TNAG-0382-FCO40-428-Sterling-assets-and-balance-of-payments-of-Hong-Kong-1974 — Page 53

It has madegreed west you

2587

M. Gy Afellow se

Da Crosses thanks D.

I have already goed

person sendention in the falas (dt) // // digohen, wellove- more odio.

MRS HEDLEY-MILLER

V

HONG KONG:

1177

-19/12

PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS

20

cc Mr St Clair

Mi Sight

I is FRD,

who brought this now as I dis not bun ive world

prosent bay could tame med

Enervence for granted

Jou than ostamine.

2018

I have indicated separately that the Hong Kong reply to our button telegram suggests the inclusion of a phrase to indicate that the

2.1.h terms of the former Agreement were strictly observed by the

colony throughout the period. For the reasons stated, I En

against inclusion of such a reference, but this makes it

necessary to respond to the Hong Kong telegram.

The matter is

slightly delicate because there is no need to pick a quarrel

now about Hong Kong's performance under the Agreement, though we

need not whitewash it.

2. I suggest a quick response on the following lines, stating

that we are not challenging the Hong Kong proposition (we are not

challenging it because this is not and need not be a live issue

between us):

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No. 57

20 DECH

HKK 5/1

1475

"Thank you for your tel no. 1475 about the Ps.

We considered a phrase on the lines you suggest, but

decided not to include it. We are not challenging the

proposition, but think it important to stick to the

line that we have held in the past: namely, that the

guarantee scheme is based on secret bilateral

understandings between HMG and individual official

holders. It would be inconsistent with this, and

with the mutual trust on which these arrangements.

depend, for HMG to comment on either the detail or the

operation of these understandings with Hong Kong or any

other holder."

If you and Mr Barratt are content, I will arrange for inandinte despatch.

"

!