HON
Treasury Chambers
Great George Street London SW1P3AG
OD MORGAN ESQ
F1 (AIR)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
MAIN BUILDING
WHITEHALL
RECEIVED IN
RGT No.51
-
+
- 3AUG 1972
Telephone 01-930 1234 ext 555 NICK 10/9
X
Your reference 16/Abroad/5712
Our reference 2DM 415/02
Date
CONFIDENTIAL
2 August 1972
LONDON SW 1
LAB?
NAT
REF.
15
22)
THE HONG KONG SNAKE PENCE AND BORDER WORKS
I am sorry not to have replied before now to your letter of 6 June,
2
We have now given full consideration to the two questions which your letter put before us. As to the Hong Kong Snake Fence, we note that neither side disputes that the fence was built on the instructions of the Governor in order to stop land incursions of all kinds into the Colony, and that at the time of its building such incursions might be aggressive or might be made by refugees seeking to immigrate illegally. This dispute, we consider, centres on which kind of incursion the fence was primarily or predominantly designed to prevent. In our view, since external military aggression was at that time felt to be threatened and United Kingdom forces were there to meet the threat, the cost of a measure which would counter it should fall, in part at least, on United Kingdom Defence Votes. This is however without prejudice to the principle that the cost of internal security operations and local defence is the financial responsibility, and should be the first charge on the budget, of a territory. Similarly, since it was also then felt that illegal immigration was a threat, the cost of a measure which would counter this should fall on the Hong Kong Government.
3
In all the circumstances we think that it would not bc unreasonable to share the total cost equally between the two Governments - with the United Kingdom share resting on MOD Votes. Our view, then, is that the total cost of the fence should be divided into two equal parts. Since the total cost was 2173,340 for materials and some £69,000 for labour and compensation, the MOD should, we consider, bear 121,170 and a claim should be presented to the Hong Kong Government for $121,170 less the £69,000 they have already spent, ie £52,170.
4
Similar considerations arise in connection with the Border works undertaken in connection with Operation Highland Bonnet. We note the MOD's view that there is an inconsistency between the Hong Kong Government's unwillingness to accept the charge involved and their later acceptance of responsibility for the
1
CONFIDENTIA L