TNAG-0063-FCO40-99-Defence-extra-costs-arising-from-the-internal-security-situa-1968 — Page 45

Ed (2829)

RECEIVED IN ARCHIVES No. 56!

221LB -

DD 2/1/12

NUR 14/10

Mr. Rampton Captain Collett

RESTRICTED

₤2015 12:19/2

16

Reference.

27/1

Amortized flying training charges

As suggested, I have been holding Mr. Rampton's draft to Mr. Brack (below) about amortized flying training charges pending a Treasury decision on our estimates. Now that it seems likely that the Treasury will insist that we pay the charges, while more or less making allowancefor this in our estimates, we will have to press on with the struggle.

2. It is, I think, important in principle that we should do all we can to ensure that the basis on which these charges are calculated is fair, even if only because we may find ourselves having to defend it from searching questions put by the Australian, Brunei or Hong Kong Governments. But it will also be important, especially if we are to be expected to offset the effects of devaluation on our estimates in addition to the economies already imposed, to take any opportunity there may be to reduce the sum which we will have to reimburse to the M.O.D. from Commonwealth Office Votes.

3. I agree with Captain Collett's minute of 28/11 that the explanation in paragraph 3 of Mr. Brack's letter at (12) is reasonable: it would clearly be wrong to relate the amortized charges to current prices, and Mr. Brack has not done this. What he does appear to have done, however, is to relate the charges to

(a) current numbers of pilots under training

and

(b) the "total annual cost of the R.A.F.

training organization."

I do not think that either of these points would be defensible if the Australian, Brunei or Hong Kong Governments were to query them, not that they are a proper basis for our own transfers to M.O.D. Votes. Surely the charges ought to be assessed by dividing, say, the 1950 or 1955 cost of the R.A.F. flying training programune (i.e. not of the overall R.A.F. training programme) not by the number of pilots trained in a year but by the number trained in an average year 10 or 15 years ago, and then by the number of effective years' service hoped for. If this were done, the rate of charge per pilot would be bound to be less than at present suggested because, assuming the number of pilots being trained in 1967 is less than in 1950-55, one would be dividing a smaller cost by a larger number. 4. My only other comment on Mr. Brack's letter at (12) itself is that I feel we are still so far from agreement with him on Hong Kong that a meeting (as originally suggested by Mr. Gaminara) may after all

be necessary.

RESTRICTED

15.

Page 45Page 46