that we do not think their votes should carry the cost of the Snake fence. If Hong Kong agrees to pay up, then there is no problem; but if they do not then the only way in which they can be made to do so is by the use of the reserve powers. This process would have to be invoked by our own Secretary of State and he would be very loath to take this course. But if he was not prepared to take it, then the MOD could reasonably look to FCO votes for reimbursement.
6.
Would you see any objection to our suggesting to Mr Haddon-Cave that if Hong Kong could see their way to paying for the Snake fence in instalments, this might would be acceptable to HMG?
wedd
7. Reference X of your minute, I have not discussed your suggestion with Mr Laird but I think he might be willing to go along with it. We shall, however, be exceedingly surprised if we get any joy out of Hong Kong in response to the letter.
30 November 1971
W Gaminara
Hong Kong Department
Mr. Gaminara.
1. I am grateful for this further clarification of the position.
2. My concern is to avoid the FCO being committed to alternative solutions which would result in our being held liable for payments which we could only meet from our Votes by making possibly damaging cuts in other 7C0 expenditure. This is why I suggested leaving the proposed compromise solutions for use at a later date when all else had failed.If, however, you consider that the Hong Kong government must now be offered some line of retreat I should very much prefer this to be restricted to peregraph 9(11) of your. draft, which does not commit the TCO to bearing any part of the charge (though it might eventually sadile us with £20,089), omitting paragraph 9(1) wich would, in effect, commit the 700 to paying helf the total cost.This would be preferable to your suggestion of payment by instalments hich, ifthe OD insisted on receiving payment in full from the FCO with the letter
extending credit to the Hong Kong government, ould lead to difficult problems of Estimate prej etition.
(S.Stephenson) 30 Novedma
1971