CO129-593-3 Rehabilitation of Hong Kong University. For extracted photographs see CN 3-45 12-1-1946 - 27-10-1946 — Page 28

28

1. Mr. Sloss met Mr. Lloyd, Mr. Cox, Mir. Mayle and myself in Mr. Lloyd's room on 8th October.

2. The drait memorandum making proposals for the allocation of the cost of the Committee's

recommendations were discussed and accepted generally. It was agreed, however, that before the memorandum could be sent to the Foreign Orlice, the Governor must be consulted on the lines of the attached draft telegram in regard to the expenditure that it is suggested should be met from Hong Kong revenues.

3. It was suggested that in order not to cause further delay the Secretary of State might be prepared to write to the Foreign orrice now, as in draft opposite, adding that a memorandum has been prepared in the Department making proposals as to the sums that might be met from Hong Kong revenues, C.D. and W. funds and a Treasury grant; that the amount proposed from Hong Kong revenues is being discussed with the Governor and that as soon as his views have been obtained the memorandum will be sent to the Foreign Office; but that on the examination that has been conducted here it seems to us that the maximum amount which the Treasury might be asked to sponsor from Imperial runds is a capital Sum of £500,000 and a recurrent sum of £30,000.

4.

I have pinned a draft amendment on the draft letter to the Foreign Office in this sense.

5. I have also added two footnotes to the memorandum in connection with the points mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of Mr. Cox's minute of 4/10.

6. I apologize that owing to an accumulation of red papers and an extremely long meeting I have not been able to send this forward earlier.

11.10.46.

2

I am afraid that the memorandum (which I have not previously had an opportunity to examine carefully) did not take into account the £23,000 per annum which was taken as Hong Kong's existing contribution towards the University for the purpose of the estimates summarised in paragraph 73 of the Committee's report. See in this connection Miss Ruston's note of the 12th October and the attached paper. The calculations in the memorandum will consequently have to be revised.

I suggest, however, that a simpler and sounder basis will be to propose contributions from U.K. funds towards capital and recurrent expenditure without any reference to a particular period.

I would also suggest that we should avoid getting into the position of accepting the principle that the costs should be allocated according to the estimates of the nationality and domicile of students for future years.

I submit a revised draft telegram and

a revised draft addition to the letter to Mr. Bevin.

/I