Mrs Johnson
Mr Timms
Reference..
37
(29)
34
35
HONG KONG POLYTECHNIC
1. On 21 March I put to you my second draft of the Projects Committee paper (Flag A); this was amended and re-typed (Flag B). On 21 April I minuted to Mr Ridgwell with a request that the paper be considered by the Projects Committee as soon as possible (Flag C).
2.
•
•
In reply to my minute, I received a minute from Mr White, the Assistant Secretary of the Project's Committee, raising a number of questions which he considers require clarification before the paper is presented (Flag) In order to try to whittle down the number of questions, I went across to the Ministry of Overseas Development for a chat with Mr White. Despite a very lengthy discussion I was not able to gain any leeway and it would be simpler if I go through his minute and isolate each question or requirement. These are as follows:-
Subparagraph 2(1): The Minister's aid policy.
I explained to Mr White that we fully understood that this project was contrary to the Minister's current thinking on aid policy and it was for this reason that we had prepared a submission to Mr Larmour in response to Mr Rae's circular minute of 6 March (Flag D). I explained to Mr White that this submission had reached Mr Williams who had advised that it need go no further.
Subparagraph 2(2): Equipment provision in association with British experts.
It is a longstanding rule that equipment is only supplied from technical assistance funds in conjunction with the provision of technical assistance officers who are made responsible for its installation and for insuring that it is fully used. I explained to Mr White that there is a large number of ex-patriate staff at the Polytechnic including a new British director and that as a consequence the equipment would be in good hands. He felt that more factual information was needed on this point.
Subparagraph 2(3): Reasons leading up to the offer of the grant.
I said that we could probably dig up more information, but questioned the need to do so since this offer had been made and that was that. However, he was adamant, that more detail was required.
Subparagraph 2(4): The grant and our policies toward Hong Kong.
I explained that the grant in no way accorded with our policy for Hong Kong, since Hong Kong is not considered to be an aid-worthy territory. Indeed serious consideration is to be given to the phasing out of the concessionary training programme. Mr White nevertheless thought that something should
CODE
18-77
/be