1
1:
ན་ མཡ"་ ན་པཿ་
SECRET
UK EYES A
Cutting further the size and cost of the garrison.
10.
The UK team were not authorisea to put forward alternatives to the "reduced" garrison (53 Army teeth/units),
which had been endorsed by the Chiefs of Staff. During the
formal sessions there was, however, general discussion, in
which the detailed costings of the "reduced" garrison were
drawn upon, of the possible financial, military and other
implications of garrisons smaller than the "reduced" garrison,
including various mixes of Army and Naval units that might make
up garrisons costing around £35M. or £30M. a year.
The UK contribution
11. The UK team were not authorised to discuss any increase
of the UK contribution beyond the proportion of 25% decided
upon by Ministers.
The Hong Kong team, however, referred to the
value of UK income tax paid by British and Gurkha forces in
:14M
Hong Kong, put by CBF HK at very roughly a year for the
revenue
reduced garrison, as a factor which UK Ministers might take into
account in reconsidering their views.on the size of the UK
contribution. They accepted, however, that this tex yield was
not in relief of the Defence budget and also that the costing
of the garrison excluded certain elements which might reasonably
be attributed to Hong Kong, e.g. a share of pension costs, of
UK training and support costs and of capital depreciation of
did not dispute equipment. They recognised side that medical, euucation and
other welfare costs included in the costing of the garrison
could not be regarded as implying any identifiable savings in
the costs of civil social service programmes in the UK. 'he
Hong Kong representatives contended that it would not be
reasonable for the Hong Kong Government to bear any proportion
of the extra costs arising during the period of transition.
SECRET
-6-UK E
Page 60Page 61