We must, I think, abandon the hopes of getting a nice simple solution under which the whole of the £6 m. would be forthcoming from some single British source.
5. Hence my sug estion that we seek contributions from
several different sources and undertake a collection on behalf of the project.
6. Several sources mentioned in Mr. Carter's minute
seem to me still to be well worth considering if se set
our targets for each source at something such lower than £6 m., •.g. £j to 21 m. spread over two or three years or however long the work will take:
(1)
(2)
Board of Trade Vote. A good deal more information is wanted then is given in paragraph 17 of ür. Carter's
note. How big are the Board of Trade funds? To whom
are they committed, for how many years ahead on
present commitments? is there room to squeeze
in a contribution for Hong Kong? if not in the
first then in a later year? Is there a case
for re-adjusting the priorities within this Vote
for the benefit of Hong Kong↑ etc. etc. We ought
to be able to put the Board of Trade uown for up
to el
Aid. As regards the difficulties relating to the
ceiling, is there the same doctrinal troub je over
waiving receipts for the service of past aid as there
is for mading new aid? If not what about waiving the £lj m. still to be repaid from the 195% loạn for the airporty If this horse does not run, I would still put down DM for from si to £1 s. over
two or three years, e.g. by contributing to Hong Kong
welfare and so releasing Hong Kong funds for
Kaitak.
(3) CLC. I would ut them down for something too,
provided that one does not scare them by asking for
too high a figure.
/(4) Loan