CONFIDENTIAL
3. I think that all that is to be said has already been said on this issue. The submission at (6) and Mr. Gallagher's minute at (7) set out the whole position. However, those papers relate to the previous administra- tion as does folio (10).
4.
Although there is no indication on the file, I understand that this matter has been discussed with Mr. Royle (following the writing of the minute at (13) ) who took the view that nothing could be done at the present time to help Hong Kong in this matter.
5.
In the circumstances I am doubtful whether a fresh ministerial submission is required before replying to (14). It seems to me that it is high time that the Governor was given a categoric answer to a question which he first asked as long ago as 1967. I attach a draft telegram with this purpose in view. If the Governor is
bluffing, then the telegram will call his bluff. If the Governor is not bluffing, then the telegram may call the Board of Trade's bluff at a later stage.
MAG.
(A. W. Gaminara)
9 September, 1970 Hong Kong Department
P.S. Since the above was typeri I have seew
the Minister's quary
On
his copy (attached)
of Hong Kong telegram No. 594.
I believe
that Sir Leslie Monson is seeing MV Royle at 5pm today: perhaps he would find it tonible to mention this mater then,
Yes. Dat is implant
in the Sofs's letter thehammer of 30 August, into we
Shared do
Sir L. Monson
We shall indeed have to take up the question of Kai Tak with our new Ministers, even if the likelihood of getting a decision favourable to Hong Kong in the
CONFIDENTIAL
/last