CONFIDENTIAL
inadequacies in the draft and about what specific points we plan to take up with the Chinese. Given the sensitivities involved, it will
be difficult to go beyond generalities: but generalities may convey the impression that HMG are not doing enough.
3. One theoretically possible option would be to divide the evidence session into a public and a closed session, and to deal But this would be with the more sensitive issues in the latter. unwelcome to the Committee and would make a poor public impression. I recommend that this option is not pursued.
4.
The Clerk has in fact asked if we wish to give the Committee further guidance on those areas which we would prefer to be avoided Mr David Howell was of course during the formal evidence session.
warned before the Committee even began their enquiry that there was very little that could be said publicly about our negotiations with the Chinese. The Secretary of State reiterated the point at the
The clerk believes that the Committee informal briefing on 8 March. would nevertheless find it helpful to be given a more precise indication of the sensitive areas. I recommend that we explain informally to the Clerk that while we are not trying to warn the Committee to stay off those areas that are central to their enquiry (ie compatibility or 'congruence' of the Basic Law with the Joint Declaration), the Secretary of State will be able to say very little publicly about:
(a) the nature and substance of our contacts with the Chinese
about the draft;
((b)
remaining areas of difficulty in the draft and whether t
if so how we plan to take them up with the Chinese.
5.
I further recommend that we pre-empt such questions by offering an off the record background briefing by officials to cove some of this ground. The Clerk has indicated that the Committee would prefer this to receiving further written material (which in any case might present problems from our point of view)
CONFIDENTIAL
/Committee