms Lau's own information only, that in our informal contacts, designed to ensure compatibility between the basic law and the outcome of the 1987 Review, we had sought to inform the Chinese of the issues which the Review was likely to examine. He would not be drawn on what those issues were. Ms Lau thought this made good sense. Could she not use it in her article? Mr Renton said he could not allow her to go further than record that informal contacts were in progress at a variety of levels. Since she persisted, Mr Renton suggested that
CONFIDENTIAL