في
My Crowsin Mustard
Do you wish to
цен
dischis
this matter, should I draft
a submission to
to Wieland,
п
suggesting redhat of para 13,
proposed by
as
M
Hephenson?
P.M. Helly
22/5
Dischised 2315. Praft submissio
2415
Miss Ke
Reference.....
Kelly, Hong Kong and Indian Ocean Dept.
SNAKE FENCE.
12)
1. I disagree with Mr. Taylor's view that the dispute is between the MOD and the FCO rather than between the MOD and the Hong Kong Government and, in consequence, the revised paragraph 13 he proposes is, in my view, unacceptable.
2. Essentially the argument is whether the charges are related to external defence' in which case they fall to be paid by the UK or to 'internal security' in which case they are the responsibility of the Hong Kong Government. All the FCO is doing at the moment is arguing in support of the Hong Kong Government's
case.
3. If it is held that the charges are the responsibility of the UK then it is for MOD to foot the bill.If, on the other hand, the Hong Kong Government are held to be responsible then the FCO must either ensure that they pay or, if this is not considered practicable, themselves pay the bill instead.But the FCO would only be able to pay in lieu of Hong Kong in this manner with the specific authority of the Treasury. (Paragraph 2 of my minute of 8 March draws attention to the financial difficulties we would face if the FCO had to pay).
4. In my view, therefore, the dispute is, in the first instance, clearly between the MOD and the Hong Kong Government. The body of the draft letter to the Treasury does,I think, already make this pretty obvious.Perhaps. therefore, it would be sufficient (and might avoid provoking the MOD further) simply to omit the last two words of the first sentence of paragraph 13.It also seems to me that the letter should, as did the original draft, say that its terms have been agreed between the FCO and the MOD and I see no good reason why MOD should now propose to omit this. I think that we should press for its reinstatement.Paragraph 13 might thus read as follows:
"We really must reach a conclusion about these long outstanding claims, which are beginning to attract the attention of the E&AD, and since the FCO and we are unable to reach agreement, we should be glad if you would adjudicate.We and the FCO (with whom the terms of this letter have been agreed) are, of course, ready to discuss the matter with you if you think this will help".
5. I also think that'clearly' in the first sentence of paragraph 5 would be better omitted. While it is true that Mr. Hall's misguided letter of 4 October 1967 was all too clear it seems to me to weight the case against us to admit as much in the letter to the Treasury.
6Mr. Brack is,mincidentally, no longer on the MOD desk in the Treasury.His replacement $,I believe,Mr.
Scholar.
(S.Stephenson) Finance Dept.
22 May 1972