AUWAWA WAANI
Mr Robinson ESP1
HKK 414
Ni
OVERSEAS ATTACHMENT TRAINING SCHEME HONG KONG
CC
کہا
Mr Dawson
Hayl
क्व
こ
ESP1
Mr Mooncie FCO (POD)
FCO Far East Desk
Following Mr March's discussion with Mr Dawson recently about Hong Kong's inability to accept a training attachment in December next, I telephoned Mr March at his home address (096 273 2588) to enquire when was the earliest date he thought possible for Hong Kong to take an attachee.
Mr March explained that the problem stemmed from the desire of the FCO to attach additional home based staff to his office in Hong Kong in order to deal with the upsurge of interest in trading with China. He said that the FCO Inspector was due in Hong Kong, he thought, some time in the middle of this month and was expected to report back towards the end of the month with his views on how many more home based staff would be required. Apparently the office accommodation at the Post is barely sufficient for the existing staff, and any addition would entail acquir- ing more office space. This is a possibility because the Post at present sub-let about half of its leased space and the sub-lease is due for renewal on 1 April next. If the sub-lease is not renewed, the Post can repossess sufficient space to house three additional home-based officers, but a certain amount of renovation and replanning would be necessary before this extra space could be occupied. However, his estimation was that given the co-operation of PSA this additional accommodation could be ready by the beginning of May and possibly slightly earlier.
Mr March said that if the Inspector considered that three or possibly four more people were required in Post and if a decision were taken early enough to give PSA sufficient advance warning, he saw no real reason why he could not accept a training attachment at the end of April or early May. He did not think it would make sense to accept an attachee before the new accommodation was made available because this would only increase the problems of finding desk space. By implication it would seem that if the Inspector decides that more than four people are needed, then there would be no room for an attachee even with the additional space envisaged.
We decided therefore that the first step was to await the Inspector's report. Provided this did not suggest sending more than four additional staff to Hong Kong, the next step should be to approach the Post to obtain their latest estimate of when the additional office space might become available.
I told Mr March that Mr Patrick, who had been earmarked for Hong Kong, was still very anxious to go but naturally would like to have a target date to aim at. If, for example, it was to be decided that Hong Kong could not take an attachee in the foreseeable future, both we and Mr Patrick, would wish to look for another post for him. Mr March appreciated this. He said that when he met Mr Patrick recently he had formed a favourable impression of him, and said that in general he was a supporter of the attachment scheme and would like to take an attachee if this were at all possible.
1