Orig on 54216/48
21.
10
1.
I have the following comments on Mr. Palmer's minute:-
Paragraph 2(a).
Paragraph 3.
Paragraph 4.
(b)
(၁)
H
It was agreed by Mr. Pitblado in discussion at the Treasury yesterday (Messrs. Follows, Sidebotham, Bourdillon, Palmer, Bancroft and myself also present) that quarterly statements would suffice, but that in the four or five months preceeding submission of the estimates to Leg. Co. more
frequent statements would doubtless be sent if circumstances made this desirable.
It was specifically agreed by . Mr. Pitblado yesterday that the Treasury would not be interested in writes-off. I agree with Mr. Palmer that we should follow the African precedent.
I agree that we should add loans (including local loans) as
requiring the Secretary of State's authority.
Ought we to sugest in terms that Treasury "agreement" is necessary for anything? This is in efect suggesting the specific requirement of Treasury approval for certain things, which goes beyond what is stated in (17). I know that in practice "consultation" implies securing Treasury agreement. should we volunteer to go beyond the words "prior consultation"?
But
I agree that the new arrangements should be considered as in operation from the 1st April 1948 and be subject to review at the 1st April 1949.
2. (21) refers to/specific case in which Hong Kong pushed on with project for building accommodation for Government servants and neglected to reply to certain queries about it which the Secretary of State sent out at Treasury instance. It is not likely that this sort of thing will arise again, because (we hope) the unrealistic method of raising points of detail from this end will cease under the proposals now being considered. Anything however that is to be sent to Hong Kong about the necessity for two-way consultation about the the financial aspect of important projects should be sent from this file. have therefore placed (21) here as a reminder.
wee
29.6.48.
I
(PTO)
Page 10Page 11
X