TNAG-2715-FCO40-3921-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 44

CONFIDENTIAL

proposals for the 1994/95 elections breach the provisions of the Joint Declaration, Basic Law and the substance of the 1990

exchanges. It would be good to ensure that the FAC have a

clear understanding of our side of this argument. We know

that some FAC members found their Chinese interlocutors

inflexible and unreasonable and an FAC report supporting our position would be very helpful, particularly if the talks

broke down.

B

C

We

4. But giving evidence on these issues is not risk-free.

cannot expect to have an easy ride. We are satisfied on legal

grounds that our proposals are consistent with the provisions

of the JD and BL, and that there can be no legal breach of the

1990 exchanges (because they did not constitute an agreement).

But it is true, in policy terms that what we conditionally

proposed in 1990 is different in some respects from our

proposals of 1992. This is not a new argument and we have a

sound defence: ie the 1990 exchanges were inconclusive, further discussions were therefore required and are now

underway.

5.

We should also need to guard against any inclination by the FAC to delve behind our policy decisions for any inconsistency with the legal advice given to Ministers and the

Governor. In the context of our proposals it would not be

appropriate for us to disclose whether, or what legal advice

was sought or given.

6.

The Cabinet Office Memorandum for Guidance for officials

appearing before Select Committees makes clear (paras 7-10)

that officials attend on behalf of Ministers and that

Ministers may decide which officials should represent them.

The Governor and Sir R McLaren agree with our view that we

cannot refuse the FAC's request (HK telno 1682 and Peking

sub.facreport.MORRIS

JEB

CONFIDENTIAL