CONFIDENTIAL
FCO Tμ1380)
Deputy Commissioner of Labour in London on 26 May, the Governor
was asked to defer any announcement until after the meeting.
This elicited a reluctant agreement from the Governor on
(HK 349) 26 May to delay the announcement until 1700 hours Hong Kong
il
1349)26
time (1000 hours London time) on 27 May. As the time interval
in which to reach a decision was four normal office hours
Mr Royle directed that Hong Kong be informed that as Ministers
wished to consult persons directly concerned, the Governor's
deadline could not be met. A telegram to this effect was
During the
F (Foto 402)despatched at 1815 hours London time on 26 May.
(Foot No407) afternoon of 27 Lay a further telegram was despatched to
O
2
Hong Kong accepting the extension of the scheme with modified
safeguards.
is at Annex A).
(A comparison of original and modified safeguards
ㄩ。 In effect, therefore, the Governor's deadline was delayed
by not more than one day and He was able to make the announcement
before "the end of May" as he originally proposed.
HONG KONG REACTION
5. Once it was learned in Hong Kong that a slight delay to
consult the Overseas Labour Adviser was involved, telegrams from
Hong Kong became unnecessarily demanding. Although the original
Saving Despatch referred to making an announcement "before the
end of May", Hong Kong telegram No 349 of 25 May set a deadline
of 27 May when it was known in Hong Kong that the meeting with
the Labour Adviser was not until 26 May. The main grounds for
urgency were that "the proposal to extend the scheme, while
technically confidential, was already known on a wide basis" and
any "delay would inevitably be assumed to be as a result of
intervention from HMG" which the Governor claimed would be
"extremely embarrassing" to him.
16.
w
2
CONFIDENTIAL