TNAG-2145-FCO40-3064-Hong-Kong-Port-and-Airport-Development-Strategy-(PADS)-1990 — Page 159

AS

1614

& Copy"!!!"

M. Paul: His

RESTRICTED

15 November 1990

нка 18212

RM3

iclo

245

FCCD

E

ID

Mr Richard Rogers

PEP

DTI

1-19 Victoria Street

London SW1H OET

Dear Reinhard,

HONG KONG: PADS

195

Ry2/1

Miss Maroden

Mr Story 2011/191. Mr Fuetsy. W

197

?

PO Box 272

Export House 50 Ludgate Hill London EC4M 7AY

Fax 071-382 7649

Telex 883601 ECGD HQ G Telephone 071-382 7000

Direct 071-382 7

As you know, it was only because we get your outward telegrams that we saw from your OTTER 298 that

that there had been two incoming OTTERS: 244 and 245 which related to the proposed pre-emptive bid by AJCL for the platform. I have been asked to write to you again to say that this Department does not feel it is being properly kept informed on events in relation to this project. If ECGD is to play its full part, it needs to be involved in all correspondence and meetings. In relation to the latter, we were concerned to see that FCO had had a meeting to discuss the 2 cables from Hong Kong to which we were not invited.

Quite apart from our need to keep up to date this particular series of cables and the resultant letter from AJCL to the Governor has put us into some difficulty with HM Treasury. As you know, they did not want us to give an indication to AJCL of the terms on which our support might be available even though we said we were doing so without any commitment whatsoever. They only allowed us to give an indication when we produced a letter from Schroders showing that it was essential to have such indication so that they could make their pre-emptive bid by a specific date last month. We subsequently gave the indication but Treasury are still concerned to such an extent that they have asked to see the letter of indication to satisfy themselves that it cannot later be claimed that we had given any sort of commitment. We are now in the position of having to say that the firm date and need for the indication given to us by the company was in fact not really necessary and that the company did not make its pre-emptive bid due, to some extent at least, to the advice not to do SO by other Whitehall Departments.