(a) There is the point as to whether Hong Kong's
request would impose an unacceptable burden on already hard pressed staff in our posts. I find it difficult to believe that the mere despatch to Hong Kong of a copy of suitable items of correspondence could be regarded
as an unacceptable additional burden
provided that the post did not have to examine or sift every communication in order to delete specially sensitive material. This consideration is hardly likely, I suggest, to arise in the case of material
of Confidential or lower classification.
In the rare event that material graded Secret might concern Hong Kong's general interests, this could, I feel sure, be handled specially, in correspondence with the Political Adviser, without greatly adding to the burdens of the post.
(e) The security aspects should not, I feel, be
a cause for concern if they are left to a
combination of the discretion of the
originating post and the scrutiny of the
Political Adviser's Office. I should mention in this connection that quite a wide range of important and classified issues are dealt with in the course of our regular exchanges with Hong Kong (including the field of economic and commercial exchanges)
and we have not had any reason to doubt that the contents have been securely safeguarded.
The views of geographical departments and EOD are sought on (d) and (e) above;
and of Security Department, if EOD consider
the papers should be referred there.
(f) Finally - and if it is agreed that an approach
could be made to posts along the lines
proposed by Mr. Maddocks it is for considera-
tion whether the letter should issue from him (as he proposes) or from this office. If we left it to Mr. Maddocks to approach posts they would feel less committed to
agreeing his request should it, for example, be regarded as too burdensome. As
/ Mr. Britten