CO129-607-4 Repatriation of exinternees- financial responsibility for passages 2-2-1949 - 29-12-1949 — Page 6

6

Yes.

1945 evacuation as far as financial liability is concerned.

minute.

? Proceed as proposed in Major Darby's

(Sgd.) J.M.Kisch.

11/10.

1. Reference Mr. Chaplin's point at X in his minute of 27/9, there can be no question of going back on the arrangements already agreed for the 1940 evacuation of women and children from Hong Kong. The point, as Mr. Kisch notes above, is whether the 1940 arrangements should be used as a precedent for the settlement of liabilities arising out of the repatriation of internees in 1945.

2. I am by no means satisfied that these repatriation charges ought to fall on Colonial Governments after all, the basis of the arrangement was bringing home United Kingdom domiciled people to the United Kingdom - but this decision has been taken and I don't suggest the argument should be re-opened.

But I entirely agree that there is no apparent reason why Hong Kong should be treated differently from, say, Malaya. The fact that the U.K. bore the cost of the 1940 evacuation from Hong Kong (carried out for quite different reasons) is not of itself a good ground for arguing that Hong Kong should not bear the 1945 charges.

(Sgd.) J. Wallace

3/11

(I am sorry to have delayed this.)

With reference to my minute of 20th September and immediately preceeding minutes, I submit a draft savingram to the territories concerned.

I fear I overlooked North Borneo's and (Intld.) G.C.W. Sarawak's interest in this matter and regret that

Sir Gerald Whiteley was not brought into the picture earlier and hope that he will agree to the action proposed by Mr. Chaplin and Mr. Wallace.

(Sgd.) C.E.R. Darby

22.11.48.

I have held this up as I thought it preferable to prepare a separate draft on all the outstanding matters in which the Colonial Governments have a liability. This draft is in file 55413.

This