CONFIDENTIAL
ITEM 4
-
7.
SECRETARIAT VIEW
Sec(0)(C) made four points:
a.
A significant milestone had been passed with the OPD (K) in Jun 93, and subsequent withdrawal announcements. There was now a need to 'flesh out' the OPD (K) requirements and this would require extra work in HK in particular.
b. The DCA payment issue continued to give rise to concern in London.
C. There was a need to resolve the current debate with the Treasury over the detail of how the rundown should be accomplished. The MOD was dealing with this
this issue in two parts: firstly agreeing the
agreeing the base-line figures, then addressing the detail of the rundown. So far, there had been some move- ment towards agreement on the figures, but but there was much more work to be done before the matter would be concluded.
d. Min (AF) intended to visit HK in Nov/ Dec 93. This would be a good time to take stock of major issues concerning the rundown.
ITEM 5 MINUTES OF LAST MEETING
8.
-
The minutes of the last meeting (18 Feb 93) were approved without comment.
ITEM 6 MATTERS ARISING FROM LAST MEETING
9.
Defence Costs Agreement (DCA).
a.
GF (Pol)1 provided an update on the DCA and on the Financial Incentive Scheme proposed for the retention of LEP in the final years.
A copy of the speaking note is
at Enclosure 1.
b. In subsequent discussion of the Financial Incentive Scheme CBF HK stated his preference to defer implementation until Jan. 95, but to announce it in Jun 94, in order to maximise the retention impact. A clear indication of the projected LEP situation should be available by the end. of 1993. AD(FE) drew attention to the mismatch of this date and the need to include the scheme in LTC 94. GF(Pol)1 agreed that this was less than ideal, but that its inclusion in LTC 95 would be acceptable in extremis, albeit with up to a two months period of the scheme unfunded.
HQ BFHK
1.
Sec(0)(C)
RP (Army)
Sec(O) (C) HQ BFHK
GF (Pol)1
HQ BFHK
FEW4 (FEW2\STE\CLS\PS\LM)
4
CONFIDENTIAL