CONFIDENTIAL
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
Main Building Whitehall London SW1A 2HB
Telephone 01-2182241 (Direct Dialling)
01-218 9000
(Switchboard)
#KK 062/2
RECEIVE
24 OCT 1977
W Quantrill Esq A
DESK (
Hong Kong Department
INDEX
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
2
My R&R, spenstine wo MN ON FEA W Jei
24/10
3 MP Hewait to see 4,0
In
53
You may have discussed this
4 M. & fantall M Qy
Your reference
Wompson,
I have only had time Our reference DS6/18/43/2 but it seems
to slunce through this
Co. Tuken
Date
20 October 1977 geneally
REPLACEMENT OF THE HONG KONG PATROL CRAFT
Dear Quan hill,
-
See. (57)
I do not think that the FCO have recently, at least been brought into what is for MOD the next major Hong Kong Defence Cost Agreement topic, although this was a subject discussed by "Bim" Davies, the HKG Secretary for Security, when he was in London in August; and its progress is such that it may be raised by either side during HE's visit next month.
2.
Towards the end of the year we will need to take this matter up formally with the HKG. And, to this end, we have prepared a paper to put to our Minister of State to obtain his agreement both to these formal contracts, and to the line to take. I am attaching a draft of this paper which I hope you will find needs no further explanation. Before it is passed upwards to Chiefs of Staffs, and eventually Ministers, I would like to be able to assure them that it does take account of any view which the FCO may have.
N. David, Pased on his to Defence Dept. experience,
amire, me
this is so.
リ
3.
I should perhaps explain that, as far as I am aware, the FCO Defence Department have never been brought in to this problem and I would imagine
that the FCO interest resides entirely in your Department. I would appreciate your comments by, say, Wednesday 26 October.
fiscussed with is Stewart: CBF Hong Kong
has views on the type of vessel; otherwise
no comment. In Aves informed
Your
sincerely,
M. Stewart
all of this seems unexceptionable
accordingly, he has already received an
M26110 =-1
comment, from Gen. Archer. N.F.A.
W AT AVES DS6a
-unless we want to re-open the whole argument MB Ext 2241 about the Navy's being there at all, which? assume we don't. The Hong Kong government might raise objections to the size of the shove in the capital costs
5 (given that they will have no property rights in the finished product) - but that will be for them to cogul. I do not think we should stop the M.O.D. toying it on.
W.E. Chantill
CONFIDENTIAL
25/10