TNAG-0608-FCO40-756-Planning-paper-on-progress-made-on-social-security-in-Hong-K-1977 — Page 92

CONFIDENTIAL

37

Flag A

(2

Flag

Flag C

Flags

D & E

Flags F & G

Flag.H

Mr Murray

Mr Cortazzi

HONG KONG: SOCIAL WELFARE REVIEW

1. Mr Cortazzi has commented on a copy of Mr. Stewart's submission of 9 August that the draft memorandum prepared for the Hong Kong Executive Council (Exco) containing proposals for the further development of Hong Kong's social welfare system was disappointing and said that he would be interested to know the outcome.

2.

I attach the top copy of Mr Stewart's submission so that Mr Cortazzi may see the comments on it and, for convenience, a copy of Mr Stewart's minute of 11 August recordings Lord Goronwy-Roberts' comments, which were hidden away at the end of the draft telegram submitted. In the event, two telegrams were despatched, one from Lord Goronwy-Roberts and one from the department (FCO telegram nos 623 and 624 of 10 August). The Governor replied in similar fashion, with one telegram addressed personally to the Minister of State and another to the department (Hong Kong telegram nos 819 and 820 of 12 August).

3.

The department has consulted the Deputy Overseas Labour Adviser and the Economists Department about the Governor's reactions to our comments on the draft memorandum. Broadly speaking, we have concluded that the Governor's statement in paragraph 2 of his telegram no 819 that the proposals represented a "considerable addition to expenditure" is not really convincing and that the proposals are still defective in a number of ways. This points to our advising Lord Goronwy-Roberts to take the matter up again with the Governor. Three points might be advanced, however, against such a course of action. First, it must be admitted that our points are not new: they were put to the Governor on the first round and it does not seem likely that his reaction would be different a second time. Second, it seems very likely that the Governor would be considerably irritated by our returning to the charge viz the statement in the first sentence of his telegram no 819 to Lord Goronwy-Roberts "I am grateful for your forbearance in not attempting to push me further at this stage". Third, it is not clear that a further intervention on our part would have any practical effect at this stage. The draft Exco memorandum was to be circulated by 17 August and may already have been dealt with (there was a meeting of Exco on 23 August). It is possible, of course, that the proposals in the memorandum may have run into difficulties (see, in this connection, the final paragraph of the Governor's letter of 30 July). If there were to be a continuing debate on the proposals in Hong Kong there might be scope for a fresh input on our part, though it seems unlikely that we would be able to achieve any worthwhile improvements if the original proposals had run into difficulties.

4. In this situation, I am inclined to suggest that we might ask Mr Stewart to inform the Governor and others concerned when he is in Hong Kong (12-24 October) that we remain unhappy about certain

CONFIDENTIAL

/aspects