TNAG-1473-FCO40-2004-Visits-by-MPs-from-the-UK-to-Hong-Kong-1986 — Page 118

3.

the question

On

public, the Secretary of

as we had been able to establish, no Hong Kong Government official had been in

in touch with the Press at all about the

visit before it was cancelled, and that British Airways in

London had told us that they believed publicity for the

visit had probably been initiated by their Hong Kong

office. He added "it appears to have been your contacts wi th the Hong Kong Foreign Correspondents Club which gave rise to the article by Ann Quon in the South China Morning Post of 2 February. The re

of course no suggestion in that article that there had been any official briefing". (The article itself refers to contacts between the FCC and Mr Adley.)

of how the proposed visit became

State told Mr Adley that, SO far

4.

is

Mr Adley's latest letter drops the allegation that British Airways were officially advised that he should not go to Hong Kong (though he does not actually withdraw it); twists the Secretary of State's observation that Mr Adley's contacts with the Hong Kong FCC appear to have

have been the

Source of the Ann Quon article into a definite tatement;

tries to demonstrate that these contacts were not the source; concedes that British Airways might have been; but suggests by innuendo that it might have been the Hong Kong Government.

5.

I agree with Mr Culshaw (his minute of 6 March on Mr

Adley's letter) that the Secretary of State should not

reply to this latest letter in writing: He could only repeat what he said in his letter of 26 February. When the Secretary of State meets Mr Adley he might acknowledge the latest letter, repeat that we do not believe that the Hong Kong Government told the Press about his planned visit, and indicate that we agree that the first public news probably from British Airways (who would have no reason to make any secret of it).

7 March 1986

AM Layde

deln

Cauda

Hong Kong Department

CONFIDENTIAL