TNAG-2716-FCO40-3922-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 131

complete. My view is that so far as the legal position is concerned closer

co-operation means that we certainly have an obligation to consult the

Chinese but it says nothing on the question of the timing of that and

indeed we have fulfilled that obligation by the discussions which are

taking place now.

(Mr Hum)

The Foreign

Chairman, could I perhaps add a point on that.

Secretary has confirmed on a number of occasions that as you state the

Chinese side was briefed in detail on the proposals which were going to be

put forward in the address by the Governor. This took place at a meeting

at the United Nations about a fortnight in advance. In addition to that

there were certain communications with the Chinese authorities in Peking.

AS soon as it was feasible, practicable, after those proposals were made

the Governor himself travelled to Peking for a round of discussions with

the Chinese authorities. It was made absolutely clear both in public and

in private that the proposals which the Governor was putting forward, the

British side's proposals, were proposals and nothing more. They were put

forward in order to launch a process of discussion which we expected to

take place in Hong Kong and of course between the British and Chinese

sides. It was the beginning of the process and in no sense the end of the

process or a fait accompli. We did all we could to begin that process in

the briefing that we gave and in the Governor's own talks in Peking. It is

really only a matter of regret as far as we are concerned that there was

then a very considerable hiatus before we were able to begin the talks

which eventually began in April of this year.

58.

Mr Sumberg

Can I just clarify with Mr Hum the timing of the Governor's

visit? The visit to which you referred was the first visit that he made to

Peking after he was appointed, was it not?

12