TNAG-0208-FCO40-244-Discussions-about-extension-to-Kai-Tak-airport-1969 — Page 72

- 2.

5.

I think this covers most of the specific points in paragraph 6 of your letter. I need only add the following:-

6.

(a) we would not insist on a consultant's report for the entire project.

We assume that the Hong Kong Government would be placing contracts, or borrowring any credit which we would be guaranteeing

(b) we would not expect to give long credit for consultants' fees which

would be handled separately, but contractors services would be eligible in principle for the same credit as the goods they are supplying.

The only

I hope this gives you sufficient ammunition for the time being. point I would particularly emphasise is the purely commercial nature of the facilities we are offering, in accordance with normal E.C.G.D. criteria, and if the Hong Kong Authorities wish to pursue the possibility of such facilities, then the quicker they organise the normal commercial processes the better.

7.

I am copying to R. H. J. Steel, Treasury, C. C. Lucas, Treasury, W. J. Coe, Board of Trade and D. C. Smith, Board of Trade.

J. O. Moreton, Esq., C.M.G., M.C., Far East and Pacific Department, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, LONDON S.W.1.

Your swcerely

J. Gill)