CCONFIDENTTIAL
From: A. F. Thorp OBE, Head of F1(Air)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE Main Building, Whitehall, LONDON S.W.I
Telephone: WHItehall 7022, ext. 7189
Our reference:Head of F1(Air)/1617 K271
Your reference:
Await retion of file from Finance DEN
K M Wilford Esq CMG Foreign and Commonwealth Office
LONDON SW1
LAST
TRD IN
REGRY No.51 - 71AR 1972
m
EV
3 March 1972
(6)
G
the Depli This orcan't take
(10
tecas Wichfied Кесел
AKKI0/9
us much
MW%
further.
9570
much for M.
Слизай
arquants.
MW.
I am replying to your letter of 29 February to Leonard Curzon because he retired on that date and as yet no successor has been appointed.
2. As regards the communication from the Deputy Command Secretary in Hong Kong to which we referred, this was a letter written in December 1968 and dealt with a range of subjects which had been discussed with Hong Kong Government representatives in the October.
3. It said that the Hong Kong Government had asked for a detailed breakdown of expenditure under seven different headings. There was a lot of detail about these which I would not propose to copy and which are quite irrelevant to the Snake Fence. But the one paragraph in the letter dealing with this reads as follows:-
4.
"At the meeting it was agreed that the bill for the frontier
fence (£158,237) should be dealt with separately because the Hong Kong Government is under the impression that the cost is going to be met by the Commonwealth Office. I have heard nothing further about this since our visit last July to the Commonwealth Office when they said they would write to the Treasury. Have you heard anything more?"
There is no indication as to who in the Hong Kong Government was involved in the discussions referred to. I must admit that our papers indicate that the FCO in January 1969 told us that they did not accept the Hong Kong Government view that the FCO would pay. They said at this time that they would have to await the Hong Kong Government's reply to them about the result of the negotiations on the settlement of the extra costs bill generally.
5. I am afraid this does not help very much and all I can say is that what was in paragraph 2 of Curzon's letter of 24 February is all the information we have on this particular point.
C
Jaun
CONFIDENTENTIAL
simenty
ENTIAL ME