TNAG-0429-FCO40-494-Programme-Analysis-and-Review-(PAR)-Future-of-Dependent-Terr-1974 — Page 9

Mr Fauncefort

RESTRICTED

ORC 201/238/01

cc Mr Stuart Mr Cox

Mr Bullock

Mr Preston

Mrs Maccoll

Mr Kerr

Mr Rae

Mrs Rosser

FUTURE OF THE DEPENDENT TUKRITORIES

I have only one comment on the enclosure to Mr Champion's minute of 12 December to Mr Larrour, and that is that the recommendations for action draw a distinction between FCO and ODM in just that area where no distinction should be drawn. Most of Britain's remaining dependencies are dealt with in Whitehall by a Joint PCO/ODM Division and for those dependencies responsibility for action, it seems to me, should lie with the Joint Division (and not 'FCO in consultation with ODM' or 'OM in consultation with FCO').

2.

The division of responsibilities proposed by Mr Champion is probably right for the Associated States (though I have not secured Are Rosser's agreement to this view). On the other hand, for non-aided dependencies not dealt with by the Joint Division (? Bermuda is the only one in this category) responsibility

for action would seem to lie wholly with FCO.

3. I have assumed that at least the classification "restricted" is appropriate

for the rest of this exchange.

M de N n sor

17 December 1974