19
Go Pave Pave File
Mr Stewart
CONFIDENTIAL
HONG KONG: QUARTERLY REPORTS
1.
By Enter yo
ist Comments
I understand that you asked Mr David to consider the quarterly reports enclosed with Mr Ardley's letter of 28 December to you, to circulate them,where appropriate, to those concerned in the Office, and to ask for comments in time for us to prepare a summary for the next meeting of the Standing Committee (this had been provisionally arranged for Wednesday, 23 February, but Mr Cortazzi will wish to speak to you about a possible postponement of the meeting since the Hong Kong budget will not this year be announced until 2 March).
2. Mr David has prepared a draft circular minute addressed to the OLA, Economists Dept, FRD and Mr Lipsey inviting them to comment on the quarterly reports (as well as a draft letter to Mr Ardley saying that we would like to see quarterly reports from the Civil Service Branch and enquiring whether we are going to see reports from the Finance Branch and the Councils' Branch). I think that the action suggested once again raises the question whether the FCO has the necessary manpower and expertise to carry out a detailed examination of the sort of reports that Mr Ardley has sent us. The reports in question cover the work of the following branches in the Hong Kong Government for the period from 1 August to 31 October last:
(i) Social Services Branch;
(ii)
Security Branch;
(iii)
New Territories Administration;
(iv)
Housing Branch;
(v)
Home Affairs Information Branch;
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
Environment Branch;
Administration Branch;
Economic Services Branch.
With the exception of (i), on which the OLA's Office may be able to advise, and (viii), on which the Economists Department may be able to help, I doubt whether other departments would be able to offer comments. I do not think that Mr Lipsey can be expected to study the Quarterly Reports andthe areas of Hong Kong's financial affairs in which FRD have suggested that they may be able to help Mr Maud's minute of 8 November at folio 63 on HKK 013/548/3 - are not, reasonably enough, covered in the reports.
3. If, as I am inclined to think, the FCO does not have the capacity to do justice to the sort of quarterly reports that Mr Ardley is sending us, I think that there are two possible solutions. First, we could pursue the question of strengthening Hong Kong Department so that we ourselves could monitor most of the reports that we are receiving (and following the demise of the proposal to transfer an economist to HKD, on which please see my minute of 13 January, I think we might do this anyway). Second, we should perhaps reconsider whether we need the quantity and kind of reports that we are getting from Hong Kong for the purposes of monitoring the Planning Paper. As I understand it, we are not
CONFIDENTIAL