TNAG-0138-FCO40-174-Conduct-of-Hong-Kong-commercial-relations-1969 — Page 146

13/10.

Sir L. Monson

MCC 13/393/3

you said to me.

Hong Kong and Textiles

There seem to be two points arising out of what

The first concerns the degree, if any, to which Hong Kong is entitled to negotiate arrangements of her own with other countries on commercial matters; the second concerns the respective responsibilities of the

Secretary of State and the President of the Board of Trade

in regard to external commercial policy.

On the first issue, I am not conscious of having tried to enunciate any new constitutional doctrine as between Britain and Hong Kong. I had a meeting in my office last summer with the Hong Kong people and our own FCO persons concerned. This meeting was in preparation for a further meeting in a series of discussions over which Mr. Hughes was presiding with the Hong Kong team. The record of Mr. Hughes' meeting is flagged in the file below "Meeting of 13/6/69". You will see from that that, though I offered certain advice to Hong Kong, there was nothing savouring of any constitutional pronouncement.

On the second issue I am relying on my memory. I have repeatedly been told by the Board of Trade that when Mr. Crosland was first appointed as President he succeeded in obtaining from the Prime Minister some directive to the

general effect that he would be responsible for Britain's external commercial policy. This the Board of Trade took

to mean that the post-merger Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs would not have primary responsibility in this field. I attempted at one point to obtain clarification of this, enquiring within this

Office, within the Board of Trade and from the Cabinet

Office whether there was any general document defining exactly the spheres of responsibility of different Ministers and whether there was any particular document

throwing light on this point. The results of this enquiry

/were