RESTRICTED
2.
happened, we assume that, at least in the non-grant aided Territories, there would be adequate resources available to meet the liability, even when specific cover is not provided.
4.
We do not, therefore, believe that the risk to HMG is sufficiently real to justify our trying to prevent Territories from using their initiative to maximise the advantage they can gain from this useful source of revenue, nor do we propose to insist, as suggested at the end of the summary, that all contracts should be submitted to us for scrutiny before they are signed though if you would like advice, we should certainly be glad to provide it.
5. This does not, of course, mean that we believe no controls of any kind are necessary.
You will no doubt wish to consider the practice in your own Territory, first of all to ensure that it remains within the law since this does not always appear to have been the case. You will also wish to check whether your administration is following a policy that could lead, at worst, to a disastrous fall in the value of the Territory's coins and a massive demand for redemption; or at least to a drying up of future demand as a result of over exploitation of the market or an unacceptable fall in the quality and/or design of your coins. Should there be a danger of any of these things happening, you may find the suggestions on pages 7-10 of the summary helpful in deciding what might be done about it.
6.
None of this affects the present requirement, as laid down in Sir Alec Douglas-Home's despatch of 15 August 1973, to submit for approval the design of any coin bearing the Queen's effigy. I should, however, say that we have no intention of making use of this procedure in order to exercise control over your broader policies, as suggested in the last but one of the possible courses of action, set out on page 10 of the summary of the Bank of England's report.
Yous sincerely
Bill Quantill
W E Quantrill
Hong Kong & General Dept
RESTRICTED