support for a contribution of 62.5% in 1977/78 (not 1976/77 as in your letter) and 75% in 1978/79 (not 1977/78) was dependent on the understanding that vacant possession of Kai Tak would "coincide with or be very closely related to the increase to 62.5%" and that of Victoria Barracks to
the increase to 75%. In the negotiations between officials which led up to the preparation of the Heads of Agreement I understand that these dates were sensibly interpreted as embracing the whole of the financial years (i.e.up to March 1978 in the case of Kai Tak and March 1979 in the case
of Victoria Barracks) in which the increased contributions
would be paid and that it was recognised that the release of the land in this time scale would be subject to the reprovisioning by the Hong Kong Government of essential facilities at agreed sites.
These points are reflected in
the text of the Heads of Agreement which must stand as the definition of the package.
-
Nevertheless, having said that, I entirely agree with you that a very difficult situation would arise if leaving aside the geological faults and acts of God to which you refer there were to be any significant delay in vacating the land in question. A delay of a month or two might not be serious, especially if there were evidence of new buildings going up and preparations being made for the move. But I can see that any longer delay could lead to recriminations about who was to blame and possibly to pressure on the part of the Unofficials to withhold Hong Kong's increased contributions. We must clearly do every thing possible to avoid this.
I recognise that the time scale is very short by normal standards, and that exceptional efforts will have to be made to meet the deadlines, especially in the case of Victoria Barracks where no preliminary planning work has yet been done. I am glad to have your assurance that the Hong Kong Government will apply the necessary pressure in those stages of the programme which are under its control.
SERRET
For my part,
/I am