TNAG-0647-FCO40-795-Study-of-labour-relations-in-Hong-Kong-by-Professor-H-A-Turn-1977 — Page 77

CONFIDENTIAL

Reference_ HKK 212/0xff

33

Flag A

No!

There is Lots

Flag Houter

the suppalled Cifue Biffve

is impulent

Flasc

Mr Stewart

R

Flor Boc delikhed

HONG KONG: PROFESSOR TURNER'S STUDY: STAGE TWO

вос

& vetaried.

этиш

313

1. The Governor of Hong Kong's letter of 24 February and the enclosed copy of one from Professor Turner written two days earlier raises at least two points which I think we should get straight.

2. First, the Governor asks for a very early decision on an extension of Professor Turner's study. Professor Turner says in his letter that the major part of the study would not be carried out until August but since the "kind of people involved are busy" a decision is needed fairly soon. (He would be assisted by two qualified persons, one of whom would evidently be Dr Fosh). The Governor records Frofessor Turner as having said to him that the end of April would be far too late and that if no decision could be reached before then Professor Turner would "give the whole thing up". It is clear that Professor Turner remains dissatisfied with the way in which he was treated over the first stage of his study and he has taken the initiative this time in setting out what he wants.

3. The fact is, as I see it, that there is no point in going ahead with an extension of Professor Turner's study without the acquiescence if not the positive support, of the TUC and the CBI. Lord Goronwy- Roberts told the Governor of Hong Kong on 2 December 1975 that he "saw no point in undertaking the study unless the TUC was satisfied as to its validity: the impact of the report must be on the pressure points in the OLC". points in the OLC". The objective of defusing the TUC's criticisms of the absence of organised trade unions in Hong Kong will not be achieved unless the second stage of Professor Turner's study is conducted in association with the TUC. Moreover, I think that if Ministers were to give the go-ahead now for stage two they would be open to criticism that they had failed to honour the previous Secretary of State's undertaking that once Professor Turner had submitted a report he and the TUC and the CBI would be able to "jointly consider what next should be done" Ministerial approval of the recommendation in paragraph 10(ii) of your submission would enable us to tell the Governor and Professor Turner that the FCO was in favour of an extension of the study and to make detailed financial and other preparations for it. But I do not think a definite go- ahead could be given until the OLCC has been consulted and that, as things stand at present, means postponing a final decision until the end of April.

4.

The second point that concerns me is Professor Turner's request for £3,000 "compensation" for the extra work that he claims that he and Dr Fosh put in during the first stage of the study. Mr Duffy will know where we stand as regards the bills for the first stage and if Professor Turner can demonstrate to our satisfaction that he has been under-paid I suppose that we could try to extract the money from the ODM. One chink of light rests in Professor Turner's remark that he gathered the ODM's limit for expenditure on the first stage of the study was £13,000. Subject to checking, my recollection is that the sum was £14,700. If that is so, there might be some money left in the kitty. I would hope so since any UK authority or body

/approached

>

GODE 18 - 77

CONFIDENTIAL