TNAG-0043-FCO40-79-Future-Sovereignty-of-Hong-Kong-Defence-Review-Working-Party-1968 — Page 73

SECRET

cases before then. The Hong Kong garrison should be brought up to the level proposed in the paper before our withdrawal from Singapore was completed: the five MCMVs should be in Hong Kong from June 1969, the additional battalion at some time after April 1971 and the Hunters, if

provided, from March 1970.

The Ministry of Defence considered that defence votes should not bear

the costs of forces retained in the Colony for internal security and other

non-United Kingdon defence purposes, which were estimated as comprising

five MCMVs, five major Arny units and support, six Whirlwind helicopters, and the five Hunters and elements of an RAF regiment squadron if provided.

The full budgetary costs of these forces were about £14 million a year,

which would be the saving to the defence budget if we had no other use for them and were able to dispense with them. The foreign exchange cost would amount to about £8 million; and in addition capital works costs for the extra battalion might amount to £2.25 million. Under the agreement reached with the Hong Kong Government in December 1966, the Colony would

contribute £5 million a year for the four years ending 31st March 1971, a

sum calculated to cover the foreign exchange costs of the four battalions

assessed as being in Hong Kong for internal security purposes.

In discussion the following points were made

(a) The case for increasing the Hong Kong garrison after support from

our forces in Singapore and Malaysia was no longer available should be

set out more fully and given more prominence in the paper.

(b) The views of the Governor on the provision of Hunter aircraft and on

possible alternative means of providing air cover would be sought when he

visited London during the following week.

(c) The Treasury noted with interest that the Ministry of Defence

proposed to study separately whether service in Hong Kong should remain accompanied or become largely unaccompanied, and whether we should keep

Gurkhas in Hong Kong in the long term. It was hoped that the cost- effectiveness of the alternative courses would be closely examined, and

the Treasury would wish to see the results.

(a) Ministers would wish to know the costs of that part of the garrison assessed as being required for "United Kingdon defence purposes" (paragraph 10) as well as that part required for internal security purposes. Furthermore, so long as we retained the Hong Kong commitment, savings beyond the cost of the forces actually stationed there could be obtained if the

-2-

SECRET