HKK 21/4
CONFIDENTIAL
Hong Kong Department
ROPA.
7 March, 1969
74
73
Since Stewart sent you with his letter of 27 February a copy of Hannam's "Christian" telegram No. 3, we have been considering, as no doubt you have yourself, whether there is any merit in his suggestion that we inspire a Parliamentary Question on the lines proposed. I am bound to say that the more I think about it the less merit I find in it, and I
think that I should give you my reasons.
2. If the answer to the P.Q. is to bring out the points Hannam proposes in paragraph 3 the exercise savours of an attempt to put the blame, if it is French finance which wins the day, on the Hong Kong Government for not financing the Tunnel themselves because they did not think that it was essential, We could not keep the Governor in ignorance that a P.Q. of this sort was proposed. We should have to consult him and I am sure that he would not agree with the sequence of arguments reflected in (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph 3 of the telegram. For one thing, knowing what we do of Hong Kong's philosophy in such matters, it is not correct to draw the conclusion that because the Government does not finance the
scheme itself it is not essential. Public transport and electricity and gas supplies, which are all certainly essential, are in private hands in Hong Kong. Furthermore it just does not follow that because the project is being undertaken by a private company "ECGD have therefore had to judge this question throughout on commercial grounds with no political overtones". You have certainly had to judge it as a private commercial project not as a public utility project; but this does not necessarily mean that you have judged it purely on
K. W. Cotterill, Esq.,
Export Credits Guarantee Department,
Barrington House,
59-67 Gresham Street,
LONDON, E.C.2.
LAST
REF.
79"
NEXT
REF.
90
CONFIDENTIAL,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.