TNAG-1602-FCO40-2198-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1987 — Page 279

RESTRICTED

British Embassy

11 Guang Hua Lu Jian Guo Men Wai Peking People's Republic of China

Telex 22191 Cable Prodrome Peking

Telephone 521961/2/3/4/5

22548514 or slee 254

Cro

か

alu

га

Basic Law

Ture bustalons

NA.

CO Hum Esq

Hong Kong Department

FCO

Dear Chnstopin

BLCC

A&B 011 3

09 APR 1987

PA

Your reference

Our reference

Date

020/393/9B

25 March 1987

1. One snippet that I meant to pass to you last week came to me during a typical Hong Kong dinner party. Brian Tisdall, some time practising barrister, more recently a legal consultant, and still an office holder in the Hong Kong Law Society, told me that he intended. to propose the winding up of the Basic Law Consultative Committee of which he was a member. His disillusionment with the BLCC came about because he felt that the Committee was at one further remove from the Basic Law Drafting process than it should be. In his view the Chinese were doing the drafting, the BLDC was the consultative body and the BLCC was no more than window dressing. He and his committee colleagues were therefore wasting their time. He intended to say all this when moving his motion at the next Committee meeting.

2.

I pointed out that in my view Hong Kong people should take advantage of any body which offered, or might offer, some input however insubstantial into the Basic Law formulation process. Although I took his point about lack of direct involvement by the BLCC, the Committee did represent a wider constituency than the BLDC. If relations between the two Committees were as they should be some influence by BLCC members should be possible via the BLDC, even if the BLDC was fullfilling a consultative rather than a formulative role. Tisdall was not persuaded.

Yans Peter

CC:

R Peirce Esq DPA, HONG KONG

PAB THOMSON

RESTRICTED