TNAG-2169-FCO40-3106-House-of-Commons-Foreign-Affairs-Committee-inquiry-into-Hong-1990 — Page 41

(Mr Maude) One could not do that for 1995 without sacrificing the

convergence which is very much valued in Hong Kong. I believe that the

OMELCO consensus is one that commands widespread support in Hong Kong and

it was

a disappointment that those drafting the Basic Law were not

persuaded that this wold reflect the desires of the population of Hong Kong

and thus put it into effect in the Basic Law. That is regrettable and, as

I say, a disappointment. But I do not know that we would have made it

better by for 1991 adding to the numbers of directly elected seats we have

gone for.

I do not know that we would have made a significant difference

to sentiment in Hong Kong by saying that there should be 20 directly

elected seats rather than 18. I do believe it would have made it less

likely that we would have achieved the significant advances in the Basic

Law that we achieved anyway, and I believe we would have made it less

likely that we could achieve subsequent further changes in the direction I

think all of us want.

37.

You are

a lawyer, you know what it is like to settle a case

out of court.

(Mr Maude) I am an ex-lawyer.

38.

You have actually got to go in with quite a strong hand and

the puzzlement is that you are accepting a weaker hand for bargaining

purposes than perhaps you might do, bearing in mind that OMELCO has tackled

it at a quite reasonable, moderate level. That is the point. I am sure

you have got it.

(Mr Maude) I am not sure that I have.

39.

It does puzzle members of this Committee.

(Mr_Maude) I am not sure that it would have made our hand better in

persuading the Chinese of their own voluntary act to increase the number of

directly elected seats in the Basic Law by doing this, and I do not see

25

25