TNAG-0944-FCO40-1163-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1980 — Page 75

SECRET

الشهرة

90A

HKK 0401

RECEIVED IN Labs ite tin,

IR

23 SEP 1980

DESK OFACER

INDEX

FA

HONG KONG: NEW TERRITORIES LEASES

Present:

Sir E Youde (Deputy PUS)

(In the Chair)

Sir P Cradock (HMA Peking) Mr R D Clift (Head, HKGD) Mr R J T McLaren (Head, FED) Mr P Morrice (Assistant, HKGD)

2

MEETING ON 8 AUGUST 1980

see 27 of Накова

Sir M MacLehose (Governor of

Hong Kong)

Sir P Haddon-Cave (Financial

Secretary, Hong Kong) Mr D R Ford (Hong Kong Commissioner, London)

Dr D C Wilson (Political

Adviser, Hong Kong)

1. Discussion was on the basis of a paper entitled "Points Requiring Further Elaboration", the draft "Points to Make" for the brief for the Secretary of State's forthcoming visit to China, and minutes by Mr Rushford (Legal Adviser) and Mr Griffiths (Attorney- General of Hong Kong) of a meeting of lawyers held on 1 August.

2.

Agreement was reached on the following points:

(a) Whatever steps were taken on the leases issue, they should have

the endorsement of, or be acquiesced in by the Chinese.

(b) Unilateral action on leases in the New Territories taken by

the Hong Kong Government which purported to ignore 1997 would be unacceptable to China.

(c) If a lease going beyond 1997 were requested by a Chinese

Government agency or official organisation, the Chinese Govern- ment should be told that the Hong Kong Government were ready to grant the lease, but that it was possible its immediate (let alone long term) validity could be challenged under British

If this happened and the contingency was theoretical the validity of this and any other similar lease could be established very quickly by a UK Order-in-Council. Having put the matter to Peking once, China would not need to be approached about subsequent requests for long leases.

law.

(d) In the case of the development at (c), we should explain to

both the applicant and the Chinese Government the alternative possibility of a periodic lease without termination time bar. Such a lease would be terminable if the land was required for "public purposes". This alternative involved no mention of a future date, its validity was not open to challenge, and it required no legislation.

SECRET

/(e)

Page 75Page 76