TNAG-0138-FCO40-174-Conduct-of-Hong-Kong-commercial-relations-1969 — Page 147

were negative. Therefore if we accept the Board of Trade

contention we are in effect relying on hearsay evidence.

However it is in accordance with the way in which

work is actually conducted in Whitehall that the Board of

Trade and not the FCO do exercise control of our external

commercial policy. For instance the Commercial Rela tions Departments are in the Board of Trade and not in the FCO

and always have been. So I think it does no more than accord with reality for us to accept that the Board of Trade has primary responsibility in relation to external commercial policy just as, for instance, the Treasury has primary responsibility in relation to external financial policy. There is, however, a further proviso and that is that I do not think that this Board of Trade doctrine, if we accept it,

can be held to over-ride the complete responsibility of our

Secretary of State in and for the remaining Colonies,

including Hong Kong. I would say that, with France, the responsibility for our commercial policy rests primarily

with the Board of Trade, but that they must carry the FCO

with them; but that, with Hong Kong, the primary

responsibility rests with the FCO who must carry the Board

of Trade with them. This seems to me the sensible view.

I am not aware of having said anything to any Hong Kong

people which conflicts with it. But if the Hong Kong Department think I have sold any passes here to the Board of Trade, I see no reason at all why you should not repudiate anything I am alleged to have said.

Copy to: Mr. Whitehead

Ow Snelling.

A.W. Snelling

10 October, 1969