PRI
OUNCIL
BOARD OF TRADE
SHELL MEX HOUSE, STRAND, LONDON, W.C.2
CONFIDENTIAL
Ref: EE/78/02
3rd September, 1969.
18
Dear Carter,
Kai-Tak
I am sorry for some delay in commenting on recent letters from other sources but it is not easy to see just what the Board of Trade is expected to say.
2.
The present position seems to be that
3.
(a) The Hong Kong economy is flourishing and (to quote from Knowles' letter
AMP/290/81/01 of 22nd August to Stewart) the OD "see no justification whatever for providing aid to the Colony at the expense of countries whose needs for British aid are far greater."
(b) The same letter goes on to say "In any event, Hong Kong's case for
assistance from Britain towards the cost of expanding facilities at Kai-Tak Airport rests on the benefit which would accrue to British civil aviation from such improvements.
The aid programme is not the appropriate That (so it seems to me) suggests that if it should come from the Board of Trade, a
source for such expenditure." money is to come from anywhere suggestion made firmer by (c) below.
(c) Steel's letter 2 FD/24/643/01 of 24th July to Carter (in the part beginning
with the words "Here I hope I can be more helpful") expressed a Treasury view in saying "it seems to us that if there is advantage to United Kingdon civil aviation in extending the airport, it might well be appropriate if the Board of Trade made a contribution to the cost of this equipment (air traffic control equipment/
.... Any such contribution, however, would
have to come from within the Board of Trade's existing PESC estimates" (the underlining is mine).
The arguement appears to run on the lines that, though it would be wrong for the ODM to give aid to Hong Kong because it is wealthy and (so it seems) because benefit would accrue to the United Kingdom (though benefit would certainly accrue to Hong Kong also), it would be right for the Board of Trade with an eye on British interest
-
to give financial assistance to a wealthy Hong Kong provided we keep within our PES estimates; a proviso that could only be met by not spending money on some other civil' aviation enterprise for which it is already ear-marked. That is a prospect which, as I think those in the Treasury must know, would be very difficult for us to contemplate for the financial limits within which we have to work leave precious little room for movement.
4.
This is, I know, something of a negative contribution but I must confess that I am at a loss for something more positive to say. It does however seen to me that though there is undoubtedly a United Kingdom civil aviation interest that is not the only
W. S. Carter, Esq.,
Hong Kong Department,
Foreign & Commonwealth Office,
Downing Street,
S.W.1.
/interest
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.