TNAG-1167-FCO40-1447-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1982 — Page 58

C

01-405 7641 Ext.

3229

Comications on this subject should

be d

ssed to

THE LEGAL SECRETARY

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS

Enter a

ん

me

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CHAMBERS,

LAW OFFICERS' DEPARTMENT,

ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE,

212

83

LONDON, W.C.2.

45

Our Ref: 400/79/177

Your Ref: HKK 040/1

N

25 February, 1982

See 19

p

Der Clift

FUTURE OF HONG KONG

1.

We spoke the other day about your letter to me of 10 February and I have now got round to reading the papers. I should say at once that I am sorry that I have not responded before now to the copies which Tony Rushford sent me of his various minutes and I am particularly sorry that I could not do so before he retired.

2.

ST

91

1176

Another preliminary point is that, although paragraph 3 of your letter indicates that you intended to enclose with it a copy of your draft paper and although it was in fact accompanied by a copy of your letter of 10 February to Robin McLaren which transmitted the paper to Hong Kong and Peking, the copy of the paper itself has not been sent to me (and, indeed, the letter to McLaren is marked to be copied to me "without enclosures"). Could you now send me a copy of the paper?

3. Perhaps I ought to wait until I have seen the paper before I make up my mind on whether I can usefully comment at this stage. But my present inclination is to say that I cannot. The whole discussion seems to me to be too much at large, with too many variables and too many unanswered (perhaps unanswerable) questions of fact, for it to be sensible for me to express any views. Certainly, there is nothing with which I would think it right to trouble the Attorney-General at this stage.

I could, I suppose, give you my reaction to the various propositions set out in Tony Rushford's minute to Ian Sinclair of 2 February most of which I would accept but some of which I have reservations about - but these reactions would merely reproduce the

w

SECRET

/comments