discussion. The involvement of China at this time in the project was a delicate issue and would have to be handled with
care.
B.
DAYA BAY
Mr Day set out the background to this project
-
the building of a second power station had been raised by The Chairman of GNPJVC on his recent trip to Europe. It seemed to be a straight race between the French and British companies involved in the first station. However recently it had become clear that GEC/Alsthom are pressing Framatome (builders of the nuclear island) for a repeat of the first station on grounds of compatibility. Mr Adams felt the political/environmental dimension was a major problem and invited comments. Mr Paul explained that the first project had generated a lot of bad feeling (a petition had generated 1,000 signatures) and it was likely that a stronger negative display would be shown this time with possible demonstrations. Mr Adams acknowledged these problems, particularly in the light of the current negative feeling towards the UK in Hong Kong, but stressed that we could not prevent GEC from pursuing this commercial objective, adding that it would be wise to brief Ministers on
the situation.
C.
CHINA PROJECTS
Mr Adams observed that:-
(a)
(b)
(c)
At the present time there are four projects in China where we have offered ATP support but where contracts have not been finalised. These projects were (i) CAAC, (ii) Bejing Metro, (iii) Factory 520 and (iv) Bohai II.
We currently find ourselves placed in an awkward situation in view of the Madrid Summit Declaration and the interpretation of this by other EC countries.
The companies involved have put a lot of work into pursuing these projects and we should continue to support them as far as possible.
Mr Palmer reiterated part (b) above by referring to the telex he had sent out to EC Posts seeking information on the position being taken by Member States. The replies had led us to believe that each country was interpreting the declaration in a different way, and Mr Palmer concluded that we could therefore defend ourselves in treating the four projects as commitments. Mr Seaton took the view that as most of our Community partners were in the same dilemma as us we should not take cover under their actions. This view was supported by Miss Vowles who also stressed the importance of timing in consideration of this problem as all ATP offers were only valid for fixed periods of time.
2