CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
(53)
५५
го
1/3
Mr David (K 245)
IN 0. $1
-
118 1917
HONG KONG: STANDING COMMITTEE TO MONITOR THE PLANNING PAPER
1. I have had a look at your draft minute covering the latest batch of quarterly reports enclosed with Mr Ardley's letter of 14 February and the draft letter for Mr Stewart's signature. Meanwhile, however, Mr Stewart has received a further letter, dated 17 February, from Mr Ardley enclosing further information which is apparently to be read in conjunction with the quarterly reports.
I think you may need to look again at your draft minute in the light of Mr Ardley's latest letter and, I fear, to adjust your draft letter for Mr Stewart's signature.
2.
Mr Stewart has commented that Mr Ardley may be "swamping" us with information. I must say that I am inclined to agree. It seems to me that the quarterly reports ought to be sufficient for the purpose of monitoring the Planning Paper and that we risk confusing ourselves and those to whom we turn for comments if we have too much detailed information of a blow-by-blow nature. You may, however, have different views.
3. Mr Ardley says in paragraph 5 of his letter of 17 February that he is enclosing revised information about the state of play on junior secondary education (incidentally, I do not recall the Governor's providing us with such information in writing during his visit in December). It may be that what he has sent us is relevant to the inquiry we are to make of the Hong Kong Government about the short-fall in the number of secondary education places (my minute of 16 February, sub-paragraph (x)(y), refers). I had also mentioned to you and Mr Duffy that the information on this subject in Mr Higginson's letter of 1 February to me might be relevant to our proposed inquiry. I should be grateful if Mr Duffy, who is, I think, looking into this, would consider whether the information Mr Ardley has provided serves to clarify the position about the short-fall in secondary education places. It may be that it will not now be necessary for a letter to be sent to the Director of Education about this point.
4.
I
In paragraph 6 of his letter Mr Ardley says that the information he is enclosing includes a detailed report on labour legislation. am not clear how this information relates to that contained in the full report on the Hong Kong Government's performance in applying the ILO Conventions which the Chief Secretary sent us, I think, earlier this year.
In any case, it may be that the information is relevant to the fresh review of Hong Kong's application of ILO Conventions on which we are embarking. Again, I should be grateful if Mr Duffy would consider this point.
5. Mr Lipsey's PA tells me that we should refrain from marking
His future remains to be papers to Mr Lipsey for the time being.
decided.
24 February 1977
D.F. Multon
D F Milton
Hong Kong Department K 247
4381
SODE 18 - 17
cc: Mr Duffy
CONFIDENTIAL