TNAG-1330-FCO40-1757-Future-of-Hong-Kong-test-of-the-acceptability-of-the-Joint-D-1984 — Page 291

CONFIDENTIAL

5. Sir Patrick of course has a point. However the form of

consultation was chosen by Ministers after a careful consideration

of the possibilities and constraints. I do not think it would have

been right to draw up the terms of reference of the Monitors in such

a way that they would in effect be adjudicating on whether or not

Ministers had got it right.

6.

Sir Patrick is I think also suggesting that his report might

need to comment on the way in which the agreement had been

publicised in Hong Kong. This is not specifically in the terms of

reference, though they do state that the team should "be free to

witness such aspects of the exercise of consultation....

may wish".

as it

7.

I think in fact that it would be surprising if the Monitors did

not make some reference to these aspects at least in the

introduction to their report, and if the reference was in positive

terms, it would be helpful if they did. I suggest that the

Secretary of State might say this. But I do not think that the

terms of reference should be broadened (and Sir P Nairne does not

suggest this).

8.

In general I think it will be useful if there is plenty of

informal consultation and exchange of ideas between the Hong Kong

Government, the Assessment Office, and the Monitors as the exercise

proceeds. Such exchanges should not need to be confirmed by the

terms of reference.

5 September 1984

гретый

A C Galsworthy

Hong Kong Department

CONFIDENTIAL