It has madegreed west you
2587
M. Gy Afellow se
Da Crosses thanks D.
I have already goed
person sendention in the falas (dt) // // digohen, wellove- more odio.
MRS HEDLEY-MILLER
V
HONG KONG:
1177
-19/12
PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS
20
cc Mr St Clair
Mi Sight
I is FRD,
who brought this now as I dis not bun ive world
prosent bay could tame med
Enervence for granted
Jou than ostamine.
2018
I have indicated separately that the Hong Kong reply to our button telegram suggests the inclusion of a phrase to indicate that the
2.1.h terms of the former Agreement were strictly observed by the
colony throughout the period. For the reasons stated, I En
against inclusion of such a reference, but this makes it
necessary to respond to the Hong Kong telegram.
The matter is
slightly delicate because there is no need to pick a quarrel
now about Hong Kong's performance under the Agreement, though we
need not whitewash it.
2. I suggest a quick response on the following lines, stating
that we are not challenging the Hong Kong proposition (we are not
challenging it because this is not and need not be a live issue
between us):
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No. 57
20 DECH
HKK 5/1
1475
"Thank you for your tel no. 1475 about the Ps.
We considered a phrase on the lines you suggest, but
decided not to include it. We are not challenging the
proposition, but think it important to stick to the
line that we have held in the past: namely, that the
guarantee scheme is based on secret bilateral
understandings between HMG and individual official
holders. It would be inconsistent with this, and
with the mutual trust on which these arrangements.
depend, for HMG to comment on either the detail or the
operation of these understandings with Hong Kong or any
other holder."
If you and Mr Barratt are content, I will arrange for inandinte despatch.
"
!