CONFIDENTIAL
3.
were required to refurbish border positions which had
fallen into disrepair, and six of the positions were
reconstructed.
At this time the basis for undertaking
works services at the border was put on to a more
formal and rational basis, and the Hong Kong Government
agreed to accept responsibility for the maintenance of
all buildings required for operational reasons in the
border area, whether they were occupied by the Army or
the Police. Work to be done is discussed and agreed
between the Government and the Army, the latter provides
at no cost technical advice as required, and sometimes
supervision and labour, and the Government meets the cost
of all stores required. The refusal of the Hong Kong
Government to meet the cost of identical requirements
under Operation Highland Bonnet is apparently based
simply on the fact that they had not been consulted
before the work was put in hand.
Our view on a. the snake fence, is that the FCO acknowledged
at the time its erection was being discussed that its cost would
not be a proper charge to Defence Votes (a copy of Hall's letter
to Cass of 4 October 1967 is attached);
and on b. the border
works services, that the Hong Kong Government's attitude is
illogical (there being no material difference between Operation
Highland Bonnet and Operation Spring Clean) and if they refuse
to reimburse Defence Votes, the FCO should do so.
4. We really must reach a conclusion about these long outstand-
ing 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 between us.
5. A copy goes to Gaminara, FCO.
CONFIDENTIAL