CHINA yesterday warned Britain not to rush the Court of Final Appeal bill through the Legislative Council without its consent. Insisting that a number of vital issues related to the court remained unresolved, Lu Ping, director of the Hong Kong and Macau Affairs Office, said: 'We do not believe that we should rush into short-term, short-sighted decisions.' Mr Lu suggested Governor Chris Patten did not understand the issue. Mr Patten said on Wednesday the Preliminary Working Committee (PWC) did not understand the time needed to set up the court when it said it could form one on July 1, 1997. In additional remarks not included in his prepared speech, Mr Lu said: 'Somebody in Hong Kong said there seems to be no such need [for the PWC to draft its own court plan]. Somebody said we do not understand the situation,' he said. 'I believe it is the one who said such things who does not understand what is going on, and has not much idea about the Basic Law. Otherwise he would not say that,' Mr Lu said. 'We have not simplified the question of the court on the way. We believe it is very complex and we need to sit down for discussion.' Mr Lu said in his speech that issues such as judicial jurisdiction and the appointment procedure for judges were complicated and 'we have to look a little further' into them because they might have a long-term impact on the territory. 'I hope that the British side will adopt a co-operative attitude on the question,' he said. Mr Patten said it was sensible for Mr Lu to talk to him or the Chief Secretary Anson Chan Fang On-sang if he had any problems about the appeal court bill. 'I'm surprised that anybody, whether Director Lu or anybody else should say that we're rushing all this,' he said, noting that the JLG agreement was made in 1991 and the bill given to China more than a year ago. A government spokesman said Mr Lu had failed to address the call for the early establishment of the court before 1997, which was a 'pressing issue that is already affecting business confidence'. It would be reassuring if Mr Lu specified when China would agree for the bill to be taken to Legco, he said. 'The community would like to know, in layman's terms, what difficulties they have with it and in what ways they consider it diverges from the 1991 agreement,' the spokesman said. Mr Lu said 'acts of state' - over which the court does not have jurisdiction - would be confined to matters hinging on the relationship between the Special Administrative Region and the central Government. He said the definition of 'acts of state' should not be too loose. It should be worked out in more concrete terms and legal experts from both sides should discuss it.