5.
The aim would be to sound out the Chinese Government in time for their acceptance of the invitation (assuming that they do accept) tobe announced around mid-September when contracts for the plant are to be signed.
a
6. I discussed this idea with Eddie Ryder, who understood the
We agreed on importance of the project and was willing to help.
number of points:-
i. the most that he could offer would be one and a half days with the NII;
ii. he saw no objection tothe rest of, say, a week's visit being taken up by discussions with the UKAEA's SRD, and with CEGB, possibly under some sort of NII auspices;
iii. so far as other pressures permitted, he would much prefer a date early next year to a date in the remainder of 1986;
iv. the visit should be self-contained and should not be presented to the Chinese as the start of continuing help with their regulatory system. If, after the visit they ask for more help, we can respond as seems best.
7. We agreed that, as the next step, I should ask you to draw up an outline programme for a visit of about a week to the UK which could be put to the Chinese and, eventually published to show the people of Hong Kong that we are doing the job properly. I suggest that you should make David Levey your contact in the AEA to discuss what SRD might play. I shall speak to CEGB to see whether, as I hope, they will be willing to help, and to obtain the name of a contact.
8. Given the political timetable, it would be helpful to have your ideas by mid-August. Although the reminder must be unnecessary, hard experience makes me ask you to be careful not to include in the course anything which could give rise to non-proliferation sensitivities. Fortunately, a discussion of regulatory systems for nuclear safety should not be raise this problem in any acute form.
9. I am sending a copy of this letter to David Levey in the UKAEA and, by way of a record of our conversation, to Eddie Ryder.
PH AGRELL