Behand
นา
Behind
AV
HKK 10/9
SECRET
Sant
52)
9th October, 1969.
In his letter (HK 10/9) of 31st July, Carter mentioned that I
would be writing to you about the negotiation of the post-1971 defence
contribution. As he indicated, we think your suggestion of preliminary exchanges at "official" level to be a very good one, but you will want to consider the matter with knowledge of how we see the
problem at this end.
2. When you had your discussion with the Defence Secretary on 25th
June you knew, I think, that the garrison which had been proposed here consisted of 7% major Army units, 5 mine countermeasure vessels, 2
frigates, a Whirlwind helicopter unit and RAF general support (together possibly with a llunter unit), but you have not been told the
costs of such a force.
in
3. I attach at Annex A a schedule of the forces proposed and the
best estimate we can make of their costs, from which it appears that the running costs in 1971-72 would be about £20m a year. (This compares with running costs of about £15m in 1966.) The cost would increase if the proportion of British troops in the garrison were increased. The schedule does not allow for any price increases between now and 1971 (let alone during the currency of a new agreement) nor
for the increased cost of the new Service pay structure which is expected to be introduced next year, but which we cannot yet cost. addition to the running costs in Hong Kong there would of course be the very consideraɲle running costs of the support provided by the United Kingdom base and the Gurkha Line of Communications. I also attach at
Annex B a forecast of expenditure on capital works which again would
Jawison be subject to increase if the proportion of British troops in the n increased. (In connection with capital works I think 1 should also
say that the total cost we now expect to have to meet for the new works within the present agreement is £3.5m as against a total contribution by Hong Kong of £2.4m).
Sir David Trench, GCMG., MC., Hon' Kong.
SECRET
LAST
RCF.
4.
44
NEXT
REF.
Sub