T
SECRET
4. Mr Zheng then asked if it was a rule that agreements must be approved by Parliament before being sipood, He was having difficulty finding the relevant documents. I said that he would know that Parliament did not only operate on written rules. The political reality was that an agreement of this importance would have to be approved by Parliament before being signed. I was not sure about precise rulings on such matters. Minor agreements might well be signed by the Government and later put to Parliament, But for an agreement of this importance he should be in no doubt about the absolute necessity for a parliamentary debate. Furthermore, there would later be a noed for legislation on the question of sovereignty. Mr Zhong commented we should explain all these points to Peking. I said that we were trying to do so. The Embassy should also be giving these views so that Peking did not hear it just from us.
5. Mr Zheng asked whether, if we put a draft agreement to Parliament, we would then come back to the Chinese with suggested changes. I said that our objective was to reach an agreement which would be approved as drafted (having been given a fair wind by people in Hong Kong).
Hypothetically it was
possible that Parliament might reject the agreement, or part of it, with a necessity to consider with the Chinese whether an alternative formulation would meet with Parliament's approval. But this was only a hypothesis. reality. Our objective was an agreement which could and would be approved without changes.
6.
I hoped it would not become a
7.
ja
I think it might be worth giving the Embassy a briefing
on Parliamentary procedures so that they can repoft more clearly
to Peking.
THIS IS A COPY
THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN
CLOSED FOR
40...YEARS UNDER FOI EXEMPTION No....27(!).
SECRET
གལ2,་
ID C Wilson
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.