TNAG-1239-FCO40-1552-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1983 — Page 162

-4-

This

Minister had shown insensitivity in referring to the treaties. opinion is still current in some quarters. But it is contested by many, including the Executive Council.

Reactions in Parliament

8.

A number of written PQS were put down after the Prime Minister's visit, most of them by Mr Robert Parry. The Prime Minister made a written statement in reply to seven of these PQS on

18 October 1982. Four Labour MPs, including Mr Michael Foot, asked during discussion of the Business of the House on 21 October 1982 whether the Prime Minister would make an oral statement.

9. A few members of the Opposition, notably Mr Jenkins and Mr Healey, made public statements in October 1982 attacking the Prime Minister's handling of the talks and in particular her references to the treaties. These were widely reported in Hong Kong. However, the future of Hong Kong has not become a major party political issue in Parliament. No specific debate has been held on the subject and the number of PQ's put down is not great.

Reactions in the Media

10.

Coverage of the Prime Minister's visit to China and Hong Kong was extensive in the Hong Kong press. Since then, the future has remained the main subject of interest, and any new rumours or developments are endlessly analysed and commented on. As stated

above, initial reaction to the Prime Minister's talks were mixed,

but subsequently after it became clear that confidence in Hong Kong had been badly shaken, a tendency developed to blame this on the

Prime Minister's remarks about the treaties.

11. Press interest in the UK has been much lower and is usually

restricted to the reporting of specific developments eg the second

phase of the talks or the decline of the Hong Kong dollar. The