CONFIDENTIAL
proposals for the 1994/95 elections breach the provisions of the Joint Declaration, Basic Law and the substance of the 1990
exchanges. It would be good to ensure that the FAC have a
clear understanding of our side of this argument. We know
that some FAC members found their Chinese interlocutors
inflexible and unreasonable and an FAC report supporting our position would be very helpful, particularly if the talks
broke down.
B
C
We
4. But giving evidence on these issues is not risk-free.
cannot expect to have an easy ride. We are satisfied on legal
grounds that our proposals are consistent with the provisions
of the JD and BL, and that there can be no legal breach of the
1990 exchanges (because they did not constitute an agreement).
But it is true, in policy terms that what we conditionally
proposed in 1990 is different in some respects from our
proposals of 1992. This is not a new argument and we have a
sound defence: ie the 1990 exchanges were inconclusive, further discussions were therefore required and are now
underway.
5.
We should also need to guard against any inclination by the FAC to delve behind our policy decisions for any inconsistency with the legal advice given to Ministers and the
Governor. In the context of our proposals it would not be
appropriate for us to disclose whether, or what legal advice
was sought or given.
6.
The Cabinet Office Memorandum for Guidance for officials
appearing before Select Committees makes clear (paras 7-10)
that officials attend on behalf of Ministers and that
Ministers may decide which officials should represent them.
The Governor and Sir R McLaren agree with our view that we
cannot refuse the FAC's request (HK telno 1682 and Peking
sub.facreport.MORRIS
JEB
CONFIDENTIAL