Mr Paul, HK.) What; the fortiori
32
CONFIDENTIAL
Was 312014
2 х ні
7 ?
1572
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
10 APR 1990
GOFFICER THESERT HON
RECORD OF A MEETING BETWEEN THE SECRETARY JOP MERLIN REES MP AND RT HON PETER SHORE MP: INDEXANUADRA 1 9 omction Taken
1. The Secretary of State said that he wanted. personally how he saw things in Hong Kong. On the question of democracy, articulate people in the territory were hooked on the magic figure of 20 directly elected seats in 1991. Equally, the Chinese Government was now hooked on not having 20 such seats in that year.
In the last few days there had been signs of compromise. Britain was trying for a through train beyond 1997 but we should have to tread a tightrope between the expectations of Hong Kong and the limited tolerance of the Peking leadership. He agreed with Mr Shore that the Chinese would probably insist on prescribing in the basic law the number of seats to be directly elected in the years after 1991.
2. Both the Civil Service and the business community in Hong Kong had told the Secretary of State that they were very concerned to get the assurances scheme through Parliament. A lot was at stake in the territory. The Government had made no decision yet on the timing of the Bill but it would not keep well. A long delay would make people in Hong Kong suspicious of the Government's intentions.
3. The Secretary of State said that he had been surprised by the virulence of feeling in Hong Kong against Vietnamese Boat People. Mr Shore agreed and added that he believed that any new influx during 1990 might lead to "horrible" reactions inside Hong Kong and that there would be a serious risk of violence. Mr Shore asked about the state of international talks on the Boat People. The Secretary of State said that the American Administration was shifting its position but in a somewhat confused way. He said that the latest idea from Washington was that repatriation could be accepted but only from the beginning of 1991. Mr Shore agreed that this would place Hong Kong in an impossible position.
4. Mr Rees asked if there would be a White Paper before the Bill on Hong Kong citizenship rights. The Secretary of State said no. ACTION OVERLEAF
*
5. Mr Shore said that the Government needed to do more to spell out the reasons for its new legislation. Key elements of the Government's case were:
that Section 4.5 of the British Nationality Act 1981 applied only to Crown Servants and not to people in the private sector;
to provide some reasoned explanation for the figure of 50,000 heads of households. At the moment it seemed arbitrary. Could not the Government give some indication of the main categories of people who would be beneficiaries and in what numbers?
CONFIDENTIAL
the