4.
of.ed/March/Min.8.90
Miss Marsden
STONE
We are about to
FROM: HP EVANS DATE March 1990
HKC 121/2 121/2
Pa
EXT: 4380 +-15C 124/2
RECE
12 MAR 1990
18
fire on this
one.
But I
Hink the
ら
s right.
MG
proposed response
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
A
Sodor takeI
cd
Mr G
MR PERETZ
Mir Stone
1
spoken.
4813
6/3
Folllowing our discussion, I see
HONG KONG
that this in
lips
Mr P Richardson (CS●) Mr P Turner (EA2) Mr Paul (Hong Kong
Dept, FCO)
June a urding
line.
But
?
how to it to be deployed and to shine
The Chancellor recently answered a PQ about the value of UK assets in Hong Kong, and this has given rise to some discussion, the details of which I need not trouble you with.
I attach a copy of the Question and Treasury reply, drafted by the CSO in
consultation with EA.
2. The criticism is that the reply was misleading because it took no account of the much wider UK interests in Hong Kong, which together total many times the £2 billion quoted in the reply. This criticism seems to me to be misplaced, given the question asked, and I propose to take the following line:
i)
ii)
When HMT was asked a question about the calculations of
the value of UK assets in Hong Kong, we made the only possible response by quoting available figures, and
The
explaining their basis and the fact that there was no
information on other categories of investment.
source of the £2 billion figure was a survey of book of 1987 [conducted by DTI] and published in British Business on 29 September 1989.
values at the end
HMG are well aware that there are very large assets in Hong Kong involving some combination of
ownership, management or control.
British
1
#7: