TNAG-2717-FCO40-3923-House-of-Commons-Select-Committee-on-Foreign-Affairs-enquiry-1993 — Page 76

CONFIDENTIAL

4. However, it is likely that three of Sir P Cradock's criticisms may be seized upon by the press and we may be asked for direct comment. These were:

(a)

(b)

(c)

5.

There was a major change in HMG's policy in October 1992 from one of negotiation/cooperation to one of confrontation/unilateralism;

The Chinese had a point in believing that we had breached Annex II of the Joint Declaration (ie that there shall be closer cooperation in the second half of the transition period) by "refusing consultation" over the Patten proposals.

Our policy will result in Chinese dismantling LegCo in 1997 and replacing it with a subservient legislature.

Pressed on this second point by David Howell, Sir P Cradock said that he was quoting from his book which had been approved by the FCO; that we had given the Chinese an outline of the Patten proposals two weeks before the LegCo address. The Chinese had asked for consultations before we went public and "we had said no". The fact is that, although we declined to hold up publication we made clear (and the Governor said so in his address) that these were proposals which would need to be discussed with the Chinese side. I

suspect, however, that the press may focus on the angle that the FCO have approved an account which alleges that we refused consultation.

misrepresentation.

Thomin

J C Morris

If so, we shall need to correct this

ал

It is mischievous of Si P. Calch to witty thi his book was 'apparat' of the Fes. We certainly de oto was his julgaments. If this pruit comes and, the he subrutte the tile for hewarce,

yone, on

we need t

and

Chad

we wiliamlet that shile we could at acest

CONFIDENTIAL

many 1 his judgments

in

had as

Sjection to publication.

Cm 3/10 ски