CONFIDENTIAL
6. The latest telegram from Hong Kong (No 355) which was
despatched before the FCO reply agreeing the scheme was received,
claims that the delay had placed the Governor "in an extremely
difficult position". It also refers to the possibility of
Government being saddled with "an embarrassing moral liability
for compensating some employers who (because of the delay)
became forced to pay additional wages in lieu of notice".
Direct intervention by HMG is again mentioned and members of
Executive Council are said to have expressed astonishment at the
delay.
CONCLUSION
7. For good reason only ten days elapsed between the receipt
of Hong Kong's request to extend the scheme and FCO's reply in
agreement. It is clear that had the Hong Kong Government
attached so much importance to an early announcement, their
request should have been initiated before 11 May and that any
delay was occasioned, not by HMG, but by the slowness of the
Hong Kong Government Machine in deciding terms under which the
scheme should continue. Furthermore, although the need to give
industry adequate warning of any change is fully appreciated, it
is debatable whether Hong Kong's agitation is warranted when the
existing scheme is not due to expire until the end of June 1971.
- 3 -
CONFIDENTIAL