CONFIDENTIAL
Under option (e) (no scheme) I think that Ministers should be warned that quite apart from the considerations relating to our responsibilities in Hong Kong, we would still face a campaign in this country from HMOCs officers who have already retired not to leave them at the mercy of fluctuating exchange rates after 1997. Or do you envisage that SPOS could be adapted to remove their concerns?
4. One final point: it may be helpful to Ministerial readers to have at the end of each option a sentence crystallising the point at issue, on the following lines:
- Option (a) (Traditional Scheme): Departments agree that this option should be ruled out for financial, political and diplomatic reasons.
Option (b) (Capitalisation): Departments differ on the political feasibility of this option.
- Option (c) (Commercial loan): Departments agree that this would be an attractive option if a feasible scheme can be worked out.
- Option (d) (FCO/ODA Scheme): Departments differ on whether HMG should be prepared to take on the contingent liability proposed.
- Option (e) (No Scheme): Departments agree that this option should be ruled out as failing to deal with the problem.
Option (f) (Delay): Departments agree that this option should be ruled out as failing to deal with the problem.
Any more detailed argument could then go into Ministers' covering minutes, which would not be cleared interdepartmetally.
ODA may have other comments on the paper and your proposed amendments.
5.
Yours sincerely More for
P F Ricketts
cc: P Woodfield Esq, HMT
)
D Rayson Esq, HMT
)
J V Kerby Esq, ODA
}
with encs
D Fish Esq, ODA
}
Mr Burns o/r
}
NC1ABM
CONFIDENTIAL
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.