TNAG-2717-FCO40-3923-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 25

kind of immunity.

I think we might have been able, if we had played this right and skilfully, to extract some informal assurance from the Chinese about the future of people like that, but by what we are doing I am afraid we are casting away any chance we have of exercising influence upon the Chinese on this, or indeed almost any other matter.

Mr David Harris: Another question I wanted to ask you was when this Committee visited China, we tried very hard to extract from the Chinese their precise reasons why they felt, or why they maintained, that the Governor's policies are contrary to the understandings expressed in the Joint Declaration and in the Basic Law. Now Sir Percy has touched on this already. Is it his information that it is the lack of consultations, or the alleged lack of consultations, which they put forward, because they would not give us any reasons at all

Sir Percy Cradock: It was one

Mr David Harris: But are there other ones as well?

Because when we questioned academics about it.-

Sir Percy Cradock: There is a general belief they have that what we are doing in sum is to breach what I call the political in-constitution settlements that had been reached in 1984 and 1990, that we have done a 180° turn. That is the effect of a number of our actions. They think that is wrong and that we should have stuck to the Basic Law and they will argue this for ever as I am sure you are aware. As I have said, I do not want to go into the precise pros and cons of it. The point to clutch to is that this is what they believe and this is what they will act on.

Chairman:

are where we are.

What happens next.

We

Can we just ask this sort of question? You have great experience in these things. Mr Sumberg had a question on that.

Mr David Sumberg: It is that point, really. Given that, in your view, we should not be where we are, but as the Chairman says, we are, so what would you now be advising the

22

1

!