TNAG-1309-FCO40-1666-Future-of-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 136

SECRET

4.

Mr Zheng then asked if it was a rule that agreements must be approved by Parliament before being signed. 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 need

for legislation on the question of sovereignty. Mr Zheng 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. I hoped it would not become a reality. Our objective was an agreement which could and would be approved without changes.

6.

7.

I think it might be worth giving the Embassy a briefing on Parliamentary procedures so that they can report more to Peking.

THIS IS A COPY

THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN

CLOSED FOR

40.YEARS UNDER FOI

EXEMPTION No. 27(1)

SECRET

C Wilson

-2-

こ