મ
3.
This brings me to the need for stationing the unit in Hong Kong from March 1970 instead of 1971. There appear to be two reasons given in the various studies on this matter for the carlior date. At that time Hong Kong is to become an independent Command and the Hunter Squadron in the Far East Air Force is to be disbanded. Neither of these seems to be a compelling reasons for the carlier date, although I can see that it would be administratively convenient and perhaps financially attractive. Te presume that there would bo no difficulty, if it was decided to postpone the establishment of the unit in Hong Kong for one year, for air cover to continue to be provided for Hong Kong either from Singapore or from the UK.
Lj.
**
When Ministers last year considered the Defence Secretary's proposals on the shape and size of the post-1971 garrison in Hong Kong (OFD(68)32), they decided, in the words of the Prime Minister's summing-up, that "consideration of where the costs of the garrison should be borne should be deferred but the Defence Secretary, in consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, should arrange for the best assessment possible to be made of the full cost to us of the Hong Kong commitment" (OPD(68)11th Meeting on 29 May 1968). In our view there is no prospect that agreement could be reached, outside that all-embracing exercise, on where the costs of the fighter unit should be borno (if not by Hong Kong); and, as explained above, we think it would be unrise and almost certainly unprofitable to attempt to raise a charge against Hong Kong for costs arising prior to 1971.
5.
In all the circumstances therefore it is our viow that, unless the costs of the unit can be borne on Defence Votes for the period 1970/71, it would be better to defer the whole oxercise for a year, positioning the aircraft in Hong Kong in April 1971.
6.
However, notwithstanding my proposal for deferment, you may be interested in the Governor's viows on the question of Hong Kong's eventual responsibility for costs. unexpectedly the Governor has reacted strongly to any
CONFIDENTIAL
2
Not
: