TNAG-1028-FCO40-1278-Visits-by-Members-of-Parliament-to-Hong-Kong-1981 — Page 71

¿

Press Conference by Mr. David Steel on 28.4.81

છે.

And at the

A: I think the best way I can answer is by telling you that we did discuss

this matter in Peking but not at the highest level, because we thought we are going to have quite a short meeting with the Vice-chairman of the Party, and in fact it turned out to be an hour and a half, and had I . known that before hand, I might well have included this in the matters to be raised. l'ut I didn't for the very single reason that Lord Carrington had been there so recently and had been discussing this subject that it was unlikely that I was going to get any new statement from the Peking government within a fortnight of the Foreign Secretary's visit, so it was really pointless for me to raise it at the top level. level it was discussed we got exactly the same kind of answer that Lord Carrington had got from Vice-chairman Deng whom he saw, and that was that the Peking government wished to assure investors in HK that

(another whatever happened their position would be assured ...... question was raised)

May I finish That's what I'm going to I haven't finished. That is of course not a satisfactory answer say. from the Mainland Government and what I have said and I repeat here is that my own view is that formal discussions should begin in the reasonably near future about the future of HK once the lease expires, and that is in the first instance, in my view, inevitably a matter of legel discussion between the British government who holds the lease and the Chinese government who up to now have continued to say they don't even recognise that. The trouble is that it's not only a

and therefore political issue but also a highly technically legal one,

I think there have to be formal discussions fairly soon. Now you ask me where does the initiative lie. I think it would be fair to say that the British government has impressed on the Chinese government that this is an important matter which cannot simply be left drifting on towards 1997

That was one of the reasons for Lord Carrington's visit to Mainland China. But that does not represent the start of formal negotiations. And I would think that within the next year or two it would be necessary to open formal negotiations. My view, and I'm also speaking very frankly, giving you my personal opinion, is that before that happens we really have to wait for the Chinese government to sort out their internal leadership question, because one doesn't know to whom one was talking and it wouldn't be very productive to raise this issue at a higher level now. I did ask Vice-chairman Li when they intended to make progress on their patterns of leadership.

And he told me that they might possibly have a plenum meeting in May or June, although it could be postponed. But we must all hope naturally that the issue of leadership and cohesion of the Mainland government in China will be sorted out in the next few months and that thereafter there could be proper negotiation between the two governments, because it is obviously not in the interest of all the people of HK, leave aside the minority who are the investors, it is not in the interest of anybody to have this uncertain status going on as we get nearer the deadline of 1997. For example, I'm told that most mortgage payments are over a 15 year period, well it would be somewhat unsatisfactory in law to have mortgage repayments for properties which people are buying houses in the sort of scheme which I have seen, existing beyond the date at which the British government has legal authority to grant the land. So I think this issue has got to be raised in the rallij mar ibok.