THE CHINESE SIDE, THEY WOULD NOT BE TELLING US, AND THEY WOULD BE CRAZY IF THEY DID. SO I THINK THAT DEALS WITH THAT MATTER.
AS TO OUR REPORT AND THE TIMING, REMEMBER THAT THESE SELECT COMMITTEES ARE ABLE TO MAKE A CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE AND DEBATE IN TWO WAYS: ONE, BY HOLDING HEARINGS AND THE HEARINGS ARE THEN PRINTED AND PRESENTED TO PARLIAMENT, AND THAT IS GOING ON ALL THE TIME, ALREADY SOME OF OUR HEARINGS ARE IN PRINT. AND IF THERE ARE DEBATES WELL BEFORE CHRISTMAS IN THE COMMONS, OUR PRINTED PAPERS, OUR EVIDENCE, WILL BE THE BASE PAPERS FOR THAT DEBATE. AND THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE GATHERED, AS MEMBERS, TOGETHER WITH THE BRIEFINGS WE GIVE INFORMALLY TO OUR COLLEAGUES AND OTHERS WILL ALSO BE THE RAW MATERIAL FOR THAT DEBATE. SO THE INPUT WILL BEGIN FROM THE MOMENT, IN A SENSE, THAT THE COMMITTEE RETURNS TO WESTMINSTER AT THE END OF THIS WEEK.
AS TO FINAL REPORTS, WE PLAN - BUT THE BEST LAID PLANS CAN BE THROWN OVER WE WOULD PLAN TO GIVE A REALLY SENSIBLE CONSIDERED TIME TO THE MATTER, HOLD MORE HEARINGS AND PRODUCE A CONSIDERED BUT I HAVE TO SAY TO YOU, IF GREATER MOUNTAINOUS EVENTS WERE TO OCCUR IN THE MEANTIME - AND I HOPE THEY
(END OF TAPE ON SIDE A)
AFTER EVERY LATEST NEWS EVENT AND PUT OUT SHORT TERM STATEMENTS, BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO LOOK AT THE DEEP AND FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF THIS PROBLEM AND MAKE OUR CONTRIBUTION AT THAT LEVEL.
QUESTION (RADIO HONG KONG):
I WAS INTERESTED IN WHAT MR DENNIS CANAVAN WAS SAYING EARLIER, HE WAS RAISING DOUBTS ABOUT PUBLIC OPINION POLLS DONE IN HONG KONG WHICH MR PATTEN HEAVILY RELIED ON. MR CANAVAN WAS ALSO SAYING THAT THE BEST WAY TO GET PUBLIC OPINION IS BY ELECTIONS BUT ELECTION IS NOT POSSIBLE WITHOUT CHINA'S CONSENT. SO WOULD YOU REALLY BE IN SUPPORT OF A REFERENDUM WHICH PRO-DEMOCRACY GROUPS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS IDEA?
MR HOWELL:
WE WILL LET MR CANAVAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. I WAS INTERESTED IN WHAT HE WAS SAYING TOO, BUT I THINK HE IS RIGHT WHEN HE SAID THAT A REFERENDUM IS NOT ACCEPTABLE HERE AND THAT THAT IS NOT ON THE CARDS. BUT I WAS ALSO SILENTLY AGREEING WITH DENNIS CANAVAN IN HIS SCEPTICISM ABOUT OPINION POLLS, WHICH HEAVEN KNOWS, POLITICIANS MAY BE SLAVISHLY INFLUENCED BY AT TIMES, BUT OFTEN TURN OUT TO BE SPECTACULARLY WRONG. THE THING ABOUT OPINION POLLS IS, THE ANSWER YOU GET DEPENDS UPON THE WAY YOU PUT THE QUESTION OR THE CHOICE, AND SOMETIMES THE CHOICES ARE A BIT FALSE. AND IF PEOPLE ARE ASKED: WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE - LET US LOCALISE THIS - WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE STABILITY AND CONTINUITY AND NO ROW WITH CHINA, OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE MORE DEMOCRACY? OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU CAN GUIDE THE ANSWER BY THE WAY YOU PUT THE QUESTION. I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE IT IS A COMPLETELY FALSE CHOICE AND THAT THE TWO GO TOGETHER, AND THEREFORE PEOPLE WHO ARE ASKED A FALSE CHOICE MAY GIVE A FALSE ANSWER. I THINK OPINION POLLS HAVE TO BE TREATED WITH VERY GREAT CARE. ALL THEY CAN SOMETIMES INDICATE, AND THEN NOT ALWAYS, IS, IF TAKEN OVER TIME AND SHOWING US A VERY SUBSTANTIAL WEIGHT APPARENTLY IN ONE
14