3% growth if that would help to secure Hong Kong's agreement.
message.
I duly saw Mr Sorby and Mr Jordan in order to deliver the
Their reaction was unfavourable: they took the
line they have taken since - that growth was not discussed in
the negotiations and therefore fell to be determined by the
general provisions of the Heads of Agreement. However, they
accepted my message.
8. We have no record of the telegram sent by Hong Kong to
HWA/42 New Delhi, but it is perhaps significant that in reporting
6/4] 44045
Flags F and G
(60) on
HWB 6/47 (Flag H)
(17) on
Part A
back on the Hong Kong negotiations from New Delhi, Mr Stewart
said nothing about growth.
9. We duly received Hong Kong's proposals for the modific-
ation of the Heads of Agreement in the light of the agreement
reached during the discussions. Not surprisingly, they rej-
ected the 3% growth offer (paragraphs 20-21). We had the
greatest of difficulty in extracting Board of Trade agreement
(Flag I) to a reasonably worded reply. Part of the price we in this
Drev
(47) on
department paid was that we should support a further bid to
stand on the 3% offer (see paragraph 7). On reflection after
the event, I consider it would have been better to have made
an issue of this in Whitehall at that time. Hong Kong have
not accepted our proposal, with the result that no formal doc-
ument as yet exists enshrining the agreed proposals although
to all practical purposes they have been implemented.
10. Hong Kong have pursued the matter in demi-official corres-
pondence. On the basis of a letter from Mr Jordan, dated
(Flag J) 11 June, 1969, Mr Moreton agreed to make an approach to Mr
Part B
(53) & (54) on Part B (Flags K and L)
Carey. It was unsuccessful.
Mr Carey's reply is uncomprom-
/ising.