Annex B
to Brief.
Flag F
Since the Defence Committee paper at (202) has come in
Page 24 the telegram at (203) has arrived. The Secretary of State has
directed that we should bear it in mind in preparing a brief for Defence Committee, but I must confess that I do not think that our chances of success in this operation would be increased by going for the straight proposal which Sir R. Black puts forward in paragraph 5 of his telegram. The trouble really is that minute 4 of the Defence Committee meeting at (96) on previous papers is very good authority for turning this down straight- away. I don't think that the Secretary of State is likely to get Defence Committee to reverse its previous decision at the outset of the discussions on this subject. Quite apart from the substance of the question, the Secretary of State would be in a slightly difficult position because he would be abandoning a case which he put forward in his minute to the Minister of
Flag G Defence at (192) without bringing it up for Ministerial discussion
out
at all. It is true that we could provide the pretext for switching/grounds of defence by circulating copies of (203) in advance of Defence Committee meeting, but I don't think that as it stands it is suitable for circulation, and I would not recommend this. I think, therefore, that on general grounds we should brief the Secretary of State to try to secure agree- ment to the "Grantham" proposals (they are contained in the Annex C telegram at (179) on previous paper39,9911mage is
likely, revert to the straight deal which Sir Robert Black favours. I am doubtful of success on either case, but I think this tactic offers the better chance.
2.
Mr. Fairclough and I have therefore prepared a brief for the Secretary of State on these lines. Mr. Wallace saw it in outline before he went on leave, but has not seen the telegram Annex B at (203) nor the amendments we have made to the brief since then.
3.
I think it would be wise to send a warning telegram to the Governor about the line we are taking in Defence Committee and I have put this opposite. Perhaps Mr. Melville would see that this goes off tonight.
Annee B 40
The reason why I don't think the telegram at (203) is entirely satisfactory for circulation is because one of the arguments which the Ministry of Defence have always put up for Hong Kong meeting the cost of the additional units was that they represented an addition to the garrison which was necessary until the police were brought up to full strength, and that we had no right to ask the Service Departments to bear expenses resulting from the inadequacy of the police force, which was a recognised "Colony" responsibility. There is equally another argument that if the police are brought up to strength and we still find there is a requirement for the two artillery units we may be sure that we will be billed as from then onwards or that the units will be taken away. We must be on guard against these points.
Pamphil.
(A. Campbell)
3rd February, 1958
Page 24
Page 24