RECEIVEL
3 APR 1948
1 C. O. REGY
Dear Palmer,
Board of Trade,
Romney House,
Tufton Street,
London, S.W.1.
2nd April, 1948.
18 End
Thank you for your letter of 27th March (your reference 55178/214/48). I would recommend you for the reasons I give later to reword the second part of paragraph 10 somewhat as follows:-
*The defence for non-payment of compensation must be based on the general argument that H.M. Government are prepared to consider compensation only where there is a statutory insurance scheme or for the economic rehabilitation of the territory. In Hongkong there was no insurance scheme and it is clear from the Governor's report that there is no case for rehabilitation in the sense that there is, say, in Malaya. This line of argument will be streng- thened if H.M. Government eventually agrees to grant compensation somewhat on the lines of the free cover under the U.K. Chattels Scheme to private individuals who remain in this country and who cannot be said to have benefited by Hongkong's post-liberation prosperity. A general scheme applying to such persons from all our Eastern territories (and not Hongkong only) is under consideration."
My reasons are these
1
(1) If you do not feel able to publish Matheson's report (and I heartily agree that you should not) then it is surely dangerous to base your defence
You will be on far safer and stronger on a report that cannot be published. ground if you use the rehabilitation argument.
(2) Matheson referred in a very cavalier fashion to the U.K. private chattels scheme as to some deks ex machina. Actually it does not legally apply to Hongkong and is too limited to afford more than the bare bones of compensation. We are now considering a general scheme with a ceiling perhaps a little higher than our free cover.
H. Palmer, Esq., Colonial Office, The Church House, Great Smith Street,
S.W.1.
Yours sincerely,
Colander