GAL ADVISERS VIEW
CONFIDENTIAL
"I see no reason to dissent.
My own view is that the FCO is justified in saying that a matter is the responsibility of the Hong Kong Government and that the Secretary of State is not willing to intervene, i.e. that he relies on the judgment of the Governor and his officials, who are best qualified to deal with the matter, and that he is not going to review the matter and substitute his own judgment.
My impression is that in such matters as the local handling of the Kenya emergency, the Colonial Office took this line.
Hong Kong is not governed by HMG or administered from Whitehall. The Secretary of State need only intervene if he has
reason to suppose that the Governor or his officials are not doing their job properly. If he receives a complaint, he will pass it to the Governor and need look into it himself only if the reply seems unsatisfactory.
As far as visitors or delegations are concerned, the Secretary
of State can reasonably refuse to receive them if they have not gone through the proper local motions. Even if they petition, he need not see them personally.
When I refer to the Secretary of State, I mean, of course, to
include other Ministers and officials in the FCO.
What I wish to emphasise is that there is no constitutional reason why Ministers and officials should not take a more robust line so far as the day-to-day government of Hong Kong is concerned. I realise of course that the petty-minded ineptitude of many Members of Parliament exposes the Secretary of State and his colleagues to all sorts of pinpricking about the minutiae of Hong Kong Government business and that if irresponsible complaints are taken up by MPs, they have no choice but to answer. Even so, they should I suggest take every legitimate opportunity of indicating that they won't interfere unless satisfied that the Governor or his officials may have gone wrong."
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.