IDENT LEV
(b) "Selling the Programme"
As you know, we were not happy about Denys Roberts' redraft of paragraph 36 of the Paper. We thought it could be misconstrued as implying that other and more radical policies than those set forth in the Planning Paper could be undertaken provided they were properly presented in Hong Kong. Since your own view was that the programme would have to be regarded as a maximum one for Hong Kong, we thought that it was better to leave this paragraph unchanged, apart from an amendment to the final sentence signed to reflect your view that anti-British feeling is not a general phenomenon in Hong Kong. We had in any case all agreed in previous correspondence that the Hong Kong Information Department rather than the Senior British Trade Commissioner should take the lead in putting over Britain in Hong Kong.
(c)
Unemployment Benefits
We amended paragraph 26 of the main Paper to bring it into line with paragraph 23(iii)(a) of Annex C and to make it clear that what you are aiming do do, initially, is to extend public assistance to able-bodied males under the age of 55, but as you know we attach importance to working out a scheme under which unemployment and other benefits will be an entitlement not subject to a means test.
(a) Social Security
We fully accepted your point that the first new priority for expenditure should be in the field of social security and that it should not be regarded as taking priority over other existing measures. I think we have dealt with the point satisfactorily by an amendment to the first sentence of paragraph 12 to Annex C.
2.
I hope you felt that your visit was worthwhile, particularly in giving you an up-to-date insight into Ministerial thinking. Certainly Nick Larmour and I and the Department found it most useful.
- 2
CONFIDENTIAL
Jowes
even
Agh
HAH Cortazzi
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.