TNAG-0742-FCO40-946-Relations-between-China-and-Hong-Kong-1978 — Page 141

HKK 020/1

SVED IN

DESK OFF

INDEX

1 AUG 1978

PA

दह

No loh cię

Mr Quantrill,

HKGD

Cc: Mr Cortazzi

CONFIDENTIAL

CHINESE POLICIES TOWARDS HONG KONG

Yes. PACK

A Thompson

81

( you already love

a copy of this I believe?)

8227/1

1. In Lord Goronwy-Roberts' meeting with the Governor of Hong Kong on 19 July we discussed the need to consider the whole question of developments in Hong Kong, including possibly a move towards political institutions, in preparation for the agreement that will have to be reached with the Chinese within the next few years. Sir Murray MacLehose concentrated on the question of land leases and the need for legislation to remove 1997 as the terminal date as the single most important requirement in the immediate future. Lord Goronwy-Roberts made it clear that, though the lease question was important, we were thinking in much wider terms; and that although there was no hurry, we should wish to start soon on a comprehensive review of policy.

2. Subsequently, at lunch, Mr Cortazzi and I went over this again with Sir Murray MacLehose, who repeated that the most important and difficult issue, in his view, was the leases question, and that once this had been resolved - with Chinese acquiescence - other aspects of future development in Hong Kong would be relatively easy to consider. He showed a disinclination to move from this particular issue to a wider review, but accepted that it should take place. Accordingly I repeated to him the wording I had used in the meeting with the Minister of State, stressing that this was not a precise FCO formulation, but just an indication of terms of reference which might emerge more precisely in coming months. The wording was:-

Given the recent indications of Chinese attitudes, which suggest we might assume a continuation of the status quo after 1997, we should consider what developments need to be put into effect in Hong Kong, both for themselves and also to remove the constraints imposed by the lease termination date. We should form a judge- ment on the extent to which these needs would be acceptable to, or conflict with, what we know about Chinese attitudes and adapt them accordingly. We should then consider how we should reveal our thoughts to the Chinese, so as to draw the reactions we need for future planning policy.

3.

You will need to consider whether the above wording, subject to any amendments suggested by Mr Cortazzi or other Departments in the FCO, might be worked into whatever reply you are drafting to Sir Murray MacLehose's letter of 6 July to Mr McLaren, which was ultimately sent by Sir Denys Roberts.

Shu

21 July 1978

CONFIDENTIAL

DF Murray