SECRET
t
UK EYÉS A
to the reduced garrison and the capital cost of new
naval patrol craft) is estimated at some C41M (Septe b
1974 prices).')
(b) The UK's contribution to the cost of the garrison.
that" the
Ministers had decided in september 1974(2)
future level of our forces in Hong Kong should be
reduced but on the basis that a reinforcement
The Governor
capability should not be maintained.
should be informed of the Government's firm view that
the Hong Kong Government should contribute not less
than three quarters of the cost of the garrison and
his advice should be sought on whether it would be
best to ask initially for more with a view to
compromising on 75% or whether it would be better to
put a proposal to the Executive Council which we
would not be ready to depart from". This decision
implied a Hong Kong contribution of about £30M leaving the balance of tion to be found by the UK towards the cost of the reducea garrison
(c) Hong Kong's contribution to the cost of the garrison.
(2) OPD(74) 14th Ktg.
The average annual contribution made by Hong Kong likely to average out" at- during the current 1971-1976 Agreement is/about £8.5%.
In 1971 this represented about 30% of the cost of
the present garrison' (63 Army teeth/units), which
arm
less than was about £28 at prices then current. It is about
20% of the cost of the same garrison now, ire. (about around £50M at september 1974 prices) The Governor
(3)
had stated his view
that in the successor to the
present Agreement the largest contricution to the
cost of the "reducea" garrison that could be
negotiated with the Executive and Legislative Councils
would be £17M at September 1974 prices. This
SECRET
UK EYES A