TNAG-0718-FCO40-916-Policy-on-issuing-postage-stamps-1978 — Page 32

CODE 18-77

UNCLASSIFIED

Reference

9.

This Memorandum, which was sent to Governors under cover of the Secretary of State's despatch of 7 December 1977 (see Folio 36 on File YFP205/1 Flag A) was issued from this department. However, we only took over responsibility for Dependent Territory postage stamp matters at a late stage in the drafting of the Memorandum and although I did have a chance to study it and make certain amendments, I believe that if we were issuing it today, we might want to make certain changes in its format. I would also be more guarded about some of the advice that is offered. At the time the Memorandum was issued, I was under the impression that the advice it contained was based on much more impartial evidence than I have subsequently discovered to be the case. In particular, I believe we have allowed ourselves to be unduly influenced by the opinions of people closely connected with the philatelic world. These are, of course, highly reputable people with considerable experience of postage stamp matters. But their interests are by no means the same as those of the stamp issuing territories, whose interests should be our first concern. Collectors want to keep up the value of their existing collections and keep down the costs of adding to them. Stamp issuing territories are interested in maximising their income by exploiting the demand for their stamps to the limit.

10. However, it would clearly not be appropriate to scrap the Memorandum and start again at this stage, and in any case it is not really as bad as all that. Much of the advice it contains is sound enough - there are just a few points on which we might have left more open the possibility of there being alternative views to those that we have set out.

11. For the moment, I suggest that the only positive step that we might take is to drop the requirement that Governments should submit their future plans to us for approval (in practice many of them have been ignoring this requirement for years past without our doing anything about it). As far as I can see, we are no better qualified to pass judgement on these proposals than are the territ- ories themselves, and it is misleading for us to pretend we are. I suggest that we should also henceforth try to play a much more neutral role in dealing with requests for advice on specific prob- lems. We should set out as objectively as possible any information that is available to us, but try to make it clear that we are only issuing advice, not instructions, and that the decision is for the territory itself. For the time being, I suggest that we need not make any change in the procedure by which we act as the channel of communication for seeking Royal approval. But we should bear in mind in considering the future of the General Section, that this is something that could perfectly easily be dealt with directly between the printers and the Palace, and that it is an unnecessary luxury to have us intervene.

14 September 1978

W.E. Amankill

WE Quantrill

Hong Kong and General Department

UNCLASSIFIED