effective case in Peking. He needed full support from London. Mr Murray agreed with Lord Derwent that Jardines criticism did not help Hong Kong. Mr Keswick's attacks on the Governor were unjustified. The best way to guarantee Hong Kong's future autonomy was to "internationalise" it by attracting foreign investment. Delisting by Jardines would not damage Hong Kong. Mr Murray did not understand the substance of Mr Keswick's complaints. The regulations were being changed to allow buy back. It was right that a company with a high proportion of its shareholders in Hong Kong should be obliged to hold its AGM there. He thought that the post 1987 reforms of the stock exchange had helped re-establish Hong Kong's reputation as a reputable finance centre.
4.
Mr Murray said he could not see the advantage of delisting. Ownership could be altered but assets could not be moved. Huchisons had no plans to delist, though in due course they might follow the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank's course of creating a special holding company for its non-Hong Kong assets. He thought that there was only one good reason for redomiciling: namely that other national governments and institutions might look askance at a Hong Kong company seeking acquisitions in their country since the company could be regarded as subject, or about to become subject, to Communist control. The same reasoning would lead to a reduction in credit rating. But redomiciling would not prevent the Chinese from nationalising assets in Hong Kong if that is what they wanted to do.
5. Mr Murray thought that the lack of interest in the nationality package reflected the relatively low attraction of emmigration to the UK, the hostility of China to the scheme and the complexity of the application form. There was also the uncertainty about which companies would appear on the list of British undertakings. He understood from Mr Heap that Hutchison and Hong Kong Electric were likely to be included but that the parent company, Cheng Kong, would be out.
Lord Caithness emphasised that the list was flexible and could be adjusted as circumstances changed. Lord Derwent drew attention to the potential embarrassment vis à vis the Chinese caused to Hong Kong companies which appeared on the list.
THIS IS A COPY
THE ORIGINAL HAS BEEN
CLOSED UNDER
FOI EXEMPTION NO. 38 +40(2)
A
7L 145
lille
Peter Tibber PS/Lord Caithness